Equality Is False — In Aptitude, Intelligence, Ability. What Are The Consequences?

Equality Is False — In Aptitude, Intelligence, Ability. What Are The Consequences?

Listen to this:

Brothers and sisters: There are different kinds of spiritual gifts but the same Spirit; there are different forms of service but the same Lord; there are different workings but the same God who produces all of them in everyone. To each individual the manifestation of the Spirit is given for some benefit. To one is given through the Spirit the expression of wisdom; to another, the expression of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another, faith by the same Spirit; to another, gifts of healing by the one Spirit; to another, mighty deeds; to another, prophecy; to another, discernment of spirits; to another, varieties of tongues; to another, interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit produces all of these, distributing them individually to each person as he wishes.

Christians are obliged to believe this. God did not hand out aptitude, intelligence, and ability equally. Why this is so is His business. Therefore, Equality is false. It follows immediately that to call the unequal distribution of talents “unfair” is idiotic, or, if you like, sinful.

It is obvious, even to non-Christians, that not every person is born with the same set of equipment. This is, of course, denied by some, because they are under the sway of Equality, the theory. They believe and love the theory. This love is, in fact, the only evidence for the theory. All Reality speaks against it. No positive evidence has ever been in favor of it. It is therefore irrational to believe in Equality. But Love is often irrational. So we will assume below, at least for the sake of argument, that Equality is false.

Now I still owe my article (half finished; been swamped) on IQ and intelligence, but I will give you (without proof here) some of its conclusions. Intelligence is not, and cannot be, entirely biological. This follows from the immateriality of the intellect and will. Accepting this (for now), it follows that genetics and evolution will never provide complete explanations of intelligence and other mental abilities. Scores on tests of questions thought clever (inside a culture) will only explain a fraction of intelligence and other abilities. Statistical summaries of those scores, with some being labeled things like ‘g’, underestimate variability. Correlates of test scores and genes use wee p-values as evidence. Over-certainty abounds. Which will come as no surprise to regular readers.

Yet it is also true that over-certainty is not no-certainty. Many things are perfectly clear, such as the consistent, long-running differences in performance on certain tests and other performance measures between American blacks and Asians. (The reverse is true for physical abilities.) We can call race those groups with which we self identify. By “differences” I mean, take a man from each race and knowing only the race of both, there is a better than fifty percent chance that the Asian would outscore the black. After we measure both men, race no longer matters.

The question is why do these differences exist? Are Asians and blacks equal in mental abilities—-and here I mean “on average”, as should be clear—but the Asians are racist and somehow have powers to apply their racism and keep blacks from performing at their true level? Or do blacks simply refuse to assimilate, not caring about the kinds of material that go into these tests? Perhaps a third group is tamping blacks down or elevating Asians. But if that’s so, then this third group must be credited with having the smarts to impose its will in such a profound way; meaning this third group has provided additional evidence of its superiority in at least these dimensions.

Whatever the answer is, we can’t tell from the data on scores (and race) alone. Cause isn’t in data, as we have been preaching. We have to look outside.

Some look to genes. There are obvious genetic and outward differences between peoples of different races, so it is plausible, and in no way ruled out by any theory of biology (except Equality), that inward differences can exist, too. We have already admitted that much of this evidence is necessarily incomplete and exaggerated, based on flawed metaphysics and statistics, so it’s not clear how a systematic re-doing of all measures in the predictive way it would all shake out.

It is clear, though, that the possibility is real, albeit of smaller effect than previously considered. Which makes the case of James Watson interesting. The man is near death and wields no influence anywhere, but the mob is baying for his blood, again, because he suggested what must almost certainly be true to some extent.

It is, of course, a political matter whether such information as genetics differences in mental abilities by races is useful or how this information should be acted upon. That it can be suppressed by bullying is true to an extent. It is not hard to imagine geneticists in these fields wearing false moustaches. But that it is suppressed only serves to make it more fascinating, and the differences prone to exaggeration (if only to make a point).

None of this would be really important except for the race war our elites seem intent on forcing upon us. This can only cause people to be forced to take sides. How dreadful.


  1. When our enemies say “equal”, they mean “identical”, for they believe that people are interchangeable widgets.

    Leftism is rooted in the denial of reality. All else follows.

  2. c matt

    whether such information as genetics differences in mental abilities by races is useful or how this information should be acted upon.

    It is useful in dispelling “disparate impact” theory. In labor law, as it stands now, if a disparate impact is observed, the law all but presumes it was caused by discrimination.

  3. Ray

    What Are The Consequences? Hilarity, of course. The feminists claim there are no differences between men and women and then they continually complain about men’s behavior. They are always the victims of male oppression. The only reason there are no female Shakespeares, Mozarts or Alexander the Greats is because of male oppression.

  4. Ray

    If there are no differences between groups of humans, why do we celebrate diversity?

  5. Kalif

    “If there are no differences between groups of humans, why do we celebrate diversity?”

    Statistics (among other things) attempts to separate within-group and between-group variability.
    “Groups of humans” have much more variability (diversity) within them than there is b/w the groups. Race is a perfectly continuous variable that has been categorized for the sake of simplicity (genetics doesn’t care what you call a certain group, but who bred with who starting 100s of thousands years ago).
    Ironically, those most ‘allergic’ to the term diversity, are members of the most genetically diverse group of people by a long margin. No contest. Yet, they dream of some uniformity and ‘nation’ that never existed. Don’t they (we) have a mirror handy? (and a genetic kit; those are becoming cheaper and cheaper by the day)

Leave a Reply

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