The kind of people who write columns in the New York Times or the Washington Post are occasionally amusing or offer useful insight, but most of it is simply blather. Nothing wrong with that I suppose. Imagine that there were to arise a national movement advocating arboreal marriage, people marrying trees. Columnists would have a field day. What about the children? Would they be warped? And the fate of the saplings? If one’s tree was entitled to hospital visitation, who would provide the transport?
The arboreal marriage issue, like many other contemporary issues, is not burdened with data. Writers are free to let their imaginations go free. But other issues are blessed with data, and one would assume that the first obligation of a pundit would be to learn the data, perhaps even learn the science. The recent kerfluffle over Jason Richwine’s dissertation, where there are data and where the pundits have not a clue about it, is a shame and disgrace for both journalists and those who publish them.
IQ test scores as well as achievement indicators of all kinds are well known, easy to check out for oneself. There is almost no controversy about any of it because there is arguing with test scores nor incarceration statistics. Ron Unz valiantly tried several years ago, and his arguments were pretty well demolished.
What we see from the paper talkers instead is a lot of name calling and snark. Those people are, almost all of them, so ignorant that they have no clue about data, they are also so ignorant that they do not understand how useless they themselves are. Shame? Never heard of it. To them, blather about arboreal marriage is not different from blather about Hispanic IQ.
IQ differences among groups are well known, well established, and not very interesting IMHO. OTOH there are interesting things out there that deserve focus for thoughtful people. Here is one:
Given the density of twaddle that is published about poverty and health, why do US Hispanics live on average two and a half years longer than US Anglos? The chatterers have no interest in this, and amazingly neither do sociologists and the ilk at my university. It just isn’t in their domain. Perhaps this health difference is a hate fact?