proponents of ethnic and racial differences in the past have been targets of censorship, violence, and comparisons to Nazis. Large swaths of the intellectual landscape have been reengineered to try to rule these hypotheses out a priori (race does not exist, intelligence does not exist, the mind is a blank slate…) Steven Pinker – The Edge Annual Question – 2006. “What is your dangerous idea?”
Reading through the literature on colorism has reminded me of a vexing problem. Quite a few people (in and outside of academia) seem to be 1) unaware of the phenotypic ethnoracial disparities in GMA, 2) unaware of the predictivity of GMA, 3) unaware of the biological basis of GMA, and 4) putting 1-3 together, unaware that these stubborn differences are the proximate causes of much socioeconomic disparity.
This ignorance has obviously been manufactured. And this makes it impossible to explain that the racial discrimination in the US is against Whites (and Asians) and for Blacks (and Hispanics).
The following points need to be established:
1) African Americans and Hispanic-Americans* are psychometrically “inferior”** to European Americans with respect to GMA
2) The above psychometric “inferiority” corresponds to a biological “inferiority.”
3) The above biological “inferiority” (genetically mediated or not) is the proximate cause of a substantial portion of the racial “disparity.”
4) The racial discrimination in the US is for African Americans and Hispanic-Americans (NAMS) and against White people and people deemed White enough.
5) 1-4 are indisputable. The empirical evidence is overwhelming.
* I no longer see any reason to qualify this with the phrases “on average” or “statistically speaking.” Leftists etc., purposely conflate the terms. Let them go out of their way to establish the distinctions.
**using leftist backed common parlance. Refer above.
To facilitate this, compendiums of readily citable articles need to be complied
A. Magnitude of the GMA gap (GMA = general mental ability*)
Roth et al., 2001. Ethnic group differences in cognitive ability and educational setting: A meta-analysis
Roth, Bobko, and Huffcut, 2003. Ethnic Group Differences in Measures of Job Performance: A New Meta-Analysis
Roth, 2010. Updating the trainability tests literature on black-white subgroup differences and reconsidering criterion-related validity.
Sackett and Shen, 2008. Subgroup differences on Cognitive tests in contests other than personal selection
B-W gap summary in standardized scores:
Overall job performance [d= .46,corrected]; GPA [d = .39]; Military and Industrial applicants [d = .6-1.1]; IQ/g [d= 1.2, adult]; GRE [d = .99]; LSAT [d = 1.23]; SAT [d = 1]; trainability [d = varying (e.g, IRS tech d = .8 -1.2; engineering assistant d = .4-.8 ]); work knowledge [d =.5]; differences in neuropsychiatric assessments [d = Varying (e.g BNT d = 1); visual spatial abilities [d = .5]; academic achievement tests [d = .6 – .8]; rates of Mild MR [d = .66, Florida]. Rates in crime [d = 1,between urban males Whitney (1990)].
B. Predictive validity of the GMA gap
Schmidt and Hunter, 2004. General Mental Ability in the World of Work: Occupational Attainment and Job Performance
Kuncel and Hezlett, 2007. Standardized tests predict graduate students’ success
C. Biological basis of differences in GMA/g
Gottfredson, 2010. Intelligence and social inequality: Why the biological link?
Recent representative studies
Karama, et al., 2009. Positive association between cognitive ability and cortical thickness in a representative US sample of healthy 6 to 18 year-olds
Karama et al., 2011. Cortical thickness correlates of specific cognitive performance accounted for by the general factor of intelligence in healthy children aged 6 to 18
D. Attempts to get around the GMA gap
Sacket, et al, 2001. High-stakes testing in employment, credentialing, and higher education:
Prospects in a post-affirmative-action world
See: Strategies for Achieving Diversity Without Minority Preference
McDaniel, 2009. Gerrymandering in personnel selection: A review of practice
Schmitt and Quinn, 2010. Reduction in Measured Subgroup Mean Differences: What is possible?
*In I-O, GMA (general mental ability) is often used instead of g (general intelligence.) Part of the reason is to avoid the manufactured controversy about general intelligence and to avoid nibbling criticisms.
Within populations, GMA gaps are equivalent to g gaps. Between populations, no psychometric method has been developed which can unequivocally prove that the GMA gaps are g gaps (i,e. prove Spearman’s hypothesis) Convergent evidence from neurology and industrial organization leave little doubt. Nonetheless, to circumvent criticisms, the gaps are often referred to as “g-loaded” (in the psychometric literature) or as being “GMA” gaps (in the I-O literature.)