(Written 8/19/18)
I just finished a four week bible study series on hospitality with a group of college-aged folks from my church. Now, hospitality is kind of an unusual topic for a bible study. There are many, many other topics that would come to my mind before hospitality if I were asked to lead a topical bible study. In fact, when Brad announced that we were going to be doing a short study on hospitality to round out the summer, everyone was kind of like "meh, okay." I didn't have anything against it, but I was not particularly excited for it. Yet, this has been one of the most soul-feeding bible studies I've ever been a part of.
A lot of that is due to Brad, I think. His own character has shown through in leading the study: his love for God and love for people. And he is also a phenomenal small group leader. He leads discussion into deep and interesting topics and has done a great job of drawing meaningful contribution out of everyone.
I am in and of myself naturally completely lacking in hospitality, it is just not something that I have ever done, but this study has given me a desire to really care for people as I go back to college. Last year I was very concerned about meeting people I'd like and making good friends so I would enjoy college and not be lonely. This year (though I am once again on a hall where I know no one, having been separated from my buddies through some unfortunate problems during housing registration) I want to focus on others, meeting people and talking to them with the intention of getting to know who they are so that I can be a means of Christ's love to them. Going to college can be incredibly jarring for people, being separated from their family and all they've ever known, and I want to be able to help someone through that. I want to be able to talk to and care about everyone I see on my hall.
Sunday, August 19, 2018
Saturday, August 18, 2018
What I Should Be as a Man
(Written 8/19/18)
People have a tendency to make long lists of requirements they want in a potential mate, without ever considering why a person who meets all those requirements would ever choose them in the first place. For example, both of the girls I've dated in the past year had made 30 point lists of qualities they wanted in a man, yet neither had ever considered, as far as I could tell, what qualities of their own they had that made them worth such a man. Many girls have this attitude because of the constant message in our culture that girls are a prize to be won, that they're valuable just for existing while the guy has to compete for their hand. However, I think guys as well are not all together immune to this failing. I've noticed in my own thinking that I naturally spend much more time thinking of all the virtues I'd like in a girl rather than what I am called to be. In order to fight back against this tendency, I would like to discuss what a godly man (and husband) should be.
First and foremost, a godly man must not be lazy. Paul said that if anyone would not work, they shouldn't be able to eat. Men are obligated to work to provide for their families, and a lazy sluggard will leave his wife and children hungry and destitute. You can see this role of men all the way back at the curse, where God cursed Adam and Eve both in their primary functions, Eve in bearing children, and Adam in working to bring food. Work as a result of the fall is hard and not necessarily something we do for fun, but it is what we are called to do.
Men are called to be strong, principled, and courageous. These three things are closely related to each other. We see this in 1 Corinthians 16: "Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong." This is one of the clearest verses in Scripture that teaches that men specifically are expected to act a certain way. Paul here equates acting like a man with strength of conviction in the articles of our faith. One very literal translation actually translated the end of that verse as "be men, be strong." Even in the Old Testament, God constantly commanded Joshua to "be strong and very courageous." A man who is strong, both physically and in the strength of his convictions, who stands by his principles and will go through grave danger to protect his people, is a man worthy of admiration.
Men are to be leaders and authorities, and they should be worthy of that honor and responsibility. If my wife is commanded to submit herself to me "as to the lord," and "in everything," if she is told to obey me, if I am her head in an analogous way to Christ being the head of the Church, then I have an incredibly awesome honor and responsibility. This level of power men have been given is often abused, once again going back to the curse after the Fall where Eve was told that her desire would be against her husband but he would rule over her. What was once a benevolent leadership was all too often turned into a tyrannical leadership as a result of the fall. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the Church, specifically in the way Christ sanctified her, washing her and making her clean so that she would be holy. Paul says in that way husbands are to love their wives. My authority and leadership are to be used to lead my wife towards God and towards holiness. I should always have her best interest and the best interest of my family at heart. I am to cherish my wife as my own flesh.
One of the largest drives a man has is the sex drive. It has the ability to overpower a man, but a godly man only uses it in a God-honoring way. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7 that I am not to deprive my wife of my conjugal duties. She has a right to expect regular sex from me (as I do from her), if you don't want to have sex with someone, don't marry them. Most men don't have much of a problem with this aspect of sexual morality (it's more often women who struggle with their daily libedo) but that is not all we are commanded. In Proverbs we are repeatedly warned about the dangers of the "wanton woman," the adulterous, who's lips drip with honey, but who's path leads to death.
Lastly, a godly man is a godly father, one who raises his children up in the way they should go. Children are to honor, respect, and obey their parents, and parents are to lead their children towards holiness. In Deuteronomy we are told to teach the Law diligently to our children, at all times. "You shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise." We are always discipling our children. This also includes discipline, since "whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him." Many women have great difficulty spanking their children, so a man should do all he can to take this responsibility upon himself when it is possible.
I hope that has painted a picture of what kind of man God desires, and what kind of man I hope to be.
People have a tendency to make long lists of requirements they want in a potential mate, without ever considering why a person who meets all those requirements would ever choose them in the first place. For example, both of the girls I've dated in the past year had made 30 point lists of qualities they wanted in a man, yet neither had ever considered, as far as I could tell, what qualities of their own they had that made them worth such a man. Many girls have this attitude because of the constant message in our culture that girls are a prize to be won, that they're valuable just for existing while the guy has to compete for their hand. However, I think guys as well are not all together immune to this failing. I've noticed in my own thinking that I naturally spend much more time thinking of all the virtues I'd like in a girl rather than what I am called to be. In order to fight back against this tendency, I would like to discuss what a godly man (and husband) should be.
First and foremost, a godly man must not be lazy. Paul said that if anyone would not work, they shouldn't be able to eat. Men are obligated to work to provide for their families, and a lazy sluggard will leave his wife and children hungry and destitute. You can see this role of men all the way back at the curse, where God cursed Adam and Eve both in their primary functions, Eve in bearing children, and Adam in working to bring food. Work as a result of the fall is hard and not necessarily something we do for fun, but it is what we are called to do.
Men are called to be strong, principled, and courageous. These three things are closely related to each other. We see this in 1 Corinthians 16: "Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong." This is one of the clearest verses in Scripture that teaches that men specifically are expected to act a certain way. Paul here equates acting like a man with strength of conviction in the articles of our faith. One very literal translation actually translated the end of that verse as "be men, be strong." Even in the Old Testament, God constantly commanded Joshua to "be strong and very courageous." A man who is strong, both physically and in the strength of his convictions, who stands by his principles and will go through grave danger to protect his people, is a man worthy of admiration.
Men are to be leaders and authorities, and they should be worthy of that honor and responsibility. If my wife is commanded to submit herself to me "as to the lord," and "in everything," if she is told to obey me, if I am her head in an analogous way to Christ being the head of the Church, then I have an incredibly awesome honor and responsibility. This level of power men have been given is often abused, once again going back to the curse after the Fall where Eve was told that her desire would be against her husband but he would rule over her. What was once a benevolent leadership was all too often turned into a tyrannical leadership as a result of the fall. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the Church, specifically in the way Christ sanctified her, washing her and making her clean so that she would be holy. Paul says in that way husbands are to love their wives. My authority and leadership are to be used to lead my wife towards God and towards holiness. I should always have her best interest and the best interest of my family at heart. I am to cherish my wife as my own flesh.
One of the largest drives a man has is the sex drive. It has the ability to overpower a man, but a godly man only uses it in a God-honoring way. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7 that I am not to deprive my wife of my conjugal duties. She has a right to expect regular sex from me (as I do from her), if you don't want to have sex with someone, don't marry them. Most men don't have much of a problem with this aspect of sexual morality (it's more often women who struggle with their daily libedo) but that is not all we are commanded. In Proverbs we are repeatedly warned about the dangers of the "wanton woman," the adulterous, who's lips drip with honey, but who's path leads to death.
"Drink water from your own cistern, flowing water from your own well.The command to rejoice in the wife of your youth is especially worth bringing out. As wives age and lose their youthful beauty, men struggle with the temptation of the younger woman, but we are called to be faithful to our wife and her alone. Sensual love is glorified, but only in the marital embrace.
Should your springs be scattered abroad, streams of water in the streets?
Let them be for yourself alone, and not for strangers with you.
Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth,
a lovely deer, a graceful doe.
Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love."
Lastly, a godly man is a godly father, one who raises his children up in the way they should go. Children are to honor, respect, and obey their parents, and parents are to lead their children towards holiness. In Deuteronomy we are told to teach the Law diligently to our children, at all times. "You shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise." We are always discipling our children. This also includes discipline, since "whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him." Many women have great difficulty spanking their children, so a man should do all he can to take this responsibility upon himself when it is possible.
I hope that has painted a picture of what kind of man God desires, and what kind of man I hope to be.
Thursday, August 16, 2018
Give Me A Little Respect
(written 8/16/18)
Aretha Franklin died today. One of the articles Drudge linked to about her was the story of how she took the song "Respect" (which was originally about a beaten down man asking for some respect from his wife) and turned it into a feminist anthem. That got me thinking once again about the idea of respect and why feminists seem to be so obsessed with it.
Feminist demands for respect from men have always been difficult to deal with because the only alternative seems to be "disrespecting" women, and no one says that women should be belittled and disrespected. So, on the face of it, it seems like the feminists are in the right. Yet, something always didn't sit easy with me when thinking about it. I think I've finally got a better understanding of what exactly is going on.
Take, as an analogy, the relationship between a king and a peasant living in his kingdom. Now I realize this is probably the most offensive analogy I could have come up with but bear with me for a second. If the peasant walked up to the king and said, "hey, I need you to do x, y, & z for me" that would be incredibly impudent and disrespectful to the king and he would rightly be thrown out. However, if the king called the peasant and say, "hey, I need you to do x, y, & z for me" that would be perfectly natural. So what is the difference? Their different stations in life command different levels of respect and deference when relating to others. Now this is not to say that a husband is a king and a wife is a peasant, but it establishes that respect in behavior is not applied equally to all. Yet even the peasant could be disrespected by the king if the king abused his authority. For example, imagine if the king had told the peasant, "come over here and kneel on the ground so I can use your back as a footrest." Most people would agree that that is an overly demanding and demeaning command, even from a king.
Let's apply this to the relationships between men and women. A husband is the head of the wife and wives are repeatedly told in Scripture to respect (often better translated reverence) and obey their husbands. However, when husbands are instructed on how to treat their wives, the focus is always on loving and cherishing them. Yet no husband who is loving and cherishing his wife is going to treat her in a demeaning way. But that doesn't mean husbands are to submit and respectfully defer to their wives. The type of respect wives owe to husbands is different than the type of respect husbands owe to wives. Wives respect their husbands by cheerfully submitting to instructions and following their lead. Husbands honor their wives as the weaker vessel by not leading in an overbearing way ("live with your wives in an understanding way") and looking out for the wife's best interests.
Aretha Franklin died today. One of the articles Drudge linked to about her was the story of how she took the song "Respect" (which was originally about a beaten down man asking for some respect from his wife) and turned it into a feminist anthem. That got me thinking once again about the idea of respect and why feminists seem to be so obsessed with it.
Feminist demands for respect from men have always been difficult to deal with because the only alternative seems to be "disrespecting" women, and no one says that women should be belittled and disrespected. So, on the face of it, it seems like the feminists are in the right. Yet, something always didn't sit easy with me when thinking about it. I think I've finally got a better understanding of what exactly is going on.
Take, as an analogy, the relationship between a king and a peasant living in his kingdom. Now I realize this is probably the most offensive analogy I could have come up with but bear with me for a second. If the peasant walked up to the king and said, "hey, I need you to do x, y, & z for me" that would be incredibly impudent and disrespectful to the king and he would rightly be thrown out. However, if the king called the peasant and say, "hey, I need you to do x, y, & z for me" that would be perfectly natural. So what is the difference? Their different stations in life command different levels of respect and deference when relating to others. Now this is not to say that a husband is a king and a wife is a peasant, but it establishes that respect in behavior is not applied equally to all. Yet even the peasant could be disrespected by the king if the king abused his authority. For example, imagine if the king had told the peasant, "come over here and kneel on the ground so I can use your back as a footrest." Most people would agree that that is an overly demanding and demeaning command, even from a king.
Let's apply this to the relationships between men and women. A husband is the head of the wife and wives are repeatedly told in Scripture to respect (often better translated reverence) and obey their husbands. However, when husbands are instructed on how to treat their wives, the focus is always on loving and cherishing them. Yet no husband who is loving and cherishing his wife is going to treat her in a demeaning way. But that doesn't mean husbands are to submit and respectfully defer to their wives. The type of respect wives owe to husbands is different than the type of respect husbands owe to wives. Wives respect their husbands by cheerfully submitting to instructions and following their lead. Husbands honor their wives as the weaker vessel by not leading in an overbearing way ("live with your wives in an understanding way") and looking out for the wife's best interests.
Monday, August 13, 2018
The Causes of the Ultimate Destruction of My First Relationship
(started 7/23/18, forgot about for a month, finished 8/13/18)
With an interest in self improvement, and because I've still been thinking about it quite a bit lately, I'm going to write down what I see as the problems and ultimate causes of the demise of my first relationship.
1. Me and Brenna began to develop underlying disagreements that, instead of resolving and coming to unity on, we would change topics and leave the issue unresolved. The main one that comes to mind is our slightly differing views on feminism/gender roles. This topic was at least tangentially related to multiple causes of our breakup. We both believed in Male headship in marriage and the church (though she was much weaker on those when we met), but we had different understandings of how exactly that played out and also what were the biblical gender roles in broader society.
I saw what I considered to be a compromise with feminism on her part, and her lack of fully embracing what I see as biblical womanhood caused me great consternation. However, I am still fully working out my understanding of these issues, and though I realized there was an problem, I didn't know how to adequately explain my thoughts, at least to where she could understand them. Instead, being the graceless person that i am often am, I reacted by going too far in the other direction, as if thinking that would drag her with me.
2. My visceral hatred for feminism, which I still have, and still believe is justified, also caused me to sometimes say things/present ideas that I think were unbiblical in how they treated women because I enjoyed how anti-feminist such thoughts were and the theoretical offense they would cause in such a person (I've also overreacted to political correctness to the point where I've often taking delight in trying to offend people).
3. I have a strong sex drive. That can be good in and of itself, but in a dating relationship it can cause problems. I have always remained unsure about how issues of intimacy are to best be handled while dating (not whether sex is fine while dating or anything but more like where to draw the line and what types of conversation and sexual jokes are appropriate). I was consciously aware of how my sex drive might influence my positions on such issues but I don't think I was able to successfully counteract it. I shan't get into specifics, but one big example was how Brenna told me I'd guess a little over a month before it ended that she had begun to feel uncomfortable with our sexual innuendo. I completely agreed with her, but I (a) did not make that clear to her (probably out of some vague misguided "game" related ideas), and (b) did not come close to successfully stopping that kind of language in our conversations. I take full responsibility for that.
4. I probably could have given her more comfort in the sense of telling her how much I cared about her regularly. There were times when I thought about texting her out of the blue something along the lines of, "just felt like telling you I love you right now," but never did. The reason I didn't is not 100% clear to me but is either a result of a bad "game" influence, me just not being an emotionally expressive person, or just an inexperience doing that kind of thing in a relationship. Probably some combination of all of them. I wish I had done that kind of thing a bit more because I definitely did care about her deeply.
5. As this was my first serious romantic relationship, I would experiment with different things to see what was good and what wasn't and how she would react. I learned some beneficial stuff from that, but I also went way overboard sometimes and may have caused lasting damage. There's one specific time that comes to mind where she got slightly up in arms over something and I, trying to be teasing, said, "calm your tits" and then when (shockingly) she didn't respond well to that, ran myself further into the ground saying, "so you don't want sugartits as a nickname then?" Don't really know what I was thinking there.
6. Somehow I feel like the relationship became less centered around God at it went along. I fondly remember our earlier days texting where we would regularly have deep discussion about God and theology and Christianity and over time that seemed to go away. I remember the last time we saw each other, paintballing, and how we were talking about how we met and how it was over a discussion of the problem of evil and I thought to myself, "we really haven't talked about stuff like that much lately." As with a couple of the other issues, it was a case of me noticing a problem but not fixing it proactively enough. I suppose this could be seen as blameworthy on each of our parts, but as the man, I think I shoulder the final responsibility.
Saturday, July 21, 2018
On Tatted Virgins and Debt
(Written 7/21/18)
A controversial article by a lady named Lori Alexander has blown up this week and I thought I would use it as a springboard to discuss some of the issues she interacts with.
Men Prefer Debt Free Virgins Without Tattoos
Some people seem to take offense at the idea that any person should think that a woman might have to take into account how her actions will be perceived by men. That goes against the modern feminist teaching to girls to be "true to themselves." However, it seems obvious to me that any woman who is serious about getting married and starting a family should care very much about the impression she makes on men. Just as it would be foolish council to a 16 year old man that because a girl should love him for "who he is" he shouldn't bother spending so much time and effort working through college to get a degree in order to provide for a family. Of course a woman will prefer a man who's spent his life preparing to lead and provide for a family. There is nothing wrong with that, not for a woman and not for a man.
She has been slammed for supposedly telling women not to go to college:
The debt issue she brings up is also valid. Women will have difficulty staying at home raising their children if they have a mountain of debt from college loans hanging over their head. As she quoted from one of her commentors, “If they go to college, they are unlikely to stay home raising their children [because they need] to pay off the debt and use the degree they spent years on.” Many women who were misled by feminist propaganda in their younger years realize they desperately want to stay with their baby once they have one, but are unable to because of the situation they are in as a result of their previous life choices. That is really, really sad, a mother having to leave her home because of a financial situation that was completely avoidable. Christians need to do a better job of warning young women about the dangers and long term effects of the decisions they make at 18, 19, & 20 years old. These decisions will determine the course of the rest of their lives and should not be made without careful consideration.
Furthermore, even if a woman is in a position where she can get a degree without debt, she should consider whether that is really the most advantageous thing she could be doing with her time. It may be, but it may not. It depends on the situation, and that's all the author is saying. If a woman has no realistic marriage prospects in the near future and is not really needed at home with her own family it could very well be that getting a degree is a worthwhile endeavor at that time. If she does decide to go that route care should be taken that pursues her degree without taking herself off the marriage market and she should consider when determining what to major in whether the degree will be beneficial as a wife and mother. A two year degree in something like nursing seems like a very useful way to redeem the time if a woman is not looking at any immediate marriage prospects. Though working for a year or two to build up some capital to help finance her future home might also be an option to consider.
A woman who spends four years pursuing a degree that is not tied to being a mother has clearly put her own career aspirations before the interests of her future family, and I don't think that is how God designed it. God has laid the burden of providing for a family primarily on men, which is why men spend years and years working towards careers where they will be able to support a family. When a woman does that, she steps into the man's role and loses the joy that comes from godly femininity and the biblical pattern for marriage. This is not to say that a woman with a standard 4-year college degree cannot be a godly feminine woman, wife, and mother. But it is to say that a lot of times, "young women learn nothing about biblical womanhood or what it takes to run a home when they go to college" and thus a woman loses four very valuable years she could have spent pursuing those virtues. It's not even to say that a woman with such a degree should abandon it and become a purely stay at home mother, after all, the proverbs 31 woman was industrious and certainly did what could be classified as "work." The issue is that a woman's primary sphere of influence is to be the home. That should always come first. Once the home is taken care of, it is good for her to spend her time on external pursuits that are beneficial to the home like a job. But that should always be a secondary priority to keeping the home so to spend her prime four years focusing on pursuing something external to the home is an inversion of priorities.
As far as her title's reference to non-tatted virgins. I think (and she acknowledged in a follow up post) she should have specified Christian/godly men. Virginity is not quite as prized in the secular culture, especially as a woman enters her mid 20s, secularists might think something is wrong with her for still being celibate, but Christian men continue to prize chaste virgins who have saved themselves for their husband. I can personally attest that I much prefer that my future wife has not sexed up a bunch of other guys. You want her to be all for herself. And once again, many Christian men have married and had happy marriages with women who were saved out of a bad history. But that does not change the fact that in general godly men will prefer godly women who've lived a chaste life.
As to the tattoo issue, I don't think she was trying to say that getting a tattoo is inherently sinful. The verse that people who believe that appeal to, Leviticus 19:28 "You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves," is referring to the specific practice of those times where people would tattoo themselves as part of cultic ceremonies. The underlying principle is not to be involved in or associated with pagan rituals. If that's her issue than I would have to disagree with her, but that's not what I think she's saying.
Mutilating your body also would be inconsistent with biblical ethics but I don't think a tattoo necessarily qualifies (though there are tattoos that could reasonably be classified as mutilation).
Once again, she's offering council to younger women on how what they do impacts the image they project to others. While tattoos are not inherently wrong, they are generally associated with impulsiveness and sexual promiscuity, neither of which are generally considered desirable traits in a wife. People make assumptions about others based on appearances, and it has historically been the case that women with tattoos have been assumed to be more sluty. This may be changing, similarly to nose rings (which also can't be considered inherently wrong based on any consistent biblical standard without also condemning every Christian woman who has pierced their ears), which used to be associated (and still are to some extent in certain circles) with slutiness but are now becoming more normalized in Christian culture. Tattoos may possibly be undergoing the same change.
A woman has every right in her liberty in Christ to get a tattoo, and a tattoo of a bible verse or the like might even be a good thing in some circumstances, but a wise woman who wants to marry is not going to make any permanent (possibly detrimental) changes to her body without knowing how a man she might be interested in down the line would feel about them. Once again, it's not a sin for a woman (or anyone) to get a tattoo, but they should consider what kind of image they are putting out to other people and whether that is consistent with the person they are actually trying to be. It's similar to how many parents (like my own) don't want their sons to grow long shaggy hair because it's not the image they want their sons putting out.
A controversial article by a lady named Lori Alexander has blown up this week and I thought I would use it as a springboard to discuss some of the issues she interacts with.
Men Prefer Debt Free Virgins Without Tattoos
"Do you know how much more attractive debt-free virgins (without tattoos) are to young men? Unfortunately, there are so few of these types of young women anymore because of the high costs of college (debt) and sexual promiscuity even within those in the church. As believers in Jesus Christ, we need to live in a way that is pleasing to Him because His ways are the best. He calls debt a burden and urges us to live lives of sexual purity."As the title suggests, she is counselling young women against premarital sex, taking on debt, & tattoos. Setting aside the specific issues she brings up for a moment, a lot of the issues people are having with her article seem to stem from an indignation that she would dare suggest that men might have preferences when it comes to women and particularly a woman's history. They consider that a very misogynistic statement. I don't see what's so controversial about the idea, it's not as if these women don't have 30 bullet point lists about what they want in a guy, and no matter how much women attempt to shame men into dating them, men will always prefer a woman who's whole pattern of life indicates she has been preparing for marriage to a woman who has lots of baggage. Now this is not to say that Christ's sacrifice is not sufficient to save any woman out of a sordid past, nor that a woman who has a sluty history cannot be transformed by the gospel and live the rest of her life as a godly wife.
Some people seem to take offense at the idea that any person should think that a woman might have to take into account how her actions will be perceived by men. That goes against the modern feminist teaching to girls to be "true to themselves." However, it seems obvious to me that any woman who is serious about getting married and starting a family should care very much about the impression she makes on men. Just as it would be foolish council to a 16 year old man that because a girl should love him for "who he is" he shouldn't bother spending so much time and effort working through college to get a degree in order to provide for a family. Of course a woman will prefer a man who's spent his life preparing to lead and provide for a family. There is nothing wrong with that, not for a woman and not for a man.
She has been slammed for supposedly telling women not to go to college:
"There are many more reasons why Christian young women should carefully consider whether or not they go to college, especially if they want to be wives and mothers someday. Secular universities teach against the God of the Bible and His ways. It’s far from what God calls women to be and do: it teaches them to be independent, loud, and immodest instead of having meek and quiet spirits."People have reacted hysterically, provoking images of women barefoot and pregnant, uneducated and illiterate, forced to stay at home at all times. These reactions, completely divorced from what she actually said, just goes to show how emotionally charged these issues are. They touch a cultural nerve. If you look at what she actually said, she didn't prohibit Christian women from going to college. Rather, she said women should carefully consider whether that is the wisest decision for them. She brings up the fact that if a woman wants first and foremost to become a wife and mother to a family, a college degree is only going to make that more difficult.
The debt issue she brings up is also valid. Women will have difficulty staying at home raising their children if they have a mountain of debt from college loans hanging over their head. As she quoted from one of her commentors, “If they go to college, they are unlikely to stay home raising their children [because they need] to pay off the debt and use the degree they spent years on.” Many women who were misled by feminist propaganda in their younger years realize they desperately want to stay with their baby once they have one, but are unable to because of the situation they are in as a result of their previous life choices. That is really, really sad, a mother having to leave her home because of a financial situation that was completely avoidable. Christians need to do a better job of warning young women about the dangers and long term effects of the decisions they make at 18, 19, & 20 years old. These decisions will determine the course of the rest of their lives and should not be made without careful consideration.
Furthermore, even if a woman is in a position where she can get a degree without debt, she should consider whether that is really the most advantageous thing she could be doing with her time. It may be, but it may not. It depends on the situation, and that's all the author is saying. If a woman has no realistic marriage prospects in the near future and is not really needed at home with her own family it could very well be that getting a degree is a worthwhile endeavor at that time. If she does decide to go that route care should be taken that pursues her degree without taking herself off the marriage market and she should consider when determining what to major in whether the degree will be beneficial as a wife and mother. A two year degree in something like nursing seems like a very useful way to redeem the time if a woman is not looking at any immediate marriage prospects. Though working for a year or two to build up some capital to help finance her future home might also be an option to consider.
A woman who spends four years pursuing a degree that is not tied to being a mother has clearly put her own career aspirations before the interests of her future family, and I don't think that is how God designed it. God has laid the burden of providing for a family primarily on men, which is why men spend years and years working towards careers where they will be able to support a family. When a woman does that, she steps into the man's role and loses the joy that comes from godly femininity and the biblical pattern for marriage. This is not to say that a woman with a standard 4-year college degree cannot be a godly feminine woman, wife, and mother. But it is to say that a lot of times, "young women learn nothing about biblical womanhood or what it takes to run a home when they go to college" and thus a woman loses four very valuable years she could have spent pursuing those virtues. It's not even to say that a woman with such a degree should abandon it and become a purely stay at home mother, after all, the proverbs 31 woman was industrious and certainly did what could be classified as "work." The issue is that a woman's primary sphere of influence is to be the home. That should always come first. Once the home is taken care of, it is good for her to spend her time on external pursuits that are beneficial to the home like a job. But that should always be a secondary priority to keeping the home so to spend her prime four years focusing on pursuing something external to the home is an inversion of priorities.
As far as her title's reference to non-tatted virgins. I think (and she acknowledged in a follow up post) she should have specified Christian/godly men. Virginity is not quite as prized in the secular culture, especially as a woman enters her mid 20s, secularists might think something is wrong with her for still being celibate, but Christian men continue to prize chaste virgins who have saved themselves for their husband. I can personally attest that I much prefer that my future wife has not sexed up a bunch of other guys. You want her to be all for herself. And once again, many Christian men have married and had happy marriages with women who were saved out of a bad history. But that does not change the fact that in general godly men will prefer godly women who've lived a chaste life.
As to the tattoo issue, I don't think she was trying to say that getting a tattoo is inherently sinful. The verse that people who believe that appeal to, Leviticus 19:28 "You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves," is referring to the specific practice of those times where people would tattoo themselves as part of cultic ceremonies. The underlying principle is not to be involved in or associated with pagan rituals. If that's her issue than I would have to disagree with her, but that's not what I think she's saying.
Mutilating your body also would be inconsistent with biblical ethics but I don't think a tattoo necessarily qualifies (though there are tattoos that could reasonably be classified as mutilation).
Once again, she's offering council to younger women on how what they do impacts the image they project to others. While tattoos are not inherently wrong, they are generally associated with impulsiveness and sexual promiscuity, neither of which are generally considered desirable traits in a wife. People make assumptions about others based on appearances, and it has historically been the case that women with tattoos have been assumed to be more sluty. This may be changing, similarly to nose rings (which also can't be considered inherently wrong based on any consistent biblical standard without also condemning every Christian woman who has pierced their ears), which used to be associated (and still are to some extent in certain circles) with slutiness but are now becoming more normalized in Christian culture. Tattoos may possibly be undergoing the same change.
A woman has every right in her liberty in Christ to get a tattoo, and a tattoo of a bible verse or the like might even be a good thing in some circumstances, but a wise woman who wants to marry is not going to make any permanent (possibly detrimental) changes to her body without knowing how a man she might be interested in down the line would feel about them. Once again, it's not a sin for a woman (or anyone) to get a tattoo, but they should consider what kind of image they are putting out to other people and whether that is consistent with the person they are actually trying to be. It's similar to how many parents (like my own) don't want their sons to grow long shaggy hair because it's not the image they want their sons putting out.
She also mentions other interesting and potentially controversial issues which I don't feel like interacting with at the moment. So I'll end this here.
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
The Brewing Civil War in the SBC
(Written 5/30/18)
It is abundantly clear from Scripture that God hates divorce. Jesus said that it was only allowed because of the hardness of hearts and that the only acceptable reason to divorce was sexual immorality on the part of your spouse. Paul later added that if you were abandoned by your (assumed unbelieving) spouse you were not in bondage and (most assume) free to marry again.
It is abundantly clear from Scripture that God hates divorce. Jesus said that it was only allowed because of the hardness of hearts and that the only acceptable reason to divorce was sexual immorality on the part of your spouse. Paul later added that if you were abandoned by your (assumed unbelieving) spouse you were not in bondage and (most assume) free to marry again.
One issue that Christians have debated for a long time the
last few decades is what to do in the situation of an abusive spouse. Generally
couched in terms of an abusive husband. Is it acceptable for the wife to seek a
divorce in that situation? What if it is dangerous for her to remain living
with her husband? Many evangelicals have attempted to make the argument that
abuse constitutes abandonment and therefore is covered by what Paul says.
However if you look at his actual words the connection is not readily apparent,
to say the least. The key verses are 1 Cor 7:12-16, specifically v15 where Paul
says, "if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the
brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace."
I've run into this from time to time, in my general studying
of Scripture and theology, but what has made me think about it a lot lately has
been the controversy surrounding Paige Patterson, the now former president of
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Texas. He has been accused of
discouraging an alleged rape victim from going to the police, he has made marks
that "objectified" women, from the pulpit no less, and he has apparently
counseled women married to abusive husbands to pray to God and practice
submission.
This controversy has just about split the Southern Baptist
Convention in half. The fault lines that were already showing between the New
Calvinists/Gospel Coalition type folks who have become very focused on social
justice issues and the more old school baptists who have not are even more
pronounced now. This division was first made clear in the 2016 election when
prominent Southern Baptist leaders publicly opposed Trump while he was quite
popular among the rank and file Baptists.
It appears that most prominent SBC leaders have sided
against him, however it is far from unanimous, with petitions being started
both for and against him online. The Manosphere's residential Christian
blogger, Dalrock, weighed in with "Patterson's Crimes Against Feminism."
Some women (and men) in the SBC have jumped on this issue as
a reason the SBC needs more women in leadership positions. Perhaps most
notably, the likely next president of the SBC, J.D. Greear said, "Our
failure to listen to and honor women and racial minorities and our failure to
include them in proportionate measures at top leadership roles have hindered
our ability to see sin and injustice and call it out." He also mentioning
preferential treatment for minorities, signalling his alliance with the social
justice warriors in the SBC. Saying women need to have "top leadership
roles" is very different from any understood definition of biblical gender
roles historically, and is very concerning. Beth Moore has also spoken up about
the ordeals she faced trying to become a preacher as a woman in the SBC.
The Southern Baptist convention this year could be crazy.
Patterson is still scheduled to give a keynote sermon and many people are
planning on protesting.
This is all part of a larger problem growing in the SBC which is
that it is starting to go down the path of the mainlines 100 years ago in
emphasizing the "social gospel" over sound theology and the actual
gospel of Jesus Christ. We all know how well that worked out for them, so I am very concerned for its future well-being.
When I get a chance I will pick up the topic I started out planning on discussing here today which was whether or not abuse is biblical grounds for divorce. I apparently got sidetracked. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Wednesday, May 9, 2018
Notes From The Bell Curve
(Written 5/09/18)
I've been working on this book since I got it for Christmas and I've finally finished it. Here are notes I wrote down with each chapter, all in one place.
Chapter 1:
Cognitive classes are getting increasingly segregated, as of 1990, the odds of half of 12 random Americans having a college degree was six in a thousand, yet for most college graduates that's all or almost all their closest associates.
Chapter 2:
A hundred years ago high IQ folks were largely scattered throughout society. Now, high IQ folks are very concentrated in high IQ professions.
Chapter 3:
Intelligence (g) is the single best predictor of job performance for almost every job, it beats every other known variable. It beats an interview, reference checks, college transcript and even beats tests designed specifically for the skills that job requires. Hiring people based on IQ tests would add billions to the economy each year, but it is currently illegal.
Chapter 4:
Intelligence has become increasingly important to employers. IQ is currently estimated to be 60% determined by genes. (One way to estimate this is studying identical twins separated at birth.) High IQ people are becoming increasingly segregated from average/low IQ people. High IQ people make way more money and high IQ professions are the most lucrative. A lot of the increased income correlated with more years in education could be because years of education is correlated with IQ scores, smarter people stay in school longer. Super smart people are getting richer even as income for everyone else has stagnated.
Chapter 5:
IQ is generally set for life by age 10. The following statistics are for non-Latino whites only: Poverty is strongly associated with childhood socioeconomic status (SES) but even more strongly associated with intelligence. Using regression analysis, IQ is much more of a cause of poverty than childhood SES. IQ strongly predicts poverty among high school (no more no less) graduates. Single mothers have ridiculous poverty rates and the rise in single motherhood is largely responsible for the increase in childhood poverty rates. Even with single mothers, IQ was strongly predictive of poverty, with poverty rates ranging from 70% to 11% at each end (+- 2 standard deviations) of the IQ spectrum. Until the 1960s it was completely acceptable to distinguish between the "deserving" and the "undeserving" poor. Now saying someone is poor because of their actions is "blaming the victim."
Chapter 6:
As high school graduation has become the norm, dropouts have become much more self-selected for low IQs. IQ is way more important than SES in predicting high school dropout rates. Less than 1% of dropouts meet the smart but disadvantaged stereotype (top 25% IQ, bottom 25% SES). Flipping those around, only 12% of "dumb rich kids" end up getting college degrees. IQ is more important than SES in predicting who gets college degrees.
Chapter 7:
Low IQ is associated with unemployment (20% vs 5% chance of being out of labor force for a month (white men) for +-2 SDs). Taking IQ into account, parental SES is actually slightly inversely correlated with being out of the labor force. Dumb people are more accident prone at work. Smart people get in less wrecks.
Chapter 8:
(Statistics for Whites only still.) Marriage rates are the one thing where it appears education and not IQ causes the correlations. High IQ folks stay in school longer, pushing back marriage. Among only HS grads, IQ was actually positively correlated with marriage. Dumb people get divorced more. IQ has a large effect on illegitimacy rates, over and above the mother's childhood SES, ranging from 34% to 4%, controlling for SES +- 2 SDs. Flipping that around and controlling for IQ and letting SES vary, it ranges from 19% to 8%, still significant but not nearly as much so. Growing up without a father (but not so for mothers) more than doubles chance of having an illegitimate baby, even controlling for both IQ and SES.
Chapter 9:
College educated whites basically never go on welfare. The number of families on welfare tripled in the late sixties-early seventies. Both IQ and parental SES have significant independent effects on whether a women will go on welfare, with parental SES: 40% to 5%, and IQ: 28% to 8%, SES actually has the larger effect.
Chapter 10:
IQ has a significant effect on rates of underweight babies. Controlling for IQ, younger mothers' babies weigh just as much as older mothers'. Most malparenting situations come from those in the lowest social classes. Mother's IQ is a stronger predictor than mother's SES background of the worst home environments. In public dialogue, problems experienced by poor children are almost always attributed to the poverty itself, but many of them may really be not a result of the poverty itself but today's correlates of poverty (e.g. living without a father). In predicting child's IQ, the mother's IQ was more important than her SES background: 30% to 2% for IQ vs 10% to 4% for SES (+-2 SDs, holding the other variable constant in each of course) chance of having a child in the bottom 10% in IQ.
Chapter 11:
IQ is a better predictor than SES at predicting criminality. People with criminal backgrounds often drop out of school but dropping does not appear to increase criminal behavior, they're already exhibiting criminal activity before they drop out.
Chapter 12: The direct relationship between SES and voting is overblown. It is predominately education, not income, that links voting and SES. A poor but well-educated shop clerk is more likely to vote than a less educated, rich businessman. Since years of education is largely caused by IQ, it is likely that IQ is the real link between SES and voting. Also, knowledge about politics is predicted by IQ and interest in politics is predicted by IQ, so basically just IQ, and knowledge about politics is obviously correlated with voting.
Chapter 13:
Average IQ: whites: 100, asians: 103-106, blacks, 85-88. The difference in IQs is not due to cultural bias, blacks do as well or better as their white counterparts on questions with cultural content. Blacks do about as well in the workforce as their IQ would predict, which is more evidence the difference is real. It's not a difference in effort because there's a difference in the backwards digit test but not the forward (the backwards is twice as g loaded). Additionally, whites have faster reaction time but slower movement time and reaction time is much more correlated with g than movement time. SES explains 30-40% of the difference in IQ (probably less since SES is largely a result of parental IQ). Black/white IQ difference is consistent over all SES levels (90 vs 105 a the 50th percentile SES 100 vs 115 at the 90th). For this to be purely environmental the average black environment must be at the 6th percentile of whites. For children adopted by two whites: if both biological parents were black: 89 IQ, 1 black 1 white, 99 IQ, both white biological parents, 106 IQ. Adopting parents were all upper-middle class.
Chapter 14:
Average IQ of college graduates is about 114. After controlling for IQ, whites and hispanics have the same chance of getting a college degree, blacks have much more. Blacks are very overrepresented in high-status occupations (10% for whites vs 26% for blacks, for those with the average IQ of those in high status jobs (117)). 91% of the annual wage difference between whites and blacks disappears after controlling for IQ. However controlling for education does not erase near as much, blacks make less than similarly educated whites. This is a result of affirmative action, black college graduates have lower average IQs, which is the real driving factor behind wages. Stats: blacks on average make 77% as much as whites, controlling for education, they make 80%, controlling for IQ, they make 98%, controlling for IQ + gender they make 101% as much. Controlling for IQ on family income and poverty rates shrinks the gap substantially as well, but not as much as for individual income. (poverty rates: white: 7%, black: 26%, 100 IQ white: 6%, 100 IQ black, 11%.) With IQ 100, blacks have a 15% chance of being unemployed vs 11% for whites. Makes you think lingering racism, but then there's no explanation why it didn't affect individual income from earlier. The huge thing: controlling for IQ erases almost none of the difference in marriage rates. (100 IQ age 30: whites: 79%, blacks: 58% (1991)). Historically, the black-white difference in marriage rates was small until the early 1960s and then widened. Controlling for IQ doesn't do much for differences in illegitimacy rates either (100 IQ black women: 51%, white woman: 10% chance of bearing children out of wedlock). Black mothers are more likely to be on welfare after controlling for IQ (IQ 100: 74% vs 56%). These profound cultural differences in relation to marriage probably explain the leftover differences in family income and unemployment rates after controlling for IQ. Most of the difference in delinquency rates is explained by IQ independent of SES.
Chapter 15:
America has likely undergone dysgenic pressures since 1900. Differential fertility: women with more education have less children. Woman HS dropouts have 2.5 kids while BA's have 1.5. Since education is largely a result of IQ, dumb women are having more kids. Lower IQ women start having their children earlier, which is dysgenic since it results in more generations of lower IQ people. A large welfare state causes immigration to be dysgenic, as low-ability workers come from countries with less extensive welfare states. America has changed from the land of opportunity to the land of the safety net. White women have 1.89 children, blacks have 2.23. Controlling for the mother's education removes most differences in white-black fertility rates.
Chapter 16:
82% of people below the poverty line have below average IQs.
88% of women chronically on welfare had below average IQs.
94% of permanent HS dropouts had below average IQs.
85% of illegitimate children are born to below average IQ mothers.
93% of children who lived in poverty their first 3 years of life had below average IQ mothers.
94% of the dumbest decile of children had mothers with below average IQs. Of the small percentage (2.2%) of men who didn't work without a reason (like being in college or an injury), the vast majority had low IQs. 50% were in the bottom decile of IQ and 84% were below average in IQ. Yet, overall, low IQ men still work full time almost as much as everyone else and the majority of low IQ people are employed, out of poverty, not on welfare, and were married when they had babies (as of that year at least). Controlling for SES does not remove the influence of IQ on most all of these variables, on the contrary, controlling for IQ often gets rid of the effect of SES.
Chapter 17:
Fixing clear nutritional deficiencies can increase IQ by a few points (not clear how much exactly, maybe 6ish). America's school system has advanced enough that variations between the best and worst public schools have no explanatory power over differences in students' IQs. By age 5 or 6 there is little you can do to increase IQ. Intensive schooling will not cause lasting increases in IQ. Programs like Head Start and other even more intensive programs aimed at poor toddlers have produced basically no lasting IQ gains, they always start to fade away after a couple years. Adoption at birth from a bad environment to a good one can have real lasting benefits for IQ (like 6 points). Environment does influence IQ (roughly 40% of its variance is explained by environment) but we haven't figured out how to really improve it short of adoption at birth. Intensive schooling programs don't seem to do much to overcome a poor home environment.
Chapter 18:
While SAT scores were plummeting from the 60's to 1980. NAEP scores remained basically flat (NAEP is a nationally representative sample while SAT test takers were and are disproportionately cognitively gifted). SAT scores mostly went down on the verbal portion. The education reforms of the 1960s, motivated by egalitarianism, dumbed down the curriculum. Lower IQ students were mostly unaffected by this change, but it had the affect of possibly not fully realizing the brighest students' potentials. In 1993, 0.1% of the money from the ESEA went to programs for the gifted, 92.2% went to programs for the poor. Most (almost all) federal education dollars are awarded solely based on need and thus generally go to low IQ people. American culture prefers egalitarianism and pumping up people's self-esteem independent of actual value to prizing excellence. Developing the intellectual elite is important to all of society, not because they "deserve it" (since being smart is largely a gift), but because the future of society will largely depend on them. There is only so much low IQ people can do, even with all the help of the federal government.
Chapter 19:
Blacks get what amounts to a bonus of 180 points on their SAT scores in college admissions. Blacks make up 12% of the average student body but are 52% of the bottom 10% IQ of the student body. Blacks' higher college dropout rates mostly go away when you control for IQ. A black person's college degree is devalued in the corporate marketplace now. A low SES white still had to be 0.58 standard deviations above a high SES black to have the same acceptance rate. Black college grads are generally a full SD below white grads.
Chapter 20:
White elites like affirmative action while working-class whites do not. General cognitive ability tests are banned to use in the hiring process. Basically none of the legal (read: job-specific) tests are more predictive of job performance than a general IQ test. Most of their predictive power comes from whatever extent they capture g. Controlling for IQ, underrepresentation of blacks in professional/technical jobs was gone by 1964, prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Affirmative action hires have significantly lower job performance. Our laws assume that all groups should be equally good at everything, and if they're not, it's prima facie evidence of discrimination, even if there is no actual evidence of any. Equality of opportunity is much more reasonable a goal to strive for, with much less deleterious effects.
Chapter 21: No notes.
Chapter 22:
Egalitarianism underestimates the important of the differences that separate human beings. Neighborhoods have been stripped of many of their traditional functions, which used to give many people a sense (and reality) of value. The criminal justice system needs to be made simpler, in a way that is more of a disincentive to low IQ folks with short time horizons. There needs to be incentives/rewards for marriage (single mothers should not get child support). America's policies actively encourage dysgenic breeding.
Afterward:
Public policy sees society as the cause of all problems, government as the solution, and the absolute malleability of people is taken for granted. One of the earliest findings about mental tests was that the results of different tests of apparently different mental skills are positively correlated. The relationship between IQ and all the social behaviors discussed above is much more powerful than the relationship linking those behaviors with the usual suspects (education, social status, affluency, ethnicity). The presence of the biological father in the home has many important positive effects on children independent of SES.
I've been working on this book since I got it for Christmas and I've finally finished it. Here are notes I wrote down with each chapter, all in one place.
Chapter 1:
Cognitive classes are getting increasingly segregated, as of 1990, the odds of half of 12 random Americans having a college degree was six in a thousand, yet for most college graduates that's all or almost all their closest associates.
Chapter 2:
A hundred years ago high IQ folks were largely scattered throughout society. Now, high IQ folks are very concentrated in high IQ professions.
Chapter 3:
Intelligence (g) is the single best predictor of job performance for almost every job, it beats every other known variable. It beats an interview, reference checks, college transcript and even beats tests designed specifically for the skills that job requires. Hiring people based on IQ tests would add billions to the economy each year, but it is currently illegal.
Chapter 4:
Intelligence has become increasingly important to employers. IQ is currently estimated to be 60% determined by genes. (One way to estimate this is studying identical twins separated at birth.) High IQ people are becoming increasingly segregated from average/low IQ people. High IQ people make way more money and high IQ professions are the most lucrative. A lot of the increased income correlated with more years in education could be because years of education is correlated with IQ scores, smarter people stay in school longer. Super smart people are getting richer even as income for everyone else has stagnated.
Chapter 5:
IQ is generally set for life by age 10. The following statistics are for non-Latino whites only: Poverty is strongly associated with childhood socioeconomic status (SES) but even more strongly associated with intelligence. Using regression analysis, IQ is much more of a cause of poverty than childhood SES. IQ strongly predicts poverty among high school (no more no less) graduates. Single mothers have ridiculous poverty rates and the rise in single motherhood is largely responsible for the increase in childhood poverty rates. Even with single mothers, IQ was strongly predictive of poverty, with poverty rates ranging from 70% to 11% at each end (+- 2 standard deviations) of the IQ spectrum. Until the 1960s it was completely acceptable to distinguish between the "deserving" and the "undeserving" poor. Now saying someone is poor because of their actions is "blaming the victim."
Chapter 6:
As high school graduation has become the norm, dropouts have become much more self-selected for low IQs. IQ is way more important than SES in predicting high school dropout rates. Less than 1% of dropouts meet the smart but disadvantaged stereotype (top 25% IQ, bottom 25% SES). Flipping those around, only 12% of "dumb rich kids" end up getting college degrees. IQ is more important than SES in predicting who gets college degrees.
Chapter 7:
Low IQ is associated with unemployment (20% vs 5% chance of being out of labor force for a month (white men) for +-2 SDs). Taking IQ into account, parental SES is actually slightly inversely correlated with being out of the labor force. Dumb people are more accident prone at work. Smart people get in less wrecks.
Chapter 8:
(Statistics for Whites only still.) Marriage rates are the one thing where it appears education and not IQ causes the correlations. High IQ folks stay in school longer, pushing back marriage. Among only HS grads, IQ was actually positively correlated with marriage. Dumb people get divorced more. IQ has a large effect on illegitimacy rates, over and above the mother's childhood SES, ranging from 34% to 4%, controlling for SES +- 2 SDs. Flipping that around and controlling for IQ and letting SES vary, it ranges from 19% to 8%, still significant but not nearly as much so. Growing up without a father (but not so for mothers) more than doubles chance of having an illegitimate baby, even controlling for both IQ and SES.
Chapter 9:
College educated whites basically never go on welfare. The number of families on welfare tripled in the late sixties-early seventies. Both IQ and parental SES have significant independent effects on whether a women will go on welfare, with parental SES: 40% to 5%, and IQ: 28% to 8%, SES actually has the larger effect.
Chapter 10:
IQ has a significant effect on rates of underweight babies. Controlling for IQ, younger mothers' babies weigh just as much as older mothers'. Most malparenting situations come from those in the lowest social classes. Mother's IQ is a stronger predictor than mother's SES background of the worst home environments. In public dialogue, problems experienced by poor children are almost always attributed to the poverty itself, but many of them may really be not a result of the poverty itself but today's correlates of poverty (e.g. living without a father). In predicting child's IQ, the mother's IQ was more important than her SES background: 30% to 2% for IQ vs 10% to 4% for SES (+-2 SDs, holding the other variable constant in each of course) chance of having a child in the bottom 10% in IQ.
Chapter 11:
IQ is a better predictor than SES at predicting criminality. People with criminal backgrounds often drop out of school but dropping does not appear to increase criminal behavior, they're already exhibiting criminal activity before they drop out.
Chapter 12: The direct relationship between SES and voting is overblown. It is predominately education, not income, that links voting and SES. A poor but well-educated shop clerk is more likely to vote than a less educated, rich businessman. Since years of education is largely caused by IQ, it is likely that IQ is the real link between SES and voting. Also, knowledge about politics is predicted by IQ and interest in politics is predicted by IQ, so basically just IQ, and knowledge about politics is obviously correlated with voting.
Chapter 13:
Average IQ: whites: 100, asians: 103-106, blacks, 85-88. The difference in IQs is not due to cultural bias, blacks do as well or better as their white counterparts on questions with cultural content. Blacks do about as well in the workforce as their IQ would predict, which is more evidence the difference is real. It's not a difference in effort because there's a difference in the backwards digit test but not the forward (the backwards is twice as g loaded). Additionally, whites have faster reaction time but slower movement time and reaction time is much more correlated with g than movement time. SES explains 30-40% of the difference in IQ (probably less since SES is largely a result of parental IQ). Black/white IQ difference is consistent over all SES levels (90 vs 105 a the 50th percentile SES 100 vs 115 at the 90th). For this to be purely environmental the average black environment must be at the 6th percentile of whites. For children adopted by two whites: if both biological parents were black: 89 IQ, 1 black 1 white, 99 IQ, both white biological parents, 106 IQ. Adopting parents were all upper-middle class.
Chapter 14:
Average IQ of college graduates is about 114. After controlling for IQ, whites and hispanics have the same chance of getting a college degree, blacks have much more. Blacks are very overrepresented in high-status occupations (10% for whites vs 26% for blacks, for those with the average IQ of those in high status jobs (117)). 91% of the annual wage difference between whites and blacks disappears after controlling for IQ. However controlling for education does not erase near as much, blacks make less than similarly educated whites. This is a result of affirmative action, black college graduates have lower average IQs, which is the real driving factor behind wages. Stats: blacks on average make 77% as much as whites, controlling for education, they make 80%, controlling for IQ, they make 98%, controlling for IQ + gender they make 101% as much. Controlling for IQ on family income and poverty rates shrinks the gap substantially as well, but not as much as for individual income. (poverty rates: white: 7%, black: 26%, 100 IQ white: 6%, 100 IQ black, 11%.) With IQ 100, blacks have a 15% chance of being unemployed vs 11% for whites. Makes you think lingering racism, but then there's no explanation why it didn't affect individual income from earlier. The huge thing: controlling for IQ erases almost none of the difference in marriage rates. (100 IQ age 30: whites: 79%, blacks: 58% (1991)). Historically, the black-white difference in marriage rates was small until the early 1960s and then widened. Controlling for IQ doesn't do much for differences in illegitimacy rates either (100 IQ black women: 51%, white woman: 10% chance of bearing children out of wedlock). Black mothers are more likely to be on welfare after controlling for IQ (IQ 100: 74% vs 56%). These profound cultural differences in relation to marriage probably explain the leftover differences in family income and unemployment rates after controlling for IQ. Most of the difference in delinquency rates is explained by IQ independent of SES.
Chapter 15:
America has likely undergone dysgenic pressures since 1900. Differential fertility: women with more education have less children. Woman HS dropouts have 2.5 kids while BA's have 1.5. Since education is largely a result of IQ, dumb women are having more kids. Lower IQ women start having their children earlier, which is dysgenic since it results in more generations of lower IQ people. A large welfare state causes immigration to be dysgenic, as low-ability workers come from countries with less extensive welfare states. America has changed from the land of opportunity to the land of the safety net. White women have 1.89 children, blacks have 2.23. Controlling for the mother's education removes most differences in white-black fertility rates.
Chapter 16:
82% of people below the poverty line have below average IQs.
88% of women chronically on welfare had below average IQs.
94% of permanent HS dropouts had below average IQs.
85% of illegitimate children are born to below average IQ mothers.
93% of children who lived in poverty their first 3 years of life had below average IQ mothers.
94% of the dumbest decile of children had mothers with below average IQs. Of the small percentage (2.2%) of men who didn't work without a reason (like being in college or an injury), the vast majority had low IQs. 50% were in the bottom decile of IQ and 84% were below average in IQ. Yet, overall, low IQ men still work full time almost as much as everyone else and the majority of low IQ people are employed, out of poverty, not on welfare, and were married when they had babies (as of that year at least). Controlling for SES does not remove the influence of IQ on most all of these variables, on the contrary, controlling for IQ often gets rid of the effect of SES.
Chapter 17:
Fixing clear nutritional deficiencies can increase IQ by a few points (not clear how much exactly, maybe 6ish). America's school system has advanced enough that variations between the best and worst public schools have no explanatory power over differences in students' IQs. By age 5 or 6 there is little you can do to increase IQ. Intensive schooling will not cause lasting increases in IQ. Programs like Head Start and other even more intensive programs aimed at poor toddlers have produced basically no lasting IQ gains, they always start to fade away after a couple years. Adoption at birth from a bad environment to a good one can have real lasting benefits for IQ (like 6 points). Environment does influence IQ (roughly 40% of its variance is explained by environment) but we haven't figured out how to really improve it short of adoption at birth. Intensive schooling programs don't seem to do much to overcome a poor home environment.
Chapter 18:
While SAT scores were plummeting from the 60's to 1980. NAEP scores remained basically flat (NAEP is a nationally representative sample while SAT test takers were and are disproportionately cognitively gifted). SAT scores mostly went down on the verbal portion. The education reforms of the 1960s, motivated by egalitarianism, dumbed down the curriculum. Lower IQ students were mostly unaffected by this change, but it had the affect of possibly not fully realizing the brighest students' potentials. In 1993, 0.1% of the money from the ESEA went to programs for the gifted, 92.2% went to programs for the poor. Most (almost all) federal education dollars are awarded solely based on need and thus generally go to low IQ people. American culture prefers egalitarianism and pumping up people's self-esteem independent of actual value to prizing excellence. Developing the intellectual elite is important to all of society, not because they "deserve it" (since being smart is largely a gift), but because the future of society will largely depend on them. There is only so much low IQ people can do, even with all the help of the federal government.
Chapter 19:
Blacks get what amounts to a bonus of 180 points on their SAT scores in college admissions. Blacks make up 12% of the average student body but are 52% of the bottom 10% IQ of the student body. Blacks' higher college dropout rates mostly go away when you control for IQ. A black person's college degree is devalued in the corporate marketplace now. A low SES white still had to be 0.58 standard deviations above a high SES black to have the same acceptance rate. Black college grads are generally a full SD below white grads.
Chapter 20:
White elites like affirmative action while working-class whites do not. General cognitive ability tests are banned to use in the hiring process. Basically none of the legal (read: job-specific) tests are more predictive of job performance than a general IQ test. Most of their predictive power comes from whatever extent they capture g. Controlling for IQ, underrepresentation of blacks in professional/technical jobs was gone by 1964, prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Affirmative action hires have significantly lower job performance. Our laws assume that all groups should be equally good at everything, and if they're not, it's prima facie evidence of discrimination, even if there is no actual evidence of any. Equality of opportunity is much more reasonable a goal to strive for, with much less deleterious effects.
Chapter 21: No notes.
Chapter 22:
Egalitarianism underestimates the important of the differences that separate human beings. Neighborhoods have been stripped of many of their traditional functions, which used to give many people a sense (and reality) of value. The criminal justice system needs to be made simpler, in a way that is more of a disincentive to low IQ folks with short time horizons. There needs to be incentives/rewards for marriage (single mothers should not get child support). America's policies actively encourage dysgenic breeding.
Afterward:
Public policy sees society as the cause of all problems, government as the solution, and the absolute malleability of people is taken for granted. One of the earliest findings about mental tests was that the results of different tests of apparently different mental skills are positively correlated. The relationship between IQ and all the social behaviors discussed above is much more powerful than the relationship linking those behaviors with the usual suspects (education, social status, affluency, ethnicity). The presence of the biological father in the home has many important positive effects on children independent of SES.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)