Today, August 16th, The Atlantic published their racist slant on the same study, see: Entrepreneurship: The Ultimate White Privilege? penned by a racist-baiting Jordan Weissman in which Weissman claims the faux concept of "white privilege" is the reason why.
"White privilege" is yet another in a long line of rhetorical ploys employed by these racists. Their Ahab story never changes.
Their Ahab stories using this template:
[insert group] exists, has a rich history and has been discriminated against by the great white male, their Moby Dick.
Levine says, “But it’s a unique combination of breaking rules and being smart that helps you become an entrepreneur...Of course, you have to be smart.” Levine also says, "...more likely to come from high-earning, two-parent families than other employment types."
Are there many two-parent families in the ghettos among minorities? What does the IQ distribution look like for male minorities? Where does the tail skew, toward the left or toward the right? What does the IQ distribution look like for females? Does it cluster around the mean with few outliers with shallow left and right tails?
Look at the characteristics here: white, male, and highly educated. All coincide with likely higher IQs.
Levine and Rubinstein argue that self-employed workers who incorporate their businesses more or less are more serious about succeeding than those who haven’t incorporated their businesses. They argue that incorporation coincides with legitimizing one's entrepreneurial venture. It seems that smarter white males, smarter presumably because of higher IQs, mature into wanting to play by the culture — the codified laws and codes of conduct.
Rules-breaking is learned behavior. Over the years, millions of poor, ghetto illegal entrepreneurs — drug dealers, pimps, extortion enforcers — have learned to break the rules. Yet, because never do they pursue legit business and because their kind of business falls under the scrutiny of another kind of regulator — cops, courts and jailers — success outcomes are quite different.
Levine's claimed conclusion is not accurate. Likely it is a combo of being smart and having a propensity to risk, which in youthful days reveals itself as rules-breaking, but in adult days, as betting on one's own ideas, which tells the story.
Gab It
