What Herrnstein and I did not fully appreciate 16 years ago was how relentless this segregation would be. It is hard to get numbers -- no survey has samples large enough to calibrate precisely what's going on with the top percentiles of the population that I'm talking about -- but the numbers we do have, combined with qualitative data provided by observers such as Brooks, Florida and Bill Bishop, in his book "The Big Sort," are persuasive.Naturally, most of the elite have left-wing views:
We know, for one thing, that the New Elite clusters in a comparatively small number of cities and in selected neighborhoods in those cities. This concentration isn't limited to the elite neighborhoods of Washington, New York, Boston, Los Angeles, Silicon Valley and San Francisco. It extends to university cities with ancillary high-tech jobs, such as Austin and the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill triangle.
Part of the isolation is political. In that Harvard survey I mentioned, 72 percent of Harvard seniors said their beliefs were to the left of the nation as a whole, compared with 10 percent who said theirs were to the right of it. The political preferences of academics and journalists among the New Elite also conform to the suspicions of the tea party.Here's where I might disagree with Murray: his contention that many of the elite may actually be patriotic:
The bubble that encases the New Elite crosses ideological lines and includes far too many of the people who have influence, great or small, on the course of the nation. They are not defective in their patriotism or lacking a generous spirit toward their fellow citizens. They are merely isolated and ignorant. The members of the New Elite may love America, but, increasingly, they are not of it.If liberal political commentary is at all representative, most of the elite has nothing but contempt for ordinary Americans, for flyover country. The other day, Rob Reiner, admittedly ultraliberal, compared the Tea Party to Hitler, to the general approval of host and audience on the Bill Maher show.
In turn, contempt for the elites, for the Ivy League, Wall Street, the Congress, does seem to be among the main, though relatively hidden, motivations of the Tea Party.
Murray doesn't mention affirmative action or immigration, and while the beneficiaries of AA or immigrants aren't necessarily a part of the New Elite, these policies are very much their creatures, and these also motivate the Tea Party movement.
Interesting post, Dennis. As I've repeatedly stated, a tiny fraction of people create almost everything of value for society!
ReplyDeleteIt's true that smarter people tend to lean to the left, but that doesn't mean that there aren't meaningful numbers of smart people who aren't consumed by far left political correctness. Furthermore, let me offer up another empirical claim. The truly intelligent are less liberal than the merely intelligent. That is to say, I would be willing to wager that political correctness peaks at some IQ range that's decently above average, say around 120-130 or so, and then declines after that. I've found that exceptionally bright people generally tend to be less politically correct in their orientation, relative to the decently smart people, which is probably why professors in the hard natural sciences are less politically correct than professors in the social sciences.
That is to say, I would be willing to wager that political correctness peaks at some IQ range that's decently above average, say around 120-130 or so, and then declines after that. I've found that exceptionally bright people generally tend to be less politically correct in their orientation, relative to the decently smart people
ReplyDeleteI've found that this is true, but also that the "exceptionally intelligent" people are often uninterested in politics and will uncritically accept the opinions of the "merely intelligent" social scientists.
"Merely intelligent" people are also far more numerous than "exceptionally intelligent" people, compounding the problem.
Dennis, as the commenter "Dregs" states at an earlier post, Murray's money quote asserts that "When it comes to the schools were they were educated, the degrees they hold, the Zip codes where they reside, and the television shows they watch, I doubt there is much difference" between the conservatives and the liberals. Let me append to this an interesting statement by Auster a few days ago: "It is a standard view among the liberal Jewish cultural elite that until the sixties, WASP-led America was sexually repressed, fascist, immature, crushingly homogeneous and that it was only the wonderful Jewish-led sixties revolution that made America great and genuine." Take out Auster's "liberal" appellation and you have today's "elite" in microcosm. Like you, I would be loathe to defend their patriotism. Finally, add the point made in a column today at The American Spectator by James Gannon - the PC elites, "having abandoned religion as a superstition, patriotism as a joke, and morality as a straitjacket," cling to their beliefs as their new "religion, their family, their purpose in being, and they need to succeed in this life because at the end there is only Darkness."
ReplyDeleteCould you spare as any more of Yan Shen's thinly-disguised attempts to assert Chinese superiority (the main point of all his comments regarding high IQ people)?
It's true that smarter people tend to lean to the left, but that doesn't mean that there aren't meaningful numbers of smart people who aren't consumed by far left political correctness. Furthermore, let me offer up another empirical claim. The truly intelligent are less liberal than the merely intelligent. That is to say, I would be willing to wager that political correctness peaks at some IQ range that's decently above average, say around 120-130 or so, and then declines after that.
ReplyDeleteHarvard and Yale Law take people who score two SDs over the man on the LSAT, which is only taken by college graduates. This means the average IQ of students in these programs is about 140. Are they less liberal than Harvard/Yale undergrads?
As I've repeatedly stated, a tiny fraction of people create almost everything of value for society!
ReplyDeleteYour repeatedly stating something does not magically make it true.
You missed a spot.
ReplyDeleteThe new elite may theoretically have some varying political views, e.g., some may be for or against abortion, some may be for or against keeping troops in Afghanistan, for or against gay marriage. But, at least I suspect, as elite they are uniform in their agreement that they, the elite, should decide.
Translation: they are --again I'm guessing here, ok with the continued status quo re a centralized, hegemonic, federal government. What, let states decide on abortion and gay marriage? Insist Congress decide on war instead of the President? Leave education completely up to the county level? You've got to be kidding! That would be to them like letting a baby operate heavy machinery.
Dennis, I agree with Charles Murray. The elite certainly dominate both political parties. I find the cultural values of the elite to be anathema and I would certainly not want to live in a community in which the values are set by our elite.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, there are plenty of people in the US that are happy with the values of the elite. It seems to me that there should be true Federalism in which certain political units are run according to the social rules of 1950s America and certain other political units are run according to the social rules of the elites.
This sorting has already happened, to some extent. If you want to live a more traditional lifestyle, places like Delta, Utah, or Provo, Utah, or Colorado Springs offer this traditional lifestyle. These places should be able to maintain their own unique traditional lifestyle without encroachment from the elites.
At the same time, it is perfectly appropriate for the elites to dominate places like New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. The majority of the people in those cities want to live by the cultural rules of the elites.
As has been commented upon many times here, the elites seem to have fertility levels far below replacement levels. While non elites, whether the non elite are Mormon, or Evangelical Christian seem to have above replacement fertility.
It seems that both should be able to coexist well.
Don't forget that the current arrangement of society in Silicon Valley, in Hollywood, in Cambridge works well for the elite. The elite prefers to bring high IQ people like Yan Shen to live in their communities and work in their companies as opposed to non elite Americans.
Fundamentally, the elite created Google, they created apple, they created facebook. They should be allowed to staff up their companies with whoever they want, and if they prefer to hire clones of Yan Shen instead of clones of Sheilla, so be it.
at the same time, if Sheilla wants to live in a community that excludes the elite and excludes Yan Shen, she should be allowed. Isn't America big enough to accommodate both the elite and the non elite in separate cities?
Sheila,
ReplyDeleteThe bulk of the SWPL crowd are pure status mongers. They'll say whatever gets them the most status. Their actual beliefs are a mystery, but their actions in their daily lives (where they choose to live, for instance, when they have kids, their ideas about 'good schools', etc) are indistinguishable from a reactionary racists (NOT THAT THERE's ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT :-)). Were my armies of reaction to forcibly seize control of the organs of the culture, they'd quickly be trying to one-up each other on their knowledge of Old Testament lineages.
The isolation appears to be not only political but racial as well.
ReplyDeleteDitto Al Gore. Montecito CA is 94% white. The Clinton's live in Chappaqua, NY which is, according to CDP, 91.80% White.
There is also Gore's old neighborhood of Belle Meade, TN; the racial makeup of the city was 98.64% White.
ReplyDeletehere's a question:
ReplyDeletehow is it possible for affirmative action mediocrities like Barry and Michelle to be "elite"?
There has always been segregation between 'elite' and their co-ethnics.
ReplyDeletedavid cannadine ornamentalism
"The English lower classes were, to nineteenth-century eyes, as racially different as were Africans or Asians...'The Bethnal Green poor are a caste apart, a race of whom we know nothing, whose lives are of quite different complexion from ours, persons with whom we have no point of contact.' 'Distinctions and separations, like those of English classes', which always endure, which last from the cradle to the grave, which prevent anything like association or companionship, produce an effect on the lives of the extreme poor, and subject them to isolation, which offer a very fair parallel to the separation of the slaves from the whites.'
'The English poor man or child', is always expected to remember the condition in which God has placed him, exactly as the negro is expected to remember the skin that God has given him. The relation in both instances is that of perpetual superior to perpetual inferior, of chief to dependent, and no amount of kindness or goodness is suffered to alter this relation.'
The folly of racial solidarity is based upon the wrongful notion that natural selection functions at the group level. It, as American biologist, George C. William's suggested, does not. The Koreans, it is suggested, are highly ethnocentric or ethno nepotistic. They are not. "In Korea, adoption is nearly non-existent because of a strong recognition only for children of pure blood. ..." In other words the maintenance of the patrilineal line is more important than the concern for the well being of the ethny.
China is another example of the enormous emphasis upon nepotism.
ReplyDeleteAbout 90 per cent of China's billionaires are the children of high-ranking officials
The same phenomena Murray describes in the U.S. long has dominated in China. Why did China lag behind the West? Nepotism.
"The Confucian overemphasis on family likewise seems ill-suited to the modern world. Few would deny that the family is the basic social unit in human society, but in Confucian ethics, filial piety was the supreme virtue. Confucius disapproved of one man who testified against his father for stealing a sheep, arguing that fathers and sons should shield one another (Confucius 13:18). Mencius wrote that Emperor Shun should abandon his empire and run away with his father if the latter committed a murder (Mencius 7A:35). The exaggerated emphasis on filial piety, an integral part of Confucian values, has had a negative impact on many aspects of Chinese society. It fostered loyalty to authority and impeded individual freedom; it contributed to a long tradition of corruption among Chinese officials (Balazs 1964, 10; Lin 1935, 180); and it undermined attempts at economic modernization (Levy 1963). Even today, nepotism causes major problems in Chinese government and politics."
How is it possible for affirmative action mediocrities like Barry and Michelle to be "elite"?
ReplyDeleteThey are elite but the “elite” are not to be confused with the best and brightest. An “Elite” has never historically been viewed as the same as a natural aristocracy or meritocracy. It is true that the elite put out a story that they represent the “meritocracy”, unlike the bad old days when, in the Untied States, the old Wasp “elite” dominated the Ivy league schools they created, as well as most of big business. But that is basically self-justifying mythology on the part of the current elite.
Consider Caroline Kennedy, who came off as so inarticulate and uninformed that she failed to be appointed to a Senate seat. I’d say most of our “elites” are pretty much in the same ball park of ability and merit as the Obama’s and Caroline Kennedy. Just because “elites” have money and power doesn’t mean they have ability and merit much less virtue and wisdom. Ivy league schools in particular are infamous for handing out “degrees” with “honors” to something like 75 percent of entire graduating classes. They are effectively handing out patents of nobility.
The elite rule is selfish and self-interested and we should recall that Aristotle considered any rule that wasn’t in the common interest to be characteristic of a tyranny.
For a concrete illustration of the "money quote" in Murray's essay I referred to previously that Sheila mentioned above, take a look at this profile of the "50 Most Beautiful People" in Washington. They are much less divided by politics than they are united by a shared outlook. In fact, the common background leads to their being engaged in a common enterprise, a common pursuit, even though they believe themselves to be on different sides of political issues. Fundamentally, they aren't on different sides; politics is just a game that they are playing as part of their membership in the elite ranks.
ReplyDeletehttp://thehill.com/capital-living/cover-stories/111165-50-most-beautiful-html-1
"It's true that smarter people tend to lean to the left"
ReplyDeleteIt's true that the people who have spent longest in the non science wing of the education system lean to the left.
If you compared the left / right proportions of people from the politically neutral hard science wing then you'd get a truer picture which is marxists originally targeted adults then discovered it was much easier to go after the young through the schools and universities.
"Yan Shen said...
ReplyDeleteInteresting post, Dennis. As I've repeatedly stated, a tiny fraction of people create almost everything of value for society!"
And as I've repeatedly stated, I don't give a good goddamn about anything you repeatedly state.
"Part of the isolation is political. In that Harvard survey I mentioned, 72 percent of Harvard seniors said their beliefs were to the left of the nation as a whole, compared with 10 percent who said theirs were to the right of it. The political preferences of academics and journalists among the New Elite also conform to the suspicions of the tea party"
ReplyDeleteI'm sure the admissions process to Harvard selects for left of center applicants. That's why they have an essay.
Yan Shen said...
ReplyDelete"Interesting post, Dennis. As I've repeatedly stated, a tiny fraction of people create almost everything of value for society!"
The problem with this is that this tiny fraction can actually do nothing by themselves ...
As La Griffe du Lion says, what is important is the smart fraction ... ie, that fraction with an IQ above 105.
Not quite.
ReplyDeleteIf it were that simple, East Asians would do much better than they do, since half the population has an IQ of > 105.
It's VERBAL IQ that needs to be > 105; ie it's a sub-type of smart fraction.
And here, whites do better, and Asians not quite as well as one might expect. So IQ tests, although incredibly important, carry more prognostic information if they are refined a bit.
Read La Griffe's later update of "Smart Fraction". It's well worth it.
Anon.
The modern elite are vastly over-rated (by themselves).
ReplyDeleteThe fact that half or more of elite college entrants are women, and the length of training required for professions, make clear that the modern elite are mostly uber-conscientious implementers - they are not (as they would have us believe) 'creative'.
The modern elite are a bunch of 'Texas sharpshooters' who retrospectively paint a target around their modest individual achievements, and pretend that was what they had been aiming-at.
(The iPad is a brilliant example: it did not answer a pre-existing need but was a thing that Apple were able to make using existing technology; then marketed (hyped) to persuade people that this thing that Mac had made was exactly what they had always wanted.)
Indeed the modern psychological definition of creativity has been adjusted to accomodate the new elite - where old fashioned creativity was semi-crazy, awkward and (mostly) male - the modern idea of creativity idea is a neophiliac arts consumer and bricolageur.
Just compare modern 'art' with the creative arts of 150 years ago - it is obvious modern art is a branch of (dull) elite scholarship, a game of permutation and referencing.
When the elite are preening themselves, conisder that the best they can produce for themselves is modern art.
And of course modern science is a genius free zone as well.
The modern elite are not even second-rate - they are merely ultra-productive third-raters plus hype.
Plus they are cowards.
'Nuff said.
how is it possible for affirmative action mediocrities like Barry and Michelle to be "elite"?
ReplyDeleteThe whole purpose of affirmative action is to allow the elite to coopt the "best" members of minority groups (who might well be total mediocrities on an objective scale) and thus prevent them from agitating against the elite. Secondarily AA allows the elite to use the minority mediocrities to attack white proles. Without AA the minorities might make common cause with the white proles, and the elite can't have that, can they?
There have always been, and will always be, 'elites'. Whether they are today more out of touch, or unconcerned, I cannot say; if you believe the polling on this specific question, it seems more and more people believe the 'elites' are out of touch (see this recent Vdare blog post about that).
ReplyDeleteCompletely OT
Every American should see this:
When We Decide to Know
The question remains, what will it take to get enough people to decide to know that our war in Afghanistan is futile? Sometimes, a photograph will make the difference.
Harvard and Yale Law take people who score two SDs over the man on the LSAT, which is only taken by college graduates. This means the average IQ of students in these programs is about 140. Are they less liberal than Harvard/Yale undergrads?
ReplyDeleteThey're not a random sample of 140+-IQ people. They're disproportionately Jewish.
There is no evidence that Asian verbal IQs are lower than those of whites. When such results are found it is mainly due to immigrant language issues.
ReplyDeleteOn the SAT verbal Asian students from moderately prosperous families match white scores and those from affluent families score higher than white families with the same income. It is only poor (recent immigrant) Asians who lag. LaGriffe should look more carefully at the data.
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/06/asian-white-iq-variance-from-pisa.html
Perhaps La Griffe, who I am not, could weigh in. This is not a trivial subject.
ReplyDeleteAnon
The question remains, what will it take to get enough people to decide to know that our war in Afghanistan is futile? Sometimes, a photograph will make the difference.
ReplyDeleteArgument by grisly photograph is specious. Every war gets our soldiers horribly maimed, but that does not mean that every war is futile.
John Doe: The elite rule is selfish and self-interested and we should recall that Aristotle considered any rule that wasn’t in the common interest to be characteristic of a tyranny.
ReplyDeleteYes. Lost in most discussion of "elites" is the basic question of "what is an elite for?" Elites are both inevitable and necessary, but there is no benefit whatever to the general populace to live under a completely "decoupled" elite, as we arguably do now.
An elite must earn its "subsidy" from ordinary people - e.g., it makes perfect sense to tax me to educate somebody else's brilliant offspring, and to pay them well for their acquired skills, if that exceptional person and his talents end up improving the lives of me and mine. It makes perfect sense to elevate and endow with power the most able, because it benefits the less able to be prudently governed. Elites, like all people, are self-interested, but it makes no sense at all for ordinary people to tolerate an elite whose interests have diverged to the point where they are the open enemies, in every possible way - culturally, economically - of the people they presume to rule.
If the elites' rapacious financial and political manipulations simply end up fleecing me with no return, then the "elite" has failed in its function. That elite reciprocity is supposed to be be part of its function is readily acknowledged by the amount of propaganda devoted to persuading Joe Ordinary that he's not the designated chump in a zero-sum game, though it should be obvious by now to any but the stupidest neoliberal/neocon kool-aid drinker that that's exactly what he is.
But so often I see "elites" spoken of as unquestioned ends in themselves, where the self-interested actions of the "winners" are justified, or at least taken as inevitable, not by reference to any higher social purpose of an elite class, but merely by the fact that they're....elite. And paradoxically this pathological, anti-social mindset may arise more readily in a meritocratic elite than in other types - because, dammit, they earned it. As indeed, many of them did, jumping through all the "cognitive elite" hoops, albeit without acquiring any of the restraining enculturation into a code of honor and duty, as even the most venal and corrupt elite of the aristocratic type might possess. But why should I give a rap about an "elite", no matter how splendidly accomplished, if they're not, to some degree, working for me. An elite class must justify itself, and there is no more justification for an elite that does not serve, than there is for a policeman who polices only for his own benefit.
It may be true that all elites in end degenerate to this point - thus torches, pitchforks, lampposts are a human constant.
You are correct.
ReplyDeleteAnon.