I read with great distress today the sad story of the young Texas girl that was abducted and murdered this week. Given that I have two teenage sons that are close in age to this woman, I can sympathize with the grief that the woman's family must be going through.
My interest in the case compelled me to click through several versions of the story on Google News. I read in some of the latest accounts of the case that a suspect had been arrested when he appeared at a hospital with a gun shot wound. A gun shot wound? More clicking... What's up with that?
Finally, I come across the Chicago Sun-Times version of the story that explains what the other stories did not (coincidence? I think not.) - "A man at the RV park told authorities he had shot a man who had pulled a gun on him and demanded money."
Thank God that this man was carrying a gun. Otherwise, not only might he have been this murder's next victim, but he would still be at large, probably killing and robbing other innocent people.
We are very lucky that we live in a country where law-abiding citizens can still carry guns.
Friday, January 21, 2005
Thursday, January 20, 2005
The Bell Curve
If you have an even passing familiarity with statistics, then you know that a bell curve is the graphical representation of a normal distribution. The peak of the curve represents the average value of the population, and the left tail are the low values while the right tail are the high values. There are usually equal numbers of people on the left and right of the curve.
You may also know that The Bell Curve is the title of a book published in 1994 by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray. The book is about how intelligence appears to play a central role in predicting how successful individuals fare in modern America. It describes the strong correlation between low intelligence and measures of social failure (welfare recipients, criminals, illegitimacy rates, and so forth). It became controversial (indeed, notorious) because it suggests that intelligence was largely immutable, and that there are differences in the distribution intelligence among various racial groups. These two points are important in formulating social policy and in understanding racial differences that exist within society, respectively. They are not, however, relevant in terms of understanding the most important point that the book attempts to make: Namely, that intelligence is fundamental to success in modern America. Those with more intelligence will normally be more successful, those with less intelligence are, on average, less successful. If we substitute the word “education” for “intelligence” then the above sentence is transformed into a common truism that hardly anybody would dispute. The key difference, of course, is that intelligence is a quality of the individual, while education is an external process albeit one that presumably has the power to transform the individual. However, it is quite likely that education is a proxy for intelligence. How many would dispute that the average person with a PhD degree is more intelligent than the average high school drop-out? Years of education has not made that so. Rather, those who are inherently more intelligent will tend excel within the educational system and proceed farther than those with lower intelligence.
Humans are biologic organisms, and as such we are subject to biologic variation. It is this variation that gives rise to natural selection and evolution. Variation is hard-wired into our genes. Take, for example, height. Some people are taller than others. If you took a large sample of adults and measured them all you would find a normal distribution of heights. You might also notice that certain subpopulations, say Filipinos, are, on average, shorter than normal, and other subpopulations, say the Tutsi of Central Africa, that are taller than average. So, what about variation of intelligence? Currently, the SAT is the most widely administered an intelligence test. As expected, the distribution of SAT scores follows a normal distribution (figures below)
How surprising is to learn that there are subpopulations that have, on average, intelligence that is higher or lower than normal? Based upon what we know about variation of biologic variables, it should not be very surprising at all. And this is, in fact, precisely what the SAT finds (figure below).
It is against this backdrop that we learn of the comments of Larry Summers, President of Harvard University, who on January 14, 2005 stated that “innate sex differences” are one possible reason why there are fewer women on science and engineering faculties at elite universities. What innate differences was he referring to? He may have been referring to differences in IQ. Some believe that men, on average, have about a 4 point higher IQ than women. Others report that men and women have the same average intelligence, but that men have a larger spread, with more men at the extreme high and extreme low ends of the distribution. Looking again at SAT scores, we find that men score higher in both the math and verbal portions (figure below). Whether there is an average difference, or a greater spread, one might expect to find more men than women at the higher extremes of the intelligence distribution.
The controversy surrounding the book and Mr. Lawrence Summer’s comments stems not from the science, which is rather straightforward, but from the politics of equality. Any scientific evidence that one group is inherently different from another can expect to be roundly criticized and summarily rejected out of hand as biased, racist, and unworthy of serious consideration. The reason for this is clear: history is full of examples of one group of people claiming superiority over another group. Such claims are often followed by state-sponsored persecution of the allegedly inferior group. There is indeed considerable risk that the state will use its power to persecute it’s own citizens. It is this power that we should fear, not the science. Our government is founded on the principle that all men are created equal, not that all men are equal. While we must all remain equal in the eyes of the Law, this is not grounds to reject the possibility that we are in fact different.
Reference:
SAT data is drawn from the 2004 College-Bound Seniors Report and The College Board Research Report 2002-11
You may also know that The Bell Curve is the title of a book published in 1994 by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray. The book is about how intelligence appears to play a central role in predicting how successful individuals fare in modern America. It describes the strong correlation between low intelligence and measures of social failure (welfare recipients, criminals, illegitimacy rates, and so forth). It became controversial (indeed, notorious) because it suggests that intelligence was largely immutable, and that there are differences in the distribution intelligence among various racial groups. These two points are important in formulating social policy and in understanding racial differences that exist within society, respectively. They are not, however, relevant in terms of understanding the most important point that the book attempts to make: Namely, that intelligence is fundamental to success in modern America. Those with more intelligence will normally be more successful, those with less intelligence are, on average, less successful. If we substitute the word “education” for “intelligence” then the above sentence is transformed into a common truism that hardly anybody would dispute. The key difference, of course, is that intelligence is a quality of the individual, while education is an external process albeit one that presumably has the power to transform the individual. However, it is quite likely that education is a proxy for intelligence. How many would dispute that the average person with a PhD degree is more intelligent than the average high school drop-out? Years of education has not made that so. Rather, those who are inherently more intelligent will tend excel within the educational system and proceed farther than those with lower intelligence.
Humans are biologic organisms, and as such we are subject to biologic variation. It is this variation that gives rise to natural selection and evolution. Variation is hard-wired into our genes. Take, for example, height. Some people are taller than others. If you took a large sample of adults and measured them all you would find a normal distribution of heights. You might also notice that certain subpopulations, say Filipinos, are, on average, shorter than normal, and other subpopulations, say the Tutsi of Central Africa, that are taller than average. So, what about variation of intelligence? Currently, the SAT is the most widely administered an intelligence test. As expected, the distribution of SAT scores follows a normal distribution (figures below)
How surprising is to learn that there are subpopulations that have, on average, intelligence that is higher or lower than normal? Based upon what we know about variation of biologic variables, it should not be very surprising at all. And this is, in fact, precisely what the SAT finds (figure below).
It is against this backdrop that we learn of the comments of Larry Summers, President of Harvard University, who on January 14, 2005 stated that “innate sex differences” are one possible reason why there are fewer women on science and engineering faculties at elite universities. What innate differences was he referring to? He may have been referring to differences in IQ. Some believe that men, on average, have about a 4 point higher IQ than women. Others report that men and women have the same average intelligence, but that men have a larger spread, with more men at the extreme high and extreme low ends of the distribution. Looking again at SAT scores, we find that men score higher in both the math and verbal portions (figure below). Whether there is an average difference, or a greater spread, one might expect to find more men than women at the higher extremes of the intelligence distribution.
The controversy surrounding the book and Mr. Lawrence Summer’s comments stems not from the science, which is rather straightforward, but from the politics of equality. Any scientific evidence that one group is inherently different from another can expect to be roundly criticized and summarily rejected out of hand as biased, racist, and unworthy of serious consideration. The reason for this is clear: history is full of examples of one group of people claiming superiority over another group. Such claims are often followed by state-sponsored persecution of the allegedly inferior group. There is indeed considerable risk that the state will use its power to persecute it’s own citizens. It is this power that we should fear, not the science. Our government is founded on the principle that all men are created equal, not that all men are equal. While we must all remain equal in the eyes of the Law, this is not grounds to reject the possibility that we are in fact different.
Reference:
SAT data is drawn from the 2004 College-Bound Seniors Report and The College Board Research Report 2002-11
Friday, January 14, 2005
False Philanthropy
One of the biggest gripes I have with the political left (and I do have many) is that they want to use the power of government to force us to care about the things that they care about. The fact is that I do indeed care about many of their pet concerns: I do care about the environment; I do care about the poor; I do care about free expression. I really do care! But, why must they resort to government to impose these cares on us? Why not reason with us, argue with us, convince us that we must save the spotted owl, for example? Then use the power of public opinion to force companies not to deforest the owl’s habitat. NO! That would be too slow and too difficult. Instead, they take the easy way: use government to force us to do what they believe is in our best interest. Then, after the fact, tell us that they have acted on our behalf. But, of course, it matters little whether we believe them or not, they have already imposed their will upon us.
The power of government should not be used for such trivial matters as this. It should be reserved for only those essential functions for which it was created in the first place: maintaining peace and safety. All other matters: health care, environmentalism, economics, and so forth should be left to the private sector. If this or that interest group cares that drug prices are too high – take that concern to the public – not to government. Drugs prices, or the price of any commodity for that matter, is not within the realm of government control, or at least shouldn’t be. Prices are ultimately controlled by market forces of supply and demand. Government intervention can only distort prices, and history has shown that government intervention usually makes matters worse in the long run.
If the public at large can be convinced that a cause is worthy, they will respond through private charities. One need only look at the huge amounts of giving that has already occurred in response to the recent tsunami in the Indian Ocean to see how generous the public can be in supporting a cause that they believe is worthy. The energies of the Left would be much better spent trying to convince us that their cares are worthy rather than force us to care by hijacking government and its power to tax. Voluntary contributions could conceivably exceed the funds that are appropriated by government social programs. But it would take considerable work on the part of the Left to convince the pubic to voluntarily give. It is far easier to focus their attentions on a few politicians, all of whom want to appear to be caring decent people, and then direct tax dollars to their pet concerns. This forced giving has been referred to as false philanthropy by Bastiat.
By resorting to forced giving through government programs rather than voluntary giving through private charity, the Left is responsible for a large and growing schism in society between the Haves and the Have-Nots. One need only spend a little time listening to talk radio or the TV news shout-fest programs to see how hostile the left and right are becoming toward one another. While such hostility may not be anything new, it certainly seems to be growing worse. It is especially worrisome that racial politics is a part of this schism. If the Haves were not being forced to support the needy, and if the Have-Nots did not feel entitled to a part of my income, then society at large, and political discourse in particular, would not be nearly as hostile as it currently is.
The power of government should not be used for such trivial matters as this. It should be reserved for only those essential functions for which it was created in the first place: maintaining peace and safety. All other matters: health care, environmentalism, economics, and so forth should be left to the private sector. If this or that interest group cares that drug prices are too high – take that concern to the public – not to government. Drugs prices, or the price of any commodity for that matter, is not within the realm of government control, or at least shouldn’t be. Prices are ultimately controlled by market forces of supply and demand. Government intervention can only distort prices, and history has shown that government intervention usually makes matters worse in the long run.
If the public at large can be convinced that a cause is worthy, they will respond through private charities. One need only look at the huge amounts of giving that has already occurred in response to the recent tsunami in the Indian Ocean to see how generous the public can be in supporting a cause that they believe is worthy. The energies of the Left would be much better spent trying to convince us that their cares are worthy rather than force us to care by hijacking government and its power to tax. Voluntary contributions could conceivably exceed the funds that are appropriated by government social programs. But it would take considerable work on the part of the Left to convince the pubic to voluntarily give. It is far easier to focus their attentions on a few politicians, all of whom want to appear to be caring decent people, and then direct tax dollars to their pet concerns. This forced giving has been referred to as false philanthropy by Bastiat.
By resorting to forced giving through government programs rather than voluntary giving through private charity, the Left is responsible for a large and growing schism in society between the Haves and the Have-Nots. One need only spend a little time listening to talk radio or the TV news shout-fest programs to see how hostile the left and right are becoming toward one another. While such hostility may not be anything new, it certainly seems to be growing worse. It is especially worrisome that racial politics is a part of this schism. If the Haves were not being forced to support the needy, and if the Have-Nots did not feel entitled to a part of my income, then society at large, and political discourse in particular, would not be nearly as hostile as it currently is.
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)