The stupidity of complaining about affirmative action

Nice article I edited to fit here:

There’s really no great mystery about bureaucracies. Why is it so often that the best people are stuck in the middle and the people who are running things—the leaders—are the mediocrities? Because excellence isn’t what bureaucracies are about. Bureaucracies are about keeping the routine going. Bureaucracies HAVE TO be run according to rigid rules. The head of Bureaucracies are commonplace, ordinary, usual and common. They have no genius for organizing or initiative or even order, no particular learning or intelligence, no distinguishing characteristics at all. Just the ability to keep the routine going. What gets you up in a bureaucracy is a talent for maneuvering. Kissing up to the people above you, kicking down to the people below you. Pleasing your teachers, pleasing your superiors, picking a powerful mentor and riding his coattails until it’s time to stab him in the back. Jumping through hoops. Getting along by going along. Being whatever other people want you to be, so that it finally comes to seem that, like the manager of the Central Station, you have nothing inside you at all. Not taking stupid risks like trying to change how things are done or question why they’re done. This is the perfect description of the kind of person who tends to prosper in the bureaucratic environment. Obviously becoming self employed or an entrepreneur is the normal reaction to this situation but most people can’t really think so they descend into rather silly and vindictive diatribes.

I tell you this to forewarn you, because I promise you that you will meet these people and you will find yourself in environments where what is rewarded above all is conformity. I tell you so you can decide to be a different kind of leader. And I tell you for one other reason. As I thought about these things and put all these pieces together—the kind of students I had, the kind of leadership they were being trained for, the kind of leaders I saw in my own institution—I realized that this is a national problem. We have a crisis of leadership in this country, in every institution. Not just in government. Look at what happened to American corporations in recent decades, as all the old dinosaurs like General Motors or TWA or U.S. Steel fell apart. Look at what happened to Wall Street in just the last couple of years.

Finally—and I know I’m on sensitive ground here—look at what happened during the first four years of the Iraq War. We were stuck. It wasn’t the fault of the enlisted ranks or the noncoms or the junior officers. It was the fault of the senior leadership, whether military or civilian or both. We weren’t just not winning, we weren’t even changing direction. What we have now are the greatest technocrats the world has ever seen, people who have been trained to be incredibly good at one specific thing, but who have no interest in anything beyond their area of exper­tise. What we don’t have are leaders

Anyone who’s been paying attention for the last few years understands that the changing nature of warfare means that officers, including junior officers, are required more than ever to be able to think independently, creatively, flexibly. To deploy a whole range of skills in a fluid and complex situation. Lieutenant colonels who are essentially functioning as provincial governors in Iraq, or captains who find themselves in charge of a remote town somewhere in Afghanistan. People who know how to do more than follow orders and execute routines.

We have a crisis of leadership in America because our overwhelming power and wealth, earned under earlier generations of leaders, made us complacent, and for too long we have been training leaders who are brain-dead. Being a good leader now means being a good follower. What we don’t have, in other words, are thinkers. People who can think for themselves. People who can formulate a new direction: for the country, for a corporation or a college, for the Army—a new way of doing things, a new way of looking at things. People, in other words, with vision.

The Hereditarian Theory of Intelligence Is Stupid

Can we really increase our intelligence? The answer is yes.

A renowned article published in the journal Nature by Price and her colleagues challenged this immutable view of intelligence. The study had 33 adolescents, who were 12 to 16-years-old when the study initiated. Price and her team gave them IQ tests, tracked them for four years, and then tested them again with the same measurement tools. The fluctuations in IQ were outstanding: not about a couple points, but 20-plus IQ points. These changes in IQ scores, according to the researchers, were not random — they tracked elegantly with structural and functional brain imaging. Thus, there is also an important group of scientists that maintain that many of the changes in IQ are correlated to changes in the environment, particularly schooling.

“It’s analogous to fitness. A teenager who is athletically fit at 14 could be less fit at 18 if they stopped exercising. Conversely, an unfit teenager can become much fitter with exercise.”

Furthermore, there is also a certain number of studies that have shown brain changes after several kinds of educational regimens. The study about Tokyo taxi drivers is a especially distinguished one. Scientists conducted memory, visual and spatial information tests and took brain scans using MRI of 79 male trainee Tokyo taxi drivers at the beginning of their training regimen. At the beginning of the study, no variance was found in their brain structure or memory. Three to four years later, however, scientists found a considerable increase in grey matter in the posterior hippocampi, among the 39 trains who performed as taxi drivers. Naturally, this change was not observed in the non-taxi drivers. Thus, this kind of studies suggest that the brain can change to accommodate new knowledge, so future programs for lifelong learning are possible.

What we immediately notice is a long list of enormous variations in the tested IQs of genetically indistinguishable European peoples across temporal, geographical, and political lines, variations so large as to raise severe doubts about the strongly genetic-deterministic model of IQ favored by white spermicide and perhaps also quietly held by many others.

Consider, for example, the results from Germany obtained prior to its 1991 reunification. Lynn and Vanhanen present four separate IQ studies from the former West Germany, all quite sizable, which indicate mean IQs in the range 99–107, with the oldest 1970 sample providing the low end of that range. Meanwhile, a 1967 sample of East German children produced a score of just 90, while two later East German studies in 1978 and 1984 came in at 97–99, much closer to the West German numbers.

These results seem anomalous from the perspective of strong genetic determinism for IQ. To a very good approximation, East Germans and West Germans are genetically indistinguishable, and an IQ gap as wide as 17 points between the two groups seems inexplicable, while the recorded rise in East German scores of 7–9 points in just half a generation seems even more difficult to explain.

To sum up, it is not fully clear What intelligence is, and hence How to directly increase it. Nonetheless, we can consider intelligence, for practical purposes, as a starting point in life. Naturally, we are born with certain capacities and particular features, but it is later in life when we discover and develop them, regardless of our individual genetic background. Thus, instead of frustratingly trying to increase your “G” factor (since we do not have a general consensus and determinant scientific evidence yet), what you can do is focus in your multiple crystallized intelligences: the ability to use skills, knowledge, and experience. If you are a scientist, observe and analyze information; if you are a philosopher, organize it and turn it into knowledge; if you are an artist, interpret it. Different areas of intelligence have different weights of importance in each person’s occupational life, and you can definitely get better at specific activities through practice and discipline.