Lion of the Blogosphere

Innate ability vs. the benefit of financially well-off parents

Read this NY Times op-ed by David Leonhardt.

The chart that shows patents per 1000 for those who had top 5% math scores as 3rd graders, broken down by parental income, shows the very huge advantage of having rich well-off parents. This is something that a lot of people in the HBD-sphere, as well as the libertarian types, have been in denial about.

Even dumb kids (bottom 25%) have a chance of getting into a good STEM career track if their parents are in the top quintile, but practically a zero percent chance if their parents are in the bottom three quintiles.

More needs to be said about the breakdowns by race and sex. We need to remember that people will NOT have any opportunity to have their names on patents unless they major in STEM and go into a STEM career.

Girls and boys do equally well in math until girls reach puberty, at which time the boys zoom ahead. I have always believed (as do some of the best people who study this topic) that the biological impact of puberty on girls stunts the development of the mathematical parts of their brain. So this means that girls who are in the top 5% when they are in the 3rd grade will probably NOT be in the top 5% when they are in high school. And thus they are less likely to major in math-heavy STEM in college and beyond. I also have the theory that girls simply find STEM boring.

We see that Asians, who love STEM, file the most patents. It’s possible that the rare black kid who scores in the top 5% in math sees better opportunities in non-STEM fields because of affirmative action, and that’s why there is lower than expected black representation.

* * *

In case it’s not absolutely clear, having your name on a patent does NOT mean you’re an Einstein or an Edison, it means that you have a job at a big corporation that files a lot of patents. Sure, it’s a much better job than working at Walmart or in fast food, or for that matter most crappy office jobs, but as a value creation job it will top out probably near $200K/year (although you could very easily have your name on a patent and only have a 5-figure job) and never make the real money that value transference people in investment banking and venture capital are making.

* * *

fortaleza84 writes in a comment:

It’s difficult to measure what the study is trying to measure, but it’s clear just from simple observation that if you want to hit it big, it helps a lot to be from a wealthy family. If you are from a wealthy family, you can take risks that others cannot afford to take.

This doesn’t seem clear to a lot of libertarian and HBD commenters.

Regarding what the study thinks its measuring, the people involved may stupidly not realize a name on a patent only means that you have a certain type of STEM job, and not that you are some kind of great inventor.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

December 5, 2017 at 7:25 AM

Posted in Biology

72 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. The study assumes that a math test taken in third grade in NYC public schools (private schools weren’t included) captures 100% of the genetic differences that contribute to one’s propensity to obtain patents as an adult. This is, of course, a ludicrous proposition. For example, an innate interest in STEM versus non-STEM careers plays a big role but wasn’t considered. Also, because of measurement error, a top 5% math score is much more likely to genuinely reflect top 5% math ability if you’re an Asian from a wealthy family rather than a black from a poor family. Also, third grade is too early to reliably measure later ability. In fact, 8th grade READING scores in that study explained patents much better than 3rd grade math scores.

    The study in question is not different from any number of other social science studies that fail to control for genetic differences. It’s interesting how Lion becomes a blank slatist whenever a study seems to support his quasi-Marxist class obsessions.


    December 5, 2017 at 7:55 AM

    • There are probably 20 things wrong with this “study” but we can start with the title : “Lost Einsteins: The Innovations We’re Missing”

      As Lion says “In case it’s not absolutely clear, having your name on a patent does NOT mean you’re an Einstein or an Edison, it means that you have a job at a big corporation that files a lot of patents.”
      That is totally correct- I have a few patents and its because I worked for a big corporation. There was nothing earth shattering about what we did and we would have designed the features regardless if there was a patent issues ( which takes place years later).

      I was working with a friend on a project and we were spitballing some possible feature enhancements. He was in a different BU than I was where they had a focus on racking up as many applications as possible. So he said “hey we could file on this” which never was on my radar. A few meetings with the IP lawyers and we were done. We each got maybe $1K and thats all our part was in getting a patent.

      So there were no “Einsteins” involved. Except maybe in trying proof read the IP lawyers text.
      And nothing was “lost”- we, and our company, did exactly what we were going to do anyway regardless if there was a patent filing.

      Patent applications may be an indirect measure of something but not what they claim.

      The Leonhardt (as usual) and Chettrey analysis is all wrong.

      Lion o' the Turambar

      December 5, 2017 at 8:36 AM

      • “Patent applications may be an indirect measure of something but not what they claim.”

        It’s a measure of having the sort of job like you had.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        December 5, 2017 at 8:45 AM

  2. Maybe the Afrocentrists were right after all. Intelligence isn’t so useful if one doesn’t have a shot at being fairly credited in exchange for the value of one’s labor. All of the most “intelligent” regions, just like individuals, simply have ties to the most prestigious law firms and establishment politicians. Intelligence by itself has no value, and in fact it has a negative value in advanced society which is only getting worse.

    The dirty secret of eugenics is that IQ is only valuable in primitive environments where everyone is doing the same basic tasks. IQ lets you do the same tasks, just better and faster. But civilization is harmful to IQ because it traps the most intelligent in tasks specialized to extract their value without fair credit, and all of the prestige goes to those who seek power over truth instead. Elite corporate careers are designed to liquidate the intellectuals and leave them childless, which is also reflected in that map.

    There’s simply an allotted amount of time a culture has after it leaves the jungle to do great works before it becomes stupid again and returns to the jungle. The leftist demand for equality is a subconscious desire to hasten the return to a simpler era when IQ had a positive return on assets. Islam gets this and it holds up exceedingly well in all stages of a civilization, accounting for asabiyyah.

    Anonymous Fake

    December 5, 2017 at 8:03 AM

    • “Elite corporate careers are designed to liquidate the intellectuals and leave them childless, which is also reflected in that map”

      America is the most anti-intellectual of the industrialized nations. This was established a long time ago. French intellectuals who visited the US understood that Americans were forced to become gears in a matrix, and they will become even less human as we progress in the 21st century,


      December 5, 2017 at 8:49 AM

      • “America is the most anti-intellectual of the industrialized nations.”

        So you have said every day for the last several years. I suppose it might be true, but I have not lived among proles in other countries so do not know. A German once insisted that the average European goes home from work and watches TV just like the average American.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        December 5, 2017 at 8:52 AM

      • I look at our social programs and benefits that help educated people “self actualize” in America. As we know it, self actualization is a long process, and our social welfare is stingy and it forces people to take on jobs that have no meaning, just a paycheck that pays for living expenses. Furthermore, our higher education is very cost prohibitive, which also forces most people to study a “vocational” subject to payback the high educational costs.


        December 5, 2017 at 9:23 AM

      • Europe has a rich and complex cultural legacy which was bequeathed to today’s Europeans. That legacy is vital to the European identity, including European offshoot civilizations like the US. However, if you’re suggesting that today’s European is particularly cultivated or civilized a compared to North Americans, Australians, etc.then I’d like to see some evidence for it More specifically, I’d lke to hear about the literature they write and read, the music they compose and perform, the buildings they design and erect. I’m talking about today’s Europeans, not their ancestors.

        I remember lying on the bed in a hotel room between the Piazza del Popolo and the Piaza di Spagna in 2004. Surrounded by one of the most beautfully textured streetscapes in the world, I watched on TV an advertisement for a new housing complex in the suburbs of Rome.

        There was a lake, or lakes, and on the water mini-speedboats piloted by crash-helmeted drivers criss-crossed each other, made sharp, swervering, nearly colliding turns, and flew up ramps and into the air, where they soared through flaming hoops (not kidding). All the while, a manic announcer who sounded like he’d snorted about eight lines of coke a few moments earlier rattled off a stattaco euphusion of enthusiasm for the irresistable interior and exterior features of the crap apartments on the water’s edge. The place looked like a third rate attempt at a residential Disneyworld

        That, my friend, is contemporary Italy. .

        ice hole

        December 5, 2017 at 10:27 AM

      • Ice Hole — Are you also suggesting that America and the Anglosphere in general, share the same aesthetic qualities of Italy, old and new? We’re talking about cultivation here.


        December 5, 2017 at 11:11 AM

      • is it better to be anti-intellectual or pseudo-intellectual, like french people and HBDers?

        Saint Diogenes of Hiroshima

        December 5, 2017 at 9:37 PM

      • I doubt the United States ever had the proportion of working class autodidacts that Europe once had. The American equivalent of the autodidact is a commercial one – the “self-made man”, like a Horatio Alger hero, self-made more in capitalistic rather than intellectual terms. Unfortunately, I think anti-intellectualism has been one of our most successful exports, and Europeans are becoming (or already are) just as shallow and materialistic as most of our compatriots.

        Mister Triple 800

        December 7, 2017 at 10:25 AM

  3. ‘Sure, it’s a much better job than working at Walmart or in fast food, or for that matter most crappy office jobs, but as a value creation job it will top out probably near $200K/year and never make the real money that value transference people in investment banking and venture capital are making.’

    Yeah, that’s a good job, but money just isn’t enough. There is a huge in between stratum of successfully business operators that make enough, but not the wall street money of course. So it’s not like you gotta be a banker or you ain’t gonna make it.

    The guy for whom I did a job on Sunday wore a nice pair of glasses. I asked him how much? $700! I’m not spending this amount. When you can afford the glasses you like for yourself and your whole family, which should be like 6-8 people, you are OK. So let’s do this math together : 700×8=$5,600. Pretty good rule of thumb, I think.

    I’m gonna try to get something online. Maybe there is a good deal for the little guy?


    December 5, 2017 at 8:23 AM

    • Eyeglasses cost that much. Or you can buy them from Zenni Optical for a fraction of the price.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      December 5, 2017 at 8:43 AM

      • Let them cost whatever, when you can afford them, you are good, that’s my point. Of course I assumed that everyone needs glasses like in a typical Jewish family, Gentiles have better eyesight, so they get a brake here. Also, kids break glasses, so $5,000 a year can be conservative.

        Never heard of Zenni, gonna check them out, thanks.


        December 5, 2017 at 9:28 AM

      • Eyeglasses, purchased at a store, in the United States, are ridiculously expensive.

        Zenni makes the glasses in China, and then ships them to the United States, so you save massive money. If you don’t want to wait for the slow shipping, you can pay for one-day shipping from China for an extra $20, still a heck of a lot cheaper than $700 glasses assembled in the USA (from frames and lenses made in China anyway).

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        December 5, 2017 at 9:39 AM

      • Glasses are super expensive because of a monopoly with most brands owned by Luxottica including the eye doctors and most glasses stores. Zenni Optical and other online glasses websites reflects the true costs of glasses manufacturing. Warby Parker is the notable exception of the Zenni business model by being way more expensive then Zenni at ~$100/$150 dollars glasses, but also offer branding and follow fashion trends. But when Luxottica is charging $700, even $150 glasses becomes a deal.


        December 5, 2017 at 1:17 PM

      • Do you pay half price for one of those German-style monocles?



        December 5, 2017 at 3:44 PM

      • [[Gentiles have better eyesight]]

        can anyone confirm this?

        if so my mom must have had an affair with a dorky attorney.


        December 5, 2017 at 7:09 PM

    • My bottom of the barrel specs for less glasses were about $350. I have really bad vision (-7.5) not sure if that impacts the price.


      December 5, 2017 at 12:09 PM

      • high index of refraction lenses to make strong prescriptions thinner jacks up the price a lot

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        December 5, 2017 at 12:50 PM

      • That is expensive. What contributes to the price most? I’ve got glasses with titanium frame, lenses about a half of your refraction index, sort of UV filtering, reflection reduction and whatever for about 160 – 170 USD.
        But this is Eastern Europe.


        December 5, 2017 at 1:33 PM

    • I wear reading glasses (just turned 53). I have bought $7 glasses at Walmart for about the last 7 years. I finally went to the optometrist, got my eyes checked, and got bifocals (I got tired of glancing over the top of the glasses at inopportune times). They were in the $700 range, but my insurance paid for all but about $70.

      But they are 1) bifocals, and 2) blended (with a gradually varying magnification rather than a distinct line between reading glass bottom and clear glass top). the blending makes me nauseous.

      So I stick to the $7 glasses from Walmart, and glance over the top.

      And a $700 pair of glasses doesn’t necessarily cost the owner $700.



      December 5, 2017 at 1:53 PM

      • I recommend buying some reading glasses from Zenni, much better quality than Walmart glasses for only a few dollars more.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        December 5, 2017 at 3:16 PM

      • Went to the Zenni site. No mention of any non-prescription reading glasses, just frames. So Walmart’s deal at $5.88 is still the only deal in town for that particular item.


        December 6, 2017 at 1:34 PM

      • ALL the glasses ate Zenni don’t require a doctor’s prescription, just create your own prescription with the correct + diopters.

        The Walmart glasses are crappy uncoated non-optical plastic. The Zennis for a few more dollars are way better glasses.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        December 6, 2017 at 2:13 PM

    • this is because americans would prefer to be poor than to pay higher taxes.

      Saint Diogenes of Hiroshima

      December 5, 2017 at 9:35 PM

      • Ain’t that the truth…

        Mister Triple 800

        December 7, 2017 at 10:27 AM

  4. The article says that the following are predictors of invention productivity: high 3rd grade math scores, high parental income, race, sex, geography.

    The unwritten assumption is that the math scores should be more reliable measures of future success. High-scoring kids with poor parents are considered likely to be “lost Einsteins”. You might think this if 3rd grade math is an IQ test, and IQ is an immutable and reliable measure of potential.

    However the child of rich parents may have inherited many useful talents that have not yet shown up in 3rd grade scores. Some poor kids might do well in 3rd grade because they have been taught well to sit still and pay attention, and not because they have long term potential.


    December 5, 2017 at 8:32 AM

    • “However the child of rich parents may have inherited many useful talents that have not yet shown up in 3rd grade scores.”

      Does that apply to why Asians have the most patents per capita? Asians inherited many useful talents that have not yet shown up in 3rd grade scores?

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      December 5, 2017 at 8:47 AM

      • None of this matters, because in our American system, value transference, capitalists are here to rape the fruits from value creators of their hard work.

        Do we expect East Asia to eclipse the West in terms of technology and science? It doesn’t appear to be the case.


        December 5, 2017 at 8:54 AM

      • Maybe East Asia has already eclipsed us, but Americans make the profit from it because of value transference.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        December 5, 2017 at 8:56 AM

      • Do Asians have well-off parents?


        December 5, 2017 at 9:31 AM

      • “Do Asians have well-off parents?”

        It depends. There are a lot of Chinese Asians with poor parents who work in Chinese restaurants.

        But “Asians” from India have more money because they all came here on H1B visas and work in IT.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        December 5, 2017 at 9:41 AM

      • I think the Soviet system was better, it would promote talent from the masses.


        December 5, 2017 at 9:46 AM

      • Lion. I would not say that Indians from “well off” parents migrate here. It’s mostly middle class or lower middle class. Sure there are exceptions as some could have very poor or very rich, but mostly middle class.

        Rich people would not be enticed to live here in the US. Even middle class Indians get used to chauffeurs, servants cooking, cleaning, doing chores around the house. You would lose all that when you come to usa. Gotta do everything yourself.


        December 5, 2017 at 10:41 AM

      • ‘I think the Soviet system was better, it would promote talent from the masses.’

        True, I think spassky came from a relatively poor family.


        December 5, 2017 at 12:13 PM

      • almost 100% of these studies are done on chillens. HBDers always complain yet simultaneously claim IQ tests are reliable past age 18 or whatever even though there’s almost zero data. sad!

        Saint Diogenes of Hiroshima

        December 5, 2017 at 9:32 PM

  5. I have my name on a patent without being in a STEM career. One difference today is the legal costs for getting a patent are higher.

    Dave Pinsen

    December 5, 2017 at 9:11 AM

  6. It’s difficult to measure what the study is trying to measure, but it’s clear just from simple observation that if you want to hit it big, it helps a lot to be from a wealthy family. If you are from a wealthy family, you can take risks that others cannot afford to take.


    December 5, 2017 at 9:42 AM

  7. Self-control and emotional regulation are arguably more important than intelligence for success.

    Parents who stick together suggest as a stable environment and/or suggest transmission of genes that promote emotional stability.


    December 5, 2017 at 10:03 AM

    • Given the fact that two children both score in the top 5 percent, the child from the wealthy family is probably smarter and more industrious than the child from the poorer family. Of course it’s better to be wealthy, but let’s not assume this study is really separating out genetic from ses effects.


      December 5, 2017 at 11:39 AM

  8. In my experience, girls who are exceptionally good at math are both rarer than boys and less interested in the question of how to make money with their math skills than boys. For example, I knew a girl who decided to major in English and despite probably being 4+ SD’s above the mean in natural math ability (she trivially accomplished a perfect score on the SAT math, for example.) I also remember her ability to wear cute outfits at work being very important in her choice of career.

    But a lot of very intelligent people don’t know how to apply that intelligence to making money, or anything practical. A classic example is Wall Street quants. Wall Street guys would often bring in Ph.D’s in math or physics and see how they took to the financial stuff. If you can handle upper-level math, then applying that math to financial concepts should be trivial.

    But about half the rocket scientists took to finance easily, while the rest lived in a realm of pure theory and struggled to apply their math to anything in the real world.

    Sometimes high IQ can bias you towards preferring to think about situations where all or most variables are knowable. Things like pure math, chess, etc. Such people can be paralyzed when presented with too many variables. People with lower IQs accept that many variables are unknowable so adopt heuristics to deal with that. Often the heuristics they come up with are completely bogus, but they at least allow them to make a decision and move on.


    December 5, 2017 at 11:24 AM

    • “Often the heuristics they come up with are completely bogus, but they at least allow them to make a decision and move on.”

      Indeed. Indecision can be worse than the wrong decision.


      December 5, 2017 at 5:05 PM

    • This sounds an awful lot like my sister. Effortless perfect scores in anything math and stem related, but utterly uninterested in any profit from it. I’ve never been interested in making money either.


      December 5, 2017 at 6:49 PM

    • “Such people can be paralyzed when presented with too many variables.”

      I believe this is called “analysis paralysis.”


      December 5, 2017 at 10:47 PM

    • It seems to me that the more intelligent you are, the more cerebral you may be, and consequently less materialistic. People who are not single-minded about getting rich are not going to fit in on Wall Street, not that there’s anything wrong with that. It’s something business types (not to mention their admirers) seem incapable of understanding.

      Mister Triple 800

      December 7, 2017 at 10:44 AM

  9. My theory of social science studies: all of them are flawed until proven otherwise. Mr. Leonhardt clearly knows nothing of science or the process of patenting inventions. As Lion, correctly pointed out, this is merely a proxy for whether someone works at a technology company that files for patents.

    But, let’s look at the proposed solutions:

    1. “We can stop showering huge tax breaks on the affluent and reinvest the money where it’s needed. We can work to narrow educational inequities. Yet the new research also suggests there is one simpler approach to try.” So, things that have been tried repeatedly since the 1960’s and have repeatedly failed. Progressives just cannot imagine that throwing more money at something can lead to increasingly marginal diminishing returns and be ineffective.

    2. “Chetty thinks it’s one of the most striking patterns in the data. Children who grow up exposed to a particular type of invention or inventor are far more likely to follow that path. Growing up around patent holders for, say, amplifiers makes someone far more likely to become an amplifier-related inventor. Similarly, girls who grow up in areas with a lot of female patent holders — like central New Jersey (a biotech hub) or Honolulu — are more likely to become inventors.

    Recreating these social networks and role models elsewhere won’t be easy, but it is surely worth trying, given the stakes. There is an opportunity for foundations, universities and companies to cultivate lost Einsteins and help turn them into potential innovators.”

    I’d like to get paid to write nonsense like this. For starters, maybe 20% of college-bound kids have the necessary ability to get the basic STEM education needed to be an inventor at a large tech company. What’s really needed is for the parents to be smart or to be dumb, but know that they’re dumb, and encourage their children to be better. If you are a single parent household, you don’t have the time or energy to do this if you’re poor. Since it’s impossible to say that parents of minorities don’t know how to raise their children, we are left with “recreating social networks,” i.e. somehow recreate a family environment. Won’t work. External role models insufficient.


    December 5, 2017 at 11:48 AM

  10. “I have always believed (as do some of the best people who study this topic) that the biological impact of puberty on girls stunts the development of the mathematical parts of their brain. ”

    Adolescence causes tremendous brain growth in both boys and girl’s brains but in different directions. Testosterone causes male brains to become better in spatial and mathematical tasks. Physics & math are said to be to some male brains as athleticism is to others.

    Lost Einsteins, I have to laugh. I think the Holocaust probably did more to destroy potential Einsteins, and the current low white (and especially Jewish) birthrates. Instead of trying to create more female math geniuses, they should encourage smart girls to have smart sons. Every male genius had a mother.


    December 5, 2017 at 11:48 AM

  11. “biological impact of puberty on girls stunts the development of the mathematical parts of their brain”

    I don’t buy it. The reason disparities develop in high school is because the math gets more difficult. You see the same drop around fifth grade in AAs.

    I’ve known a number of women gifted in math and if anything they grew stronger intellectually past puberty. My sister double majored in math ‘for fun’ in college but never really did anything with it. She may fall in the category of finding a stem career boring.

    I’ve always been god awful at math. I think it’s something you’re either born with or you’re not, kind of like a talent for chess.There is only so far you can go on sheer studying.


    December 5, 2017 at 11:56 AM

    • i wasn’t in the smart math class until after puberty, and i was a man until recently when i transitioned into an HBDer.

      Saint Diogenes of Hiroshima

      December 5, 2017 at 9:26 PM

  12. To the extent that either third grade math scores or patent applications per capita are useful measures of anything, what this study actually teaches us is that having lots of family money is NOT VERY IMPORTANT and barely gets you to the starting line: The RICHEST dumb kids barely pulled even with the POOREST smart kids, and results diverged from there.

    It’s kind of like how the RICHEST black kids can barely match the POOREST white kids on the SAT, and performance diverges from there. See:

    There is no controlling here for the fact that poor smart kids might rationally and reasonably choose other career paths given their family circumstances (i.e. something that pays better than R&D engineering, and more quickly), or the possibility that poor smart kids might be hobbled by inherited non-intelligence mental traits that made their parents poor: tendencies to mental illness, alcoholism, crime, etc., which makes them less likely to pursue STEM careers.

    Ben Kurtz

    December 5, 2017 at 12:43 PM

    • Maybe you read the chart wrong. Same top 5% math score, top quintile kids are four times as likely to have their name on a patent as bottom quintile kids. Pretty huge difference.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      December 5, 2017 at 1:05 PM

      • But there’s another comparison in the same chart that you’re not making: The RICHEST “low math score” kids get 1.2 patents per 1,000, while the POOREST “high math score” kids also get 1.2 patents per 1,000. Or, to make essentially the same point — comparing ACROSS the smart and dumb kid columns — in your preferred terms: ‘Same top quintile family income, high scoring kids are five times as likely to have their name on a patent as low scoring kids (6.5 vs. 1.2). Pretty huge difference.’

        Money and smarts seem to have equal and independent multiplier effects.

        Aside from ignoring the possibility that family money is simply a proxy for possession of non-intelligence (heritable) behavioral traits that help with success in STEM careers (which would imply that spending government money in lieu of family money would lead to disappointment), the other misleading point in the NYTimes op-ed is the omission of incidence rates: If you were a good coastal liberal, you might come away from that piece with the naive assumption that there were equally many rich and poor top scoring kids, and that there were therefore a goodly number of “lost Einsteins” let down by the American educational system. But this would be the wrong conclusion. High scoring children tend to appear disproportionately in well-off families. The op-ed scrupulously avoids mentioning this, and in so doing leaves the reader with the impression that the “problem,” as it were, is far more common than it is.

        We have far better things to spend tax dollars on than cloning all the people living in the Central NJ biotech corridor and plopping them around the U.S. in an absurd attempt to increase the participation rate of women in STEM (which is what the writer appears to be proposing in the third to last paragraph). We could instead spend all that money on building the Wall and deporting all the illegals — but that’s the last thing that Mr. Leonhardt would want, of course.

        Ben Kurtz

        December 5, 2017 at 4:03 PM

  13. In France it’s good to be a parent lawyer . They are 400. The business is 600M euros. It flows, for 75%, from certifying translations ! On average they make 500k. They don’t work much more than 2000 hours a year . Every hour is more than billed (thx to translations ) . The name of the trade is Counsel of intellectual property. Most fill patent only for corporate brochure .


    December 5, 2017 at 1:25 PM

  14. OT example of nature vs nurture:

    Take a look at Arnold Schwarznegger’s family; specifically the contrast between his pudgy son Christopher and his muscular son Joseph.

    Christopher is overweight, but probably has some good qualities. The University of Michigan is a difficult school to get into.

    I speculate that Christopher spent a lot of time with his Dad growing up and resented him for being overbearing, so chose nerdy pursuits to break away from his Dad’s activities, while his illegitimate son Joseph grew up more distant from his father, wanted to emulate him and started lifting heavily.

    You can tell his son Patrick fell into a Hollywood crowd who he was influenced by.

    Peer effects are a powerful environmental influence.


    December 5, 2017 at 1:36 PM

  15. There are issues with this article.

    First, the data set that they use for the “measurement of all third graders” does not seem to be a national data set, but rather a local data set from NYC.

    I have no confidence that minority performance numbers are not fudged within the NYC school district, especially using old data, and given that the author’s focus on the top five percent of math performers this means that statistically small manipulations can have a fatal affect on the reliability of the article’s conclusions.

    Using a truly national data set, from a national test, would be much more reliable. Without a truly reliable data set, especially in-light of likely manipulation in regard to certain populations but perhaps not others, the paper is more or less worthless as far as inter-population outcome comparisons are concerned. Given that a national test did not exist at the time that the necessary data set needs to be drawn from, this paper is likely at least one generation premature from being reliable.

    Second, the political goal of the article is obvious, and the resulting suggested method to remedy the current situation toward that goal mirrors typical far Left fantastical agitation toward minority instant gratification.

    In other words, in spite of any innate math potential, human social reality typically does not reward low socieconomic status academic achievers with above average opportunity in the generation that they achieve it in. It generally takes at least two or more generations to remove all of the prole habits, manners, and values that stand in the way, from a young age, before society can make exceptional use of anyone’s raw cognitive horsepower (ie: their kids realize increased advantage as a result of disadvantaged parents working on themselves). It’s not the rich kids family’s fault that the smart poor kid’s family did not know how to prepare him for application to an Ivy or public Ivy. This is the reality for everyone across all races.

    Assuming for an instant that there was no race based grade manipulation in the NYC school district at the time that the data was taken, the minor statistical difference that exists between white and minority achievement, and Asian and White achievement, is likely due to wider culture issues that are out of the government’s hands to control. I see no valid racial conclusions to be drawn from this study, except to point out that its definition of “white” is likely too broad and that, I predict, the readers of the NYT article will likely focus on the minimum white advantage to the exclusion of the more massive Asian advantage.


    December 5, 2017 at 1:42 PM

  16. Just because you’ve filed a patent, doesn’t mean it’s any good,


    December 5, 2017 at 2:01 PM

    • Love this clip, because it was almost literally the only time Sacha Baron Cohen wasn’t able to prank his foil. Trump outwitted him and walked away from the set and to this day Baron Cohen still becomes indignant when recalling this clip, of course the fact that Trump won the Presidency didn’t help matters much.


      December 5, 2017 at 4:53 PM

  17. The way data presented does not clearly demonstrate if conclusions made follow from the data analyzed. By the way, none of Einstein’s 50 patents were implemented in any products. I have 61% implementation rate so far, so I am more successful than Einstein. It is also interesting that my total compensation (at several year younger age than his) exceeds his total compensation (adjusted for inflation).

    My Two Cents

    December 5, 2017 at 3:07 PM

  18. It is also interesting that one of Enstein’s inventions was: “Design for a blouse”, US D101756 S. I am pretty sure that Weinstein could write something like this based on his experience too.

    My Two Cents

    December 5, 2017 at 3:08 PM

  19. it doesn’t matter what the facts are lion. libertarians and HBDers suffer from a mental illness known as “just-world-phenomenophrenia”. their minds are too weak to deal with the cognitive dissonance of an unjust world.

    ron burgundy

    December 5, 2017 at 3:50 PM

    • If the unjust world is anti-HBD, that can only mean that the injustice is enforced by violence that turns nature on its head. That’s fine, but it completely removes any moral platform to complain when a ‘just HBD world’ is inevitably enforced by violence. ie: the Third Reich or the gnostic revolution for the metaphysically ideal just order.

      You can have your injustice (ie: a temporary and unnatural order enforced by violence), or you can have nonviolence, but you can’t (and never will) have both.

      That’s the reality that it takes mental strength to conceive of and endure. The impermanence of the dominance of the morally weak who have temporary violent power.


      December 5, 2017 at 5:36 PM

      • human societies and institutions are man made. they are not made by God or Nature.

        but HBDers are so stupid they can’t see this simple fact that every 2 year old knows.

        take your haldol and call me in the morning.

        Saint Diogenes of Hiroshima

        December 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM

  20. There really is no meritocracy and it is easy to see why: rich people do not want the smart kids of poor people competing with their kids or undermining the networks they established with other families.

    That is why having wealthy parents is a massive edge in a competitive economy. There is no amount of schooling or ability that will overcome this edge.


    December 5, 2017 at 4:22 PM

  21. I’ve always found the logic of this stem stuff to be very interesting.

    Making money in technology is about selling product to people who don’t understand the technology and don’t care. Nobody buys a car or an iphone because they appreciate the underlying physics and engineering. They buy to get from point A to point B or to send email and watch videos.

    Consequently, most tech work is basically a “user interface” type of advancement, where innovation is driven by changing the user experience of the lowest, most ignorant buyer of the technology. Meaning, roughly 50-70% of the technology is recycled.

    Consider a mass product like a For Mustang. Between 1979 and 2004, the most innovation went into things that the driver notices: appearances; speed and handling; fuel economy. Meanwhile, they recycled the same Ford Pinto chassis for 25 years, until the 2005 model, when they upgraded.

    It is easy to see, then, why most value creation tops out at a certain salary. Most of it is not value creation, but value recycling. Engineers are mostly recycling technology from product launch to product launch, while only changing things enough to entice the buyer at the buyer’s limited level of understanding. True value creation is very rare and most engineers aren’t doing that.


    December 5, 2017 at 4:37 PM

  22. The chart that shows patents per 1000 for those who had top 5% math scores as 3rd graders, broken down by parental income, shows the very huge advantage of having rich well-off parents. This is something that a lot of people in the HBD-sphere, as well as the libertarian types, have been in denial about.

    Regression towards the mean (measurement error type). Dumb people from lower ability families are more likely to actually be dumb rather than just simply having suffered a bad test day.

    Likewise, they are more likely to have non-IQ heritable traits that are less conducive to success (e.g., conscientiousness).

    There is no shared environment effect on adult income. Wealthy families just don’t have that kind of effect (beyond the effect of genes).


    December 5, 2017 at 5:40 PM

  23. Indians are on the opposite of the spectrum, whereby for them its always been standard practice to help their college kids to the max. But it’s becoming the thing to NOT help your kids, because it’s now fashionable to raise independent minded kids.


    December 5, 2017 at 5:50 PM

  24. even having parents who just help you get a job in any way is in many ways more beneficial than having parents with good salaries who cant, all else equal. id rather have parents who owned a corner shop that can say employed me as a “manager” or some b.s than a doctor parent with no connections who cant help me find work at all.

    james n.s.w

    December 5, 2017 at 7:16 PM

  25. This is purely speculative, I have never read a biography of any of the people involved, and if I did I would not know it the biography was true.

    It has been said that Reagan’s first wife left him because he was boring. Now, we all know that Reagan, whatever his IQ was, is the Platonic ideal of the sort of person who knows how to reason in a way that makes other people understand.

    And, they say, his first wife left him, high IQ or not, because he was boring. Well, being tall and handsome and rich, he quickly found another wife, and stayed married to her for half a century, and she helped him succeed at everything he tried – Corporate spokesperson, Governor of California, President of the US.

    But – there was a time when he must have know that the first woman he wanted to marry, out of all the women he, a Hollywood star, could have married, wanted to leave him because he was boring.

    I know lots of high-IQ people. They are not all that much brighter than low-IQ people, to tell the truth, the world is a complicated place and almost nobody has any better understanding of it, at the margins, than anybody else (with the exception of a very few very spiritual and religious people, who can have just about any IQ at or north of Downs’ syndrome and still be off the charts as far as understanding goes). The math whiz likes lousy jazz, the Ivy League lawyer does not know which wine to drink with which meal, the card shark does not understand jokes, and sure can’t tell one (a joke). Et cetera…

    So, innate ability – innate ability is worthless if you do not try to be interesting to other people (or, in prayer, to be interesting to your Lord and Creator, and his angels and archangels) – and parental money – parental money won’t make you feel better if your spouse wants to cry every night because you are boring. Now any one who is not afflicted with bad health or profound learning disabilities can avoid being boring – when you see a weak but healthy person, you know they could work out, lift weights – and no longer be weak – and when you see an intelligent boring person, you know they could assess themselves, and become better people, working on their social skills, in order to not be boring.

    True that. So, innate ability or parental cash? The better question is Angels, or Archangels? The Book of Proverbs has a few chapters devoted to the subject.

    howitzer daniel

    December 5, 2017 at 10:09 PM

  26. O/t – but related to farming. Many farmers have been victims of value transference, and are taking their own lives as a result.


    December 6, 2017 at 2:47 PM

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: