UPenn speaker: Racial disparities have their origin in biological differences between the human races

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Why the Government Should and Can Not Make Us Equal

By John Derbyshire

These remarks were delivered at a panel discussion organized by the Black Law Students' Association (BLSA) of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, April 5, 2010. The official title of the event was "Revisiting Race and Remedies: Should the Government Play A Role in Eliminating Racial Disparities in Education and Employment?"

I am here this evening in the capacity of a wet blanket. I am here not to take one side or the other on the topic under debate, but to say that the topic, as written, is based on a false premise, and therefore has no satisfactory answer. I don't believe the disparities under discussion can be eliminated. Debate about whether government should play a greater or lesser role in eliminating them is therefore, in my opinion, otiose.

When the organizers first emailed me to suggest I appear on the panel, I told them that this is my view of the matter. I said that I was flattered to be invited to speak at such a prestigious institution, and that, having two teenage children, I am always glad to get out of the house for a few hours; but that racial disparities in education and employment have their origin in biological differences between the human races. Those differences are facts in the natural world, like the orbits of the planets. They can't be legislated out of existence; nor can they be "eliminated" by social or political action.

That there are natural, intractable differences between the human races seems apparent to me on both rational and empirical grounds.

First, the rational grounds. If a species is divided into separate populations, and those populations are left in reproductive isolation from each other for many generations, they will diverge. If you return after several hundred generations have passed, you will observe that the various traits that characterize individuals of the species are now distributed at different frequencies in the various populations. After a few ten thousands of generations, the divergence of the populations will be so great they can no longer cross-breed; and that is the origin of species. This is Biology 101.

Our species separated into two parts 50, 60, or 70 thousand years ago, depending on which paleoanthropologist you ask. One part remained in Africa, the ancestral homeland. The other crossed into Southwest Asia, then split, and re-split, and re-split, until there were human populations living in near-total reproductive isolation from each other in all parts of the world. This went on for hundreds of generations, causing the divergences we see today. Different physical types, as well as differences in behavior, intelligence, and personality, are exactly what one would expect to observe when scrutinizing these divergent populations.

Now, the empirical grounds. We all notice the different physical specialties of the different races in the Olympic Games. There was a run of, I think, seven Olympics in which every one of the finalists in the men's 100 meters sprint was of West African ancestry — 56 out of 56 finalists. You get less pronounced but similar patterns in other sports — East African distance runners, Northeast Asian divers, and so on. These differences even show up within sports, where a team sport calls for highly differentiated abilities in team members — football being the obvious example.

We see the same differences in traits that we don't think of as directly physical, what evolutionary psychologists sometimes refer to as the "BIP" traits — behavior, intelligence, and personality. Two of the hardest-to-ignore manifestations here are the extraordinary differentials in criminality between white Americans and African Americans, and the persistent gaps in scores when tests of cognitive ability are given to large population samples.

There is a huge academic literature on the gaps in cognitive test results, practically all of it converging on the fact that African American mean scores on cognitive tests fall below the white means by a tad more than one white standard deviation. There is in fact so much data on this now that we have meta-studies — studies of the studies: the one best-known to me is the meta-study by Roth et al. in 2001, which covered 39 studies involving nearly six million test-takers. That one standard deviation on cognitive testing has been so persistent across so many decades, a friend of mine, an academic sociologist, calls it "the universal constant of American sociology" — it's like the speed of light in physics.

To see whether that universal constant appears in the study of law, I looked up the LSAC database before coming here tonight. LSAC — the Law School Admission Council — publishes splendid statistical tables on the results of the LSAT exam, broken out by sex, region, race, and so on. The last figures I could find were for 2007-08. In that year, 117,530 students took the LSAT at least once. Of these persons, 69,792 identified themselves as "Caucasian." Their mean score was 152.56, standard deviation 8.96. In that same year, 12,152 test-takers identified themselves as "African American"; their mean score was 142.15, standard deviation 8.40. That's a difference between the means of 10.41 points, which is 1.16 times the white standard deviation. So perhaps my sociologist friend is on to something.

Should you want to say at this point that these so-called tests of so-called cognitive ability measure nothing important, you had better go and argue with the authorities here at the University of Pennsylvania law school. They have carefully recorded, and posted on the internet, that half their student intake, second and third quartiles, falls between LSAT scores 166 and 171.

Thus there are both rational and empirical grounds for believing in intractable group differences between the big old inbred paleolithic populations of ** sapiens. In the context of this discussion, there are two things that need saying about these differences.

First, the differences are statistical. Any population contains variation. Variation within a population is the essence of biology. Those of you familiar with Charles Darwin's great classic On the Origin of Species will recall that three of the first five chapters have the word "variation" in the chapter title. Any population will contain individuals who are fat, thin, fast, slow, tall, short, and so on.

And in the grand biological scheme of things, human population divergences are slight, the populations overlapping massively on most kinds of traits. To go back to that "universal constant of sociology," for instance: Given a one standard deviation gap between black and white means, one thing we can deduce from pure mathematics is that around six million African Americans score higher on cognitive tests than the average white test-taker. In LSAT terms, over 1,300 African American test-takers in 2007-2008 scored above the white mean.

Second, the differences are abstract. Group differences are statistical truths. They exist in an abstract realm quite far removed from our everyday personal experience. They tell you nothing about the person you just met.

Group differences are, for example, one degree more abstract than individual differences. We all acknowledge individual differences all the time: she's fat, he's thin, she's shy, he's outgoing, she's smart, he's dumb.

We are all, to various degrees, aware of our own individual strengths and limitations. Certainly I am aware of mine. For example: My wife is a keen ballroom dancer. Because I love my wife, I did my best to become a ballroom dancer myself. For two years — two blessed years, ladies and gentlemen — I went along twice a week with her to the local Arthur Murray studio to take instruction. At the end of it, I still had two left feet. The instruction I received was like water poured on to a sheet of glass.

Even at the things we are good at, most of us are not very good. I make my living by writing; yet I can name, in my own small personal acquaintance, a dozen people who are better writers than I am. That's not even to mention the Shakespeares and Tolstoys. Most of us are hopeless at most things, and mediocre at the rest.

And yet — look! We don't lose sleep over this. We don't sink into rage and frustration at our own individual differences, or agitate for politicians to put balm on our psychic wounds. We accept our individual shortcomings with remarkable equanimity, playing the cards we've been dealt as best we can. That is the attitude of a healthy human being. To do otherwise would, most of us I'm sure would agree, be un-healthy. How much more unhealthy, then, to fret and rage and agitate about mere statistical abstractions?

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/elsewhere/mind-the-gaps/

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Heresy!

Actually, I think nurture favors nature, and vice-versa, otherwise Darwin's theories would be meaningless. However, it is interesting to watch children that are adopted by parents of a different race, and your preconceptions, of how someone who appears a certain way should sound, act, even walk, begin to haunt you. I was reminded yet again of this just the other day, when working for a client. You think kids are kids, but they absorb their surroundings so quickly, so obviously, that it should cause some reflection and rattle some deep held believes. And make some parents pay attention to just what their kids are "learning" in school.

Edited April 11, 2010 by ##########

[scandal 951]

Actually, I think nurture favors nature, and vice-versa, otherwise Darwin's theories would be meaningless.

:rofl:

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

I call BS. Junk science fed to a bunch of Ivy League law students. So many errors in Darbyshire's argument, that it vitiates the whole package. At least he didn't mention that in his discussion.

Edited April 12, 2010 by IR5FORMUMSIE

[justashooter 430]

a voice of reason crying in a wilderness of political correctness.

domestication of livestock and grains occured in every corner of the globe as man left the age of the hunter/gatherer, entered the pastoral age, then the agricultural age, then the industrial age. domestication of man occured in parallel. in some areas it had an early start and continued uninterrupted. in some areas it did not. in those areas in which domestication of man occured unchecked supercultures arose and intelligence in terms of differentiation of skill type prospered. end of story.

[scandal 951]

uninformed and illiterate bullcrap elided, resulting in following erroneous conculsion...

supercultures arose and intelligence in terms of differentiation of skill type prospered. end of story.

Try reading a book for a change.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Try reading a book for a change.

Bill Gates (p433) likes the book. That is all I need to know.

Edited April 12, 2010 by ##########

[scandal 951]

Bill Gates likes the book. That is all I need to know.

Yes, we know Bill. Subversive books like this should be burned. We'll get right on it.

We in the Obama-Fascist League (OFL) take our responsibilities seriously.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Sorry Steve! I guess I was wrong. Ron still hasn't gotten over it yet.

Edited April 12, 2010 by ##########

[scandal 951]

Sorry Steve! I guess I was wrong. Ron is still hasn't gotten over it yet.

I don't know what PM discussions you have going on with Steve.

My beef with you is public. For my tastes, you've gone over the line several times of late with Nazi references. Yesterday was the last straw. I don't know what your problem is, and I frankly don't care if you're just baiting or being earnest. Either way, I've come to my own conclusions about you - neither explanation is acceptable to me. I don't report threads or cry out about TOS violations. I'll pick my fight with you in my own way, right out here in the open.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I don't know what PM discussions you have going on with Steve.

My beef with you is public. For my tastes, you've gone over the line several times of late with Nazi references. Yesterday was the last straw. I don't know what your problem is, and I frankly don't care if you're just baiting or being earnest. Either way, I've come to my own conclusions about you - neither explanation is acceptable to me. I don't report threads or cry out about TOS violations. I'll pick my fight with you in my own way, right out here in the open.

I haven't reported you. However, we are both guests here, and we need to keep things respectful. You are making it very hard not to make it personal. So, rather than continue this, I am going to go molest the wife instead. It's just a message board, and if it bothers you that much, perhaps you should find something else to occupy your time, as I will for the next few hours.

[justashooter 430]

Try reading a book for a change.

read the book 5 years ago.

the author (working on a grant from a liberal college named berkley -on my tax dollars) spends the first 500 of 700 pages talking about domestication of stock and grains (as well as industry and immunology), and erroneously remarks that african and asian grains and animals were not as suitable for domestication as were european grains (mostly indus valley stuff).

then he decides that some headhunter in new guinea represents the highest level of human development because he sits on his #### more hours per week than anyone else.

the book is total ####### when viewed in context and when considered against itself. it is total leftist propoganda peer reviewed by other leftists. the evidence detailed in the book refutes the conclusions, excepting the concept of domestication of animals and grains as a precipitant factor in development of civilisation by stages.

the biggest error in the book is that it seperates humans from the rest of nature as though we are some special case, not subject to the laws of selective evolution (domestication) that the rest of nature responds to. i can argue from a genetic standpoint that this is false, as your DNA has an 85% correspondence with that of a water buffaloe. judging by your total logic failure (assuming that you even read the book) you as an individual are prolly more like 90% the same as a water buffaloe.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

read the book 5 years ago.

the author (working on a grant from a liberal college named berkley -on my tax dollars) spends the first 500 of 700 pages talking about domestication of stock and grains (as well as industry and immunology), and erroneously remarks that african and asian grains and animals were not as suitable for domestication as were european grains (mostly indus valley stuff).

then he decides that some headhunter in new guinea represents the highest level of human development because he sits on his #### more hours per week than anyone else.

the book is total ####### when viewed in context and when considered against itself. it is total leftist propoganda peer reviewed by other leftists. the evidence detailed in the book refutes the conclusions, excepting the concept of domestication of animals and grains as a precipitant factor in development of civilisation by stages.

the biggest error in the book is that it seperates humans from the rest of nature as though we are some special case, not subject to the laws of selective evolution (domestication) that the rest of nature responds to. i can argue from a genetic standpoint that this is false, as your DNA has an 85% correspondence with that of a water buffaloe. judging by your total logic failure (assuming that you even read the book) you as an individual are prolly more like 90% the same as a water buffaloe.

For a member of the master race you do make a great many spelling mistakes, sh**ter. Unless you have a degree in genetics, I'm not going to listen to an individual who has difficulty with spelling and capitalization. BTW, your argument is insane, but don't let that stop your screed.

Just so you won't feel left out,

[scandal 951]

I haven't reported you. However, we are both guests here, and we need to keep things respectful. You are making it very hard not to make it personal. So, rather than continue this, I am going to go molest the wife instead. It's just a message board, and if it bothers you that much, perhaps you should find something else to occupy your time, as I will for the next few hours.

So I need to leave VJ because you say so? You are the one to decide when it is or is not appropriate for me to be active on a message board? Let's see, does this line of reasoning sound familiar to you?

So, you are telling the Jews how they are supposed to think now? Why can't Ron be just like the rest of the good Hebes and just follow the "plan"? Don't wander out of the ghetto, now, or we can't help you!

How typical of the demagogue mindset. VJ posters are not monolithic, any more that the Blacks, the Hispanics, the Asians, the Jews, the Catholics, or any other ethnic, racial, religious, or lifestyle group your perverted little mind can stuff individuals into.

[Danno 1,228]

For a member of the master race you do make a great many spelling mistakes, sh**ter. Unless you have a degree in genetics, I'm not going to listen to an individual who has difficulty with spelling and capitalization. BTW, your argument is insane, but don't let that stop your screed.

Just so you won't feel left out,

Offering spell-check and cartoons is not the best of rebuttals.