Why is the racial intelligence gap so taboo?

Obviously a pasta, but I'll bring an actual answer.

>Why is the racial intelligence gap so taboo?
If you mean here, it's because /pol/ has overrun the subject. If you mean in general, it's because SJW.

This could very well be cultural. The only way to tell would be to look at whites who grew up with the nigger culture as well as blacks who didn't and see how different they behave.

good job! you realize there are so many ways to group people now, and how it depends on the circumstances you meet them much more than anything else! your mom would be proud

Yeah but you're trying to say we should judge all blacks based on the top tier blacks

I don't judge all whites based on Bill Gates intelligence and success

Across all races the percent of the population that commits violent crime is absolutely miniscule.
And among those that do, it's almost always done to someone they know and falls into crimes of passion, premeditated violence, or gangland violence.

Actually as it pertains to being injured or killed by a random encounter, you're most likely to be hurt or killed by a white drunk driver veering off the road than Tyrone suddenly snapping while you're out for your afternoon walk.

>you're trying to say we should judge all blacks based on the top tier blacks
oh no! you've taken an example and generalized it wrong! let me help you with another harder one

person A is a white person and meets a black person B in their workplace. do you think base statistics on white/black people affect the chance that B is a criminal? why not? what should A think?

>there are a shitton of ways to group people
Indeed there are, and one way to group people is by race. And what we find with that grouping is that there are significant differences in both crime rates and IQ. Sure, it's possible to make all kinds of groupings but that doesn't remove the validity of other groupings

>This could very well be cultural. The only way to tell would be to look at whites who grew up with the nigger culture as well as blacks who didn't and see how different they behave.
C'mon man, entire field and countless studies are studying heritability, and you just come out here and shoot shit out of your ass?

>Why is the racial intelligence gap so taboo?
because of politics and cucks. leftards believe in certain equality and people being significantly biologically different goes against that. then there are cucks who want to fit in and not speak against the norm

the average person is very stupid and unscientific. for example those who fear nuclear fission reactors, genetic engineering or the global warming hysterics. its all about emotions and virtue signalling instead of accepting the truth and science

>countless studies
>missing the opportunity to drop the link to a meta-study and prove your point this hard

you're missing the point. race is not a useful grouping.

While they're not contradictory, nothing in politics or social interaction is based in logic. I'll go on being more cautious about the shady black guy than the white guy in a business suit because that's what statistics and reality tell me to look out for. When you're out in a city or wherever, you're at the mercy of statistics more than independent individual interactions.

>you're missing the point. race is not a useful grouping.
If you truly believe this, then you almost certainly die getting a stem cell donation.

not that user but you are a clueless retard

gwern.net/docs/genetics/heritable/2015-polderman.pdf

basically all character traits are to some degree genetic. now it is your turn. post evidence of culture and environment having an impact on intelligence apart from obvious extremes such as injury or malnutrition

then use meaningful statistics dumbass, not country-wide shit.
>shady vs business suit
GUESS WHERE THE DANGER COMES FROM???

Niggers are the most dangerous group in any geographic location.

>you're missing the point. race is not a useful grouping.
If you're in a shopping mall and someone steals from you, would you not tell the security guard the robber's race?

Did you know that if you group people by sex and examine total admission rates for most colleges, you can see that many colleges are disproportionately turning away women applicants compared to males, and are therefore arguably sexist?

...

Did you know that if you regroup these same statistics by department, that females tend to be overwhelmingly accepted compared to their male counterparts across the board, and the actual issue is that most of them are applying to programs which are hard to get into or already full, where their male counterparts are branching out into other areas which see less applications and being accepted?

>missing the opportunity to drop the link to a meta-study and prove your point this hard
Ok, here's one that puts the heritability of IQ at around 0.50
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9242404

>you're missing the point. race is not a useful grouping
How so? It tells you a lot about how that group does on average

>judging an individual based on country-wide statistics is the same as describing physical characteristics of a robber to the police
idiot

brainlets BTFO

So? We can discuss how the IQ data, for example, should be interpreted, and if you want, we can do that. But right now your irrelevant example is completely useless

>>judging an individual based on country-wide statistics is the same as describing physical characteristics of a robber to the police
>idiot
So you're saying race is a useful grouping?

1) People don't like things that make them feel like something fundamental to themselves is out of their control (like heritability for intelligence)

2) Individual variation is bigger than the group variation. It's not like the smartest white guy is dumber than the dumbest asian guy.

I've noticed that point number 2 is a particular sticking point for people. I realised very early as a teenager that it was pointless talking about this kind of thing because people just can't get over this point and have a rational discussion.

It's the same reason I never talk about male/female differences. Someone always gets upset and says
>"but my dad is horrible at driving and my mom has never crashed so you're wrong!! hah see your statistics and biology are meaningless!"

Sure, let's discuss it. Do you have multiple field raw data points we can use for statistical analysis, or are we going by someone else's decisions on how to draw the lines in the sand, and end up having a pissing match over aggregates, infographs, and articles with piss-poor materials and methods sections?

I'm glad you guys have terrible lives and all want to kill yourselfs, you should do it. You're all terrible people and will never find happiness because your lives revolve around thinking you're better than someone because of the colour of your skin. Just remember tonight while you're crying yourself to sleep I'll be sleeping next to my 10/10 Korean gf and not being a racist fuck like you.

As for data, please, do clarify, what are you looking for? Figures for IQ and/or IQ gaps? Metastudies for heritability?

>Do you have multiple field raw data points we can use for statistical analysis

Are you being retarded on purpose? Ok, let's start with this:
>Roth et al. (2001), in a review of the results of a total of 6,246,729 participants on other tests of cognitive ability or aptitude, found a difference in mean IQ scores between blacks and whites of 1.1 SD
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00094.x

For heritability, we can use this metastudy
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9242404

Is that enough for you to go on?

Should we conclude that men are inherently violent because of how much more likely they are to commit violent crimes?

Isn't that obvious?

Maaan I don't trust this stuff
I didn't trust IQ to begin with
And I don't know much about social science/psychology/whatever this is
especially if this is going to be used to justify racism

girls are violent af
Well, minority girls are

>Should we conclude that men are inherently violent because of how much more likely they are to commit violent crimes?
Yes... is this news to you?

...do you know what a raw data point is?

I'm giving you studies which establish the claims I'm making. If you want something outside of that, you can look it up yourself

>it obviously can't be explained solely by socio-economic factors
You're right.

Cultural bias in testing is the other factor. Occidental civilization is the only one putting such an emphasis on logical intelligence over all others (spatial, emotional and the list goes on). The fact you can train for an IQ test should be enough to show it means jack shit as a measure of total intelligence.

Alrighty then.

>Cultural bias in testing is the other factor
No, it really isn't. 73.3% of experts say that cultural bias isn't a factor (Reeve & Charles 2008). As for the validity of IQ tests, IQ is a better predictor of success than family socio-economic status (Strenze 2006)

Both racists and anti-racists misinterpret it.
You can acknowledge that a race has less average intelligence without advocating genocide, segregation, discrimination, and limiting individual opportunities.
The society already works hard to help the mentally handicapped and make sure that they are integrated into the society. Same idea.

Shhh! You're gonna ruin the thread!

I absolutely agree that genocide is never justified, and people will have to be guaranteed equal opportunities regardless of race. But do you think mentally handicapped people would make good immigrants to your country, or would you be in favor of massive amounts of mentally handicapped people immigrating?

Mass immigration was supposed to make 3rd world countries more like 1st world countries, but I'm afraid that the opposite is happening. People can call me all kinds of names, but that doesn't change the fact that immigration policies are dysfunctional. All of these gaps, from crime to education to income between population groups remain, and so far it doesn't look like there is a fix, and I am afraid that this is because of genetics.

t. xenophobic populist
be a good person user

>t. xenophobic populist
I wouldn't call myself a xenophobe, or at least I wouldn't mind if all the immigrants were coming from Denmark/Norway/Japan/etc. instead of Somalia

I get that many people would prefer that I not talk about this, but the problems exist regardless. The real world does what it does regardless of whether or not we talk about it. Others would argue that we have a moral duty to ignore the truth, but I'm not sure I can do that

This is the kind of behaviour I'm talking about:
The antisexist is so afraid to make a simple conclusion, because he believes that the acknowledgement that men may be more violent on average somehow translates into the idea that the society must discriminate against men as a result.
But that is misinterpretation of statistics on a demographic. We can acknowledge the statistics, yet continue our lives with sensible policies.
People are not good at analysis, can't handle data without leaping to all sorts of ridiculous conclusions.

I'm opposed to immigration of low-quality candidates, but that's a political issue. Race doesn't even come into consideration, because other qualities are much more relevant- what wealth, skills, traditions, etc. are they bringing in? Race is a proxy factor for people who cannot consider nuance, and must think in terms of colour codes. This is exactly what I mean when I say people do bad analysis of statistics on demography.

So a populist who is xenophobic

Wtf I love self inflicted racial genocide now. Enjoy having children that do not look like you

Yes, that is a very good point, I am against most immigration regardless of race. But statistically speaking, individuals from certain areas of the world tend to be more "low quality" than others. Vetting the immigrants would be a good solution, but right now we're not doing that

Also, as a side-note, I should note that these racial gaps in IQ might not be permanent. Science has advanced to the point where we're identifying the genes that are related to intelligence, and soon we will have the tools to change those genes

>now it is your turn
To do what? I asked for a meta-study so that the discussion can be shown to have solid grounds beyond /pol/ sensationalism, not so I could reject it.

Wasn't talking about IQ, but whatev.

>Indeed there are, and one way to group people is by race. And what we find with that grouping is that there are significant differences in both crime rates and IQ. Sure, it's possible to make all kinds of groupings but that doesn't remove the validity of other groupings
Indeed there are, and one way to group people is by their background: big city or bumfuck nowhere. And what we find with that grouping is that there are significant differences in both crime rates and IQ.

So, what do we do about it now?

>immigration policies are dysfunctional
By what metric?

>Indeed there are, and one way to group people is by their background: big city or bumfuck nowhere. And what we find with that grouping is that there are significant differences in both crime rates and IQ.
Interesting, how big are these differences? Link to study?

Crime rates, employment rates, welfare usage, etc. Of course, this varies by immigrant group, and these things are also affected by a variety of other factors too

>www.ttu.
ee/public/m/mart-murdvee/EconPsy/2/McDaniel_2006_Estimating_state_IQ_-_Measurement_challenges_and_preliminary_correlates.pdf
Notable, for example, that the negative correlation between violent crime and IQ is bigger than the negative correlation between IQ and % of population that is black. (5th page)

The state IQ and violent crime data is on page 6

You mean this statistic? I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove. Percentage of blacks 0.51 negative correlation with IQ, and 0.54 positive correlation with crime rates, whereas IQ has 0.58 negative correlation with crime rates. It seems that all of those numbers are fairly well in line with both each other and what the hereditarian hypothesis would predict

Also, idk if it was you who asked what should be done about this, my answer is nothing. Guarantee everyone equal opportunities, and maybe filter immigrants by IQ

This doesn't really say that black people are significantly more dangerous though. Just as the statistic "90% of people in my house are white americans" doesn't imply most white americans are in my house.

If a small town has a serial killer named Greg that is found to be responsible for 50% of the town's murders. Does that mean you can say that Gregs are dangerous and responsible for the majority of murders in the town?

That's the point I was trying to make. Just the fact that 50% of murders is by a Greg doesn't mean Gregs are dangerous. The description "small town" can make a difference however, and an analogous piece of infirmation was missing in that post.

Yes, you don't even need crime statistics to conclude that.

My uncle is from a poor. Ass third world nation and he's entering university next year. Of course my family helped him out and we pointed him to all the resources to make his transition smooth due to personal experience (something a low of newcomers don't know)

So inferior races are equal to the mentally handicapped in level of issues?

>So inferior races are equal to the mentally handicapped in level of issues?
No, generally inferior races bring more issues

AA isn't an issue if you aren't so dumb that blacks can compete for you spot at a university. Also statistically blacks go for nearby unis or state at best vs other groups who apply for further places.

Many Unis don't even use it and people still bitch that said uni uses a race blind holistic approach.

Only if you keep on antagonizing them and making shit worse. Also inferiority widely caries by the scenario.

Biggest example are the apartheid like states which ruined development for a large part of it's population

>Across all races the percent of the population that commits violent crime is absolutely miniscule.
1/3rd of black males will go to jail in their lifetime...

>It is controversial in the year 2017 to notice that men are more violent than women

I don't know woman
It may not be as you say

>AA isn't an issue if you aren't so dumb that blacks can compete for you spot at a university.
But blacks can't compete, that's why AA exists in the first place

Regardless of family income levels, they are not on the same social position, there's a cultural difference.

This test is invalid because of a simple reason: they are american. So they are brainlets.

>this much damage control

Stop being so ignorant ou racist shit.

>Stop being so ignorant ou racist shit.
Ad hominem. Post disregarded.

Next?

>Why is the racial intelligence gap so taboo?
First, let's point out SAT isn't meant to measure intelligence. Unless by intelligence we mean the ability to memorize the SAT hot words book and solve high school algebra 2 problems.

It's taboo because
1. So many people like you make it into a deterministic quality. An average is an average and when you apply it to individuals you're guilty of the ecological fallacy. People are rightly afraid that taking the numbers at face value and applying them into social policy diminishes any chance that they may have to see higher IQs, as almost every group has seen in the last century (see: Flynn effect.)

2. As you said, it can't be explained SOLELY by socio-economic factors. The more important question is to what extent, and what other factors in pre and post natal environment (in which black children and their mothers already have higher mortality), in upbringing, in health, in the factors that surround test-taking (like stereotype threat, which, per one of the authors of MTRA S don't necessarily disappear with adoption) , etc. To be sure, there are people in academia who propose some or other driving factors, but everyone knows how important IQ is to the public imagination and no scientist wants to throw tinder into the fire. Paradoxically, if you want this area of scientific inquiry to be as objective and committed to the truth as possible then you have to keep your trap shut and make the publishing of unpalatable results more palatable to scientists who don't want to feed any supremacist sentiment with their research.

yes you can.

based on knowing that the mean IQ of black people is 10-15 points lower than that of white people, we can conclude that under equal opportunities, we would expect there to be about 30-50 times fewer black people than we would expect for their population size than white people in jobs that required an IQ over 130 like say being a mathematician or physicist or top engineer.

And similarly from the fact that Ashkenazi jews have a mean Iq 8-12 points higher than white people wecan conclude than under equal opportunities we would expect ashkenazi jews to be over-represented by a similar magnitude in those professions.

brainlet post

>First, let's point out SAT isn't meant to measure intelligence.
It's highly correlated with g

> So many people like you make it into a deterministic quality. An average is an average and when you apply it to individuals you're guilty of the ecological fallacy.
There is also such a thing as an individual IQ score, and it is highly deterministic of one's life outcomes.

>The more important question is to what extent, and what other factors in pre and post natal environment
These questions are very well studied. The influence of the non shared environment is about 20%. Genetics make up the other 80%. The influence of what is called the shared environment (culture, upbringing, education, etc.) make up exactly 0%.

>like stereotype threat
A complete fantasy made up by sociologists who've never heard of the scientific method.

>Paradoxically, if you want this area of scientific inquiry to be as objective and committed to the truth as possible then you have to keep your trap shut
>Now don't get the wrong idea goy!

>People are rightly afraid that taking the numbers at face value and applying them into social policy diminishes any chance that they may have to see higher IQs, as almost every group has seen in the last century

think of how many african einsteins we've missed. i cri evrytiem

obviously when you have to make any decision under uncertainty you should use all the pertinent and useful information available to you.

Since your example is at a work place there would be information associated with that work place. for example say the work place is a software company there is a low probability of any employee being associated with crime. Say the work place is fast food then , without any other information about an employee save that they are white or black, it is correct and rational to say that the black worker is significantly more likely to be associated with crime than the white worker.

In other circumstances where you have to make a decision under uncertainty, you might have even less information, say when you are walking down the street or getting out of or into your car at night.

Here the only information you have to assess the risk someone poses to you is probably their attire and their race and the neighbourhood you are in.
Rationally, if you see an east asian walking towards you in genes and a t shirt and a a black person walking towards you in genes and a tshirt and you are unfamiliar with the neighbourhood but it seems somewhat lower class, it would be rational of you to feel more wary towards the black guy because he poses more of risk of committing crime against you than the east asian does.

you can't deny this.

Therefore in many circumstances it is rational to be racial discriminatory.

>you can't deny this.
Why not?

>brainlet post
What a totally clever insult that isn't thrown about ad nauseum on Veeky Forums. I hope it wasn't you complaining about ad hominem 3 posts above

>It's highly correlated with g
"Highly correlated" is vague on your end, but even if it is (and I'm not disputing it is,) it's still not a measure of intelligence.

>There is also such a thing as an individual IQ score, and it is highly deterministic of one's life outcomes.
And most individuals never have such a score measured. Plus, the relevance of the ecological fallacy here isn't the validity of IQ as an individual measure of future success, but on the validity of the average IQ of a group as a measure of individual success. You're missing the point for the sake of being defensive.

>These questions are very well studied. The influence of the non shared environment is about 20%. Genetics make up the other 80%. The influence of what is called the shared environment (culture, upbringing, education, etc.) make up exactly 0%.
Those numbers are the source of plenty of contention, you're making up a consensus where there isn't, not to mention, posting suspiciously rounded numbers with no source. While I wouldn't be as arrogant as you are and pretend that there is no researcher backing that position (though perhaps no researcher is arrogant enough to say culture, upbringing and education make up exactly 0%), I can post authors who disagree to the same measure you can post authors who agree. More interestingly, journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.0956-7976.2003.psci_1475.x argues for a heritability of IQ partially dependent on socioeconomic status
(continued)

>A complete fantasy made up by sociologists who've never heard of the scientific method.
I'm not going to do your science homework for you, you can search for the empirical evidence of stereotype threat on your own. Here's my gift to you, from such a 2 second search: diversity.arizona.edu/sites/diversity/files/stereotype_threat_overview.pdf

>Now don't get the wrong idea goy!
You're still missing the point completely because your defensiveness and emotional investment into the topic makes you obtuse and vitriolic. You're the type of person that researchers, who, as healthy and well adapted human beings worry about the well being and human dignity of their research subjects, are afraid of.

>What a totally clever insult
Thanks

>"Highly correlated" is vague on your end, but even if it is (and I'm not disputing it is,) it's still not a measure of intelligence.
g is literally the intelligence metric

>And most individuals never have such a score measured.
Right, but doesn't mean that they don't have such a score, even if they don't know it.

>Plus, the relevance of the ecological fallacy here isn't the validity of IQ as an individual measure of future success, but on the validity of the average IQ of a group as a measure of individual success.
Your ecological fallacy was a strawman, nobody here is claiming that every single white is smarter than every single black.

>Those numbers are the source of plenty of contention,
Not really

>you're making up a consensus where there isn't,
I'd say there is about the same consensus as for global warming.

>not to mention, posting suspiciously rounded numbers with no source.
You can start with the wikipedia page on the heritability of IQ and work your way up from there.

>(though perhaps no researcher is arrogant enough to say culture, upbringing and education make up exactly 0%
It's the actual academic consensus, doofus.

> I can post authors who disagree to the same measure you can post authors who agree
And I can post authors who claim the earth is flat. Saying something does not mean it's true. I'm talking about peer reviewed research here.

> More interestingly, journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.0956-7976.2003.psci_1475.x argues for a heritability of IQ partially dependent on socioeconomic status
I don't dispute this. Actually the study shows that very poor children have a stunted intellectual growth (which is obvious). However the important part is the last sentence of your abstract.
>in affluent families, the result is almost exactly the reverse.
I.e. the influence of the shared environment is 0. You were asking for a source, here it is.

cont.

>I'm not going to do your science homework for you, you can search for the empirical evidence of stereotype threat on your own.
There is none.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat#Failures_to_replicate_and_publication_bias

Literally non-science.

>waa waa your an ebil nazi
okay.jpg

sat performance is a decent proxy for IQ .
proof: sat performance will correlate well to academic performance in general and to the average IQ of the career the person goes into.

1. it's actually people on the left who , in their outrage, grossly misrepresent these findings.
Look at how last year a google engineer sent a few people an internal memo stating among females, the distritbution of interest in engineering and other systemising jobs had a lower mean than the distribution of interest in engineering and systemising jobs in males, and female google engineers and executives responded saying "this man is saying we are biologically mentally inferior at engineering because of our gender".

If a side is going to talk about things deterministically and misrepresent results to justify their outrage it is going to happen much more on the left who ideologically hate any of these facts that are contradictory to their world view.

2. I think these are sensible points but a) I haven't seen good reason established why white mothers who give up babies for adoption would be a better on average womb environment than black mothers who give up babies for adoption. both races who are deemed unfit for parenthood by social services will be more likely to have taken drugs and alcohol and poor nutrition during gestation than normal mothers. What's the reasoning behind black mothers who give up babies for adoption having worse wombs than white ones? b) stereotype threat, though initially lauded by leftists because it justified what they wanted to believe and helped give them an excuse to say "still environmental!" whenever inconvenient evidence came their way, has failed to be reproduced in subsequent studies. seems to be part of the reproducibility crises in psychology. Also, you don't acknowledge the fact that in the MTRA even though the post-natal environments are much, much closer, the IQ gap between the black adopted average [cont]

>violent crime

people must select for the PHENOTYPE to develop big ASHKENAZI brians

[cont] at age 17 and the white adopted average at age 17 is no smaller than in the general population. the gap was 15 in the general USA population when the study was done and the gap was 15 within the study's samples. The fact that making the post natal environment much more similar does nothing to reduce the IQ gap is evidence that either the environmental component of the Iq gap between general USA adults is small in comparison to the genetic component, or that the post natal environmental differences do not contribute to the IQ gap. both of these are surprising outcomes to a typical leftist.

I think you are correct that the best way for more of this stuff to be done is to not attract attention to it though.

however it's inevitable that people find more and more which alleles are associated with high IQ and once that info is available anyone motivated can test the frequency of these alleles in a public genetic data base look at the frequency of these alleles in different races.

a few years ago you could with good significance explain 2% of the variance in IQ with alleles found linked to intelligence. now it's like 5% or 10%. when we can explain like 30%+ of the variance in IQ with alleles and we see that most of these alleles are found like half as often in blacks as in east asians and whites (which has generally been the case for the IQ-associated alleles studied so far) then leftists will increasingly have to acknowledge the possibility they have been wanting to deny and say must be rubbish all this time.

And it will be the greatest exposure of intellectual dishonesty by the left.

Because it will have been something clearly obvious just by looking at real-world outcomes but which leftists created an academic industry trying to ignore.

It will show how academically rotted and compromised the left is. How they will spend decades and thousands of academic papers trying to avoid seeing what was infront of them.

>Ok, here's one that puts the heritability of IQ at around 0.50
Wow, it's fucking nothing.

>Muh cultural intelligence

Right. So whitey makes a test based on progressing matrices, which East Asians score higher on, by the way, and race-deniers claim that there is "cultural bias." The argument is so low-IQ it hurts my brain.

Raceblind is the best approach. Race should not even be a factor, and to include it is literally racism.

>as almost every group has seen in the last century (see: Flynn effect.)
There is an argument to be had about whether or not the Flynn effect is even real, given that Flynn effect does not reflect increases in g (general intelligence). Flynn effect increases have a negative correlation of 0.38 with g (Nijenhuis &van der Flier) Whatever the case is, the increases have stopped now. Also, Flynn effect does not contradict the hereditarian view in the first place

>(like stereotype threat, which, per one of the authors of MTRA S don't necessarily disappear with adoption)
Stereotype threat doesn't exist. It's amazing how some people have dedicated so much research to something so useless. What they found is that, if you harass people, their scores go down. Never, ever did the scores of black people surpass their baseline score, which is low, not in the starting condition ("no threat condition") or in the paid condition (which makes the "stereotype threat" go away). All of this research establishes nothing

>diversity.arizona.edu/sites/diversity/files/stereotype_threat_overview.pdf
See above paragraph

>Wow, it's fucking nothing
>meta-study of 212 studies
>nothing
nice argument

the blacks aren't who out-compete you. If they get higher grades and so are honestly the more attractive candidate then fair enough they out competed you.

but what is normally the case is that they get given a place despite there being many other more qualified white and asian candidates so the white and asian candidates have to fight more fiercely for the remaining places than they would do under a purely meritocratic scheme.

Btw , the idea behind affirmative action is that even though they have lower grades, because they were black they were disadvantaged so getting the same grades as a white or asian person is more impressive and indicates greater potential.
This kind of thinking has merit except it's totally wrong that because someone is black they have been disadvantaged in their schooling. there are now many blacks with affluent parents who were sent to good schools who still benefit from this idea that they were disadvantaged so must have had more potential in order to do as well as they did academically , which is wrong and total garbage.

Affirmative action could work if instead they looked at a student's highschool and judged their grades against the average grades for that school, which would be an indication of the learning environment in that highschool and the teaching they received and would apply to whites and asians in shitty schools and stop rewarding blacks who had the best of highschool educations for no reason.

But the fact that they don't do this but still keep affirmative action indicates that although htey try to justify it meritocratically , the real reason is that they just want there to try and give as much help to blacks as possible to try and "raise them up" and make society "equal" even if it isn't at all fair or warranted or meritocratic.