Emil et al--I started my career in 1971 with a large state in the US doing research on civil service tests. hired as a result of the Griggs vs Duke power SC case. test dev, validation studies etc. for several years before moving. nothing has changed. certain minorities score lower on so many measures and organizations create all sorts of verbiage and slight of hand to increase the selection of certain minorities who otherwise simply don't score well. we were doing what was called "differential validity" studies. ie, were differences in test scores associated with differences in job performance? yes, sometimes. don't know how further research has turned out as I went on to other areas. for me, The Global Bell Curve (Flynn) says it all.
Just a story about army training requirements in the Viet Nam era.
In 1969 after Basic Training II ended up (by luck) at Redstone Arsenal. Lots of really smart people (civilians, mostly) there there for the missile program. Also, lots of guys being trained for skilled military jobs. Mostly electronics but some in ammunition storage. Students in both groups shared barracks, meals, KP, all the things you learned to do in Basic.
About 15% of the guys in my barracks were black. Mostly in ammunition storage. Many of them were slow. Very slow. Couldn't hardly read or write. I wondered why they in ammunition storage. Seemed like a scary job for slow guys.
Turns out, skilled jobs were hard to find for many of these guys. Well, the Army in it's wisdom created Project 100,000 to avoid having to kick these black guys (all draftees) out. Someone in the higher ranks had decided that really slow guys didn't get worried about really big booms in their workspace like the faster guys like me and were happy (well, as happy as any draftee was in the Army). At least happier than I would have been. Enough training got them thorough their two years. Only heard about one really big boom in View Nam during the time I was in the Army so I guess the Army was right.
IQ is really important in any skilled occupation but some times the ability to follow instructions precisely and remain unflappable in scary situations are more important than intelligence. Much more important.
It is interesting the see the difference in athletic scores amongst the applicants. Whites having a score notably higher than all other groups, even Blacks, not knowing the SD it is hard to interperate it further.
But I figure it probably has to do with the military mostly testing endurance, which based on my own parusals of Olympic records of long distance running and other endurance sports a while back, Whites seem to have an advantage in this domain. Idk if it is higher lung capacity, more slow twitch muscle fibers, or what.
Of course there is. Meritocratic achievement very much based on race. Perhaps what you mean is, there is nothing wrong with acknowledging biology exists - and that it's relevant.
There are 2 aspects to "merit": inherent qualities and past actions. It is sensible to separate these.
When recruits for a role are inexperienced (eg for, say, 'war') projections based on proxies (eg aptitude tests assessing inherent qualities) are most useful. However, it is much easier (nominally more accurate) when a person can be judged on their past actions (eg performance).
The NZ military uses a cut off of about (it is not published and is a combination of sub factors) 1:20 (95th percentile equivalent to an IQ of 125) for applicants to officer training. The rank Officers ultimately achieve depends on their performance during their career, though I gather higher ranks (Colonel and above) mostly score within the 1:50 (98th percentile).
Emil et al--I started my career in 1971 with a large state in the US doing research on civil service tests. hired as a result of the Griggs vs Duke power SC case. test dev, validation studies etc. for several years before moving. nothing has changed. certain minorities score lower on so many measures and organizations create all sorts of verbiage and slight of hand to increase the selection of certain minorities who otherwise simply don't score well. we were doing what was called "differential validity" studies. ie, were differences in test scores associated with differences in job performance? yes, sometimes. don't know how further research has turned out as I went on to other areas. for me, The Global Bell Curve (Flynn) says it all.
MacNamara huh? The asshole that just keeps on giving. There is a very special place in Hell for that one.
Just a story about army training requirements in the Viet Nam era.
In 1969 after Basic Training II ended up (by luck) at Redstone Arsenal. Lots of really smart people (civilians, mostly) there there for the missile program. Also, lots of guys being trained for skilled military jobs. Mostly electronics but some in ammunition storage. Students in both groups shared barracks, meals, KP, all the things you learned to do in Basic.
About 15% of the guys in my barracks were black. Mostly in ammunition storage. Many of them were slow. Very slow. Couldn't hardly read or write. I wondered why they in ammunition storage. Seemed like a scary job for slow guys.
Turns out, skilled jobs were hard to find for many of these guys. Well, the Army in it's wisdom created Project 100,000 to avoid having to kick these black guys (all draftees) out. Someone in the higher ranks had decided that really slow guys didn't get worried about really big booms in their workspace like the faster guys like me and were happy (well, as happy as any draftee was in the Army). At least happier than I would have been. Enough training got them thorough their two years. Only heard about one really big boom in View Nam during the time I was in the Army so I guess the Army was right.
IQ is really important in any skilled occupation but some times the ability to follow instructions precisely and remain unflappable in scary situations are more important than intelligence. Much more important.
It is interesting the see the difference in athletic scores amongst the applicants. Whites having a score notably higher than all other groups, even Blacks, not knowing the SD it is hard to interperate it further.
But I figure it probably has to do with the military mostly testing endurance, which based on my own parusals of Olympic records of long distance running and other endurance sports a while back, Whites seem to have an advantage in this domain. Idk if it is higher lung capacity, more slow twitch muscle fibers, or what.
Have you responded to this woman trying to smear you?Her name is Nancy McClernan
Yo yo Emil
They call him a real racist
But he’s just a race scientist keeping it real
He’s a slow life history strategist he won’t clap any cheeks until he’s sealed the deal 💍🦭
Everyday he wakes up to hate from liberals who feel….
Nothing but rage towards the truth they conceal
But it’s Revealed in his studies so they desperately squeal 😱😱
There is nothing racist about selection on merit.
Of course there is. Meritocratic achievement very much based on race. Perhaps what you mean is, there is nothing wrong with acknowledging biology exists - and that it's relevant.
"Of course there is. Meritocratic achievement very much based on race."
My reference of the word racist as an adjective meant as a pejorative.
There are 2 aspects to "merit": inherent qualities and past actions. It is sensible to separate these.
When recruits for a role are inexperienced (eg for, say, 'war') projections based on proxies (eg aptitude tests assessing inherent qualities) are most useful. However, it is much easier (nominally more accurate) when a person can be judged on their past actions (eg performance).
The NZ military uses a cut off of about (it is not published and is a combination of sub factors) 1:20 (95th percentile equivalent to an IQ of 125) for applicants to officer training. The rank Officers ultimately achieve depends on their performance during their career, though I gather higher ranks (Colonel and above) mostly score within the 1:50 (98th percentile).
Okay.