Yes, An IQ criterion would endorse the rule of men over the rule of law which is all the rage today in any event
The law and institutions should be the monarch of a republic, as Plato says in The Laws.  Te unitary executive idea is nourished by torture advocates like John Yoo and Straussian liars like Harvey Mansfield.
What we don’t need is more intelligence at the service of this agenda.

I am totally at a loss for how this call to suppress anti-egalitarian truths
represents a conservative teaching of any kind. This is exactly what the Left is now
doing in Europe and in North America. Indeed the very insistence that the “Right”
should do this in order to uphold the “legitimacy,” of a leftist regime is sheer
silliness. It shows how thoroughly the Right has been infected by the post-Marxist
leftist mendacity that I have been railing against for forty years.

Intellectual differences are apparent to everyone and do not undedrmine the rule of law.  We have varying intellects; and we should be ruled by the just and the wise.  But we still should have laws and a division of power and various restraints because men do bad things not solely because they’re stupid but because they’re greedy, avaricious, in the service of some faction, or simply because they are mistaken.  We are unequal.  But no one is so unequal from his fellow citizens that his inferiors should be his slave or the superiors should be beyond the restraints of laws which inure to the benefit of ruler and ruled over time.

Thank you, professor Gottfried.  If the IQ argument is correct, then we’re headed for a country with a 40% black and Mexican underclass, who we believe will be an underclass no matter what and benefit from government preferences.  If current attitudes prevail, what kind of political leaders can we expect to emerge from such a society?

For example, say we succeed in destroying the welfare state.  Maybe we do it by convinvcing some minorities that it does more harm then good.  And say the racial socio-economic difference stays the same or gets worse.  What do we then tell our black and mestizo rulers?  Imagine the same situation in Europe with their Middle Easterners.

Don’t flich, conservatives!  Truth is on our side, and whitey’s best defense!

Echoing Dr. Gottfried, suppressing what everybody knows to be true is far more foolish.  The egalitarian illusion is what drives “No Child Left Behind” and other education scams.  The Left’s false social-egalitarian beliefs—the operating presuppostions of the last several regimes—should not be legitimized by conservatives.  Otherwise we are all social-egalitarians.

Let’s try a little more practical example: if blacks and whites are indeed equal, on average, in intelligence, why the vastly different outcomes in education, employment etc. must be due to racism, institutional or otherwise. Therefore we need, at a minimum, affirmative action, income transfer, and reeducation (diversity training). How that reasoning doesn’t undermine legitimacy is beyond me.

Of course intellectual differences between individuals are apparant to everyone.
This truth does not delegitimatize any bedrock American institution, though it may
threaten certain silly policies (NCLB).  One the other hand, the “truth” of racially
determined intelligence is certainly NOT apparent to anyone.  The hypothesis is
supported by genetic and statistical studies which very few are qualified to
evaluate and over which there remains significant dispute. 

My suggestion is that even if I can say that the hypothesis MIGHT be true, it ought
not be allowed to gain currency in our current regime.  This is the position any
responsible, conservative elite ought to take.  Since Paul was not specific, I am not
sure what he is referring to as being “leftist” ... the rule of law?  individual
liberty?

I am afraid there isn’t much intelligence being shown by my respondents. 
Call the geneticist! 

Stari, it is not at all necessary to conclude that racism is the causal factor of
differing results.  And even if it did, that would not require any particular policy
response.

The hypothesis is
supported by genetic and statistical studies which very few are qualified to
evaluate and over which there remains significant dispute. 

Do yourself a favor and read some of the “attacks” on the Bell Curve and other such work.

Basically the arguments end up like this…

Race realist presents a study backing up racial differences

Race denier tries to find fault or question race realist’s funding or motives.

Race realist presents another study backing up racial differences.

Race denier tries to find fault or question race realist’s funding or motives.

Repeat forever. The race realist’s evidence comes from every IQ test every designed, performance in every school in the nation, brain size measurements,cross adoption studies, hormone levels, historical evidence and everywhere else you’d expect IQ differences to show themselves.  “Race denier presents evidence of his own” never happens.  Too often, race deniers have names like Latoya Jackson and degrees in black studies.

Not allowing “certain truths to gain currency” is what I was referring to as
quintessentially leftist and totalitarian, at least in the present age. Are we also
suppose to treat gender differences as the result of social constructs in order to
uphold our conservative “legitimacy”? How far do we go in bowing before the
twin idols of egalitarianism and Boasian environmentalism? This of course has nothing
to do with the idea of equality before the law for authorized citizens. This is a
liberal principle that I can live with, up to a point, that point being where equality
gets in the way of traditional gender roles or verges on equality of opportunity as a
good to be promoted by the democratic administrative state.

Dmytro, that may be the case, though my guess is that there are legitimate disputes
among scholars of repute over the bell curve hypothesis.  Regardless of the merits,
however, it does not alter the fact that geneticly determined intelligence,
if it exists in racially significant ways, is not
apparant to ordinary people using ordinary powers of observance.  Nor does it change the overall
point regarding legitimacy and political wisdom.

Isn’t the heart of the Republican party as embodied by Bush, Cheney, Scalia, Congress, the Federalist Society, and the party as a whole dedicated to the principle of a dictatorial monarchical state with the President above the law? If the President okay’s it it isn’t illegal. All power resides in a single man and all states must defer to his power?

This even has the tacit approval of the Democratic leadership which seems to be mainly paternal and maternal limousine liberals.

I am not sure what is meant by a neo-con or libertarian or a paleo-con but to paraphrase Bill Buckley, I sometimes have to give some people I read the benefit of doubt that they don’t believe what they appear to say.

Jessie Ventura pointed out when he ran that he was the only one who lost money from not working when he ran for Governor. His opponents had safe government jobs so Jessie’s taxes subsidized them.

Why shouldn’t McCain, Obama, and Hilary resign from the Senate for this campaign? It might be a less tawdry topic of discussion than lesser or superior races. God created man in his image and likeness. Jesus died for all mankind, not just for blacks or whites or his favorites. He said we must pray for those who hurt and prosecute us. Yesterday was the anniversary of a martyred Jesuit who forgave those who were about to hang, disembowel, and quarter him at Tyburn in London for the crime of being a Catholic priests.

The purpose of the Constitution is to protect the people from the government, not the other way around. There are too many things to worry about right now with insane morons running loose in the White House.

Gottfried: “I am totally at a loss for how this call to suppress anti-egalitarian truths represents a conservative teaching of any kind.”

Dr. Gottfried is 100% correct.  Segal’s call for PC censorship is more reminiscent of Cultural Marxism than any form of true conservatism.

Paul, of course we should take into account gender differences, to a point.
That point being those differnces which are at the heart of the legitimacy of the
family as an institution.

It is not true that suppressing certain truths is inherently leftist or totalitarian.
It is, instead, perhaps the most important job a functioning elite can perform.  Our
Constitution is a magnificant tissue of suppressed truths and noble lies. 

In this particular case, the “truth” of racially determined intelligence will tend to
undermine all of the bourgeois institutions of the American middle class, from
economics of thrift and hard work to civicly engaged volluntary associations to
notions of fair play, etc., that are vital to healthy institutions across the board,
from families to courts.

The creation of a vast underclass which is already well underway due to the already
unravelling bourgeois lie of “individual merit” (as a result of attacks from right and
left) will likely lead to another shooting war.

Gottfried: “I am totally at a loss for how this call to suppress anti-egalitarian truths represents a conservative teaching of any kind.”

Dr. Gottfried is 100% correct.  Stegall’s call for PC censorship is more reminiscent of Cultural Marxism than any form of true conservatism.

Caleb,

I disagree about this not being obvious to people.  Philippe Rushton in one of his books shows that Arabs and all European people had the stereotypes about blacks that they were unintelligent, sexually potent and had a good sense of rhythm.  Meanwhile, Arabs had no problem thinking that their white or Jewish slaves were smart.  Most people in history have believed in race differences, it takes a lot of PC brainwashing to get people to think otherwise. 

I think that underneath it all, most people still have race realist beliefs.  Look at this way.  If I said “Japanese aren’t very smart” people would look at me funny.  If I said to a group of liberals “blacks aren’t very smart” the roof would explode.  People get mad when you tell them something that they fear might be true. 

Either way, I believe

1) Race differences are real
2) Its good, even neccessary, for conservatives that they be known

and have argued both points here and elsewhere.

“Stari, it is not at all necessary to conclude that racism is the causal factor of
differing results.  And even if it did, that would not require any particular policy
response. “

I am here talking about what is, rather than what ought to be. Differing outcomes are seen as the result of institutional and individual racism by the center and left. The conventional right likes to blame culture. Theformer undermines legitimacy and indeed has done for quite some time. The latter, when efforts at reforming black culture fail, as they tend to do, also undermine legitimacy.

Does this mean that every article, position paper, etc. must lead off with a statement about racial differences in IQ? of course not. Does it mean that we shoud return to state-enforced segregation? No. But when confronted with a policy problem—supposed racism in University Admissions for example. we can point to the IQ differences.

Caleb Stegall wrote:

“In this particular case, the “truth” of racially determined intelligence will tend to
undermine all of the bourgeois institutions of the American middle class, from
economics of thrift and hard work to civicly engaged volluntary associations to
notions of fair play, etc., that are vital to healthy institutions across the board,
from families to courts.”

These institutions survived nearly two centuries during which Americans believed overwhelmingly in a whole host of innate differences in ability and other characteristics. Those included not just differences between whites and blacks, but among different European ethnic groups, between men and women, and much else. So why do you conclude that your “noble lie” of zero group differences is now vital to their survival?

And as for “hard work”, we hear that compared to Americans, the Japanese are much more likely to attribute success in school to effort rather than ability. Americans clearly believe more than other nationalities that innate talent is required for success, not just effort. If Americans of recent times have not been prepared to believe that blacks fail because of low IQ, it’s still true that differences among whites are explained in terms of talent. If we’re told that a white student is at Podunk Community College instead of Harvard, we don’t say, “Oh, if he had just tried harder, he could have gone to Harvard!” We tend to assume that he lacked talent as well as motivation. So Americans clearly do not believe that “All men are created equal” is literally true in the sense of talents and abilities. I cannot imagine that any conservative believes that “All men are created equal” is literally true in that sense.

Yet people who believed in significant differences of ability sustained the institutions you mentioned from the Founding up until the mid-20th century. I can’t see how you can conclude that the health of these institutions relies on the denial of human differences. We accept differences within the white race, so why must we deny differences between whites and blacks?

Since there seems to be little disagreement about the existence of racial differences, I question why the opponents of an open discussion are so interested in suppression of the facts?
Are they simply motivated by their desire to elevate us less enlightened brethren to a higher moral plane as some want us to believe? Or is it money that fuels this drive (Jesse Jackson and similar activists certainly come to mind)? And if it is money, where does it come from and what is in it for the person who donates the money that drives PC?

“Regardless of the merits, however, it does not alter the fact that genetically determined intelligence,
if it exists in racially significant ways, is not apparent to ordinary people using ordinary powers of observance.”

What? So I guess the differences in certain types of athletic prowess aren’t readily apparent to everyone who watches an NBA game? Please join the rest of us in the real world, Caleb.

I think if we frame this issue in terms of “human rights,” the basis of political rights in the US Constitution, then we should see that the qualifications for political and legal equality are that we be human, not a certain kind of human.  So yes, as undesirable as it might be, exceptionally stupid people have rights, including the right to vote, have citizenship, run for office, and post comments to blogs.

To the younger readers of this site, I would advise them to repeat endlessly until it becomes part of their mental framework: “Lies always come back to bite you in the ass.” It might take a year, a decade or a lifetime, but the damn lies will eventually become exposed, and even during their hidden run, will eat at the subconscious like maggots on a corpse.

I find it disheartening that paleos share with the liberals and neocons (liberals in conservative drag) a susceptibility to intimidation re: race and ethnicity. How about displaying a little virility gents? Many of you seem to be apprehensive about negative feedbacks from the opposition. In contrast, a strong, self-confident movement would state their beliefs and dismiss naysayers with alacrity. 

Perhaps the intimidation results from the Western loss of confidence, which suggest the organ’s weakness originates deep inside the tissue.

I’ve often wondered whether a widespread acknowledgement of IQ differences among the races would, in fact, strengthen affirmative action rather than weaken it. If people accept that, for example, blacks cannot succeed due to genetic limitations then we need quotas in order to ensure equality of outcomes by racial group so as to maintain social harmony. Of course, that would constitute a direct attack on meritocracy, but I wonder how committed the US is to it anymore.

“I’ve often wondered whether a widespread acknowledgement of IQ differences among the races would, in fact, strengthen affirmative action rather than weaken it. If people accept that, for example, blacks cannot succeed due to genetic limitations then we need quotas in order to ensure equality of outcomes by racial group so as to maintain social harmony.”

Opposition to affirmative action remains very strong, even though many are not knowledgeable about the scientific evidence for IQ differences. A recent poll showed 64% of college students opposing affirmative action, according to this source:

http://www.vdare.com/carter/080407_youth.htm

That’s not 64% of WHITE college students, that’s 64% of ALL college students, including the ones who stand to benefit from affirmative action. Obviously the attempt to brainwash Americans into liberalism has not been very successful in this area.

If IQ differences were generally admitted, the liberals’ house of cards on affirmative action would surely fall quickly.

By the way, I would like to second the comment by Rick Johnson.

Egad people, how completely ignorant.  Yes, IQ differences between races are well known, have been well known for quite some time, and are usually part of Intro to Psychology courses.  You need to understand, however, that IQ scores aren’t absolute measures of real intelligence and are not understood as such by the psychological community.  Piaget initially developed the test to predict success in an academic environment and it tends to do that adequately within a single cultural context.

However, IQ test differences tend to be ascribed not to differences in intelligence between races, but in different cultural contexts.  Design a test geared toward inner city kids and you’d see differently skewed IQ scores.  Ask test takers to list all the different things you can do with a newspaper, for example—will bet you the poor inner city kids will come up with a lot more than suburban kids.

So no, disseminating this knowledge won’t change anything, because educated people know the difference between a test score and real intelligence.

Jim writes:
“I think if we frame this issue in terms of “human rights,” the basis of political rights in the US Constitution, then we should see that the qualifications for political and legal equality are that we be human, not a certain kind of human.  So yes, as undesirable as it might be, exceptionally stupid people have rights, including the right to vote, have citizenship, run for office, and post comments to blogs.”

The problem with this is it wasn’t the Founders’ understanding of the Constitution at all as evidenced by the fact that they didn’t grant the “rights” you mention to all humans but, rather, to a “certain kind of human.”

Bruce, the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” was considered a “human” right—and the issue of slavery was hotly debated within the Constitutional Convention and never resolved until the end of the Civil War.  There was by no means a consensus about the limitation of basic human rights only to white male landowners—and anyone familiar with 18thC British radicalism would know this.  The compromise on slavery was a bad one and we are still paying for it.

But you weren’t talking about slavery you were talking about political and legal equality such as “the right to vote, have citizenship, run for office, and post comments to blogs.”

Jim said, Design a test geared toward inner city kids and you’d see differently
skewed IQ scores.  Ask test takers to list all the different things you can do with
a newspaper, for example—will bet you the poor inner city kids will come up with a
lot more than suburban kids. 

Uh, yeah, right. A test geared toward inner city kids. Like, “How many rap singers
have been shot in the past week?” “How many babies is it possible for a girl to have
before she’s 21?” “How fast do you have to drive to get the two front wheels in the air?”

Different things to do with a newspaper - now that’s a great example. You can make a hat
out of it. You can use it for toilet paper. Yeah, suburban kids are really at a loss.

Actual results show that “cultually-biased” tests like the verbal analogy tests show the smallest racial gap in results. The more culturally neutral and/or abstract tests like backwards digit span and Raven’s Progressive Matrices show the greatest gap between the races. You can’t gear the tests towards inner city kids and expect to measure anything meaningful.

Right—you can’t gear the tests any way and measure anything meaningfully.  The point is that IQ tests are not absolute measures of intelligence, but -contextual- measures of intelligence.  Lower IQ scores among blacks are not proof that Blacks have lower intelligence, just that they score lower on these tests—largely due to the fact of poor inner city schools, poverty, despair, etc.  My wife teaches HS to people who fit this demographic.  They’re not dumb.

And yes, there was debate early on with the right to vote, etc.  Slavery is simply the most extreme example Again, these responses demonstrate ignorance of late 18thC British radicalism.  Mary Wollstonecraft’s Vindication of the Rights of Woman was written to participants -in the French Revolution-, not to the British.  These types of people made up in part US political radicalism of the late 18thC too—who today we would call “conservatives.”