And one final point is that the workforce is placing a higher value on highly educated and/or highly intelligent knowledge workers and paying them out sized salaries.

I think that might end soon, though, Denis, once companies figure out they can get away with not paying them good money....hope I am wrong.

This guy is a vile/awful/racist piece of shit.

Yeah theyll just continue to pay women the 20% less or whatever it is for the same work and be fine.

I think that might end soon, though, Denis, once companies figure out they can get away with not paying them good money....hope I am wrong.

Since higher IQ people attend tougher universities (generally), and many college educated people meet their spouses in college, their offspring will have biologically determined higher IQ's reinforcing the income inequality trend.

That's just pants-on-head retarded.

Does he cite (actual) controlled and peer-reviewed scientific studies to back that up?

Will he be signing calipers after the show?

Yeah theyll just continue to pay women the 20% less or whatever it is for the same work and be fine.

That's just pants-on-head retarded.

Does he cite (actual) controlled and peer-reviewed scientific studies to back that up?

Sounds to me like superficial personal truth nonsense that, regardless of whether it's the intention of the statement, ends up being not entirely too far removed from Eugenics.

That's just pants-on-head retarded.

Does he cite (actual) controlled and peer-reviewed scientific studies to back that up?

Sounds to me like superficial personal truth nonsense that, regardless of whether it's the intention of the statement, ends up being not entirely too far removed from Eugenics.

"But (The Bell Curve) also argued that IQ tests are a better measure of human intelligence than numerous other experts believe, that intelligence is largely the result of inherited traits and that there is not much government can do to improve the outlook of people who are born less gifted cognitively than others. I objected to that book because I thought the authors were too quick to pin poverty, crime, welfare dependency, unwed pregnancies and a host of other social dysfunctions on low IQ — and too reluctant to account for countless other cultural, familial and environmental factors."

Interesting book, nonetheless. Murray's book about whites in the US is much better.

I'll preface this, with, you nmeed to read the book to come to conclusions.

His IQ discussion in Coming Apart starts in the chapter "The Foundations of the New Upper Class". It is under the subheading "Cognitive Stratifiation Among Colleges".

First Mean IQ of people completing the following:

No degree- 87
High School- 99
Assoc Degree- 104
BS- 113
MS- 117
PhD or similar like MD- 124

He uses that to show how people are self sorting where high educated high IQ people are marrying in large numbers than before 1960.

Then he goes into transmission of IQ's (genetics). He argues that a child's IQ is, on average, the average of his/her parents. If you mix two high IQ, you are very likely to have a high IQ person. There is a range around the parents average IQ for the expected offspring of the students. Empirical studies suggest he is correct.

You may hate or disagree with everything he writes, but you will find the data subsets fascinating. It is a top 5 eye opening book for me.

Well, he didn't do that at all in Coming Apart. He almost exclusively blames the divergence to be socially driven. Self sorting has resulted in less mixing of well off and not well off individuals and produced self reinforced intelligence and values among the top 5% of our country and the top 20% to some extent. He blames things like the decline in religion, devaluing of marriage, exclusive neighborhoods, declining universal values among other things.

I am not sure it explains everything with diverging outcomes, but it is the best explanation I have seen yet.

I strongly suspect that I don't "need" to read anything to come to any conclusions ... if someone told you to read Dianetics and take whatever horseshit testing before you could come to conclusions about Scientology, I'm gonna figure that you'd be briskly walking away before they reached the end of their sentence ... at least I'd hope so ffs.

All it is is his musings/guesses about what the story is - it's not empirically based, it's not peer-reviewed, it's not irreproachable fact, it's just his opinion, his theory. That's fine having that theory, there may even be shadows of truth in there, but that's all it is ... opinion.

From whence does his data come? Never mind that IQ and its measurements/tests are like a step above a lie-detector test insofar as accuracy and efficacy go ... is this home-grown data or does it come from informed, verified sources? There's other questions but I'm gonna end here so it doesn't turn into a sini/ltg post.

Suffice to say, I need not give it any more credence than I would any other unproven theory paraded about as though it's intellectually sound or "cutting edge" or whatever the hell brand of psuedo-scholarly snake oil he's peddling.

Empirical studies suggest he is correct.

Agree with that, I do.

I strongly suspect that I don't "need" to read anything to come to any conclusions ... if someone told you to read Dianetics and take whatever horseshit testing before you could come to conclusions about Scientology, I'm gonna figure that you'd be briskly walking away before they reached the end of their sentence ... at least I'd hope so ffs.

All it is is his musings/guesses about what the story is - it's not empirically based, it's not peer-reviewed, it's not irreproachable fact, it's just his opinion, his theory. That's fine having that theory, there may even be shadows of truth in there, but that's all it is ... opinion.

From whence does his data come? Never mind that IQ and its measurements/tests are like a step above a lie-detector test insofar as accuracy and efficacy go ... is this home-grown data or does it come from informed, verified sources? There's other questions but I'm gonna end here so it doesn't turn into a sini/ltg post.

Suffice to say, I need not give it any more credence than I would any other unproven theory paraded about as though it's intellectually sound or "cutting edge" or whatever the hell brand of psuedo-scholarly snake oil he's peddling.

As far as Dianetics goes, I love it more than bears like honey...