Racial Segregation

Race and Intelligence

In my short series on intelligence and education, I discussed how blankslatists believe that intelligence is largely environmental and that everyone has equal potential. In “Utilitarian Racism“, I noted that blankslatists believe a person’s moral worth is tied to that particular concept of equality.

Underlying blankslatism is a denial of the validity of science to make evidence-based truth claims, whether for metaphysical or political reasons. This is not limited to political leftism. You will find science deniers and blankslatists in all political and religious colors.

Well said, although I think almost everything about popular genetics is science fiction.
— comment by Arch Angel, “Utilitarian Racism”

I’m not sure what “popular genetics” is, but actual intelligence research is not science fiction. Intelligence studies are among the most well-researched areas of science that we have, exceeding in statistical confidence even some of our knowledge of biology, physics, and chemistry. The findings in intelligence research have a firm backing and are backed up by repeated replications, including accurate predictions of future results. Anyone denying the validity of IQ research—including blankslatists—is suffering from metaphysical and/or political bias.

To see this, look no further to Wikipedia, where leftist editors have decided that intelligence research is pseudoscience and racism, and they won’t allow anyone to say otherwise. They’ve decided that there is a scientific consensus that IQ test performance between various populations is environmental—entirely environmental—in origin. That, my friends, is the definition of blankslatism, the dominate religious dogma of our times. It asserts that biological similarity determines moral worth.

The heritability of intelligence is 80%. That means for the average person, only 20% of their intelligence score can be attributed to environmental influences. Almost nothing in these sciences ever correlates this strongly. This is astoundingly high evidence, but blankslatists wave their hands and make it disappear.

We saw this coming:

“It is a dangerous mistake to premise the moral equality of human beings on biological similarity because dissimilarity, once revealed, then becomes an argument for moral inequality.” — A.W.F. Edwards, Lewontin’s Fallacy, 2003

These days people are being fired from their jobs for merely agreeing with the scientific consensus on intelligence, because to the people doing the firing, they can’t comprehend a world where their opinions about moral worth and equality are wrong. They are so racist that they assume you too must be as equally racist as they are. If you are a Christian—the kind that believes that all men and women are created in the image of God—they will hate you.

Segregated Schools

In Part 3 of my series, where I discussed how to fix American schools, I wrote:

If you want to fix failing schools, you have a variety of strategies, including: (1) Separate schools containing different IQ tiers. This will never be allowed because it would be de-facto racial segregation.

In the metro areas of Minneapolis, Seattle, San Francisco and Oakland, school districts have trialed offering voluntary segregation to select races (i.e. low average IQ populations). They legally can’t make segregation mandatory, nor have white kids segregated from other races, but the results are revealing anyway:

By only placing children with their similar intelligence-level, racially-segregated peers, both attendance and GPAs went up. A few things are notable:

This was only tried with “African-American History” and “Social-Emotional Support”, not any core areas like math, science, or language arts, so the results are “meh” at best. As the unnamed education lawyers say, only optional courses are legally allowed to be segregated, so the actual impact is going to be minimal. Federal anti-discrimination laws would need to be repealed to allow a wider implementation.

Of course these schools were segregated by race by the same blankslatists who say that race is a social construct that is totally, absolutely, beyond-a-doubt not related to genetics at all: zero percent. Race is a reasonable proxy for IQ here, but better would be a non-racial sorting by IQ. The blankslatist racists that run our schools will never allow this: only racial segregation is permitted.

An increase in GPA of 0.13 points is not revolutionary. It is enough to show that segregated education can work, but not enough to overcome the 80% heritability of IQ (and 60% correlation between IQ and school achievement). The result of environmental changes are always going to be limited, but nonetheless worth doing.

Segregated schools of only higher-IQ non-minority kids are likely to show even better results, as they have more inherent potential—a higher achievement ceiling—due to higher intelligence. In fact, we already know this from predominately white private schools. Regardless, the effect of the environmental changes will cause improve achievement, but IQ will still determine the relative order of various populations. All else equal, segregation cannot cause one group to catch up to another group. Even though it would be beneficial for all parties, it would likely cause the racial gaps to widen, not shrink. Thus, expect racial segregation to only be applied selectively.

Black males in these districts have very low GPAs. Even in an age where grades have been so inflated that nearly everyone gets at least a B, these are kids are only doing C-level work, and many will not graduate with even basic NAEP language proficiency, failing to master basic language competency. Even when the false specter of racism is ‘removed’ (i.e. all Black teachers), the inherent (genetic) nature of intelligence is still there.

Only blankslatists hold the regressive—and truly racist—belief that Black kids should only be taught by Black teachers. If Black kids in these voluntarily racially segregated schools had full access to the best teachers regardless of race, they might see even better results. Blankslatists think these improvements in scores are due to elimination of racism by whites, but they wouldn’t dare put this to the test. They will never learn.

Moving Forward

If someone tells you that genetics do not explain the differences in IQ test performance between groups, they are either ignorant of science or they have an axe to grind… or both. Moving forward, we will continue to see blankslatists and religious zealots (I repeat myself) who insist that intelligence is purely environmental and that genetics are racist and pseudoscientific. They should invest in mirrors.

In the future, expect to see a continued return of racial segregation in America led by (mostly white) blankslatists who, in a great show of cognitive dissonance, don’t believe race is real. The era of being judged by the content of your character rather than the color of your skin is over, killed by those blankslatists who cannot abide merit. And in the meantime and for at least a generation or two, the Asian, White, Hispanic, Black gaps will continue to exist, in that order, no matter how loud the racists are screeching about structural racism (which only exists thanks to them doing it).


  1. Lastmod

    I grew up in the country. The sticks. What the Mohawk Indians that lived in my area called “the boonies.” My public school before I was placed in academy, my graduating class was eight. A country, rural school.

    There was a family of Quakers in my hamlet. Father was “just” a small dairy farmer. Hardly a conglomerate or “successful business” on financial means. The wife was a public health nurse for the county (LVN). They lived modestly and were lower middle class if we just go by finances.

    They had four girls. All of them skipped grades, graduated high school at 15. The eldest finished at high school at age 12. Can you imagine going to Smith College at age 12? How about Union College in Schenectady at age 15? They borrowed money, and of course academic scholarships from all over fell upon them. They borrowed very little in the end.

    So, if we now separate by IQ only…..when is said “IQ” determined? At birth? At age 2 1/2? By a doctor, and what kind of doctor? I’ve seen on many IQ tests visual spatial and cognitive may develop at slightly different paces per individual at tender ages. By the time a child is kindergarten? Or is it second grade?


    when this is “determined” how does a small country school afford the teachers that are qualified to teach said “gifted” child, and the resources, the classroom space? What of the rest of the students? What happens to them? Do they only stay within a certain group by IQ alone. What if a student is brilliant at math but has to go to the “regular” classes with the “proles” and those dirty “average” kids because he is average for the most part?

    My question is. When? How? By what standard? And WHOSE standard? Which IQ test? It seems it would create a new level of administrative red tape of constantly testing, collecting and moving children around.

    And if intelligence is indeed 80% inheirted…….there really is no reason to improve or strive or push yourself because from age 4 or whatever……………..you’re doomed to work a gas station if your IQ is below 99 or whatever at age four. Kind of hopeless, and cruel.

    Schools in the end need to gear properly to the mean, or average. Like they are supposed to. If a truly gifted kids is indeed that, like the family of girls I mentioned above. It is the duty of the parents to deal with their child. Not demand an overworked, and already lacking public school system to take this on as well. We know they will mess it up.

    Besides, every one of my co-workers in my company evidently was in all advanced classes in high school. I dont see any brilliance or “exceptionalism” in them, and as a man with a lower IQ. I should be able to see that instantly. Didnt see it in the ‘sphere as well. Just a bunch of cocky men with egos the size of God himself.

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      “We know they will mess it up.”

      We do, yes, we do.

      I’d love to get to the point where we have to ask the tough questions of how to implement an academic tiering system, but we both know that even if you and I could figure it out (and we probably could), it will get screwed up in the implementation. Well, and it is illegal to do it right anyway.

      Instead we will get woke racial segregation which will make the people running the programs feel good about themselves but will have minimal impact on the kids.

      1. Lastmod

        The captains of industry that built the modern USA…..railroad tycoon Leland Stanford….Standard Oil, Bethlehem Steel, General Electric…the Edisons, the Vanderbuilts, Rockefellars, Whitneys, Ford, and all these other titans and smaller guys too like Singer, Woolworth……

        These men were all educated at HOME or in a one room schoolhouse. The principles of critical thinking and applying knowledge probably helped more than anything in their mark on the world or when they went out and found their way. Also the system itself. A system that guaranteed private property and ownership.

        None of them at age three said “I am going to build a huge business” or “I am going to invent this or that and make money and be Alpha”

        A graduate of my college in the later Victorian Age….Horace Moses. Who ran a mid sized paper company in northern New York State and New England. Headquartered in Springfield, MA said his achievement in life was based on four things: Education, Religion, Social Service, and Hard Work.

        This man was an orphan. No parents…and Victorian orphanages, then like now were pretty miserable places…..please….foster care is so over-regulated and more than many people who do foster care are not about the children . They’re not. Its income.

        The aspects in American education did focus on critical thinking and intense self-reliance. That is no longer the case. Even upper class public schools today….parents want the school to provide breakfast (come on now!)

        Gifted children 100 years ago got their best education in the home. Parents of actual gifted children today demand the school “do something” and “keep my kid engaged”

        1. Derek L. Ramsey

          “These men were all educated at HOME or in a one room schoolhouse. [..] Gifted children 100 years ago got their best education in the home. Parents of actual gifted children today demand the school “do something” and “keep my kid engaged””

          A century or two ago, the average person had the raw inherent ability to homeschool their kids. These days you have to be in the top 16% to achieve the same results.

          Parents of gifted children (who are almost always in the top 16% themselves) would be better at teaching their gifted kids, but instead they allow teachers to teach their kids who are predominately outside the top 16%.

          1. Lastmod

            I will disagree on that. If a parent has a gifted child they do not have to be in that top 16% themselves. I doubt Henry Ford’s father and Edison’s mother taught Quadratics to Edison or Ford as a boy. I am sure Ford’s dad didnt teach advanced mechanical drawing at home. Their parents taught him to read and write, math, basic science and instilled critical thinking and inspired interest because they both knew their children were exceptional.

          2. Derek L. Ramsey

            They do not have to be, but one parent (or a close relative) is almost always close. The difference between a 130IQ child and their 120IQ parent is not that significant, but two 100IQ parents much more rarely produce a gifted child.

  2. If someone tells you that genetics do not explain the differences in IQ test performance between groups, they are either ignorant of science or they have an axe to grind… or both.

    Ah, the psychological motivation fallacy. My favorite. My turn:

    “Derek, if you believe that genetics explains the difference between IQ deficits, you are either too eager to call yourself more intelligent without proof or have an axe to grind… or both.”

    Now, can we move on from the nonsense to actual logic. As I mentioned on Sigma Frame, when ‘science’ produces results you agree with, it is suddenly ‘real science’. When it doesn’t some evildoer must be responsible.

    Note that I do not necessarily disagree with the conclusions drawn in this article but, you preemptively insult anyone who would dare disagree and provide no substantial reason for dissenters to agree with you. The ironic result is that your article will be dismissed by anyone smart enough to see what you’re trying to do.

    Try harder. I don’t mean to taunt you, but you can surely do better than this.

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      Arch Angel,

      ” provide no substantial reason for dissenters to agree with you. The ironic result is that your article will be dismissed by anyone smart enough to see what you’re trying to do.”

      I don’t take your post as a taunt, in fact I more-or-less agree with you, because you mistake my purpose here. This post should be treated as a news report, not an argument. It is meant to be informative, not persuasive. I doubt my other readers, most of which do not have any special interest in IQ research, dismissed it as a fallacious, but it wouldn’t matter and I wouldn’t care if they did. At most, I am making an informal argument.

      You know absolutely nothing about me (and don’t read this blog) if you think I don’t want people to dare to disagree with me. I suggest you read more of this blog before you speak in ignorance about what you do not know.

      If you want to see me condemn someone, which I’ve done once, it will be here, in accordance with Christ’s commands in Matthew 18.

      If I mean to make a more formal argument on this topic, it will look like this.

      “you preemptively insult anyone who would dare disagree”

      Then, once again people are imputing false motives on to me. Telling someone they are wrong is not an insult, it is, in fact, a loving thing to do.

      You mention the psychological motivation fallacy. That’s not a fallacy, at least not in the way I made my statement. It is a description of cognitive bias. It is not fallacious to point out someone’s bias. I’m not even making an argument. It’s a simple observation of fact. I might be *wrong* about this attribution, but it isn’t a mistake to point it out if I think I see it. In any case, as it isn’t pointed at any particular person, only the average IQ denier, I couldn’t definitely prove the bias even if I wanted to.

      In my experience well over 90% of IQ deniers do not cite any science at all, because they are not motivated by truth, they are motivated by their leftist metaphysics which are, by definition, anti-truth. If IQ deniers had substantive arguments, I’d welcome them, but in my memory I’ve never had an IQ denier provide me with an actual argument. If it ever happened, I’ve forgotten about it. I’ve had someone disagree with the thesis I presented, but they were not IQ deniers.

      It’s weird that you would criticize me for pointing out people’s motivations, in light of what leftism is and what the criticism of leftism looks like, but, uh, you can do what you want.

      Determining people’s axioms, their motivations, is probably even more important (although less effective) than making arguments within those axioms. To wit:

      “1. It is obvious that most people do not even know what are their own assumptions; and

      2. Even fewer people have subjected their own assumptions to the kind of critique that they so lavishly bestow upon other people. And

      3. Even fewer people – having become aware of their own assumptions, and examined them critically – have found these assumptions to be solid to their own honest satisfaction over a prolonged self-critique*…”

      I know what my assumptions are! You detected one of them and then called it fallacious, which greatly misses the point. I put those assumptions out to be challenged, but you didn’t challenge those views (“I do not necessarily disagree with the conclusions drawn in this article”), you merely criticized them. Tone policing is a leftist strategy, and I’m surprised to see you implement it. I’m not sure I could say that my assumption is completely solid, but I am satisfied with it. I have not experienced any evidence to disavow me of that assumption… to date.

      I don’t need a shred of evidence to know that IQ deniers are wrong. IQ denial is blankslatism, that is the leftist abstraction of equality. As I reject leftism as inherently false, of course I reject IQ denial as inherently wrong. That is required because of my metaphysical assumption. Of course because IQ denial is false, I am able to find evidence (if I want to, and have in the past) of the error, but I don’t need to. You can call this fallacious all day long, but asserting an axiom isn’t fallacious. It’s not an argument at all.

      I accuse people of making fallacious arguments in large part to force them to acknowledge their axioms. I did this recently with Sharkly on this very blog. But a curious thing happens when I do this. They deny both the fallacy and the axiom. They have to pick one or the other, but they refuse. I do neither. You are correct to show that my post shows my axiom, or else would be fallacious. I agree!


  3. cameron232

    Fascinating. It never occured to me that egalitarian blank slatists (implicitly) equate intelligence with moral worth. Makes sense.

    Emil Kirkegaard (sp?) writes a great deal about intelligence research. He has documented how left wing blank-slatist researchers try to get hereditarians fired from their jobs. If they’re right, why do they need to do this?

    I run into many Christians who deny the existence of race. They say it’s Darwinism, they put words like “race” and “white” and “black” in quotes, etc.

    1. Derek L. Ramsey


      “I run into many Christians who deny the existence of race. They say it’s Darwinism, they put words like “race” and “white” and “black” in quotes, etc.”

      It’s extremely common in both religious and secular worlds. On the ironically named “Rational Christian Discernment” blog, Jesse Albrecht says:

      “The skin color of a man is not an issue, but how he was raised by his parents. If there is statistical data suggesting that people of a particular pigmentation commit more crimes than others, then that would be due to a cultural problem as opposed to a racial problem.”

      This is an extremely typical statement. It is also trivial to disprove.

      Once you understand how they equate intelligence with moral worth, you can see why they insist that it must be completely cultural (environmental). Not only are the statistics overwhelming on racial differences in intelligence, but it is the consensus of the researchers themselves (e.g. Lynn, Murray, Warne, Cochran, Thompson, Woodley, Kirkegaard, Kananzawa, Dutton, MacDonald). Besides Kirkegaard, I’m also familiar with others in the HBD movement (Bruce Charlton, Steve Sailer, numerous anonymous twitter accounts, and others.).

      I’d argue that blankslatism—and all the racial and woke policies that come with it—is the single most important factor that unifies the left and the right.


      1. cameron232

        Looking through data shown by Kirkegaard, etc. principle components analysis with k=6 seems a reasonable scheme for bbasic human type categories where the six can be named: west eurasian (southern French/Basque), east eurasian (Korean), south eurasian (Papuans), amerindian (mesoamerican indian tribes), sub -saharan African (Yoruba) and South African (Bushmen). I put fairly “pure” examples in parenthesis (I don’t think racial purity is a useful concept).

        Words like white, black, red, yellow were convenient shorthand. People who deny race like to emphasize skin pigment because it makes race seem trivial and literally skin deepm. As Sailer once said, an untrained person could tell the difference between Yoruba, South Indians and Papuans even if they are all dark skinned. Koreans are often “whiter” than most Europeans despite being quite distinct.

        All this doesn’t support e.g. nazi science which was ideological science. The “whitest” europeans like Swedes and Finns have a small but noticible amerindian ancestry from common siberian ancestors. Basques are “purer” examples of west eurasians.

        One quibble. I thought heritability was defined as the fraction of variation between individuals that is attributable to genes. Maybe that means the same thing as what you wrote IDK.

        1. Derek L. Ramsey

          “One quibble. I thought heritability was defined as the fraction of variation between individuals that is attributable to genes. Maybe that means the same thing as what you wrote IDK.”

          What you write is correct and more precise, but it is hard to accurate communicate what heritability means to the general public. If you know of a good way to do that, let me know and I’ll update my post to use better language. I might edit it anyway and try again.

          Let’s call variation inequality. When you look at the whole set of inequality in intelligence among everyone, ~80% of intelligence inequality is explainable by genetics, and 20% of intelligence inequality is explainable by all the possible environment effects or random chance.

          This isn’t precisely the same as what I said…

          “The heritability of intelligence is 80%. That means for the average person, only 20% of their intelligence score can be attributed to environmental influences.”

          …because “average person” is misleading. The “average person” isn’t a real person with 100 IQ. In reality, some individuals will have more than 80% of their variation due to genetics, and for others it will be less than 80%, but on the average it will be 80%. But in the end it is about population variation, not individual variation.

          Is this explanation helpful? I don’t know. I think what I said is correct. This is one of those cases where I am not clever enough to communicate it perfectly and effectively.

          Let’s say you and I differ in intelligence by 5 points, but we differ from the population average by 10 points. The specific values don’t really matter. If we were perfectly average people, our differences would be 80% explainable by our genes. Of course maybe I had some huge environmental advantage/disadvantage and genes only explain 60% of our variation. Maybe had the dice rolled differently, you and I would only differ by, say, 2 points.

          So when I say “20% of the score is attributed to environmental influences”, that’s a bit misleading. It doesn’t mean if you got a 110 IQ, that 20% of 110IQ is due to the environment. It means that the reason you got a 110 IQ rather than the expected population average of 100 IQ is about 20% due to non-genetic causes. But again, I’m sure this is still wrong, because I’m not good at explaining this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *