Let A = young high-IQ white Americans hired by McKinsey B = young high-IQ Indians hired by McKinsey C = young high-IQ white Americans hired by Google and D = young high-IQ Indians hired by Google. Suppose that A/B > C/D. I don't think you can say that Google discriminates against white Americans. Maybe McKinsey discriminates against Indians. Or maybe Indians would rather work for Google. I don't think you can reach your conclusion solely based on numbers
As far as I can tell, the article is saying that the number of whites at Google is in come sense too low, and that this must be due to discrimination against whites at Google. I brought up the hypothetical other firm to show that there are other plausible explanations.
Reducing asian IQ by lowering variance is somewhat of a misnomer considering such ramifications could be genetically rooted, thus in order to avoid a double standard you'd have to create a model demonstrating high IQ variance by intelligence and reduce the variance of whites relative to the amount of variance you subtracted from the Asian populations by then the results would most likely line up again, another way to think about this is Consider furthermore that Scandinavia and much of the non-anglo European economic network of nations when exempt of exceptions were by no means ever in competition with the output of europe's central western bubble in the primary centuries of enlightenment innovation (anglosphere), meaning I could technically apply the same argument you used for asians on a region like Scandinavia, a conglomeration of nations known for their robust social safety nets and cost of living, similar to Asia.
As for shithole Asian countries, both India and china combined make up slightly over 1/3rd of the world population in juxtaposition to their relatively small country sizes, which would recess the question down to a simple equation of supply and demand, and as we've seen from native African (68) to African-american IQ (85) environmental variance, although minute can vary greatly if you regress the margin of variance to the range by which variance between races normally occurs (50 points on average), I say this cause indian IQ is fairly depressed in comparison with their western counterparts.
Murray in his book also attributes lack of Asian invention to their collectivist mindset, take it or leave it but I think his hypothesis can explain some things, for instance why Asian countries despite making up less than a fraction of total global innovations are consistently regraded annually as the one of the highest earning and most lucrative markets for exports.
There's much to consider here, but I wanted to speak on this quote in particular:
"...This is a strange idea, since India and China are shit-holes with very little intellectual track record."
This assumption is what happens when you treat intelligence quotient as being much holistic in its scientific validity than it actually is. It's more than possible for intelligence quotient, and I wouldn't be opposed to say this in reality, that software engineering and what have you deals much more in the type of aspects you'd come to expect with intelligence quotient tests -- software engineering largely deals more in a priori reasoning, dealing largely with more deductive and predictable scenarios, as does intelligence quotient tests with geometric patternization, language-based patternization (such as anagrams), mathematical patternization, and the list will go on. In other words, and forgive my inability to word this precisely, but it's more arborescent, a more "pen on paper" approach if you will. For many reasons, this "pen on paper" doesn't speak to how well you're able to decipher socioeconomic and sociopolitical patterns in thorough detail. This isn't to say there's no overlap, but it would be quite folly to think that disjunctive, often-times pithy questions dealing with a sectioned series of patterns, hardly phenomenological ones, are enough to understand what may be a requirement of ten years worth of information that would be required to understand the interplay of societies (both from a phenomenological account, but you could even extend this to a slightly more "pen and paper" approach in historical learning). It's more than feasible that "Asians" could be more intelligent when placed in these scenarios, but that doesn't mean it has to translate beyond anything more than that, because intelligence quotient may not be as thorough as some wish for it to be.
The other issue is that intelligence quotient is, more or less, more accurate when you subject everyone to similar questions and what have you. It wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to ask completely disparate questions for one person when contrasted to another, but then compare them under the same conditions. So intelligence quotient tests are much more equiponderant, whereas socioeconomic/sociopolitical (and feel free to use whatever other qualifiers to explain your point) phenomena tends to be much less equiponderant given what may be a series of complex socioeconomic/sociopolitical conditions. Could we say that given the personal cultivation and years and years worth of embedded structurization, conditions might be more favorable or more facile to do well in to those who are "white" than "Asian?" I cannot say for certain myself, but I think it's just as important to raise this point in a cautionary manner.
The third aspect that is quite a bit of a concern is that intelligence quotient tests exist in an autotelic vacuum -- that is to say that they largely measure the individual. Sure, we could say that there are elements of interaction involved -- if had to comprehend a story or something along those lines, but that is far from what I am referencing. However, you're not going to let someone else influence your test results in the same room (or ideally so) -- the point is to understand how you act unto yourself if that makes sense. Socioeconomic and sociopolitical elements, at least in today's global economy, are largely subject to economic interdependence. To think that one's socioeconomic/sociopolitical outcomes is as representative of that country as it would be of an intelligence quotient test is highly problematic. This isn't to say such a thing couldn't, in some senses, reach a more autotelic point, but there's much more beyond the surface that needs to be researched.
Lastly, do I need to explain why, "Chinese and Indians hardly invent anything ever..." is so asinine? I really hope you were just being intentionally obtuse for the sake of it because I'd love to go into this point myself.
Either way, I think there's much more work that needs to be done.
*You try to differentiate whites and caucasoids as separate things when they're synonims
*Mongoloids higher IQ isn't a myth, the top 5 countries in Average IQ ranking are all from southeast Asia Japanese are the most inteligent population in the world, despite North Korea being a shithole it have a higher position than many white countries which confirms genetics are more important than environment
*We need more empirical data on racial, ethnic, nationality composition and average groups IQ of big tech for a more solid analysis and conclusions
No intention to mock instead a constructive critic to keep improving
What is not discussed is the corporate abuse / overwork process at work here. The companies in question play the 'stackrank' game, where employees are evaluated against one another and the lower 'n' percent are terminated every year. 'n' is typically 5 to 10%, depending upon how well the business is doing. The foreign workers are brought over on a visa that is specific to that employer, and with the processing backlog, it can take almost a decade before they can get their green cards and become free. So in the meantime they have to work insane hours to avoid the bottom of the list. The Americans can burn out and go somewhere else - and they do.
The foreign workers are not smarter or better educated, but they are effectively indentured workers - just as my first ancestor in the colonies was an indentured servant to William Penn. The modern indenture lasts a bit longer.
I would note the impact of the foreign workers on the school system - my kids found that ~ 75% of the kids in the Honors / IB classes at their high school were the children of highly educated foreign workers, most from South or East Asia. I did not see the kids as necessarily smarter, but they certainly tended to be more disciplined and study harder than most of the other kids. My kids just adjusted to the competive level, which was also maintained at the state university in the STEM and business area - my daughter did civil engineering and my son did Business - MIS / Data Security.
My daughter used to talk with the other kids about their Hindu Elephant Mothers, Chinese Dragon Mothers, and her American Eagle Father.
Hunh? The tech firms probably are not hiring the average Indian. They are hiring IIT graduates. How high are their IQ's? Higher than ours, probably
tech grads would have higher IQs but are a smaller portion of the population, so the analysis is not flawed
Let A = young high-IQ white Americans hired by McKinsey B = young high-IQ Indians hired by McKinsey C = young high-IQ white Americans hired by Google and D = young high-IQ Indians hired by Google. Suppose that A/B > C/D. I don't think you can say that Google discriminates against white Americans. Maybe McKinsey discriminates against Indians. Or maybe Indians would rather work for Google. I don't think you can reach your conclusion solely based on numbers
As far as I can tell, the article is saying that the number of whites at Google is in come sense too low, and that this must be due to discrimination against whites at Google. I brought up the hypothetical other firm to show that there are other plausible explanations.
Higher than the group that invented the technologies and companies they're dying to piggyback off of? Nah, wrong-o, football head.
Reducing asian IQ by lowering variance is somewhat of a misnomer considering such ramifications could be genetically rooted, thus in order to avoid a double standard you'd have to create a model demonstrating high IQ variance by intelligence and reduce the variance of whites relative to the amount of variance you subtracted from the Asian populations by then the results would most likely line up again, another way to think about this is Consider furthermore that Scandinavia and much of the non-anglo European economic network of nations when exempt of exceptions were by no means ever in competition with the output of europe's central western bubble in the primary centuries of enlightenment innovation (anglosphere), meaning I could technically apply the same argument you used for asians on a region like Scandinavia, a conglomeration of nations known for their robust social safety nets and cost of living, similar to Asia.
As for shithole Asian countries, both India and china combined make up slightly over 1/3rd of the world population in juxtaposition to their relatively small country sizes, which would recess the question down to a simple equation of supply and demand, and as we've seen from native African (68) to African-american IQ (85) environmental variance, although minute can vary greatly if you regress the margin of variance to the range by which variance between races normally occurs (50 points on average), I say this cause indian IQ is fairly depressed in comparison with their western counterparts.
Murray in his book also attributes lack of Asian invention to their collectivist mindset, take it or leave it but I think his hypothesis can explain some things, for instance why Asian countries despite making up less than a fraction of total global innovations are consistently regraded annually as the one of the highest earning and most lucrative markets for exports.
There's much to consider here, but I wanted to speak on this quote in particular:
"...This is a strange idea, since India and China are shit-holes with very little intellectual track record."
This assumption is what happens when you treat intelligence quotient as being much holistic in its scientific validity than it actually is. It's more than possible for intelligence quotient, and I wouldn't be opposed to say this in reality, that software engineering and what have you deals much more in the type of aspects you'd come to expect with intelligence quotient tests -- software engineering largely deals more in a priori reasoning, dealing largely with more deductive and predictable scenarios, as does intelligence quotient tests with geometric patternization, language-based patternization (such as anagrams), mathematical patternization, and the list will go on. In other words, and forgive my inability to word this precisely, but it's more arborescent, a more "pen on paper" approach if you will. For many reasons, this "pen on paper" doesn't speak to how well you're able to decipher socioeconomic and sociopolitical patterns in thorough detail. This isn't to say there's no overlap, but it would be quite folly to think that disjunctive, often-times pithy questions dealing with a sectioned series of patterns, hardly phenomenological ones, are enough to understand what may be a requirement of ten years worth of information that would be required to understand the interplay of societies (both from a phenomenological account, but you could even extend this to a slightly more "pen and paper" approach in historical learning). It's more than feasible that "Asians" could be more intelligent when placed in these scenarios, but that doesn't mean it has to translate beyond anything more than that, because intelligence quotient may not be as thorough as some wish for it to be.
The other issue is that intelligence quotient is, more or less, more accurate when you subject everyone to similar questions and what have you. It wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to ask completely disparate questions for one person when contrasted to another, but then compare them under the same conditions. So intelligence quotient tests are much more equiponderant, whereas socioeconomic/sociopolitical (and feel free to use whatever other qualifiers to explain your point) phenomena tends to be much less equiponderant given what may be a series of complex socioeconomic/sociopolitical conditions. Could we say that given the personal cultivation and years and years worth of embedded structurization, conditions might be more favorable or more facile to do well in to those who are "white" than "Asian?" I cannot say for certain myself, but I think it's just as important to raise this point in a cautionary manner.
The third aspect that is quite a bit of a concern is that intelligence quotient tests exist in an autotelic vacuum -- that is to say that they largely measure the individual. Sure, we could say that there are elements of interaction involved -- if had to comprehend a story or something along those lines, but that is far from what I am referencing. However, you're not going to let someone else influence your test results in the same room (or ideally so) -- the point is to understand how you act unto yourself if that makes sense. Socioeconomic and sociopolitical elements, at least in today's global economy, are largely subject to economic interdependence. To think that one's socioeconomic/sociopolitical outcomes is as representative of that country as it would be of an intelligence quotient test is highly problematic. This isn't to say such a thing couldn't, in some senses, reach a more autotelic point, but there's much more beyond the surface that needs to be researched.
Lastly, do I need to explain why, "Chinese and Indians hardly invent anything ever..." is so asinine? I really hope you were just being intentionally obtuse for the sake of it because I'd love to go into this point myself.
Either way, I think there's much more work that needs to be done.
I see various problems:
*You try to differentiate whites and caucasoids as separate things when they're synonims
*Mongoloids higher IQ isn't a myth, the top 5 countries in Average IQ ranking are all from southeast Asia Japanese are the most inteligent population in the world, despite North Korea being a shithole it have a higher position than many white countries which confirms genetics are more important than environment
*We need more empirical data on racial, ethnic, nationality composition and average groups IQ of big tech for a more solid analysis and conclusions
No intention to mock instead a constructive critic to keep improving
Brahmin Indians are about 5% of the Indian population and their average IQ is 110 - the effect is like Jews in the West.
What is not discussed is the corporate abuse / overwork process at work here. The companies in question play the 'stackrank' game, where employees are evaluated against one another and the lower 'n' percent are terminated every year. 'n' is typically 5 to 10%, depending upon how well the business is doing. The foreign workers are brought over on a visa that is specific to that employer, and with the processing backlog, it can take almost a decade before they can get their green cards and become free. So in the meantime they have to work insane hours to avoid the bottom of the list. The Americans can burn out and go somewhere else - and they do.
The foreign workers are not smarter or better educated, but they are effectively indentured workers - just as my first ancestor in the colonies was an indentured servant to William Penn. The modern indenture lasts a bit longer.
I would note the impact of the foreign workers on the school system - my kids found that ~ 75% of the kids in the Honors / IB classes at their high school were the children of highly educated foreign workers, most from South or East Asia. I did not see the kids as necessarily smarter, but they certainly tended to be more disciplined and study harder than most of the other kids. My kids just adjusted to the competive level, which was also maintained at the state university in the STEM and business area - my daughter did civil engineering and my son did Business - MIS / Data Security.
My daughter used to talk with the other kids about their Hindu Elephant Mothers, Chinese Dragon Mothers, and her American Eagle Father.