Lion of the Blogosphere

Disparate impact and the irrationality of white-collar employment

Conservative type James Taranto writes in the Wall Street Journal:

The same is true of the higher-education bubble. As we’ve argued, college degrees became increasingly necessary for entry-level professional jobs as the result of a well-intentioned Supreme Court decision that restricted employers from using IQ tests because of their “disparate impact” on minorities.

This quote reflects several conservative fallacies about hiring. These include:

  • Employers are hyper-rational when making hiring decisions.
  • The Supreme Court is preventing employers from hiring whom they want.
  • Requiring a college degree is the hyper-rational response to the alleged Supreme Court ban on objectively evaluating the job applicants.

All of these are WRONG.

First of all, when are humans hyper-rational about anything? And when you consider that we see a lot of top-level-management types going from business to government and back to business, how is it that they become irrational when they are in politics or government and then become hyper-rational as soon as they are back in a business role? Did you know that Al Gore is on the board of directors of Apple and is a senior adviser to Google?

In Griggs v. Duke Power Company, the Supreme court was interpreting a statute and not the Constitution. That means that Congress could have easily overridden the Supreme Court if it had disagreed with the statutory interpretation. But Congress did exactly the opposite. Congress ratified Griggs by making disparate impact the statutory law of the United States. And this happened in 1991 when a Republican was president.

Let’s also remember that in addition to finding that an IQ test illegally discriminated against blacks, the Supreme Court in Griggs also held at the same time that requiring a high school diploma discriminated against blacks! So people who think the holding of Griggs that IQ tests are bad but educational credentials are good have obviously not bothered to read the opinion (or even read a synopsis of the opinion)!

If one reads between the lines of Griggs and all other disparate impact type cases, one may intuit that the real holding is that any moron can do prole jobs such as repairing electrical power lines, and therefore any type of hiring criteria that tends to discriminate against blacks is going to be illegal. But the rarefied world of upper-middle-class jobs are obviously not included. The very same Supreme Court Justices who frowned upon Duke Power Company for requiring high school diplomas would never, themselves, hire a law clerk who didn’t have a law degree, and from a top school at that. Good luck trying to apply for that job and explaining that you’ve studied the law on your own and can do just as good legal research and writing as a Harvard Law School grad.

Objective tests are routinely used when hiring computer programmers, and I’ve never heard of any disparate impact cases involving computer-programmer hiring, even though you rarely see a black computer programmer. Some time ago when I was applying for jobs doing computer programming and finally got one, it was a huge PITA. I had to spend weeks studying computer stuff before I could start interviewing, and each interview I’d be bombarded with questions that I’d get wrong, and then I’d have to go back to the books and memorize more stuff, and finally I was able to answer enough stuff correctly so that I could get a crappy $67/hour job doing .NET programming.

I don’t think the emphasis on rote memorization is really the best most hyper-rational way to hire computer programmers. Was I really that much better a programmer after memorizing the correct answers to the typical questions they ask on these technical interviews? I don’t think so. If I were hiring, I would make the process more g-loaded, emphasizing problem-solving rather than memorizing stuff you could easily look up in the help text that comes with Microsoft Visual Studio. But nevertheless, it’s an objective test, and they do screen out the hopelessly incompetent, and it also explains why you occasionally see people without college degrees doing computer programming and other IT work; it’s because of the more rational hiring process. IT hiring is probably more rational because nerds control the hiring process, and nerds are more rational. This is why I’m not surprised about Edward Snowden having a good-paying job in IT with just a GED and no college. As I said, of all white-collar fields, it’s IT where you are most likely to find people without college degrees. In fact, I now understand why John T. Molloy called engineers “upscale blue collar.” If anything, the fact that you are objectively evaluated makes these jobs more prole, and certainly makes the job application process a lot more demeaning. In contrast, applying for a job as a legal associate, there were just a lot of pleasant conversations, no one ever asked a single question to try to figure out if you knew any law. They left that to your law school transcript.

Outside of the IT world, if companies don’t use objective measures of job skills to evaluate white-collar job applicants, then what do they use? The answer is social proof. That someone else was willing to pay you $X/year doing Y, that’s solid social proof that you are able to do Y and are worth at least $X/year. This is why it looks much better on your resume if you worked at a well-known company than at an unknown company. The well-known company provides better social proof. That Apple thought you were worthy of working for them is much better social proof than if Joe’s Smalltime Company thought you were a worthy employee.

The conservative types think that employers value college degrees because they’re a substitute for an IQ test. This is nonsense. College degrees can be seen as a sort of social proof. That Harvard thought you were worthy of being admitted and getting degree is powerful social proof. College degrees, like employment history, are both examples of how employers need to be convinced that other institutions thought the job applicant was a worthy person.

This goes back to the issue of rationality. People are generally not rational, and they value social proof a lot more than they value rational investigation. People attend a Christian church not because they rationally investigated all religions and determined Christianity to be the most worthy. No, they attend the church because other people they know are also Christian. People believe in global warming not because they understand the physics of heat retention, but because everyone else they respect believes in global warming. Just as beliefs like global warming or low-fat diets spread by information cascade, a job applicant gets hired for a high-level prestigious job because his resume is a mini-information cascade, showing a series of prestigious institutions valuing the person more and more.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

June 15, 2013 at EST pm

Posted in Labor Markets

172 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. a crappy $67/hour job

    troll troll troll

    Anonymous

    June 15, 2013 at EST pm

    • Many fell for it. Hook, line and sinker.

      Ahahaha!

      The Undiscovered Jew

      June 15, 2013 at EST pm

  2. So $67/hour crappy job. Most people would put up with a lot of crap for $67/hour.

    steve@steve.com

    June 15, 2013 at EST pm

    • Most people, by definition, don’t have a one in a thousand IQ like the BRILLIANT BRILLIANT Lion!!!

      Bottledwater

      June 15, 2013 at EST pm

      • It was borderline 1 in a 1000, and IQ declines as you get older so I’m not that smart anymore.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        June 15, 2013 at EST pm

      • Intelligence declines as you get older but IQ does not (on average) because (professional) IQ tests are normed for age.

        Bottledwater

        June 16, 2013 at EST am

      • The IQ varies a lot with the IQ test.

        Jan Smuts

        June 16, 2013 at EST am

      • The decline of IQ with age is mostly due to the Flynn effect.

        Chess players peak at 35 usually but Steinitz, Lasker, and Smyslov played world class chess into old age.

        The effect of age on IQ is a statistic and there is considerable variation from one person to another.

        Jan Smuts

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

  3. Yeah, but with an IQ test you could easily point out the stupid people with Harvard degrees, which would hurt the elite institutions as well as the elite itself. Assuming reverting to the mean in IQ, the children of the elite that get into Harvard because of the elite parents but lack the IQ would be more easily pointed out. So in effect Griggs vs Duke actually protects both the elite institutions and the elite.

    Zack

    June 15, 2013 at EST pm

    • Yeah, but with an IQ test you could easily point out the stupid people with Harvard degrees, which would hurt the elite institutions as well as the elite itself.

      Well it would hurt every non-top 15 (or 25) school.

      But your point is correct. It’s something Lion didn’t and should have mentioned in an otherwise excellent post: Griggs preserves the university system’s monopoly over credentialing needed to have a realistic shot at more than 90% of the good white collar jobs. If employers were given a cheaper way to test for employee competence than a degree most universities would close.

      Because colleges unjustly hold this near-monopoly power they can price gouge the middle and UMC to pay for a four year degree that’s often as expensive as a luxury good, such as an entry level Lamborghini, that should be affordable only to the elite in any remotely sane education market.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      June 15, 2013 at EST pm

      • “Griggs preserves the university system’s monopoly over credentialing”

        Griggs only talks about how to hire for prole jobs. It says nothing about college degrees or elite jobs. Before Griggs, they didn’t use IQ tests for elite jobs. And they didn’t after.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        June 15, 2013 at EST pm

      • I know of one Wall Street firm that used to use an IQ test (Wonderlic): Sanford Bernstein.

        Daniel

        June 15, 2013 at EST pm

      • Griggs only talks about how to hire for prole jobs.

        I thought Griggs makes it harder for large companies to make their own tests because they have to be narrowly tailored to specific knowledge, e.g., knowledge of derivatives for finance interviewees rather than broader tests of cognition, like, say, analogy questions. The former is more expensive to create and might still be vulnerable in court, anyway.

        Certainly, companies must hesitate to employ straight up IQ testing for fear Griggs might be applied in a lawsuit.

        Before Griggs, they didn’t use IQ tests for elite jobs.

        But there used to be more elites who had no college degrees and instead went through apprenticeship programs.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 15, 2013 at EST pm

      • What about the research that shows that high SAT students who TURN DOWN good schools are just as successful as equally bright students who attend the Ivey league? Charles Murray cites this research to show that smart people will do well in life regardless of whether they use their IQ to get credentials. If this is true it suggests that ivy league grads are actually enormous dupes because they’re paying huge sums of money to get degrees that add nothing to their market value.

        Now in a few fields (big law), an ivy league degree might be essential, but on average, Charles Murray says it’s useless (and he probably is an ivy league person so he isn’t being biased, though I’m sure the lion will never be convinced by such research because his whole shtick is arguing an ivy league degree is everything).

        Bottledwater

        June 15, 2013 at EST pm

      • That research was stated wrong. There was another blogger who proved it.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        June 15, 2013 at EST pm

      • Obviously, if you have 2 groups A and B, A can do law, B can’t, you’ll have just by definition that A will be more successful, because somebody from A will be able to find something that fits him more easily, because he has more options.

        This is why what Charles Murray said can’t be true in absolute, and I suspect there a lot more to it.

        Zack

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

      • Well I’m hoping the research is stated right because if it’s not, then we live in a society where high IQ scores (SATs) cause success through credentialism, rather than IQ itself directly causing success through real world intelligent behavior. The latter is much more fascinating, while the former is just a boring circular self-fulfilling prophecy.

        Bottledwater

        June 15, 2013 at EST pm

      • What hope against is perfectly correctly stated: “we live in a society where high IQ scores (SATs) cause success through credentialism, rather than IQ itself directly causing success through real world intelligent behavior.”

        Exactly!

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        June 16, 2013 at EST am

      • My Mom’s firm used the Wonderlich. I got the high score until a light skinned black guy beat me.

        Jan Smuts

        June 16, 2013 at EST am

      • Charles Murray is a clown. Even if the research were true there are many factors other than intelligence used in determining admissions to elite schools. There’s definitely discrimination against introverts for one. There are brilliant people who don’t have six extra-curriculars or went to a sh***y high school and therefore are rejected.

        Jan Smuts

        June 16, 2013 at EST am

      • From the prestigious New York Times:

        A decade ago, two economists — Stacy Dale and Alan Krueger — published a research paper arguing that elite colleges did not seem to give most graduates an earnings boost. As you might expect, the paper received a ton of attention. Ms. Dale and Mr. Krueger have just finished a new version of the study — with vastly more and better data, covering people into their 40s and 50s, as well as looking at a set of more recent college graduates — and the new version comes to the same conclusion.

        http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/revisiting-the-value-of-elite-colleges/

        Bottledwater

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

      • It’s what people WANT to believe, but it’s not what the data necessarily shows. The original paper seemed to show the opposite, but after Dale and Krueger got rewarded for the suggestion that may the college attended, they massaged the data to show that.

        The flaws of the study are huge. (1) rating colleges by average SAT score and NOT by actual prestige; (2) ignoring majors; (3) not doing a complete regression analysis.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

      • It’s what I want to believe, but most people who promote this study are ivy league types (the NY Times, Charles Murray) so why would they WANT to believe they got duped into wasting money on an overly elite college and why would they want to devalue their own prestige by undermining their own credentials? Also if the study is so flawed, why did it find that ivy league does boost success for blacks, but not for the majority of society? This makes sense because people from stigmatized demographics need an ivy league affirmative action type boost to be taken seriously in good career tracks, but for the majority of Americans, the doors open automatically because of white privilege and family connections. If the study were as bad as you claim, they would have found null results for everyone, instead of these more nuanced and logical findings.

        The really interesting question is why do YOU want so badly to believe the study is false? Denying IQ influences success independently of credentials allows you to deny uneducated proles who got rich are smart,

        Bottledwater

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

      • I’ve seen the study upheld in real life and am not prepared to discount it entirely. Example 1 accepted to MIT but did not attend due to financial reasons. Attended state school then Carnegie Melon for PhD. Now filthy rich in silicon valley. Example 2, accepted to Stanford but didn’t attend for financial reasons. Attended state school and now very well off as an entrepreneur.

        islandmommy

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

      • Although the Dale and Krueger study found that black income benefits from an Ivy League education, Will Smith is an example of a black who is so smart he didn’t need ANY college, let alone a good college to earn vastly more wealth and status than most Ivy grads.

        He said the following:

        My mother, who worked for the School Board of Philadelphia, had a friend who was the admissions officer at MIT. I had pretty high SAT scores and they needed black kids, so I probably could have gotten in. But I had no intention of going to college.

        smartandwise

        June 17, 2013 at EST pm

      • You’re right. Even though he’s a rapper and actor Will Smith is one of those rare gems among blacks and especially black men. Even my Harvard lawyer father said he has “tone”.

        Jan Smuts

        June 21, 2013 at EST pm

  4. “Just as beliefs like global warming or low-fat diets spread by information cascade, a job applicant gets hired for a high-level prestigious job because his resume is a mini-information cascade, showing a series of prestigious institutions valuing the person more and more.”

    Except that if you removed Griggs vs Duke Power some employer would start using IQ test to screen.

    That employer would get better employees and then eat the lunch of competitors. For examples of this happening in tech see Google and Microsoft. This would lead to a cascade – higher IQ people would get promoted more often and run things more rationally, etc.

    People don’t have to be rational to copy more successful firms. Within 15 years after a repeal of Griggs all firms would hire via IQ test (except Wall Street firms and top law firms who need connections to function – and even those would give the tests).

    This is why your criticism of markets is always wrong – people and firms don’t have to be rational it just has to be allowed for some firm to be rational. A (more) rationally run firm will out-compete other firms if competition is allowed.

    Steve Johnson

    June 15, 2013 at EST pm

    • You make the case against your own argument. So it’s already happening at Google, but Google wasn’t sued because of it, yet no one is copying Google’s behavior. Companies just aren’t interested in objective evaluation of job skills.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      June 15, 2013 at EST pm

      • 1) It’s not official at Google – it’s something that’s under the table and thought of as odd (“Oooh, listen to these “weird” interview questions for google engineers!”)
        2) Tech companies (and only tech companies) are allowed to do this when they’re young – once they’re established and sueable they lose that latitude and have to have HR departments.

        In other words, Griggs is a giant barrier to a mature company copying the upstarts and most upstarts fail no matter what their hiring practices are.

        Steve Johnson

        June 15, 2013 at EST pm

    • Except that if you removed Griggs vs Duke Power some employer would start using IQ test to screen.

      Any institution that asks for SAT/GRE scores on an application is essentially IQ testing potential candidates. The same arguments against using an in-house IQ test also apply to educational standardized test too, since like IQ tests, they derived their predictive validity from testing psychometric “g”, and therefore, NAMs perform poorly on them.

      Black_Rose

      June 15, 2013 at EST pm

    • Is Google’s example really the case? Google may screen you during the interview with some kind of test, but what determines that Google will even interview you in the first place? Do they rely on credentials and connections as well, like opening their interview pool to Stanford computer science graduates as opposed to community college programmers?

      map

      June 15, 2013 at EST pm

    • “A (more) rationally run firm will out-compete other firms if competition is allowed.”

      jibberish

      Jan Smuts

      June 16, 2013 at EST am

  5. 1. The bulk of the questions in the interviews for top jobs in programming are extremely g-loaded: algorithmic questions (mostly tech), probability and puzzle questions. All legal for both tech, finance, and management consulting. Check out “heard on the street” for sample questions.

    2. For research jobs at top companies, the interview questions are even more g-loaded than for programming, and also include creativity, motivation and serious past accomplishments. At all tech research labs (MS, AT&T, Bell Labs, Google, etc), a serious publication record is needed, and the job talk also includes the mandatory research talk on top of the questions from (1) — this requires creativity and motivation. But here they care less about your programming skills, depending on the firm, AT&T being at one extreme (not at all) and Google being at the other (very much so).

    3. Quantitative hedge funds require both 1 and 2, but how much of it is given by the internal culture and prestige of the firm. Renaissance is famous for being most extreme of the pack.

    Zack

    June 15, 2013 at EST pm

  6. Outside of the IT world, if companies don’t use objective measures of job skills to evaluate white-collar job applicants, then what do they use? The answer is social proof. That someone else was willing to pay you $X/year doing Y, that’s solid social proof that you are able to do Y and are worth at least $X/year. This is why it looks much better on your resume if you worked at a well-known company than at an unknown company. The well-known company provides better social proof. That Apple thought you were worthy of working for them is much better social proof than if Joe’s Smalltime Company thought you were a worthy employee.

    The conservative types think that employees value college degrees because it’s a substitute for an IQ test. This is nonsense. College degrees can be seen as a sort of social proof. That Harvard though were worthy of being admitted and getting degree is powerful social proof. College degrees, like employment history, are both examples of how employers need to be convinced that other institutions thought the job applicant was a worthy person.”

    This part sounds a lot like Bryan Caplan’s signalling model of education. Though, yes, I know you agree education is primarily about signalling.

    JayMan

    June 15, 2013 at EST pm

  7. Since when is $67/hour crappy? That’s 120K/yr.

    “The conservative types think that employees value college degrees because it’s a substitute for an IQ test. This is nonsense.”

    It may not be the full story but it’s hardly nonsense. You’ve stated as much yourself on your own blog many times before. College degrees are, indeed, a proxy for IQ. That fact doesn’t eliminate the possibility that they may *also* be a proxy for other qualities, social proof among them.

    If you tell me that college degrees are for social proof and nothing else then I’m going to point you to the first introverted, reclusive Asian gunner I see and ask you, “Where is his social proof? He has excellent marks but nobody on campus knows his name besides his professors.” On the other hand, George W. Bush acquired plenty of social proof at Yale.

    Conclusion: It’s about more than just social proof, just as it’s about more than pure IQ. It’s not one or the other, it’s both.

    Allerious

    June 15, 2013 at EST pm

  8. I can’t believe you think $67 an hour is crappy. Isn’t that about 150K?

    Steven

    June 15, 2013 at EST pm

  9. Still believe nepotism played a role in Snowden’s employment. Why did he suddenly hit it big after his security guard job?

    He reminds me of Christopher Boyce (who landed his job as a result of nepotism).

    comrade

    June 15, 2013 at EST pm

    • It’s not at all uncommon that people get their first real job because they know someone, often via their parents. It’s hard to get the first job without social proof of having had a real job before.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      June 15, 2013 at EST pm

      • This is why I support affirmative action. If your ancestors were slaves, and until recently segregated, who do your parent’s know? The white boss at the house your mom cleans? He’s not going to hire the maid’s kid for a prestigious job no matter how bright the kid might be.

        Bottledwater

        June 15, 2013 at EST pm

      • Prole whites are basically as unconnected as prole blacks in that regard. And yet affirmative action is mainly a way for upper middle class blacks to get advantages over prole whites with higher IQs.

        asdf

        June 16, 2013 at EST am

      • Upper middle class blacks is a misnomer. I would even say middle class blacks for the most part is an oxymoron. Many middle class blacks are employed in the gov’t, which means they are on welfare.

        JS

        June 16, 2013 at EST am

      • White-collar government work is middle class.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

      • “This is why I support affirmative action. If your ancestors were slaves, and until recently segregated, who do your parent’s know? The white boss at the house your mom cleans? He’s not going to hire the maid’s kid for a prestigious job no matter how bright the kid might be.”

        50% of whites live in poverty. They are about as “connected” as the dirt on your shoe.

        islandmommy

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

    • My older brother worked at the World Bank’s day care center while in college. After graduating and not finding a “real job,” an Italian guy who liked how my brother interacted with his kid helped him get a high 5-figure [tax-free] job in the iT department.

      aki (@DSGNTD_PLYR)

      June 16, 2013 at EST pm

  10. To the extent that employers insist on college degrees for jobs that don’t intrinsically require higher education, it’s not because of the Griggs case, but because of two factors:
    1. Due to the student loan program college enrollments have exploded, so that employers figure – not entirely without justification – that anyone without a degree is a nincompoop.
    2. With a still-high unemployment rate, employers can be extremely choosy.

    Peter

    ironrailsironweights

    June 15, 2013 at EST pm

  11. $67/hour is crappy in NYC, I hope you’re doing better than that now..

    Kaz

    June 15, 2013 at EST pm

    • People can do better than me if they follow my advice and don’t make the dumb mistakes that I did.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      June 15, 2013 at EST pm

      • Well 1 out of 1000 will be able to follow thaf advice. Not too useful for non hyps people.

        colmainen

        June 16, 2013 at EST am

    • The vast majority of Americans, even NYers — even NYers with advanced degrees and advanced skills — will never see anything close to $67 per hour.

      Kyo

      June 16, 2013 at EST am

    • $ 67/hour could be crappy if one lives in Manhattan. It’s crappy for Lion because of all the money and time he invested into law school, which amounted to nothing at the end, except a non-legal job position paying just that without it.

      JS

      June 16, 2013 at EST am

      • When I think of Lion I picture Jesse Eisenburg playing Zuckerberg in The Social Network. Everyone in the movie viewed Zuck as a jerk, but after he became rich he was a jerk that people begrudgingly respected. If the character simply became an upper middle class computer programmer everyone would still consider him just a jerk they didn’t respect.

        asdf

        June 16, 2013 at EST am

    • 140k a yr would put the recipient in the mere 15th %tile in the NY metro area. ~625k yr is needed to be in the top 1%.

      http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/15/business/one-percent-map.html

      islandmommy

      June 16, 2013 at EST am

      • “140k a yr would put the recipient in the mere 15th %tile in the NY metro area. ~625k yr is needed to be in the top 1%.”

        Not quite true. You’re comparing Lion’s individual income from 1 job with household income which includes usually 2 salaries plus other income, such as investment income, inheritance, multiple jobs per person at the lower end, etc.

        Zack

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

      • I already linked this and noted the obvious fact that its by household and not individual wage earners.

        asdf

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

      • Sorry I didn’t see that you linked that. And I did not mean to imply this wasn’t a household tabulation. There are, of course, plenty of other one income households in the country besides lion’s.

        islandmommy

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

  12. First of all, when are humans hyper-rational about anything?

    Baseball. It is becoming increasingly difficult for any organization in baseball to make decisions that go against the statistics. On the margins, they can favor the good looking home town boy but if they don’t win there are enough knowledgeable fans to question and condemn those decisions. Stats don’t tell you everything but if you ignore stats you better be able to explain why. I am a prole and I am surrounded by proles at work. Any moron can do my job? Mostly, I agree with that but my understanding is that there is a correlation between IQ and consciousness. Will the moron show up on a Friday? Will the moron leave early if he is assigned a job that he doesn’t care for? When the moron finds a better job will they at least give the company a notice, any notice at all? I applied for a good paying(not 67 bucks) blue collar job on the railroad. They gave me a test and I was hoping it would weed out the room full of applicants. The test was easy and almost everyone passed it. Why was the test so easy I don’t know. Possibly, legal considerations but I also think HR wants to make the call and objective tests take away their power. Just like stats guys in baseball have reduced but not eliminated the need for scouts. HR wants to have 5 guys instead of 3 for a position but if the test kicks out a few marginal applicants fine. I have never worked in HR and the company I work is large, not massive, but it is weird so my experiences may not be typical.

    mark

    June 15, 2013 at EST pm

    • “Any moron can do my job?”

      I’m just telling you what appellate judges believe, not what’s the real truth.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      June 15, 2013 at EST pm

    • The reason is the math behind disparate impact.

      There’s a 1 SD difference in g between black people and white people. That’s too large a gap for disparate impact. How to solve this problem? If you make a test such that 50% of white applicants will pass then only 15% of black people will pass. Nope, won’t do. If you turn the test up so that 15% of white applicants pass then only 2% of black applicants will. Not getting better. Let’s go the other way. Now 97.7% of white applicants pass and 84% of black applicants pass. Getting closer. Just make a test that 99.9% of white applicants can pass and you’ve almost eliminated the gap. Now 97.7% of black applicants can pass too!

      Unfortunately the test is near useless because everyone passes. Oh well.

      Steve Johnson

      June 16, 2013 at EST am

      • How to solve this problem? If you make a test such that 50% of white applicants will pass then only 15% of black people will pass. Nope, won’t do. If you turn the test up so that 15% of white applicants pass then only 2% of black applicants will.

        The numbers are worse than 2% because whites and blacks have different STDEVs. The white IQ standard deviation is 16.7 vs 13 for American blacks. And keep in mind that US blacks are ~20% white, so one should expect African immigrant blacks in America and Europe to be even worse off in terms of both average and variance.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 16, 2013 at EST am

      • Undiscovered Jew, if you’re going to keep insisting that whites have a bigger SD than blacks could you please provide a precise source.

        Bottledwater

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

  13. The Supreme Court is preventing employers from hiring whom they want.

    You’re being a wee bit unfair to Taranto here. It’s more the court is putting barriers in the way of hiring decisions than they are blocking companies from making hyper rational decisions.

    Btw, I applaud Taranto for mentioning IQ, minorities and disparate impact in the same paragraph. It’s more proof HBD is making progress up to the smart fraction country club Republican set. We need higher IQ Republicans and disaffected libertarians to adopt HBD if we are ever going to get off the ground.

    The very same Supreme Court Justices who frowned upon Duke Power Company for requiring high school diplomas would never, themselves, higher a law clerk who didn’t have a law degree, and from a top school at that.

    The very same Supreme Court Justices who frowned upon Duke Power Company for requiring high school diplomas would never, themselves, higher a law clerk who didn’t have a law degree, and from a top school at that.

    Excellent point.

    If I were hiring, I would make the process more g-loaded,

    IQ tests are the most g-loaded test psychometricians and psychologists have.

    IT hiring is probably more rational because nerds control the hiring process, and nerds are more rational.

    Ha! Nerds? What have they ever done.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    June 15, 2013 at EST pm

    • “Ha! Nerds? What have they ever done.”

      Invent stuff like computer chips, LCD TVs, but not get rich from it because the value from their inventions were transferred to top management and Wall Street.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      June 15, 2013 at EST pm

      • Value transference’s where it’s at, baby!

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 15, 2013 at EST pm

      • Seems like most nerds who invent stuff that makes money have gotten pretty rich off of that stuff; Silicon Valley is full of them. The exceptions are nerds who invented or discovered stuff while working for established companies where they knew ahead of time any inventions or discoveries would be the property of the company.

        That’s not “value transference” (which you have never, to my recollection, rigorously defined); that’s just a mutually agreed to business relationship. The nerd got a comfortable salary and lots of toys to play with in return for giving up the lottery ticket. A prudent decision on the nerd’s part, because most nerds never create anything on their own that will make them rich; those who want a shot at that can forego the big company salary and benefits and tinker in their garages.

        Dave Pinsen

        June 16, 2013 at EST am

      • “Most” nerds? No. Only the ones you’ve heard about. The lucky ones. There are zillions of inventions made by employees of companies, and the employee gets a pat on the back and an extra 5% bonus and the company makes the millions or billions of dollars from the invention.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        June 16, 2013 at EST am

      • ” “Most” nerds? No. Only the ones you’ve heard about. There are zillions of inventions made by employees of companies, and the employee gets a pat on the back and an extra 5% bonus and the company makes the millions or billions of dollars from the invention.”

        Yes, that’s right. I was one of those people for a few years. I launched 2 successful products and had lots of patents. I was getting nice benefits, good salary, etc. But after I got valuable experience, combined with what I did in grad school before, I landed a partner-track job in a small firm, where I have the upside I was missing. I was very proud of the products I built at the big blue-chip company, but at the end of the day it was the experience that was most useful, especially the experience orthogonal to by grad school studies. Few people manage to transition like I did, because the stability of the salary and benefits is addictive, and makes one lazy and content.

        Zack

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

      • Zack’s story also demonstrates that most business owners learned the ropes by first working for a big employer.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

      • The exceptions are nerds who invented or discovered stuff while working for established companies where they knew ahead of time any inventions or discoveries would be the property of the company.

        Another exception is where nerds were working in a theoretical scientific field that took years to mature before it achieved monetary value in the free market. The underlying mathematics Alan Turing created that serve as the foundation of modern computing took decades of perfecting before computers could reach a lucrative mass market. Turing got only earned microscopic percentage (if that) of the economic value computers would ultimately yield.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 16, 2013 at EST am

      • Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, Jerry Yang, Tom Leighton, etc — virtually all the entrepreneurs are all geeks. On the VC side, the famous ones are also pretty geeks — check out Tom Perkins’ book. Even the people on wall street today tend to be on the geeky side — because a lot of people want to go into finance and it’s hard to ignore the more objective measures: degrees, school of provenience, GPA, SAT, all sorts of puzzle questions that are g-loaded (check out “heard on the street”) On top of this, wall street itself is becoming more computer-oriented as markets become electronic, see HFTs, exotic contracts, etc. A friend of mine at JP is now in a group that never had a quant before and he’s the first one hired as a quant.

        It is true that in the past in parts of wall street there was rampant nepotism and people were hired because they have “street smarts”. One example of this would be the pit traders where the jobs were by blood, and they had the monopoly on market making. (if you go back to the 60’s you have 1% spreads, then in the 90’s you have 25 cents spreads, even if by law it was 12.5, but the traders had a gentlement’s agreement to keep it higher, and now with electronic trading there’s a 1 cent spread and everything is done by the computer)

        My point is simple: plenty of geeks in finance nowadays. And more to come!

        Zack

        June 16, 2013 at EST am

      • Dave Pinser,

        It seems obvious to me that this is value transference. The nerd only accepts these contract terms because he is in a bad bargaining position (he has to pay his rent and eat in the immediate term, while the company has no immediate financial pressures of the same magnitude).

        Most “go it themselves” nerd entrepreneurs come from well off families (Gates, Zuck, etc). This is because their parents provide them with the educational background and financial back up plan that give them the confidence to forgo employment when young because if they fail they will get picked right back up.

        Every day people accept contractual deals that are unfair in a general sense but they have to accept them because of the bargaining position they are in. I would think that as people go through their careers they have noticed the phenomenon that pay is based on bargaining power rather then ability or production (which are only relevant to the extent they increase bargaining power, but its a low correlation).

        asdf

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

      • Yes! But the state of the world today is much better than the state of the world 10, 20 or 100 years ago, and the reason is modern finance. A kid still in school has a lot more access to capital now than ever before. Zuckenberg wasn’t rich, and many other tech startup kids. Looks to me that for the smart, ambitious, creative people that go in tech, things will only get better as there’s more and more access to capital and more services just for them (y-combinator is one) However, for the rest of the people, capital matters. (if you don’t want to do anything you better have the cash to support your lifestyle)

        Zack

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

      • Yes! But the state of the world today is much better than the state of the world 10, 20 or 100 years ago, and the reason is modern finance. A kid still in school has a lot more access to capital now than ever before.

        Most people do not do anything with their access to capital (or credit) except for consumer, auto, and home loans. Even student loans are not a lucrative investment. Still, regardless of one’s access to capital, capital needs to have a return in order to defray the interest, and that depends on the state of the macroeconomy.

        Black_Rose

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

      • “Most people do not do anything with their access to capital (or credit) except for consumer, auto, and home loans. Even student loans are not a lucrative investment. Still, regardless of one’s access to capital, capital needs to have a return in order to defray the interest, and that depends on the state of the macroeconomy.”

        I can more about equal opportunity and not equal outcome. If people don’t do anything productive with their access to opportunities, it’s their fault. I think we should have just enough welfare to get people the opportunities available to the elite. Anything more is just stealing from the rest, and I don’t support perpetual welfare. Society owes people enough opportunities, some free education, access to capital, etc. Society doesn’t owe people free housing, free food, free healthcare.

        Zack

        June 17, 2013 at EST am

      • Zuck came from a wealthy family, I think 1% but if not then close. He had a perfect SAT score and college connections. Even the premise of Facebook got going because it was exclusive to first Harvard and then other elite schools. That exclusivity was the draw. Despite this he ended up selling 30% of his company to his classmate for basically $20,000 start up capital. What’s the ROI on that again?

        It’s true that genius 20 somethings from well off families can now get access to start up capital, but its a rather small part of the population don’t you think. And if you follow Michael O Church’s blog you know that the tech start up marketplace is loaded with shady dealings and all the standard garbage.

        asdf

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

      • It’s the access that matters, not how many people actually take it. It’s the opportunity that matters. If most people prefer to buy iPhones (consume goods) and not take care of their kids (invest in their future), then it’s their fault.

        Zack

        June 17, 2013 at EST am

      • Zack,

        I worked as a quant at JP. At least half the people working there got in through connections. And everyone had attended an elite school.

        asdf

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

      • “Zack,

        I worked as a quant at JP. At least half the people working there got in through connections. And everyone had attended an elite school.”

        Awesome. But when you say people got in through connections, you mean they got the job entirely because a blood relative works there? Or is it because they knew somebody already working there, probably through school or previous employment, and this connection got them an interview? These are 2 different things.

        The fact of the matter is that in any field the community is not that big, and very very connected, probably within a 3nd degree (A knows somebody who knows somebody who knows B). I’ve seen many people get interview because of internal references, but that doesn’t mean they will get hired. What they do get is a phone screening, then maybe an interview. If they do get the job, I don’t call this they got in through connections.

        Zack

        June 17, 2013 at EST am

      • I’m mostly talking about family, but I don’t see much of a difference. If you get a job through your dorm mate from Harvard, and you got into Harvard because your parents sent you to Vassar and donated to the alumni fund, that seems just as much a connection born of your family as any other.

        One night when I was an analyst they took the entire analyst class to a bowling ally as one of those networking things. Very few of the people in that large group had ever been bowling before once in their entire life. Which is another way of saying that basically nobody outside the elite got jobs there. If its just a question of merit, you would see a wider distribution.

        asdf

        June 17, 2013 at EST pm

      • There is a big difference. While I interacted with many people in school and work in the past, I would only try to hire or recommend a subset of them. Recommendations are also filters. Family/blood recommendations I don’t trust, but work/college I do.

        Zack

        June 17, 2013 at EST pm

    • “IQ tests are the most g-loaded test psychometricians and psychologists have.”

      An untutored college entrance exam is just as good from a statistical pov. The two are impossible to tell apart. The people with the high SAT, etc and the people with the high IQ are the same people.

      Jan Smuts

      June 16, 2013 at EST am

      • Correct. College entrance exams are excellent IQ tests; and because everyone who takes them studies for them (if they are serious about being admitted), they effects of coaching/studying/tutoring are minimized.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        June 16, 2013 at EST am

      • An untutored college entrance exam is just as good from a statistical pov.

        Entrance exams are close to being as good a measure of g as IQ tests. But they’re still not as good. The pre-2005 SAT’s verbal section was second best. The SAT’s verbal had a 0.80 correlation with IQ tests. The math portion was only 0.70. But the post 2005 SAT verbal has been watered down because they removed analogies due to their being the most g-loaded of all verbal questions. They also added a useless written section.

        While college entrance exams are decent measures of g, the fact remains IQ tests are the best measures of g so far invented.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 16, 2013 at EST am

      • Undiscovered Jew, IQ tests themselves only correlate 0.7-0.8 with other IQ tests, so the SAT is just as g loaded as most IQ tests are.

        Bottledwater

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

      • Thanks bottledwater. You took the words out of my mouth.

        Plus g is population determined. Change the population and g (the principal component vector) will change. g seems to be used by posters here like it was a thing, some “scientific” measure of human worth.

        Jan Smuts

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

      • No…but…UJ is right.

        The changes in the SAT have been toward less g-loading.

        Blacks have gained on all the Wechsler subtests except vocab, which is the most g-loaded and reliable.

        BUT obviously this doesn’t mean that professional writers are the smartest people. Or does it?

        Jan Smuts

        June 19, 2013 at EST pm

    • Most “go it themselves” nerd entrepreneurs come from well off families (Gates, Zuck, etc). This is because their parents provide them with the educational background and financial back up plan that give them the confidence to forgo employment when young because if they fail they will get picked right back up.

      This is completely true. Go it yourself entrepreneurs have lots of family money backing them plus a great deal of parental investment. Mark Zuckerberg’s father paid for his son to be privately tutored in computer programming while Zuck was still in middle school. Most families could not afford that.

      map

      June 17, 2013 at EST pm

      • “Most “go it themselves” nerd entrepreneurs come from well off families (Gates, Zuck, etc). This is because their parents provide them with the educational background and financial back up plan that give them the confidence to forgo employment when young because if they fail they will get picked right back up.

        This is completely true. Go it yourself entrepreneurs have lots of family money backing them plus a great deal of parental investment. Mark Zuckerberg’s father paid for his son to be privately tutored in computer programming while Zuck was still in middle school. Most families could not afford that.”

        Sorry, this is bullshit. Zuckenberg’s family is as middle-class as they come. Many middle-class kids get tutored in math/english/computer science/

        Zack

        June 17, 2013 at EST pm

      • Zuck’s father was a dentist and his mother a medical doctor. So he came from a decently upper middle class family. NOT middle class.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        June 17, 2013 at EST pm

      • If upper-class is defined as top 1% of household income Zuck was upper class. If it is defined as those who’s money works for them rather than “them” working for their money…it would only take a few years for such a household to join the 1% in wealth.

        Very surprising to an NYCer: the 1% in individual wealth in the US is only 2 mill.

        Jan Smuts

        June 19, 2013 at EST pm

      • “Most “go it themselves” nerd entrepreneurs come from well off families (Gates, Zuck, etc). This is because their parents provide them with the educational background and financial back up plan that give them the confidence to forgo employment when young because if they fail they will get picked right back up.

        This is completely true. Go it yourself entrepreneurs have lots of family money backing them plus a great deal of parental investment.”

        You know, entrepreneurial people are genetically different from non-entrepreneurs (just as all groups genetically differ from all others – all human behavioral traits are heritable). While money and connections help, it’s not necessarily wise to put all your eggs in that basket. DNA matters as well.

        JayMan

        June 22, 2013 at EST am

      • Moreover, we do not know te famly background of his parents and what family money they bring

        map

        June 22, 2013 at EST pm

    • Zack,

      I’m not talking about the relative value of family vs friend recommendations. The point I’m getting at is that your parents will determine who your friends are growing up, what institutions give you their seal of approval, and what basic cultural habits and understanding you have which ends up setting you up for life. There are many people that could do an IB job. Only a fraction of those qualified applicants will get jobs. Those that get jobs will get them because of the life paths they were put on the moment they were born. The idea that there is an “equality of opportunity” between people is absurd.

      asdf

      June 18, 2013 at EST am

      • Yes and even Ted Forstmann, the half-Italian recently deceased (and strangely self-effacing and never married) early LBO-meister said exactly that.

        The US and UK are have the MOST rigid class structure in the developed world. It didn’t used to be this way, but like father (the UK) like son (the US).

        It’s hilarious to tears when libertarians and conservatives “salute the flag”. The US has become a joke among people with IQs above 130.

        Wilfred Owen

        June 18, 2013 at EST pm

      • US doesn’t have titles. Also, anybody can become a citizen and can own property. Other countries have titles, and benefits that are given only to the ones that can trace their ancestry hundreds of years. India, Thailand, Qatar, etc…

        In US, just going to a top school will confer a lot of class. Anybody can do it. In fact, Harvard’s class body is mostly middle-class. Moreover, looks give you a lot of power in US. US is also much more open to other races. Asians are currently making big strides and they are increasing their status. This happened to the Irish, Catholics, Italians and the Jews in the past.

        Zack

        June 19, 2013 at EST am

  14. “The conservative types think that employees value college degrees because it’s a substitute for an IQ test. This is nonsense. College degrees can be seen as a sort of social proof.”

    College signals intelligence, but not *just* intelligence. As someone else has said, standardized test scores are an important factor to admission. Typically, a college degree indicates someone capable of jumping through hoops for 4-5 years. There are brilliant people who cannot handle showing up to classes, writing papers, giving presentations, or studying for exams. The vast majority of jobs require punctuality, civility and basic mental competence.

    A buddy of mine got rejected from the ivy league (“they want you to play the violin at Carnegie fucking hall, or get a letter of recommendation from a Senator.”) He went to Cal-tech, and now works at Google. He’s highly intelligent, but passive. When I think of Harvard, I think of smart people who, through sheer tyranny of will, force themselves into leadership positions. My friend could become a captain of industry, but only if he invents something amazing, which would probably require a little bit of luck.

    Vince, the Lionhearted

    June 15, 2013 at EST pm

    • I don’t think that there is any university in the world that signals brilliance more than Cal-tech.

      Daniel

      June 15, 2013 at EST pm

      • While Caltech is very good from all the people I know, Caltech was not the top choice. Generally Harvard, Princeton, Yale and MIT were preferred. Caltech knows this, and back in the 90’s (and probably even now) they were offering a much better financial aid package.

        From a different point of view: if you are interested in status, HYP is much higher than Caltech, so you would prevery HYP to Caltech. Also, if you want to go into science/academia, Caltech is small. MIT has much bigger departments, and offers a lot more variety in advanced classes, plus high prestige in sciences. Thus, you would choose MIT.

        From yet another point of view: endowment! Caltech’s falls short when you compare it to the other mentioned schools. The endowment is a measure of success of the previous generations.

        Zack

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

      • Ivan

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

      • @ Zack

        He wasn’t arguing that Caltech had a higher status than HYP (or MIT), or that its endowment is at all impressive.

        He said that attending Caltech signals pure intelligence more than attending HYP or even MIT. Do you disagree with that?

        Renault

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

      • “He wasn’t arguing that Caltech had a higher status than HYP (or MIT), or that its endowment is at all impressive.

        He said that attending Caltech signals pure intelligence more than attending HYP or even MIT. Do you disagree with that?”

        Yes, I do disagree with that. All the things mentioned are relevant:
        1. undergrad preference of HYP, Stanford, MIT over Caltech
        2. diversity and depth of classes (Caltech is too small to hit all the niche subsubsubjects, and some are turned off by that)
        3. endowment size signals past success

        On top of that, directly to signaling pure intelligence:
        1. At undergrad level, in the usnews report, Caltech is usually trailing HYP, Stanford and MIT. MIT is relevant because they are on the same niche. (ie, techies) The usnews report is by far the best ranking system for US, and it mirrors student preferences.
        2. More to the point, about 90% of international undergrads at MIT come from the international olympiads, where at Caltech this rate is much lower. I know several international students at Caltech, that wouldn’t stand a chance to get in at MIT. At Harvard and Princeton, they do accept people from the math and physics international olympiad, but they also accept a lot of international undergrads that have political or business connections, ie, the prime minister’s daughter. While Caltech may beat the average at HYP, if you take out the people with connections, HYP will be above Caltech. Also, MIT beats Caltech. You know, they have these inter-college pranks, and MIT always pranks with Harvard (which suggests that H>M), Harvard pranks with Princeton (P>H) and Caltech pranks with MIT (M>C)
        3. At the grad level, again Caltech is hurt because of its size. In any field, there is a pecking order, and you can find that at usnews. Caltech trails in many fields, and in a couple of subjects is #1 but at a tie with H, M, Berkeley, etc. This is where Princeton and Yale take a back seat, and they are really behind. However, at faculty level HYP is willing to pay star faculty a lot more, so they usually steal the top tenured faculty from Caltech, Berkeley or MIT.

        Under any objective statistics, it’s hard to make Caltech #1 for signaling intelligence.

        Zack

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

    • Precisely. Very well said.

      JayMan

      June 15, 2013 at EST pm

    • Yes. Also, it signals conformance and moral flexibility. If you going to go from HYPS to IB, you better be the kind of person who doesn’t mind ripping off clients when you can get away with it or running the latest “financial innovation” scam.

      You also come with a rolodex of potential business partners from your college days.

      asdf

      June 16, 2013 at EST am

      • Right. Everyone who’s not a HYPS grad is at least slightly less than human.

        Wilfred Owen

        June 18, 2013 at EST pm

  15. “…if you worked at a well-known company than at an unknown company…”

    I worked in the corporate actuarial department of the country’s largest health insurance company. When I interviewed at a life company they’d never heard of it. Hiring managers are idiots in my experience. It takes brains, but only so much, after which the returns are negative (see Chomsky on education in America).

    Jan Smuts

    June 15, 2013 at EST pm

  16. “Al Gore is on the board of directors of Apple and is a senior adviser to Google”

    And this is rational, Gore invented the internet!

    Jan Smuts

    June 15, 2013 at EST pm

    • “Al Gore is on the board of directors of Apple and is a senior adviser to Google”

      Apple and Google put him in a do nothing “advisory”/ceremonial role because Gore has connections, not because Tim Cook and Sergei Brin lie awake at night yearning for his loopy “advice”. They’re not going to make Gore a true adviser on strategy anymore than they’ll have a black AA employee run a multi-year cloud computing project.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      June 15, 2013 at EST pm

      • The wife of Eric Cantor, who Lion once liked as a VP prospect, just got a 4th directorship, this one at Revlon. That’s ~$200k for attending a handful of meetings a year.

        It’s funny, because I’m reading a book about ExxonMobile now and there’s a part where the US government gives them shit for dealing with cronies of a dictator in Equatorial Guinea. Exxon’s defense was that all the businesses in that country were politically connected, so they had no choice. We are becoming a little more like Equatorial Guinea perhaps.

        Dave Pinsen

        June 16, 2013 at EST am

      • Exxon’s defense was that all the businesses in that country were politically connected, so they had no choice. We are becoming a little more like Equatorial Guinea perhaps.

        We’ve always had a nexus between business and government favors. But we came out on top because our level of government corruption has traditionally been lower than those of our competitors.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 16, 2013 at EST am

      • Government corruption in first world nations doesn’t become debilitating unless the amount of corruption reaches a third world threshold. As long as corruption is kept below that threshold, developed nations shouldn’t be at risk of having corruption be as negative to growth as in the undeveloped world.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 16, 2013 at EST am

  17. I was lucky. I took a test when I applied for a federal government accounting job thirty years ago. People who came in after me tell me they never took one so apparently it was abolished. To get to X per cent minorities in government jobs, they had to abolish it. I don’t think I could get hired if I applied today. I always hated jumping through all the hoops I needed to in order to get the education credentials and never did it. If you are a white male, you have to have sterling educational credentials now that I don’t have. To be blunt, the crappy diploma mill degree will only get you hired and promoted by the government if you are a minority.

    Mark

    June 15, 2013 at EST pm

  18. The Chomsk or the selection for obedience in America.

    Jan Smuts

    June 15, 2013 at EST pm

    • Jan Smuts

      June 15, 2013 at EST pm

      • Elite universities select social climbers – combination of social ambition, status consciousness, and some insecurity. This is particularly apparent in students with middle class backgrounds.

        AsianDude

        June 15, 2013 at EST pm

  19. “get a crappy $67/hour job doing .NET programming.”

    At least it wasn’t JAVA.

    Toad

    June 15, 2013 at EST pm

    • That’s right, Java sucks. Which is why Android development sucks because it’s Java. That’s why Apple has the better smartphone, because it’s programmed in a language that’s not Java.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      June 15, 2013 at EST pm

      • The Java language sucks. The Java runtime environment is fine, and you don’t have to use the Java language to write code for it. There are dozens of languages to choose from. Most are fairly obscure, but Scala is making some inroads. The problem is that the Java language is the lowest common denominator, so if you have mulitple people working on the same code base, you’re pretty much stuck with it. If you’re working alone, though, or with people who are willing to learn a new language, there are dozens of languages to choose from when writing applications for Android or any other Java platform.

        Brandon

        June 16, 2013 at EST am

      • I have to say going to an elite social function and telling people that you are unemployed, sounds a lot better than telling them you are a code monkey.

        JS

        June 16, 2013 at EST am

      • Even higher class is to say you don’t have a 9-to-5 job but you’re working on a project. Higher-class people never use the word “unemployed,” because that’s something that only happens to proles.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

  20. “Social proof” is just a way of spelling out something most people (who are not nerds) know by instinct. Of course people are more likely to include you in their group if someone they already know or someone with status likes you. “Game” is also what most normal, well adjusted guys learn through junior high and high school. “Girls like confident guys and will go for the highest status guy in the group” -> surprise!. What sort of people need to be told that?

    AsianDude

    June 15, 2013 at EST pm

    • Libertarians and Mitt Romney.

      Jan Smuts

      June 16, 2013 at EST am

    • Nerds are generally smart dudes with terrible charisma (they are both ugly and spastic). Like any animal they respond to incentives. Their logic skills were constantly being reinforced (good grades, maybe even an upper middle class job). While their weaknesses were things they felt it wasn’t worth improving because there wouldn’t be much payoff.

      At some point the nerd may meet a problem whose payoff is big enough or whose parameters are controlled enough to take a training step between nerd human understanding and normal human understanding. For me the first step was playing poker professionally. There were lots of logical rules to the game that could be used as training wheels, but ultimately you’ve got to be able to understand that the dude across the table is going to act a certain way because of his psychology. After poker I worked in finance and invested my own money so I had to understand how markets (people) worked. I also had client interaction, unlike the average nerd who works alone at a computer all day.

      Other nerds come to game because they always assumed they would get girls later in life and didn’t. Or maybe they did get some GFs but were very confused by seemingly irrational actions. Every guy wants to get laid, this is often a big enough carrot to make most nerds come around. Sexual understanding has gotten so bad out there that I wouldn’t even blame nerds too much, your average normal schlub is also getting blindsided by the current sexual market.

      The one nice thing about nerds is that when they do see the light and if they have some talent for it they can understand human interactions at a deeper level then people with vaguer natural understandings who don’t quite get their own intuition sometimes. For instance, Michael O Church’s writing on corporate office dynamics is fantastic.

      asdf

      June 16, 2013 at EST am

      • adsf, indeed; read the entire 20-plus-part series Michael O. Church has written. It’s amazing.

        Kyo

        June 16, 2013 at EST am

      • “The one nice thing about nerds is that when they do see the light and if they have some talent for it they can understand human interactions at a deeper level”

        Correct. The nerds vs jocks, social intelligence vs intelligence is hyped by stupid people. Social “skills” can be acquired and quickly by smart people given the right experience and motivation. The truth behind the hype (in the US) is that what are called “social skills” is often no more than having rich parents. Because class officially doesn’t exist in the US a lot of abstract bs has to do the job of explaining why the US has the most rigid class system in the developed world.

        “Every guy wants to get laid, this is often a big enough carrot to make most nerds come around.”

        Getting laid under false pretenses is lame and GAY. Be a MAN. Be yourself, your best self, and any girl worth your lovin’ will respond.

        Jan Smuts

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

  21. Actually humans are extremely rational, but we’re slaves to emotions. Given this, it is rational to do what feels good, not what makes logical sense. But your point about nerds running things more rationally is well taken, and explains why so many nerds get super-rich (gates, zuckerberg, google guys). Nerds get emotional pleasure from being logical, and thus can exploit the business weaknesses of competitors who get emotional pleasure from being socially correct.

    Bottledwater

    June 15, 2013 at EST pm

    • Nerds aren’t nearly as status conscious as others, which also makes them more logical. Creating status brands isn’t their 1st priority.

      Working in BIGLAW as an associate, holds more weight than any non-executive senior position at Google.

      JS

      June 16, 2013 at EST am

      • All the biglaw associates I know, hate their life/job. While biglaw sounds good at first, it’s just horrible as a profession, especially the corporate stuff. Part of the blame goes to Hollywood for romanticizing the law profession, while in reality it just sucks.

        But hey, they do have status… for now

        Zack

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

      • The biggest problem with biglaw is that it sucks just as much as finance but the money is much worse.

        Renault

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

      • In what weird universe does BIGLAW put you anywhere near the top of the status pile? I have never met anyone who has asked me “hey, can you introduce me to that guy? I hear he’s a lawyer!”

        For the most part being a lawyer is a strong signal that you aren’t an Alpha dog – you are content to work for the Alphas and be a parasite off their creativity and savvy. It’s a safe choice – unlike business, politics sports or entertainment once you get your foot in the door of BIGLAW it’s hard to fail out of it. Law is the ultimate Beta provider profession – Ok, accounting or engineering signal Beta provider even more strongly than Law, but Law is just the top of the Beta heap. Lawyers who want real status make the jump to politics, I-banking or private equity at some points in their career.

        Peter the Shark

        June 17, 2013 at EST am

      • “For the most part being a lawyer is a strong signal that you aren’t an Alpha dog – you are content to work for the Alphas and be a parasite off their creativity and savvy”.

        The same goes for Finance guys, who don’t produce anything of value.

        “In what weird universe does BIGLAW put you anywhere near the top of the status pile? I have never met anyone who has asked me “hey, can you introduce me to that guy? I hear he’s a lawyer!”

        I agree, status is about being popular with women. Many starving artists and aspiring actors do a lot better with women than any BIGLAW or Finance chump.

        JS

        June 17, 2013 at EST am

  22. Lion, i did wharton undergrad around the time you did. I have spent most of my career at small private equity firms. Essentially every firm i have worked at has hired based on a combination of iq and social skills. I think more firms in finance hire on iq than you realize

    Areen

    June 15, 2013 at EST pm

  23. The whole argument boils downs to this – if you are not hyps material you will be nothing more than a prole and companies which does matter will not hire you, so you would be just as well to jump from a bridge.

    colmainen

    June 15, 2013 at EST pm

    • I figured that out after freshman year in college and did a lot of stuff in my free time besides studying such as reading and watching baseball. I did not care much for my grades, although my ego did hurt when I got a low grade (defined by me as not being in the top third) on exam that I did not study for. That happened a few times, but not as much as it would for a person possessing average g.

      I may not be a SWPL or a bobo, but I am a childish nerd.

      Black_Rose

      June 16, 2013 at EST am

  24. LOTB, I think the far bigger story here is that James Taranto, who used to despise the alt-right
    (see here http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-tarantoad-beneath-the-harrow )

    is coming around to its ideas in a big way, and has an influential platform – the WSJ.

    Should he apologize to the alt-right for thought-policing them 11 years ago? Yes. But his defection is still a big deal.

    ATC

    June 15, 2013 at EST pm

  25. Domino’s Pizza requires applicants to take a math and reading comprehension test. Applicants have to score in the ~40th percentile or above to qualify to work there.

    bobo

    June 16, 2013 at EST am

    • Domino’s Pizza requires applicants to take a math and reading comprehension test.

      Interesting you bring that up.

      While I normally don’t order from Dominos because I prefer greasy, flat NY style pizza when I deviate from my low carb diet, I am noticing newer, trendier fast food joints hiring white, or nearly all white, staff.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      June 16, 2013 at EST am

      • “I am noticing newer, trendier fast food joints hiring white, or nearly all white, staff”.

        Any corporate retail outlet with a large black staff means only the dumbest and less discerning customers would want to patronize it.

        Overall, Blacks are bad workers, not just because they’re lazy, but too negatively emotional invested with whatever they do. The reason is that Blacks seem to resent everyone else, who are for the most part better off than them.

        More liberal stupidity, as I see inner racial minorities working at the library of an Ivy League institution here in NYC. Not only do they have no appreciation or knowledge of anything academic, they come off as resentful to see well off White kids visiting the library. Liberals would say let’s give these guys a chance, when in fact, Blacks would be better off working among their own, where resentment and envy doesn’t get in their way of job performance.

        JS

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

      • Yes, any nice restaurant tends to employ white wait staff. Also, the only fast food place to employ whites, Chick Fil A, is also one of the best.

        You can always tell the quality of an area by what I call the Chick Fil A test. If they keep the condiments like Polynesian sauce behind the register and you have to ask for them its a more prole area. If they leave them out where anyone can take as many as they want it tends to be at a strip mall in an upper middle class area with few blacks.

        asdf

        June 17, 2013 at EST pm

      • Any corporate retail outlet with a large black staff means only the dumbest and less discerning customers would want to patronize it.

        Whites are just generally more pleasant to be around and interact with, though of course there are certainly plenty of Caucasian assholes.

        Burger King, McDonald’s, and the other bottom feeders have mestizo and black staff in the “diverse” areas.

        I call the Chick Fil A test. If they keep the condiments like Polynesian sauce behind the register and you have to ask for them its a more prole area.

        I wonder if there’s an all white Chipotle’s staff anywhere the country. If there is, it must be in New Hampshire, Vermont or Maine.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 17, 2013 at EST pm

      • In my experience there is no ethnic group which understands “the customer is always right” better than Euros.

        Latinos seem to grasp this much better than Asians surprisingly.

        Jan Smuts

        June 21, 2013 at EST pm

      • Just go to Simi valley. There will be an all white Chipotle staff. That is, all white Latinos.

        Jan Smuts

        June 21, 2013 at EST pm

    • How are the norms compared to the population of SAT test takers?

      Black_Rose

      June 16, 2013 at EST pm

    • Still irrational. Other than cash counts, where are you supposed to apply math and unusual reading comprehension while serving pizza? I doubt there is even some creativity or margin for personal touch in a heavily standardised food chain store. They are taking a big risk at it: I wouldn’t be surprised if they are sued for discrimination later.

      javert

      June 16, 2013 at EST pm

      • Believe it or not, that job is still g-loaded. You simply do not appreciate the limitations of those with low g; they simply cannot perform many of tasks that we deem to have trivial cognitive requirements.

        Black_Rose

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

      • no, they aren’t taking a risk. Scoring above the 40th percentile correlates very strongly to making fewer mistakes and having fewer accidents.

        not too late

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

      • @javert, higher iq is helpful for all jobs, it’s rational.

        aki (@DSGNTD_PLYR)

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

      • Crap, there’s no “edit” button. Additionally, higher IQ people are LESS LIKELY TO LIE/STEAL. Employee theft is a multi-billion dollar problem, and the cash-register isn’t the only thing that holds value for businesses.

        aki (@DSGNTD_PLYR)

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

      • “Additionally, higher IQ people are LESS LIKELY TO LIE/STEAL.”

        HA!

        asdf

        June 16, 2013 at EST pm

  26. Was I really that much better a programmer after memorizing the correct answers to the typical questions they ask on these technical interviews? I don’t think so. If I were hiring, I would make the process more g-loaded, emphasizing problem-solving rather than memorizing stuff you could easily look up in the help text that comes with Microsoft Visual Studio.

    This is very strange. The vast majority of interviews I’ve had have been oriented around problem solving. Interviewers are very explicit about not testing my knowledge of programming language trivia, and typically ask me to code an algorithm to solve a problem in the language of my choice, or even pseudocode, without worrying about syntactic details.

    I’ve had a handful of interviews where I was asked about programming language trivia, but these have been few and far between, and usual only when I was scraping the bottom of the barrel and applying for jobs I would leave at the first opportunity. The one exception was when I applied for a job at Bloomberg’s Tokyo offices. The entire phone screen consisted of them grilling me on obscure C++ details. Oddly, they never brought me in, despite the fact that I nailed it.

    Maybe it’s because I live on the west coast and most of my experience is with software companies. It might be different for companies in other industries creating software for internal use.

    Brandon

    June 16, 2013 at EST am

  27. Places I’ve had to test at:

    CIA uses a pretty heavily g-loaded test for DI and NCS screening (the DI test is surprisingly difficult, the only time after an ’employment’ test where I felt zero confidence). However they never tell you how you did so if it’s difficult for the whole applicant pool, perhaps you don’t have to do that well to cross the cut-off. I do not believe they have testing for DST candidates (I never asked).

    Relatively easy interviews at CIA however.

    FBI’s Phase 1 testing is no where near has hard or g-loaded. Neither is State’s FSO testing.

    I’m not sure what you would consider McKinsey’s PST. It does test intelligence, but not like CIA testing. You can prepare for it and it is much narrower in focus. Time is the biggest issue on this test.

    IMO:

    Testing (difficulty from hardest to least): CIA > State > FBI

    Interview(S): State > FBI=CIA

    Clearance Process : CIA > FBI >>>>> State

    McKinsey was probably the toughest interviews I ever had from a ‘g’ perspective.

    uatu

    June 16, 2013 at EST am

  28. In the future, many cities and some states are doing to require fluency in Spanish to get a government job. I suspect that progressives will not be interested in suing those state and local government even though such language requirements have a huge negative impact on African-Americans.

    What is interesting is that liberal whites find many ways to exclude blacks (and third world immigrants) but no one ever challenges them on their methods.

    superdestroyer

    June 16, 2013 at EST am

  29. Blacks are also losing out in elite careers. Only liberal stupidity believe that Blacks are inherently capable as everyone else, when in fact they are not, as biological factors such as IQ is the main indicator. I believe 1st generation native born mestizos would have more of a shot at BIGLAW than blacks coming from several generation span. The reason is that Blacks are inherently lower IQ, and this is the reason for their exceedingly slow progression in America. They will continue to lose out, as more Hispanics enter the workforce as blue collar laborers.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/28/us/texas-firm-highlights-struggle-for-black-professionals.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

    JS

    June 16, 2013 at EST pm

    • But if a black guy scored 1400 and a white guy scored 1500 on the SAT who would you say had more ability at conception or at birth? I’d go for the black guy.

      There ARE very smart blacks. They are just very rare. Obama may be the first AA prez, and he isn’t very impressive in interviews, no Nixon, but he is VERY smart. I’m sure he’d score at least a 125 WAIS.

      Jan Smuts

      June 21, 2013 at EST pm

  30. First of all, when are humans hyper-rational about anything? And when you consider that we see a lot of top-level-management types going from business to government and back to business, how is it that they become irrational when they are in politics or government and then become hyper-rational as soon as they are back in a business role? Did you know that Al Gore is on the board of directors of Apple and is a senior adviser to Google?

    They are rational in both roles. However, the incentives are different in each role, and therefore it is rational to act differently in each role. When the top-level manager is in business, he is rational to make whatever business decision results in the highest profits. When the top-level manager is in government, he is rational to make whatever political decision gets more votes and increases the administration’s popularity.

    It is extremely odd for you to argue that businesses are somehow not “rational” when they make decisions based on legal, regulatory, and political factors. Businesses that respond to the legal/regulatory/political environment may not be “hyper-rational” from a purely economic, profit-seeking standpoint, but they most certainly are acting in a hyper-rational manner from a broader perspective. A business that ignores the law, regulations, or politics will be dragged through the courts and subjected to such brutal government and media scrutiny that their bottom line will be harshly penalized.

    Every top-level manager is well aware that government decisions affect his business. Every top-level manager rationally responds accordingly, e.g. by lobbying Congress in order to tilt the playing field in his favor.

    Tarl

    June 16, 2013 at EST pm

  31. Lion, excellent post!

    ON DUKE POWER & GOV’T HYPOCRISY:

    I find it highly amusing that our government has all but outlawed pre-employment intelligence testing for anyone else but themselves.

    Every recruit that enlists in the armed forces takes an intelligence test (http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA328529) and his/her choice of occupation is determined by that score. To the best of my knowledge, there’s no affirmative action program to “diversify” the navy nuclear power program or other fields that require a high score.

    Perhaps this is because the judiciary lacks enough political capital or the authority to give the military establishment the FDNY treatment (http://www.justice.gov/crt/spec_topics/fdny/overview.php)?

    ON PROGRAMMER INTERVIEWS & APTITUDE TESTING:

    According to the majority opinion in Griggs, intelligence tests are only allowed if “they are demonstrably a reasonable measure of job performance.”

    Programming appears to be an occupation where aptitude testing correlates very well with on the job performance according to this paper: http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/paper1.pdf

    Perhaps IT firms are left alone because its just plain easier to gang up on the FDNY?

    SIDENOTE: My current employer, a large NYC developer, gave me an IQ test prior to hiring me. I work with a bunch of knuckle draggers so either I’m an idiot too or the IQ floor for my position is very low.

    High Prole & Proud

    June 17, 2013 at EST am

  32. “The truth behind the hype (in the US) is that what are called ‘social skills’ is often no more than having rich parents.”

    You’re leaving out a MAJOR component of that equation: Looks.

    http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0814480543

    Rich parents? Try good-looking parents.

    You see, nerds are ugly. Jocks aren’t. Coincidence? What do you think?

    “Getting laid under false pretenses is lame and GAY. Be a MAN. Be yourself, your best self, and any girl worth your lovin’ will respond.”

    This is ridiculous on far too many levels to list them all. Yeah, okay, let us know how that’s working out for you…

    “understand human interactions at a deeper level then people with vaguer natural understandings who don’t quite get their own intuition sometimes.”

    Except that having a deep understanding of human interaction will never suffice on its own to make one popular amongst others. It just doesn’t work that way. Ask every lonely, antisocial bachelor-philosopher on the one hand, and contrast them with any popular-but-airheaded jock, bimbo, actor/actress or socialite.

    LOOKS are the missing element in the equation. Intelligence is practically irrelevant by comparison.

    Let’s say you’re a nerd with high intelligence and tomorrow you wake up with a profound understanding of all human social dynamics.

    Great. Guess what: You’re still ugly and spastic. Think you’re going to get the hot blonde cheerleader with big boobs? Think again. She’s going to go for the guy with the biggest muscles, not the biggest brain.

    It’s quite remarkable to be ponder just how useless intelligence is with respect to attaining any degree of social success or even a measure of overall happiness in life. THAT is the hidden truth that dumb people understand and smart people don’t.

    Allerious

    June 18, 2013 at EST am

    • Understanding social dynamics can lead to better outcomes. For instance, I paid for college playing poker and I’ve made significant money investing because of a better understanding of human social dynamics. It’s also helped me advance my career better, score more tail, and have better social interactions.

      Complaining about looks is a waste of time. Other then diet and exercise you can’t do much about them. You can either use what you have well or poorly. There is a large range of potential life outcomes based on your actions.

      The point is to compare two people of the same looks level. A normal person and a nerdy person. The normal person has better innate social intuition, but can’t critically examine that intuition or improve their social interactions. The nerd, assuming the appropriate level of emotional and intellectual maturity, can examine his interactions and improve them even if he has a lower level of base intuition. Wouldn’t you want to do that rather then languish?

      asdf

      June 18, 2013 at EST am

    • Correct. Many aspiring actors and starving artist types (usually goodlooking) are more successful with women than the average BIGLAW and Finance guy who work at high status firms with big salaries.

      JS

      June 18, 2013 at EST am

    • Some of the commentators have address the looks issue on this blog. Alpha is meaningless, when you’re an ugly chump.

      JS

      June 18, 2013 at EST am

      • What is there to address? It’s an important but ultimately really obvious thing you don’t have a lot of control over. Anyone eating right and working out is already doing everything in their power on the looks front, its not a complicated thing to parse through.

        asdf

        June 18, 2013 at EST pm

      • Looks means almost everything, more so than what Lion has been drilling us. That is, having the right parents with money and going to the right schools.

        JS

        June 18, 2013 at EST pm

    • Excellent post Allerious. In fact most of the high IQ people who supposedly lack social intelligence are really just people who are too ugly to get promoted or get friends. There’s nothing wrong with their social skills.

      smartandwise

      June 18, 2013 at EST pm

    • Hygiene, exercise, and tasteful styling of hair and clothes go VERY far towards making a man more attractive. The vast majority of ‘unattractive’ nerds I have ever encountered had serious deficiencies in one or more of these areas. Take your average jock, shave off a little height to make him average, give him hair that’s seriously outgrown whatever style it was cut in, four days of scruff, clothes that are two to three sizes too big, let him eat crap and shield him from UV light for two months while he lounges on his couch, have him pronounce the ‘t’ in ‘exactly’, and I’ll show you someone a girl won’t touch with a 10-foot pole. The problem with most nerds is not that they lost the genetic lottery, but they have absolutely no idea how unattractive some of their habits are and have to deal with the activation energy necessary to start habits that most ‘jocks’ have had ingrained in their lifestyle since puberty (like exercise). If you’ve been wearing baggy jeans (fit over ski boot baggy) your whole life, you may not understand that tighter jeans (~3 inches of leeway at the calf) look fantastically better despite feeling perhaps wrong and uncomfortable. If you don’t feel like shaving every day, just do your neck; people WILL observe that and note your deliberate facial hair style. Physical attractiveness is, in addition to facial symmetry and proper proportions, about tasteful mastery of one’s physical space. If you are instead mastered [by the second law of thermodynamics], you won’t be attractive.

      All of these changes (minus height) can be tackled by those observant and intelligent enough to gauge their impact. Still, sheer g does not change habits, but it *can* provide the tools for understanding one’s own psychology (with the side-effect of better understanding others’ psychology) to determine how to overcome weakness of will (à la putting the alarm clock across the room). Many high school nerds eventually learn the ropes in college or soon after, and the only ones left identifiable *as nerds* are the ones who can’t (are too stupid) or won’t (are too lazy/complacent) [to] face the changes necessary to improve their lot. Stupidity and laziness are both contraindications for a job or promotion, so it’s little surprise that these people don’t end up particularly socially successful, nor should they. A nerd at 20 has every potential to change things; a nerd at 35 deserves everything he gets.

      Also, if you want to know the (esp. physical) characteristics of an attractive man, ask a small sample of gay men into tops or with fetishes for straight men. You’ll get the honest, naked truth (and not the vague bullshit most women will give you like “a good sense of humor”), though you might want to bring pen and paper so it’s obvious you’re taking notes and not being flirty.

      SebZear

      June 18, 2013 at EST pm

      • But you’re right for women, at least, but…good looking women will have developed social skills simply as a result of being good looking women.

        Jan Smuts

        June 19, 2013 at EST pm

      • “But you’re right for women, at least, but…good looking women will have developed social skills simply as a result of being good looking women.”

        Unlike good looking men, good looking women get big advantages. I know plenty of models that barely finished high school (not all of them, especially the Russian girls, which tend to start modeling very early), and they get a life of glamor. The best have big exclusive contracts (very stable) and get flown to exotic places for shoots. The second tier models do castings all day long. It’s still a life of smile to the camera. A lot of the are so stupid that they wouldn’t even think about how to improve their poses, don’t know how to eat right, and are lazy (instead of going to the gym, they do “yoga”). The stupid and unmotivated ones drop out early because of these issues. Nevertheless, they all tend to have well to do boyfriends (some sugar daddies) that fly them around in vacation. Even after modeling, they can score bullshit jobs much easier than the uglier girls. Plus, on the dating scene they do much better as well — the only problem there is that nowadays people don’t get married and they usually don’t get that kind of stability. Good life while it lasts.

        Zack

        June 19, 2013 at EST pm

    • Very wrong (I think).

      It may come as a surprise or more despair, I dunno. I remember one high school teacher suggested I’d become the next Heff. Why? Because I was so good looking. AND IT HAS BEEN TOTALLY USELESS.

      I look like a cross between the young Andrew McCarthy, William Hurt, James Van der Beek, and John Cleese. Tall, broad shouldered, and VERY NE Euro.

      Jan Smuts

      June 19, 2013 at EST pm

      • Sorry, very NW Euro, I meant.

        Looks haven’t done me ANY good. But maybe I’m just an Aspi as destructure has suggested.

        My experience…lots and lots of girls have thrown themselves at me, but the ones I liked were indifferent, at best. LIVE with that.

        Jan Smuts

        June 19, 2013 at EST pm

    • “It’s quite remarkable to be ponder just how useless intelligence is with respect to attaining any degree of social success or even a measure of overall happiness in life. THAT is the hidden truth that dumb people understand and smart people don’t.”

      You’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater – in several ways. First of all, intelligence is correlated with physical attractiveness. Smarter people tend to be better looking.

      Second, studies have shown that richer people are happier (without any plateau). Obviously again, intelligence is correlated with wealth.

      And finally, IQ is correlated with health, so…

      JayMan

      June 22, 2013 at EST pm

      • Smarter people tend to be better looking?

        Last time we checked, high IQ Asians, especially Asian men were considered less attractive in the looks department.

        High IQ linked to good health?

        White gentiles are generally healthier than pure bred Ashkenazi Jews.

        JS

        June 22, 2013 at EST pm

      • “Smarter people tend to be better looking?

        Last time we checked, high IQ Asians, especially Asian men were considered less attractive in the looks department.”

        Looks tend to marry up and nowadays smarts tend to marry up too. It’s a matter of time before they meet.

        Asians only recently started to make strides in terms of class.

        Zack

        June 22, 2013 at EST pm

      • Jews in Israel are a mix bag. Besides the Ashkenazim, you have a large population of Sephardim and the Mizarahim Jews. These are the Jews whose origins are from Spain, North Africa and the Middle East. The Ashkenazim are gradually diluting their genes as they intermarry with non-European Jews in Israel, thus creating healthier and perhaps better looking individuals. Then you have the diet factor, where the Ashkenazim in Israel have now embraced the Mediterrean diet, and no longer eat a large dose of bland and unhealthy Eastern European fare that they were accustomed to.

        American Ashkenazis, for the most part do not seem as physically fit and healthy as White gentiles.

        JS

        June 23, 2013 at EST am

      • “Looks tend to marry up and nowadays smarts tend to marry up too. It’s a matter of time before they meet.

        Asians only recently started to make strides in terms of class”.

        Wrong, as I see many attractive Hispanic women and a few attractive Black women who stay in the ghettos as single moms with kids born out of wedlock.

        Asians are the least physically attractive group, because unlike others, they do not have any significant amount of Caucasian strain in their genes, and we are living in a world of Western beauty. This could be another reason as to why Asians are so adamant about intermarrying with Whites so they can have mixed race kids.

        JS

        June 23, 2013 at EST am


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: