Charles Murray is once again peddling junk science about race and IQ
Podcaster and author Sam Harris is the latest to fall for it.
Updated by Eric Turkheimer, Kathryn Paige Harden, and Richard E. Nisbett May 18, 2017, 9:50am EDT
Eric Turkheimer is the Hugh Scott Hamilton Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia. Twitter: @ent3c. Kathryn Paige Harden (@kph3k) is associate professor in the department of psychology at the University of Texas at Austin. Richard E. Nisbett is the Theodore M. Newcomb Distinguished University Professor at the University of Michigan.
Charles Murray, the conservative scholar who co-authored The Bell Curve with the late Richard Herrnstein, was recently denied a platform at Middlebury College. Students shouted him down, and one of his hosts was hurt in a scuffle. But Murray recently gained a much larger audience: an extensive interview with best-selling author Sam Harris on his popular Waking Up podcast. That is hardly a niche forum: Waking Up is the fifth-most-downloaded podcast in iTunes’s Science and Medicine category.
Getting worked up over Charles Murray being allowed on a podcast seems a little bizarre. (Here’s the podcast.)
Under the faux indignation and clickbait headline, however, this is about as good an attempt as any to shore up the Conventional Wisdom that the racial differences in average intelligence can’t be influenced by genetics at all. So I’ll go through a chunk of it, adding comments.
Interestingly, the article, when read carefully, is also about how Charles Murray is mostly so much more right than the Conventional Wisdom about IQ. But he’s still a Witch! The article is another one of these attempts to fight back against today’s rampant Science Denialism while not being accused of witchcraft yourself.
Here’s an important question: Do these triple bankshot approaches ever work?
They’re kind of like some prisoner of war being put on TV to denounce the Great Satan while blinking T-O-R-T-U-R-E in Morse Code? But what if nobody back home knows Morse Code anymore?
The basic problem is that the zeitgeist is continually dumbing down. We don’t worry about how to apply objective principles anymore to real world examples of human behavior, we just look for who are the Good Guys and who are the Bad Guys. And how can we tell? Just look at them: the cishet white males are the Bad Guys. What’s so complicated about that?
In this kind of mental atmosphere, will more than three Vox readers come to the end of this carefully coded article and say to themselves: “You know, Charles Murray is still as evil and stupid as I thought, but now I realize that most of what Murray says about IQ is Science and Good!”?
In an episode that runs nearly two and a half hours, Harris, who is best known as the author of The End of Faith, presents Murray as a victim of “a politically correct moral panic” — and goes so far as to say that Murray has no intellectually honest academic critics. Murray’s work on The Bell Curve, Harris insists, merely summarizes the consensus of experts on the subject of intelligence.
The consensus, he says, is that IQ exists; that it is extraordinarily important to life outcomes of all sorts; that it is largely heritable; and that we don’t know of any interventions that can improve the part that is not heritable. The consensus also includes the observation that the IQs of black Americans are lower, on average, than that of whites, and — most contentiously — that this and other differences among racial groups is based at least in part in genetics. …
(In the interview, Murray says he has modified none of his views since the publication of the book, in 1994; if anything, he says, the evidence for his claims has grown stronger. In fact, the field of intelligence has moved far beyond what Murray has been saying for the past 23 years.)
Eh … As I pointed out on the 20th anniversary of The Bell Curve, the world today looks even more like the world Herrnstein and Murray described.
The reality is that there haven’t been all that many revolutionary discoveries since then. The genomic research up through 2016 largely has panned out in the direction Herrnstein and Murray expected, although I’ve been told that a new preprint raises questions about Murray’s guess that the gene variants driving differences between the races are similar to the variants driving differences between individuals. If true, that would suggest that racial differences are in some ways more profound than Murray assumed, which would be ironic.
Turkheimer has gotten a lot of attention for a 2003 paper arguing that in one sample of poor people with lowish IQs, the heritability of IQ was lower than in better off populations, which is interesting but not hugely galvanizing. Emil Kirkegaard in 2016 asked “Did Turkheimer el al (2003) replicate?” I won’t try to adjudicate a question over my head.
But, anyway, the last big scientific finding to raise major questions about the Jensenist view was the Flynn Effect in the 1970s-1980s, which Herrnstein and Murray didn’t exactly ignore: they named it in The Bell Curve.
Murray’s premises, which proceed in declining order of actual broad acceptance by the scientific community, go like this:
1) Intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, is a meaningful construct that describes differences in cognitive ability among humans.
2) Individual differences in intelligence are moderately heritable.
3) Racial groups differ in their mean scores on IQ tests.
4) Discoveries about genetic ancestry have validated commonly used racial groupings.
5) On the basis of points 1 through 4, it is natural to assume that the reasons for racial differences in IQ scores are themselves at least partly genetic.
ORDER IT NOWUntil you get to 5, none of the premises is completely incorrect. However, for each of them Murray’s characterization of the evidence is slanted in a direction that leads first to the social policies he endorses, and ultimately to his conclusions about race and IQ. We, and many other scientific psychologists, believe the evidence supports a different view of intelligence, heritability, and race.
We believe there is a fairly wide consensus among behavioral scientists in favor of our views, but there is undeniably a range of opinions in the scientific community. Some well-informed scientists hold views closer to Murray’s than to ours. …
Let’s take Murray’s principles one at a time.
Intelligence is meaningful. This principle comes closest to being universally accepted by scientific psychologists. …
But observing that some people have greater cognitive ability than others is one thing; assuming that this is because of some biologically based, essential inner quality called g that causes them to be smarter, as Murray claims, is another. There is a vibrant ongoing debate about the biological reality of g, but intelligence tests can be meaningful and useful even if an essential inner g doesn’t exist at all.
Indeed. So what is the relevance of g to this debate?
The question of g is fascinating and also quite difficult. But it’s not absolutely relevant to this debate other than that poor Stephen Jay Gould got all hung up on g, fulminating: “The chimerical nature of g is the rotten core of Jensen’s edifice …”
As I’ve pointed out before, for example, Harvard requires applicants to take the SAT or ACT, both of which correlate considerably with IQ. The goal is to supplement the GPA with a measure that gives additional insight into brainpower. Say the g factor doesn’t exist and that there is zero correlation between an SAT math score and an SAT verbal score. Harvard would still favor students who score well on both measures over those who score well on only math or verbal. In the real world, there is a lot of correlation between SAT Math and SAT Verbal scores, just like the g factor theory implies. But, I suspect, we would still be having this IQ and Race debate if there weren’t.
Intelligence is heritable. To say that intelligence is heritable means that, in general, people who are more similar genetically are also more similar in their IQ. Identical twins, who share all their DNA, have more similar IQs than fraternal twins or siblings, who only share half. Half-siblings’ IQs are even less similar than that; cousins, still less.
Heritability is not unique to IQ; in fact, virtually all differences among individual human beings are somewhat heritable. … Heritability is not a special property of certain traits that have turned out to be genetic; it is a description of the human condition, according to which we are born with certain biological realities that play out in complex ways in concert with environmental factors, and are affected by chance events throughout our lives.
This is a pretty funny example of the rhetorical strategy of much of this article. It’s designed to get readers to say to themselves: “That nasty moron Murray thinks the heritability of intelligence is partly genetic, when smart people know it’s really a … description of the human condition!”
An awful lot of this article consists of the three professors agreeing with Murray, but phrasing their endorsement of various Bell Curve assertions in such a way that Vox readers will think it’s actually a crushing takedown of Murray. The whole thing is full of these kind of trick maneuvers.
Do these kind of Secret Decoder Ring articles ever work? Does anybody ever finish the article and say to themselves, “Yes, Charlie Murray is just as evil and stupid as I previously believed, but now I’m aware that 80% of what Murray says about IQ is Science and Good!”
The basic problem is that the zeitgeist is just getting dumber and dumber as the dominant way of thinking gets more childish: Good Guys vs. Bad Guys. (And you determine who are the Good Guys and who are the Bad Guys not by something complicated like what they do, but by something simple: who they are.) So the likelihood of this kind of devious triple bankshot approach actually smartening people up doesn’t seem all that likely. But what do I know?
Today we can also study genes and behavior more directly by analyzing people’s DNA. These methods have given scientists a new way to compute heritability: Studies that measure DNA sequence variation directly have shown that pairs of people who are not relatives, but who are slightly more similar genetically
Such as members of the same race?
Much of the brain fog that besets Vox-level discussions of this question is due to Americans forgetting that race is deeply related to the question of who your relatives are. American intellectuals seldom think in terms of family trees, even though biological genealogy is just about the most absolutely real thing there is in the social realm. The simple reality is that people of one race tend to be more closely related in their family trees to people of the same race than they are to people of other races. But almost nobody notices the relations between race and genealogy in modern American thinking.
, also have more similar IQs than other pairs of people who happen to be more different genetically. These “DNA-based” heritability studies don’t tell you much more than the classical twin studies did, but they put to bed many of the lingering suspicions that twin studies were fundamentally flawed in some way. Like the validity of intelligence testing, the heritability of intelligence is no longer scientifically contentious.
In other words, “the heritability of intelligence is no longer scientifically contentious.” Nor is “the validity of intelligence testing.”
The new DNA-based science has also led to an ironic discovery: Virtually none of the complex human qualities that have been shown to be heritable are associated with a single determinative gene!
It’s almost as if the genetics behind the most complex object in the known universe, the human brain, are also complex.
There are no “genes for” IQ in any but the very weakest sense. Murray’s assertion in the podcast that we are only a few years away from a thorough understanding of IQ at the level of individual genes is scientifically unserious. Modern DNA science has found hundreds of genetic variants that each have a very, very tiny association with intelligence, but even if you add them all together they predict only a small fraction of someone’s IQ score.
And that fraction goes up year by year as larger and larger sample sizes are assembled.
The ability to add together genetic variants to predict an IQ score is a useful tool in the social sciences, but it has not produced a purely biological understanding of why some people have more cognitive ability than others.
Indeed, “it has not produced a purely biological understanding.” But the biological understanding is improving annually.
This is the usual debate over whether a glass is part full or part empty. What we can say is that each year, the glass gets fuller.
Most crucially, heritability, whether low or high, implies nothing about modifiability. The classic example is height, which is strongly heritable (80 to 90 percent), yet the average height of 11-year-old boys in Japan has increased by more than 5 inches in the past 50 years.
True. I write about height a fair amount in part because the effects of nurture on height are so clear. Thus, it’s plausible that the effects of nurture on intelligence probably exist too, even though they are hard to document.
As a non-scientist, I’m more of a nurturist when it comes to IQ than most actual scientists in the field. The scientists emphasize that that the half or so of the influences on IQ that aren’t nature aren’t what we normally think of as nurture, such as having a lot of books in the house growing up. Instead, what gets lumped under nurture appears to be mostly random bad luck that we don’t really understand.
But I’m more cautious on this than most researchers. I’m not convinced that they’ve figured out what drives the Flynn Effect over time, so I’ll hold open the possibility that more traditional nurture may play a considerable role.
But, please note, the Japanese remain one of the shorter nationalities despite a couple of generations of first world living standards. They’ve been surpassed in average height by the South Koreans, for example. The tallest Europeans on average include the wealthy Dutch and the much less wealthy Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, and Albanians. So, height differences among ancestral groups appear to be part nature, part nurture.
A similar historical change is occurring for intelligence: Average IQ scores are increasing across birth cohorts, such that Americans experienced an 18-point gain in average IQ from 1948 to 2002.
Indeed, the Flynn Effect is extremely interesting, as I’ve often pointed out.
And the most decisive and permanent environmental intervention that an individual can experience, adoption from a poor family into a better-off one, is associated with IQ gains of 12 to 18 points. …
There was a small French study of cross-class adoption with a sample size of 38. Despite the tiny sample, I find its finding that nature and nurture are about roughly equally influential (with nature a little stronger) quite plausible. (My general presumption before studying any interesting question is that we’ll end up around fifty-fifty.)
Race differences in average IQ score. People who identify as black or Hispanic in the US and elsewhere on average obtain lower IQ scores than people who identify as white or Asian. That is simply a fact, and stating it plainly offers no support in itself for a biological interpretation of the difference. To what extent is the observed difference in cognitive function a reflection of the myriad ways black people in the US experience historical, social, and economic disadvantage — earning less money, suffering more from chronic disease, dying younger, living in more dangerous and chaotic neighborhoods, attending inferior schools?
In fact, there are a lot of tall, healthy African-Americans currently dominating the NBA playoffs. In terms of height, African-Americans don’t appear to be a malnourished, beaten down population like, say, Guatemalan Indians.
Similarly, the last 72 men to qualify for the finals of the Olympic 100 meter dash, from 1984 through 2016, have been at least half black.
Now you could say, like James Flynn, that contemporary African-American culture is detrimental to the full development of African-American cognitive functioning, that black Americans focus too much on basketball and gangsta rap.
I think that’s highly possible.
But, who exactly is responsible for that? Charles Murray?
This is another triple bankshot approach: if we can just punch Charles Murray enough (metaphorically or literally), then inner city blacks will realize they should stop listening to gangsta rap and instead become patent attorneys. Or something.
… Race and genetic ancestry. First, a too-brief interlude about the biological status of race and genetic ancestry. The topic of whether race is a social or biological construct has been as hotly debated as any topic in the human sciences. The answer, by our lights, isn’t that hard: Human evolutionary history is real; the more recent sorting of people into nations and social groups with some degree of ethnic similarity is real; individual and familial ancestry is real. All of these things are correlated with genetics, but they are also all continuous and dynamic, both geographically and historically.
Our lay concept of race is a social construct that has been laid on top of these vastly more complex biological realities. That is not to say that socially defined race is meaningless or useless. (Modern genomics can do a good job of determining where in Central Europe or Western Africa your ancestors resided.)
And since “modern genomics can do a good job of determining where in Central Europe or Western Africa your ancestors resided,” they can, of course, also do the easier job of determining whether the bulk of your relatives were from Europe or sub-Saharan Africa.
However, a willingness to speak casually about modern racial groupings as simplifications of the ancient and turbulent history of human ancestry should not deceive us into conjuring back into existence 19th-century notions of race — Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, and all that.
Funny how the Obama Administration spent 8 years heartily enforcing policies based on categories called whites (i.e., Caucasoid), blacks (Negroid), and Asians (Mongoloid) and all that. It’s almost as if the Obama Administration believed that such categories are good enough for government work.
ORDER IT NOWMurray talks about advances in population genetics as if they have validated modern racial groups. In reality, the racial groups used in the US — white, black, Hispanic, Asian — are such a poor proxy for underlying genetic ancestry that no self-respecting statistical geneticist would undertake a study based only on self-identified racial category as a proxy for genetic ancestry measured from DNA.
Okay, but the implication of that argument is 180 degrees backward from what Turkheimer et al are rhetorically implying. Isn’t it obvious that IQ studies that use self-identified race, as most do, are going to find a slightly lower correlation between race and IQ than ideal studies that use actual genetic ancestry?
For example, both Barack and Michelle Obama self-identified on the 2010 Census solely as black, but Barack clearly has a higher IQ than Michelle. The Vox authors in effect complain that studies based on self-identification would lump both together as purely black, ignoring Barack’s substantial white ancestry. That’s a reasonable methodological complaint, but its implications are the reverse of what they imply.
Similarly, there is an obvious correlation in the U.S. among Hispanics between white ancestry and educational attainment that gets blurred if you rely purely on self-identification.
Black Harvard professors Henry Louis Gates and Lani Guinier complained in 2004 that a very large fraction of Harvard’s affirmative action spots for blacks go to applicants, like Barack, with a white parent and/or foreign elite ancestry instead of toward genuine descendants of American slaves, like Michelle. (They sort of dropped the topic after the rise of Barack later that year).
Finally, the relationship between self-identification and racial ancestry has been investigated via DNA a lot recently, and the results are pretty much that, for whites and blacks, the government’s categories for self-identification are good enough for government work. In 23andMe studies, people who self-identify as non-Hispanic whites are overwhelmingly over 90% white by ancestry. People who identify as non-Hispanic African-Americans are largely at least 50% black.
23andme found among their clients, by my calculations:
If the average self-identified black is 73.2% black and the average self-identified white is 0.19% black, then the average black in America is 385 times blacker than the average white. That doesn’t seem very murky to me.
This was all predictable from the workings of the One Drop System.
Some of this will change in newer generations raised under somewhat different rules, but the basic reality discovered by genome studies is that in America, individuals who self-identify as non-Hispanic whites or as non-Hispanic blacks tend to be quite different by ancestry.
Genetic group differences in IQ. On the basis of the above premises, Murray casually concludes that group differences in IQ are genetically based. But what of the actual evidence on the question? Murray makes a rhetorical move that is commonly deployed by people supporting his point of view: They stake out the claim that at least some of the difference between racial groups is genetic, and challenge us to defend the claim that none, absolutely zero, of it is. They know that science is not designed for proving absolute negatives, but we will go this far: There is currently no reason at all to think that any significant portion of the IQ differences among socially defined racial groups is genetic in origin.
“No reason at all” is pretty silly. A much more reasonable suggestion would be that Occam’s Razor currently favors the hypothesis that some of the IQ gap is genetic in origin, but the subject is extremely complicated and it could turn out to be different.
It’s also possible that there is something we don’t understand at present about this dauntingly complex subject that makes a reasonably final answer not possible, a little bit like how Gödel’s incompleteness theorems came as a big surprise to mathematicians and philosophers such as Bertrand Russell.
In any case, we’ll learn a lot more about this subject over the next couple of decades due to the ongoing advances in genomics.
I had dinner last year with a geneticist who informed me that in his laptop in his backpack under the table was data documenting some gene variants that contribute a part of the racial IQ gap. He asked me if I thought he should publish it.
I asked him how close he was to tenure.
Now, if this scientist chooses to publish, Turkheimer et al could still argue that his results aren’t a “significant portion” of The Gap. This question is very, very complex technically, and giant sample sizes are needed. But those will be eventually forthcoming and we will (probably) eventually see.
But, right now, it sure seems like the wind has mostly been blowing for a long, long time in Murray’s direction and there’s not much reason to expect it to suddenly reverse in the future.
Toward the end of the Vox article:
Liberals need not deny that intelligence is a real thing or that IQ tests measure something real about intelligence, that individuals and groups differ in measured IQ, or that individual differences are heritable in complex ways.
But liberals must deny that racial differences in IQ could possibly be heritable in complex ways.
But isn’t the upshot of this article that Charles Murray is more correct than the Conventional Wisdom about 80% of what’s at issue?
Why isn’t this article entitled, for example: “Charles Murray is mostly right and Stephen Jay Gould was mostly wrong”?
And that leads to a meta-point: Instead of liberals attempting to imply, using all their rhetorical skills, that only horrible people like Charles Murray think there is any evidence at all for a genetic influence on differences in average IQs among races, shouldn’t they be spending more time explaining why, if Murray turns out to be right, that wouldn’t be The End of the World? Right now, we get told over and over about how unthinkable and outrageous this quite plausible scientific finding would be and how only bad people, practically Hitlerites, think there is any evidence for it at all.
This conventional wisdom strikes me as imprudent.
Personally, I think, this seemingly horrifying potential scientific discovery ought to be easily endurable, just as the NBA has survived the rise of the popular suspicion that the reasons LeBron James and other blacks make up most of the best basketball players include genetic differences.
I’ve long argued that The Worst that liberals can imagine about the scientific reality isn’t actually so bad. Murray’s world looks an awful lot like the world we live in, which we manage to live in. But I don’t have the rhetorical chops to reassure liberals that life will go on. I’m an official Horrible Extremist.
But that raises the question: Who does have the rhetorical skills to undermine the increasingly hysterical conventional wisdom and package the mature point of view about genetic diversity in the old soft soap that will go over well with Nice People?
Clearly, even Charles Murray doesn’t have the eloquence to reassure liberals.
Fortunately, there is this guy who is obsessed with genetic diversity in sports, having read David Epstein’s HBD-aware The Sports Gene, And he is really good at public speaking to liberals. And he doesn’t have that much else on his plate at the moment: Barack Obama.
So if Mr. Obama ever reads this, let me ask him to think about taking on the public service of deflating the Science Denialist hysteria over race and genetic diversity.
P.S. This article’s junior co-author, Paige Harden, had some more respectful things to say about Murray back in March.
Yeah, I’m sure Obama has been looking for a way to cut his base off at the knees.
http://www.unz.com/isteve/vox-charles-murray-is-once-again-peddling-junk-science-about/#comment-1876810
Murray peddling Junk Science?
No way.
That’s Bill Nye’s specialty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wllc5gSc-N8
Obama would much rather munch ice cream on Martha’s Vineyard than explain the genetic heritability of racial differences to White upper middle class globalizers.
The Democrats can’t concede the genetic foundation of the racial test score gap in schools because that might jeopardize the massive loot the education industry gets from the government to close the gap.
Please refrain from the tasteless gay ex-president jokes.
Is this true? Is the fundamental constant of American sociology not fundamentally constant?
Either the 10 points is at some younger age, or Nisbett is contradicting himself.
So, reading through this, it appears that the authors agree with Murray about most of the substance. Why do they give it such a different spin? Maybe because:
“No reasonable person would be offended by the observation that African people have curlier hair than the Chinese, notwithstanding the possibility of some future environment in which it is no longer true. But we can recognize a contention that Chinese people are genetically predisposed to be better table tennis players than Africans as silly, and the contention that they are smarter than Africans as ugly, because it is a matter of ethical principle that individual and cultural accomplishment is not tied to the genes in the same way as the appearance of our hair.”
It is a matter of ethical principle. That’s one of the authors, Turkheimer, ten years ago. Source: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/11/21/eric-turkheimer/race-iq
I.e., OOGA BOOGA.
And these people presume to call themselves scientists!
Écrasez l'infâme!
I thought science had to do with empiricism, irrespective of principles. Children's deaths from from cancer certainly do not comport with ehtical ideas about fairness and justness, so must we deny that they occur...?
In the context of actual "science" none of this stuff is even semi-controversial.
A few points are sufficient:
1) Any genetically influenced trait which varies between people in a population, must vary between population groups--families, tribes, races. *Must*.
(I don't know if the evo-bio guys have a named law for this, but if not just call it AnotherDad's law. It's just math.)
The things "all humans share" are the things which are fixed--brain in skull, two eyes, upright walking, ten fingers, ten toes, etc. The things we vary in are the ones selection is working on and that selection is not identical. between population groups. Ergo those traits vary across population groups. (And it's particularly ludicrous to think selection has been anything close to identical between separated races on the sort of mental traits of increasing use in "civilized life" during these past 10,000 years since the neolithic.)
2) What the heck has selection been working on but mental traits--smarts, conscientiousness, etc. etc.
Ok, disease resistance might top that. Potentially genes affecting metabolizing new foods in our diet. But we're the thinking ape. Our big brain is our special survival skill. The idea we haven't had wildly *increased* selection on mental traits these past few thousand years as we settled down and developed trade, metalurgy, social hierarchies, towns, cities, written language, money, industry ... it's ludicrous. And that selection was different everywhere due to different civilizations everywhere.
3) For American blacks and whites, the data is in--the wave packet has collapsed.
If a person did not understand the evolutionary stuff--points 1+2--then i'd say maybe as late as 4o or 50 years ago one could posit some sort of semi-credible environment hypothesis. Not so today. If US blacks of a given income\class\educational background raised kids that were within IQ shouting distance of white kids raised with the same background, and the overall black-white gap was simply because proportionally more white kids are in the higher classes, then we could still be having a real argument. But this is not close to being the case.
Black kids with parents of the same social/educational class, living in the same neighborhoods, going to the same schools, eating food from the same grocery stores and restaurants are considerably behind their white peers. In fact, the most privileged blacks, from the highest US income quintile have mean SAT scores that barely beat whites from the lowest income quintile. All the other blacks are way way behind. Environmental explanations can account for something--perhaps. But they simply can't account for the gap, because even well nurtured blacks, sharing the same environment are woefully behind their white peers.
Again, if you're talking about actual science, between basic evolutionary theory and the data we have, the big picture is crystal clear. (Debate would be about the size of effects, how they manifest themselves structurally, biochemically, finding particular genes, and perhaps how fast, various eugenic policies could improve things.) Turkheimer and company aren't doing science. They are doing political/religious propaganda.
Aside from being obviously false, staking out a position like this is a big mistake because once there is “some reason” then your whole argument collapses – you have to pray that your current luck holds out and that politics can hold back the progress of science so that no one can ever prove you wrong. This is not a safe bet. Even if you can block this kind of work from being done in the US, you can bet that the Chinese are working on it.
When you are an aristocrat, no one calls you to account for being wrong. Indeed, Marxism proves that with your Liberal Privilege, you are free to be not only wrong, but as wrong as possible, and still be unimpeded by your vile, profane and malicious stupidity.
If Typhoid Mary were a modern Liberal, she'd be feted as a saintly humanitarian.
There is no downside for these servants of Sauron being wrong.
You think Vox is bad — this reads like parody, but I don’t think it is:
From the American Mathematical Society (AMS) ‘inclusion/exclusion’ blog — Get Out The Way
If you are a white cis man (meaning you identify as male and you were assigned male at birth) you almost certainly should resign from your position of power. That’s right, please quit.
An excerpt from one of the comments:
We need to decouple success in mathematics from IQ. IQ is a social construct that cishet white men devised that defines “intelligence” on the basis of culture. Sadly, there is a direct correlation between high IQ and “earning” a PhD in a STEM discipline, which is all too reflective of how white cishet men have designed disciplinary concepts to reinforce their own power structures…It is fundamentally unfair and marginalizing for IQ tests and mathematics curriculum to be designed around the same white supremacist, cisheteronormative standards, thus marginalizing women of color. What we need isn’t just “fair hiring;” we need a radical reconceptualization of mathematics in a decolonizing framework.
Read the whole thing there.
I'll believe them when they have surgery performed by the affirmative action recipient instead of the white doctor.
To see this in math demonstrates that cancer in the body politic cannot be ignored. Next up: 2+2 = 5.
Meaning, you gays are just part of the patriarchy if you're "cis."
https://t.co/zM7iakHtwB
This one was good for a good laugh – thanks!
This one sounds good.
Maybe Mr. Obama could accept the Erich-Fromm-prize, lets say in 2018, since we’re not in a big hurry here. And when giving his acceptence speech in Stuttgart, he could tell what he knows about HBD.
Fromm always emphasized, that speaking the truth is the most important thing for any reasonable – and really free… – mind.
And hasn’t Mr. Obama once remarked, that Fromm was his biggest intellectual influence. I mean – I know from the publisher of the last American Fromm-biography, that Barrack Obama withdrew from being mentioned on the cover as an admirer of Fromm, but that was then – when he might have been too hesitant, because he served as President of the USA.
He is off duty now – and closer to be an intellectual and: A free man, again.
Or else – Barrack Obama could just do Steve Sailer, his absolutely decent meta-autobiographer, a favour, and speak out about HBD – that ‘d be fine too, wouldn’t it?!
"No reasonable person would be offended by the observation that African people have curlier hair than the Chinese, notwithstanding the possibility of some future environment in which it is no longer true. But we can recognize a contention that Chinese people are genetically predisposed to be better table tennis players than Africans as silly, and the contention that they are smarter than Africans as ugly, because it is a matter of ethical principle that individual and cultural accomplishment is not tied to the genes in the same way as the appearance of our hair."
It is a matter of ethical principle. That's one of the authors, Turkheimer, ten years ago. Source: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/11/21/eric-turkheimer/race-iq
“But we can recognize a contention that Chinese people are genetically predisposed to be better table tennis players than Africans as silly”
Why do people like Turkheimer even raise sports at all?
Because they know that there's no price to pay for being wrong in the right way.
There never has been. And the best bet is that there never will be.
The average low intelligence, higher levels of testosterone, and greater impulsiveness of negro males (and, to a lesser degree, black females) created and sustains the cultures of sub-Saharan Africa, Haiti, inner-city Detroit, Baltimore, St. Louis, etc., the south side of Chicago, the north side of Milwaukee, etc.
There's no "human nature," essentialyl immutable and rooted in genetics/ biology. Humans are infinitely malleable, and perfectible. Socialization and culture are everything. The races are exactly the same apart from skin color and other superficial, and thus negligible, anatomical differences. Race beneath the skin is an "artifical social construct." The sexes are exactly the same apart from the inescapable differences in anatomy. "Gender" (masculine and feminine identities and behaviors) as opposed to sex (male/female) is an "artificial social construct."
Thus explains why black males on average are humdreds of times more likely than "Asian" females to commit violent crimes (aggravated assault, robbery, murder, etc.), and thousands of times more likely to commit violent sexual assaults. for obvious anatomical reasons, female can't commit rape in the pure and literal sense of the word.
If socialization and culture were everything, it would not only be possible to create societies in which "Asian" females were as violent and criminal as black males but also, even more absurdly, societies in which "Asian" females were far more violent and criminal than negro males and the males of all other races!
I was wondering if you have any thoughts on DeBoer’s take on HBD? He seems to be one of the few liberals willing to dive in and address the facts as they are, rather than how he would like them to be:
https://fredrikdeboer.com/2017/05/13/no-really-race-is-a-social-construct/
https://fredrikdeboer.com/2017/04/10/disentangling-race-from-intelligence-and-genetics/
OT: Another (high IQ) illegal?
http://heavy.com/news/2017/05/richard-rojas-times-square-car-crash-suspect-video-isis-terrorism-dui-facebook-photo/
The Democrats can't concede the genetic foundation of the racial test score gap in schools because that might jeopardize the massive loot the education industry gets from the government to close the gap.
doubtful this would end it. Even if Liberals began to acknowledge HBD they would use it as an excuse to spend even more money on the disadvantaged. Thus if they agree that 60% of your IQ is due to genes we must spend even more money in an effort to narrow the gap, Although the gap can never be closed, it is more important than ever to leave no child behind. Plus millions of Americans are on the Education gravy train. Impossible to end it. Too many vested interests. Many may embrace it, since teachers and schools will no longer receive so much blame for bad performance..
I always found it funny that Gould’s Mismeasure of Man exposition of factor analysis made absolutely no sense, and no one called him out on it. That is, you can change factor loadings across factors while not affecting the ‘best fit’, or g in the case of IQ, but that just highlights the usefulness of g over the individual factors, and these loading changes are then offset by changes in the variance of the factors. His graphical critique shows he doesn’t understand that 2-dimensional plots of data always have at least one axis consistent between the two, as otherwise it makes no sense. The argument just disappeared, forgotten. Meanwhile, Gould gloms onto instances of other’s biased arguments or measurements as if it implies the hypothesis–eg, brain size and IQ–then and forever shows a particular null hypothesis (viz, no group differences).
If factor analysis, or principal components, was arbitrary as Gould stated, no one would bother learning it, but it remains part of the statistical canon.
Has anyone who claims to believe this ever tried to explain the lack of technological development in sub-Saharan Africa prior to contact with outside groups?
Even if Obama understood, they would turn on him in a second if he tried to push it publicly. This has become a religious belief for the left, particularly among those in the designated victim classes. Every aspect of life is emotionally based for them, no one is going to win them over by making arguments to reason.
Those arguments provide quite cogent explanations for how an IQ gap developed - not to mention the other cognitive differences outside of bare IQ that many of us suspect occur along racial lines. Executive function, toleration of boredom, time preference, and all.
One of the authors of that Vox piece, Paige Harden, has actually grappled a bit with the implications of HBD. See here, for example, which includes a respectful discussion of some of Murray’s views. I think she wrote the smart and reasonable bits of the Vox piece and then acquiesced in the two old commie dudes adding in all the insults, obfuscations and nonsense.
So she's a coward, and a climber?
So much of the “races aren’t real” narrative would be removed if Africans weren’t lumped into a single race; the fact that African-Americans are more different genetically from African pygmies than they are from white people, for example, isn’t really proving anything beyond that we need to have slightly more precise population group categories.
This was clearly a high effort piece by Turkheimer and Nesbitt. I wouldn’t expect anyone to throughly debunk something with this level of sneaky rhetorical sophistication 5 hours after publication. I certainly couldn’t begin to, particularly since I am not an expert. Little things jump out at me that bely bias and hostility on the part of the authors though:
“Until you get to 5, none of the premises is completely incorrect.”. This would be more accurately and neutrally stated as “Until you get to 4, all of the premises are unambiguously true and non-controversial”.
“These observations do not undermine the conclusion that intelligence is heritable, but rather the naive assumption that heritable traits cannot be changed via environmental mechanisms. (Murray flatly tells Harris that this is the case.)”
I haven’t listened to the podcast, and Turkheimer doesn’t cite the point in the podcast when Murray “flatly tells Harris that this is the case”. I suspect that Charles Murray understands that the heritability of intelligence, height, etc would be much lower in populations exposed to extreme deprivation, such as wartime famine conditions. Murray has discussed the Wilson effect before – that the heritability of IQ increases with age, and early childhood interventions can increase the IQ of young children. Murray is likely referring to the failure of intensive childhood interventions to produce results approaching middle class white norms among lower and middle class African American groups.
“There is currently no reason at all to think that any significant portion of the IQ differences among socially defined racial groups is genetic in origin.”
There is very good reason. We have controlled for the most obvious factor associated with environmental deprivation: poverty. In the 2003 College Bound cohort of SAT test-takers, black students with family incomes between 80k-100k averaged 461 on the SAT-M and 468 on the SAT-V. White test takers with family incomes between 15-20k averaged 485 on the SAT-M and 488 on the SAT-V. By our colloquial understanding of what constitutes deprivation, the black students in a comfortably middle class income bracket are “better off”, yet still score worse than poor whites.
https://twitter.com/ent3c/status/865214443432628224
Devoting enormous amounts of resources to marginally improving IQ may not produce positive returns. As western societies become more "diverse," there will be far too many dumbs to educate. A more cost effective measure of improving life outcomes is necessary.
Small addendum… “that defines intelligence on the basis of culture” – which actually means: Culture of white power, culture of white racism, culture of white sexism & sadism, discipline and punishment (at the very least).
eah, Oh how they write, but nothing “marginalizes women of color”, especially black women, like being a sperm receptacle for multiple men who have no interest in supporting you or nurturing your offspring.
http://heavy.com/news/2017/05/richard-rojas-times-square-car-crash-suspect-video-isis-terrorism-dui-facebook-photo/
The Jacksonville PD classified him as White-Non Hispanic after one of his previous arrests? Are they sure that report is for the same guy?
Okay, we need to have a business plan to integrates wokeness, “mathematics” and witchcraft now.
Who does have the rhetorical skills to undermine the increasingly hysterical conventional wisdom and package the mature point of view about genetic diversity in the old soft soap that will go over well with Nice People?
If the remarkably even-keeled, articulate, and scientifically literate social critic/analyst Charles Murray couldn’t do it, who can? Some collective of thinkers will come through eventually. The webzine Quilette seems to be trying to tackle it. Wish I could participate somehow, but a lot of the science is beyond my paygrade.
hysterical conventional wisdom". By now, perhaps it is more basic to look at the social-mental repressive dynamics surrounding this science than to persist in trying to focus on the facts and findings themselves. Brand's keen general survey in his briefly published and then almost immediately "de-published" 1995 book re "general mental ability" and nature/nurture--this keen general survey was one of a strand of such "semi burned" books. It is conceivable (but don't bet on it ) that the Freedom of Information Act might now be used to excavate more information relevant to the details of "de-publishing" Brand's book?? An emphatic "insert" is in order at this point. Before noting some of the facts due some retrospective re this 1995 "de-publishing", the really significant current reality is that Brand
managed, with obvious assistance from others, to get the full and faithful text of his "totally
burned" book all online a few years later---a real samizdat victory and a real samizdat manifestation. The ( is it by now still? ) neologism of "de-published" is betokened by the fact that the UK publisher did not merely lock their warehouse door on the sale of the book (after about six
weeks of access to book sellers in the UK) but they sent out vans to pick up advanced copies from booksellers. Wow! But this is not "a" story. It is the culmination of "semi-book burning" reaching back most saliently in our historical period to the 1950's withdrawal of Audrey Shuey's book on the testing of Black intelligence. This book, fully endorsed by former American Psychological Association President, Prof. Henry Garrett (Columbia U. ), was rescued by Garrett with assistance from the Pioneer Fund founder and was ushered back into access via an ad hoc
publishing effort devoted to just such book rescue. With Garrett's advancing age, this ad hoc
rescue publishing arrangement was passed on to Prof. R. Travis Osborne (U. of Georgia ) who
not only got a second expanded edition of the Shuey book out, but also rescued Oxford University Professor John R. Baker's book, RACE, from the dustbin of publishing abandonment. This remarkable classic was submitted in 1972 to the UK publisher but
somehow publisher nail-biting delayed its publication until 1974. For a work of its genre,
it sold very well....but after the first run was gone...delay after delay set in and this book,
after enormous efforts by the author and his contacts, was rescued by Osborne and his
Pioneer Fund supported ad hoc effort so that it was re-published fully and faithfully in 1981
in the U.S. In the mid-90's, Chris Brand at the University of Edinburgh, himself out of the graduate program at Oxford University had never come by a copy of Baker's RACE until one was sent to him from the U.S. out of the 1981 American re-issue of the exact book published
(briefly) in the U.K. in 1974. Ironies compound in this samizdat area of life. Then, maybe
six weeks or so after a few books stores in the U.K. were stocking his book on the "g" factor,
this book of his got the full axe of "de-publishing" and the withdrawal vans, etc. BTW, after
the vans carried back to the publisher warehouse all the advanced copies that could be found and reclaimed, the publisher reportedly pulped them all. However, in reality Chris Brand's corpse has been properly disposed of,
a really artfully arranged means would have been to slowly and carefully burn the corpse over
a large assembly of used books within this samizdat domain of human evolution, human variations, genes, and IQ. Metaphorically that was what was done to him in the "de-publishing" and in the large context of history what has been done to our culture over several
successive decades now.
Sam Harris
>and one of his hosts was hurt in a scuffle
It was a woman, who disagrees with Murray but thinks he has the right to speak, who was physically attacked and hospitalized by an irrational and violent mob of military-age men, and that mob probably targeted her in part because she was a woman.
Ask Colin Flaherty, the number one fuel of the current political zeitgeist is getting punched in the face and then getting told by every respectable media outlet that you were not punched in the face.
"No reasonable person would be offended by the observation that African people have curlier hair than the Chinese, notwithstanding the possibility of some future environment in which it is no longer true. But we can recognize a contention that Chinese people are genetically predisposed to be better table tennis players than Africans as silly, and the contention that they are smarter than Africans as ugly, because it is a matter of ethical principle that individual and cultural accomplishment is not tied to the genes in the same way as the appearance of our hair."
It is a matter of ethical principle. That's one of the authors, Turkheimer, ten years ago. Source: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/11/21/eric-turkheimer/race-iq
“…it is a matter of ethical principle that individual and cultural accomplishment is not tied to the genes…”
I.e., OOGA BOOGA.
And these people presume to call themselves scientists!
Écrasez l’infâme!
I've been teaching ethical theory for 25 years, and counting - and there is NO ethical theory known to me that has anything whatsoever to say about the relationship of "individual and cultural accomplishment" to genes.
These people know about as much about "ethical principle" as a pig knows about oranges.
Where’s the “junk science” part?
https://fredrikdeboer.com/2017/05/13/no-really-race-is-a-social-construct/
https://fredrikdeboer.com/2017/04/10/disentangling-race-from-intelligence-and-genetics/
Well, then there is this (from the second link):
Anyone want to take bets on this? Seems unlikely without Harrison Bergeron style interventions.
Surprised you didn’t like to the SlateStarCodex article “SOCIETY IS FIXED, BIOLOGY IS MUTABLE” http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/10/society-is-fixed-biology-is-mutable/
"Until you get to 5, none of the premises is completely incorrect.". This would be more accurately and neutrally stated as "Until you get to 4, all of the premises are unambiguously true and non-controversial".
"These observations do not undermine the conclusion that intelligence is heritable, but rather the naive assumption that heritable traits cannot be changed via environmental mechanisms. (Murray flatly tells Harris that this is the case.)"
I haven't listened to the podcast, and Turkheimer doesn't cite the point in the podcast when Murray "flatly tells Harris that this is the case". I suspect that Charles Murray understands that the heritability of intelligence, height, etc would be much lower in populations exposed to extreme deprivation, such as wartime famine conditions. Murray has discussed the Wilson effect before - that the heritability of IQ increases with age, and early childhood interventions can increase the IQ of young children. Murray is likely referring to the failure of intensive childhood interventions to produce results approaching middle class white norms among lower and middle class African American groups.
"There is currently no reason at all to think that any significant portion of the IQ differences among socially defined racial groups is genetic in origin."
There is very good reason. We have controlled for the most obvious factor associated with environmental deprivation: poverty. In the 2003 College Bound cohort of SAT test-takers, black students with family incomes between 80k-100k averaged 461 on the SAT-M and 468 on the SAT-V. White test takers with family incomes between 15-20k averaged 485 on the SAT-M and 488 on the SAT-V. By our colloquial understanding of what constitutes deprivation, the black students in a comfortably middle class income bracket are "better off", yet still score worse than poor whites.
Turkheimer’s twitter thread on this article has some good defense of Murray:
Be Charles Murray.
Co-Author book detailing decades of research and include a tiny section dealing with differences between populations, not because you’re particularly thrilled about it but because you feel the need to put a PC spin on it since it’s an inevitable question.
Pay the rest of your life for it.
He’d have been better off if he’d not put it in the book and let others take the conclusions in a non-PC direction he’d have found deplorable and yet they’ll never forgive him for it.
The Bell Curve is just an elaboration of what we all know and see around us. Nobody thinks the dumb guy in their class isn’t at least partly that way because of genetics. Likewise, nobody thinks the mathematics prodigy is that way because of any environmental factors. Mostly because we grew up with them when nobody was much trying to make them into anything except eat their vegetables and go to bed on time, they both liked playing and running around and yet one was always smarter than the other.
As we socially segregate by IQ, interest and temperament as we age we lose this context. (You can say the same thing about politics) The idea that everyone is basically the same or could be made this way sounds more plausible.
My father didn’t tell me to like Star Trek, I just liked sci-fi and stories about technology, complex plots and ideas. Society didn’t give me any positive encouragement, quite the opposite. If being gay is inherent, why can’t being a nerd be inherent?
Slightly OT, I used to laugh every time Taranto would refer to Vox as a young adult site in his Best of the Web column.
Life will not go on for these people. It would mean the end of their religion.
http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/All-50-governors-sign-anti-BDS-statement-492079
It’s good to be the king.
Jews, who once took moral pride using boycotts to break segregation in the American South, pressured all 50 governors into supporting Zionist apartheid in West Bank.
It's pretty amazing to me how people so well-versed on biological differences in intelligence and behavior are so resentful towards identitarian Jews who don't happen to like getting blown up when they go out for a pizza.
So, what's the difference between the BDS movement and the systematic denial of heritable racial differences? Both are derived from cultural Marxist pressure to dissolve any semblance of an ordered society. BDS is not simply not buying from Israel, but a systematic attempt to use leftist, Allinsky methods to leverage the power of governments and public institutions to enforce BDS against Israel, a rather minuscule entity.
But, to have this kind of uniformity among governors on an issue which is really not relevant to the act of governing a state is indicative of a high pressure to conformity and coercion. Jewish institutions were not only involved in pressuring the south, but also South Africa and are currently supporting massive Muslim immigration. It may benefit the leaders of the organizations, but it devastates the average Jew, who has to live with the results like anyone else.
My own opinion is that you need to dissolve the massive, state-supported institutions that make leveraging so productive. Then, you can argue the virtues of BDS in a rational, rather than coercive, manner.
But see, all this is rhetoric meant to obscure and derail. (“Race isn’t real” reminds me of talking about illegal immigration, and someone countering “No human is illegal” or “Immigration isn’t a crime”.) You can easily distinguish between race having socially constructed dimensions (for example, the way South Africa, Brazil, and America each have different racial groups) as well as actual biological dimensions that are not clouded by that fact. You can assert that the concept of race is an imprecise yet scientifically sound and useful approximation of categorizing human populations, and that claiming race is the alpha and omega of genetics is a major strawman. It can and often is broken down into ethnicity and kinship too, and then you demonstrate how this does not render the category of race obsolete. You can even offer to do away with the word race altogether, as it is such a loaded word in so many realms – the political, cultural, emotional – and recast it as “genetic clusters/populations” or something like that instead. Then perhaps we could confront all the ethical and moral questions with clearer heads. I think this is the rhetorical countervoice that Steve is seeking, but they would have to be very well-versed in the science too, and that has proven hard to find.
It’s really despicable that these professors — who certainly know better — wrote such a dishonest article on Murray’s views.
Every last word in the article is introduced, not to elucidate what is known, but to obfuscate it — and, worse, to smear Murray.
Today, these professors can ride high in the esteem of their poorly informed colleagues.
But they and their reputations will die in real disgrace: when their view is proved wrong — as not so many years from now it will be — their cowardice in attacking those who told the truth will not be forgotten.
OT: Black Panther and Luke Cage just got some company, meet Black Lightning.
Wow, I knew the Green Arrow was notable for it’s high body count, but the Flash played the hero straight. Black Lightning straight up kills a few gang bangers here. Guess it’s okay since the guy doing it is black.
The Democrats can't concede the genetic foundation of the racial test score gap in schools because that might jeopardize the massive loot the education industry gets from the government to close the gap.
“Obama would much rather munch ice cream on Martha’s Vineyard…”
Please refrain from the tasteless gay ex-president jokes.
OT, Bryan Caplan (almost literally) argues in favor of “magic dirt.”
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2017/05/geography_is_po.html
What a bozo.
Scary.
I.e., OOGA BOOGA.
And these people presume to call themselves scientists!
Écrasez l'infâme!
I mean, c’mon – wtf do these morons think they’re talking about?
I’ve been teaching ethical theory for 25 years, and counting – and there is NO ethical theory known to me that has anything whatsoever to say about the relationship of “individual and cultural accomplishment” to genes.
These people know about as much about “ethical principle” as a pig knows about oranges.
The incoherent egalitarians go much further, preferring the worse to the better - perversity. The fact of inferiority confronting the dogma of equality is used as a justification for claiming that shortcomings of less capable groups are due to unjust discrimination and prejudice and must be balanced by treating objectively inferior people better than those who are superior to them. This leads to society systematically investing in the people with lowest prospective return, and actively discriminating against those who are capable of doing the most and the best, a policy which leads not to the promised utopia but rather to the fall of civilizations.
But that raises the question: Who does have the rhetorical skills to undermine the increasingly hysterical conventional wisdom and package the mature point of view about genetic diversity in the old soft soap that will go over well with Nice People?
—————————————–
I would just argue that nobody who is serious really believes that IQ is the only thing that matters but that we believe that private individuals and organizations should have the autonomy to decide how much it actually does matter if only we had more respect for freedom of association and contract. Conscientiousness, creativity, rhetorical skills are also very important they are just harder to put a specific number on. I would also add that some groups of people are descended from groups that engage in cousin marriage – a practice that is still common in certain parts of the world that dampens IQ and causes health problems. I would also add to the discussion that prohibiting organizations from engaging in IQ tests and employment tests because of well meaning actions of activists has added to a student loan bubble and led to downward mobility for poorer Americans of all races so this is not a cost free policy.
Has Bryan ever been to Mexico and noticed the geography? Mexico isn’t quite France, but it sure isn’t Chad.
Iceland, Sweden and Canada with it's snowy winters compare unfavorably with the warm climates and rich soils of Africa.
and
seem to contradict one another. Apparently the caveat “socially defined racial groups” saves their assertion…
“Why do people like Turkheimer even raise sports at all?”
Because they know that there’s no price to pay for being wrong in the right way.
There never has been. And the best bet is that there never will be.
“Modern DNA science has found hundreds of genetic variants that each have a very, very tiny association with intelligence”
Duh. Hence, a bell curve.
A gaussian probability distribution arises when the thing being measured depends on many factors, none of which have a large impact.
I had to regurgitate a proof of this in a Probability and Stochastic Processes exam in the 2nd year of my BSc.
But Finland is an icebox with high per capita GDP. How is this possible?!!!
I realize none of you Hard Scientists think very much of the study of history, but if you’d crack a popular history book about, oh, the Jim Crow era, you would learn one very good example of something that gets repeated throughout history — humans treat those they perceive as inferior like shit, and will use all the power of the government to enforce that shit-state. If Murray is correct and people with significant sub-Saharan ancestry really do have less cognitive ability than those of European or Asian, the smarter groups will start imposing painful legal restrictions on the dumber groups. For one example, the death penalty cannot be imposed on someone with an IQ below 70. I have read Sailer suggesting, often, that a black person with an IQ of 70 isn’t nearly as impaired as a white person at the same level. So, why not eliminate that restriction on the use of the death penalty when the defendant is black?
If you read history, you would learn that humans pretty much suck, and suck far worse in groups than as individuals. That is why ideas like Murray’s are so very appalling. He’s writing the script for the reintroduction of Jim Crow laws. (Also “The Handmaid’s Tale,” as his views of women are, if anything, worse than his views of blacks. We’re only good as breeders and floor-scrubbers and not one other thing. If you read the end of Atwood’s novel, she describes a character based on Murray as one of the architects of Gilead. And yes, I believe Sailer and Murray would absolutely adore being Commanders of the Faithful, with Handmaids and powerless, miserable wives. It’s their dearest wish to be in charge AND to make everyone else miserable.)
At the current rate of progressive misery, I'll say that Jim Crow laws are a significant improvement. And despite the surprising lack of pro-feminist laws in the 1950s, not only did women find employment, but they had higher overall happiness and much reduced suicide rates. Amazing as it might be, perhaps treating everyone as an equivalent and soulless unit of economic output is both untrue, socially destructive, and existentially miserable? The mind wonders.
And oh, yeah, no Handmaiden's Tale. And blacks such as Booker T Washington, etc, continued to exist and contribute.
----------------------------------------------
The equalists treat working white class like shit. They selectively enforce anti-discrimination laws and overlook uncivilized behavior by activists because they believe they are doing god's work. During Jim Crow blacks were never prevented from forming blacks only organizations. If a private employer group of people want to use IQ tests then why make a federal case out of it? The activists don't believe in equality for a second - they believe in payback. My ancestors were Italian and Native American and Eastern European and had nothing to do with the slave trade or jim crow and I have to listen to the most disgusting rhetoric aimed at me. For things neither me nor my ancestors had anything to do with! And all because people such as yourself want to virtue signal themselves into secular heaven!
Also, any unironic suggestion that the Handmaiden's Tale could become reality anytime soon suggests a dangerous detachment from reality. Can't you at least come up with a non-trendy literary reference? Or, I'll see your Handmaiden's Tale and raise you a Harrison Bergeron.
No they won't. They'll just stop expecting those groups to perform at the same level and forcing equal outcomes. The brightest would still succeed, society would simply stop forcing artificial equal outcomes above the abilities of the mediocre and the slow.
"He’s writing the script for the reintroduction of Jim Crow laws."
No he's not. Jim Crow was used for the purpose of restricting criminal behavior. Compare and contrast Selma Alabama, or any of a hundred other cities, in 1962 and today. Your statement
"The Handmaid’s Tale,” as his views of women are, if anything, worse than his views of blacks. We’re only good as breeders and floor-scrubbers and not one other thing. If you read the end of Atwood’s novel, she describes a character based on Murray as one of the architects of Gilead. "
Read the book again. The society is indistinguishable from those run by Islamic fundamentalists like ISIS and the Taliban except without the violence, but Muslims tend to be browner than Europeans, so Atwood made them Christians in a fine display of Crimestop.
You are projecting your own pathologies and misanthropy on other people.
That means no magic negro media bs as well, and no disparate impact lack of enforcement/lack of standards/frivolous lawsuit bs
Human biology being what it is, you can expect all means, fair and foul, to be used to benefit those who have the power to implement laws.
The existence of a problem, however, does not validate all means employed to address the problem. Before affirmative-action laws, there were quite real instances of qualified blacks being denied professional licenses, or women being denied positions for which they were individually qualified. The existence of that problem does not justify affirmative action, which is a by-the-numbers requirement for proportionality, qualified or not.
The framers of the Constitution attempted to address the problem by having two legislative houses: one through popular election, and one appointed through elites. It didn't remove inequities by any means, but it provided a powerful check on the ability of wealthy and politically-connected elites to bend the state to their interests. I think that was a far better solution than what we have now as a result of legislative and judicial tampering to solve marginal so-called problems.
I wonder if sexual selection does not explain the rise in average height of the Japanese.
A technical question: if there is more mixing of a population so that women can preferentially select the tallest men so that the taller men have more children than the shorter men; what is the effect on the mean and standard error of the distribution? I would imagine that the mean would increase; and probably also the standard error.
Also, with increasing mixing of the population; enabling the higher IQ men to go to college where the higher IQ women can find them; and leaving the lower IQ men and women “in the country” we might get a Flynn effect. But it’s a bit uncertain because the lower portion of the college-bound men might have fewer than the average number of children; and vice versa for those left behind. A detailed quantitative analysis would be needed.
Until about 30 years ago a lot of Japanese marriages were arranged by mothers grandmothers and aunts, not by sexual selection.
Abstract theorizing on selection criteria is pretty funny.
Nothing “almost” about that post–that’s full-on Magic Dirt.
What a bozo.
His neocon credentials don’t exactly strike a cord with the radical left.
(Though I must admit the prospect of disciplining the left by striking them with cords holds a certain appeal...)
Why do we keep seeing these homophonic errors in smart people's writing today? Things like "tow the line" (lines tow), "didn't phase me", etc.
Do you think he’ll ever look at Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Britain and wonder how those places could have any less in common in terms of geography but similar in terms of human development?
I’m glad that IQ is not inheritable. Now I can finally justify buying a cute Irish Setter to herd my sheep!
…”shouldn’t they be spending more time explaining why, if Murray turns out to be right, that wouldn’t be The End of the World? Right now, we get told over and over about how unthinkable and outrageous this quite plausible scientific finding would be and how only bad people, practically Hitlerites, think there is any evidence for it at all.”
What “they” should be doing now, before even more sophisticated genetic research identifies the deluge of alleles contributing to smarts, is get down on their hands and knees and thank the Framers for the Constitution, the very document that elevates the individual, not the group. Unfortunately these same anti-science, self-righteous bigots have been undermining, demeaning, and seeking to re-write at every turn that document and its guiding principles, principles that exalt the person, not any group to which he belongs. Their attempt to define an individual by his group now has them denying, arguing, rebutting, and in general, revealing their stupidity.
Go ahead, idiots. Re-embrace the Constitution and Western principles or face the coming revelations with nowhere to turn.
The Constitution (first 10 amendments, actually) specified individual rights (with respect to the federal, not the state) government. But, the basic unit of the Constitution was actually the state. This is the basis of the electoral college, which gives priority to the state as a conceptual unit, over the individual. It is the number of electoral, rather than popular, votes which determine the President.
In fact, the major failing of libertarian thinking is that it focuses on the individual, rather than the group. An example where the conflict becomes accentuated is in the question of free markets versus protected markets. A free trading market will devastate the lower economic class of a country like the US: products based on cheap labor and relaxed labor and environmental laws can out-compete local producers. Yet, the quality of life depends on more than the unit-cost of items.
I'm not opposed to individual rights, but if you don't recognize the importance of groups, areas, and identity, you're going to miss a critical part of political reality and actually lower your chances of maximizing individual rights.
“…she wrote the smart and reasonable bits of the Vox piece and then acquiesced in the two old commie dudes adding in all the insults, obfuscations and nonsense…”
So she’s a coward, and a climber?
“Had I but serv’d my God with half the zeal I serv’d my king, he would not in mine age have left me naked to mine.” For “God” substitute “science” and for “king” substitute “the good opinion of my friends and colleagues.” Today’s liberals are completely unprepared to defend the moral axiom on which this nation was founded — I mean the axiom “that all men are created equal” — in the face of the findings of contemporary population genetics.
This much is clear: “equality of opportunity” and “equality under the law” are not enough by themselves if the goal is a society in which everyone’s happiness is equally important (which is the real nub of the issue in my opinion). At a bare minimum it means we ought to oppose public policies that are a windfall to the already most highly favored among us, even as they disproportionately harm the interests of the least-well-endowed and most vulnerable segments of the working population, as is certainly the case with our country’s current third-world trade and immigration policies.
But beyond that it means we ought to aim for a society in which anyone who works hard and plays by the rules can reasonably expect to lead a rich and fulfilling life, no matter if they are of only average or below-average intelligence. I’ve spent my life trying to imagine such a society:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/13G0TkQwFZ9tP-6Oax64Fj8wIuh6pxQHmvktAQFieiUY/edit?usp=sharing
One side benefit of such a society, I suspect, is that there would be a lot less tension between the races than there is now.
I agree that people of lower IQ, and in general, lower prospects, should not be forced to subsidize people with higher IQ. Thus, the whole system of state-supported education and subsidies is a morass of unfairness and inequality. A plumber or laborer should not be taxed to enhance the education of the children of corporate managers.
But,it's every bit as fallacious to expect the state to provide equality of outcomes or even equality of happiness. A woman with movie star looks, solid values and half a brain can parlay her gifts into a prosperous life as a mother or, if she prefers, a lucrative and rewarding career. It's just the breaks. Tall men are, on the whole, more successful than short men: they have a more impressive appearance, which counts for something.
Also, some people are prone to addictions. Donald Trump recognizes his proclivity and deals with it by teetotalling; his brother dealt with it by drinking himself to death. Do you see the state intervening in that process?
Here is what the Constitution recognizes as the goals of government:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
No more and no less.
Educated liberals are probably okay admitting that sporting ability is heavily determined by genetics because most of them don’t really care about sports. However, they are always going to play down genetic and biological explanations for intelligence differences between races and sexes.
Education is everything in the liberal/humanist world view. With enough education there will be no violence, no economic inequality, no motor accidents, no illiteracy, and no intolerance. Hence the denial of data which indicates that some people learn better than others.
For all their obviously agenda-laden obfuscations, Turkheimer and Nesbitt have a point here, although you have to read between the lines in order to find it. Moreover, it is a point they are probably consciously or unconsciously denying themselves, for if accepted in its full implications it would invalidate not only the HBD explanations they are arguing against, but also much of what they themselves believe about modern genetic science.
That point is that there is nothing like an adequate description of the whole complex causal concatenation between genetic sequences and measured IQ. In the absence of such a description, all we can do is measure statistical correlations which of themselves may be interesting, but prove nothing. Interestingly, both HBDers and T&N agree with each other that this is not a permanent problem, that the science is getting better, and that these vast and tumultuous seas will eventually be charted. This is where I disagree with the entire field.
No causal description between genetic sequences and intelligence is forthcoming, nor will it ever be. This is not a result of our limited observational powers. This is a metaphysical barrier, not a physical one. Note, I am not saying that the problem is merely recondite, as if the causal connection exists but we lack the observational prowess to observe it or the theoretical panache to describe it. I am also not saying that the problem is intractably complex, as if the causal connection exists but is unsolvable by analytic techniques (as is the case with turbulence, for example). Furthermore, I am not even saying that the problem is irreducibly complex, as if the causal connection is real but is destined to remain shrouded in mystery due to essentially unobservable operations. I am saying that the resolution of the problem is literally impossible due to the confusion of metaphysical kinds.
Intelligence cannot be explained in terms of genetics for the same reason that mind cannot be explained in terms of material. That is to say, no matter how advanced the science becomes, no matter how exacting the observations or how brilliant the theoretical framework, the penultimate step in such an explanation—viz. the link between fully realized anatomical, physiological, or biochemical structures which are themselves explained genetically, and the actual operations of a functioning mind—must remain an unbridgeable gap. Leibnitz’s Mill argument is as relevant here as ever.
It would be correct and proper for actual scientists to point this out, but we don’t seem to have any of those anymore. Both HBDers and politically correct scientists alike have jumped onto the materialist-reductionist bandwagon; and, as is the case with the age-old debate between Keynesians and supply-siders, have doomed themselves to arguing with each other over the correct interpretation of a worldiew without realizing that the worldview itself is incorrect. This is one of the chief sources of my contention with HBD (the other being its uncritical acceptance of Darwinian evolutionary theory). Because this is a debate about something which is essentially nonexistent, it is a debate about unrealities. Because debates about unrealities can never be resolved, both sides can expect to go to their graves without ever having convinced the other of anything.
Note that up until now I have said nothing whatsoever about “race” or about the political agendas into which race figures. In terms of the politics alone, I am thoroughly aligned with the HBDers. I would also be inclined to agree with Steve Sailer that the statistical correlations which have thus far been measured between race, genetics, and intelligence are “close enough for government work.” However, I would have to append the proviso that they are, additionally, completely superfluous. The ordinary information obtained by our senses is enough to tell us that blacks are usually not too bright, and it is enough to tell us who is and who isn’t black.
In a sane world, a world unburdened by PC nonsense, that would be sufficient. Nothing is really gained by dragging genetic evidence into the picture, for in the end it amounts only to a garrulous way of saying blacks are black and whites are white. We should have known that already. Extraneous explanations are usually introduced into the discussion only by those who intend to obscure this simple fact, and I believe it is a tactical mistake for those who accept HBD’s political persuasions to fight the battle on the enemy’s turf.
Hopefully we will soon see the emergence of an altogether different kind of approach, one that from the outset simply refuses to take up the philosophical antecedents of political correctness and reductionist biology, and instead relies on the irrefutable facts which are plainly felt and observed. To do so would be to recover not only philosophical truth but cultural confidence as well.
But the problems with different kinds of people in different kinds of societies (usually) do not arise from the fact, that there is this elite-discussion about genes and alleles and Charles Darwin and so forth. The problems are there - right in front of us, worldwide.Then there is something different alltogether: The question, what makes a decent behavior. That's cultural - there's just nothing else, it reasonably could be.If once you have decided to go down the path of enlightenment, it's hard to make a u-turn (that's what Purity is about, Jonathan Franzen's last novel - amongst other very interesting things) - and that's what Kleist had in mind, when he wrote, that as soon as the enlightenment thinking had come into the world, there was no direct way to - happiness, redemption, societal harmony ... any more. The Christian way to express this insight is, to state, that we're all sinners; the enightenment way would be to acknowldge, that science especially is not so much about the last solution as about the better argument - and the best solution only - - for the time being (= until proven wrong).
If you read history, you would learn that humans pretty much suck, and suck far worse in groups than as individuals. That is why ideas like Murray's are so very appalling. He's writing the script for the reintroduction of Jim Crow laws. (Also "The Handmaid's Tale," as his views of women are, if anything, worse than his views of blacks. We're only good as breeders and floor-scrubbers and not one other thing. If you read the end of Atwood's novel, she describes a character based on Murray as one of the architects of Gilead. And yes, I believe Sailer and Murray would absolutely adore being Commanders of the Faithful, with Handmaids and powerless, miserable wives. It's their dearest wish to be in charge AND to make everyone else miserable.)
Kit – did you actually read “The Handmaid’s Tale” all the way through?
The Vox piece is a masterpiece of elaborately rationalized denial of reality. A core value defining progressivism is the pious commitment to human universalism (the idea that all men are the same in all times and places) and egalitarianism. So you see an unbelievable amount of energy put into trying to cling to these values in the face of mounting evidence of human biodiversity.
Steve is right that acknowledgment of this need not mean the end of the world. The fact that there are average group differences, whether biological or cultural, says nothing about any particular individual. There are highly intelligent (or stupid) people to be found in all races, just in varying proportional numbers.
For progressives, however, acknowledgment of reality would be the end of their world, i.e., the end of the core belief in universalism/egalitarianism, adherence to which defines them in their own eyes as being morally superior people.
If you read history, you would learn that humans pretty much suck, and suck far worse in groups than as individuals. That is why ideas like Murray's are so very appalling. He's writing the script for the reintroduction of Jim Crow laws. (Also "The Handmaid's Tale," as his views of women are, if anything, worse than his views of blacks. We're only good as breeders and floor-scrubbers and not one other thing. If you read the end of Atwood's novel, she describes a character based on Murray as one of the architects of Gilead. And yes, I believe Sailer and Murray would absolutely adore being Commanders of the Faithful, with Handmaids and powerless, miserable wives. It's their dearest wish to be in charge AND to make everyone else miserable.)
Not only one, but two victim groups! How incredibly holy! What an incredible ability to substitute fiction for actual history.
At the current rate of progressive misery, I’ll say that Jim Crow laws are a significant improvement. And despite the surprising lack of pro-feminist laws in the 1950s, not only did women find employment, but they had higher overall happiness and much reduced suicide rates. Amazing as it might be, perhaps treating everyone as an equivalent and soulless unit of economic output is both untrue, socially destructive, and existentially miserable? The mind wonders.
And oh, yeah, no Handmaiden’s Tale. And blacks such as Booker T Washington, etc, continued to exist and contribute.
Vox has no comments for obvious reason, which is also funny in light of the fact that “Vox” is derived from the Latin for voice.
Yes, of course people have, and with quite good arguments. The most obvious problems involve the large number of diseases infesting the region in which our ancestors evolved, and the difficulties in establishing sophisticated farming without wildlife devouring the crops.
Those arguments provide quite cogent explanations for how an IQ gap developed – not to mention the other cognitive differences outside of bare IQ that many of us suspect occur along racial lines. Executive function, toleration of boredom, time preference, and all.
If you read history, you would learn that humans pretty much suck, and suck far worse in groups than as individuals. That is why ideas like Murray's are so very appalling. He's writing the script for the reintroduction of Jim Crow laws. (Also "The Handmaid's Tale," as his views of women are, if anything, worse than his views of blacks. We're only good as breeders and floor-scrubbers and not one other thing. If you read the end of Atwood's novel, she describes a character based on Murray as one of the architects of Gilead. And yes, I believe Sailer and Murray would absolutely adore being Commanders of the Faithful, with Handmaids and powerless, miserable wives. It's their dearest wish to be in charge AND to make everyone else miserable.)
I realize none of you Hard Scientists think very much of the study of history, but if you’d crack a popular history book about, oh, the Jim Crow era, you would learn one very good example of something that gets repeated throughout history — humans treat those they perceive as inferior like shit, and will use all the power of the government to enforce that shit-state.
———————————————-
The equalists treat working white class like shit. They selectively enforce anti-discrimination laws and overlook uncivilized behavior by activists because they believe they are doing god’s work. During Jim Crow blacks were never prevented from forming blacks only organizations. If a private employer group of people want to use IQ tests then why make a federal case out of it? The activists don’t believe in equality for a second – they believe in payback. My ancestors were Italian and Native American and Eastern European and had nothing to do with the slave trade or jim crow and I have to listen to the most disgusting rhetoric aimed at me. For things neither me nor my ancestors had anything to do with! And all because people such as yourself want to virtue signal themselves into secular heaven!
Because the purpose of segregation was to have separate organizations! In 1902, W.E.B. Du Bois, found that 43 national unions had no black members, and 27 others barred black apprentices, kept membership to a minimum. Southern blacks were prohibited from creating their own groups out of fear of competing with southern whites.
"My ancestors were Italian and Native American and Eastern European and had nothing to do with the slave trade or jim crow and I have to listen to the most disgusting rhetoric aimed at me."
Correct. You do realize they were subject to vile discriminatory practices by nativists, who believed your ancestors were "gutter whites" unworthy of assimilation into WASP society, who lacked the intellectual capacity to comprehend Anglo-Saxon ideals of law and politics. Somehow, they were "allowed" to remain here through their own virtue signaling efforts.
After a couple of centuries fighting for ‘equality’, starting with the American and French Revolutions, NOW you admit you were wrong?
Because you Americans are so insulated and historically myopic, you fail to see what a spectacular U-turn this is. Bring back Imperialism then! The conservative European imperialists were right all along! Damn Woodrow Wilson! And all the egalitarian revolutionaries.
Conquer or be conquered is the way of the world. Power decides history. If you have it use it.
He must have foreseen our expensive misadventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc.
The British colonial rule in Ireland and India was associated with famines and the starvation of millions. Was this the fault of the British? Some said, the imposition of British methods of commerce disrupted the native methods of preparing for, and alleviating, famines.
Is this true? I don't care. I don't want to be responsible for the deaths of millions of people, and so I would prefer my government not be involved at all. There's a world of difference between leaving someone alone, and forcing lethal measures on him, even if he dies in either case.
I don't mind the model in Saudi Arabia: the government there more or less gained power through its own treachery, and invited us there to provide protection and technical services. As long as we leave when asked to, I have no problem with that at all.
If you read history, you would learn that humans pretty much suck, and suck far worse in groups than as individuals. That is why ideas like Murray's are so very appalling. He's writing the script for the reintroduction of Jim Crow laws. (Also "The Handmaid's Tale," as his views of women are, if anything, worse than his views of blacks. We're only good as breeders and floor-scrubbers and not one other thing. If you read the end of Atwood's novel, she describes a character based on Murray as one of the architects of Gilead. And yes, I believe Sailer and Murray would absolutely adore being Commanders of the Faithful, with Handmaids and powerless, miserable wives. It's their dearest wish to be in charge AND to make everyone else miserable.)
So to summarize, it’s okay to lie as long as it’s for a good cause and we should all close our eyes to biological reality (assuming for the sake of argument Murray is correct) to make sure everyone feels good. Wonderful ethics you have there…
Also, any unironic suggestion that the Handmaiden’s Tale could become reality anytime soon suggests a dangerous detachment from reality. Can’t you at least come up with a non-trendy literary reference? Or, I’ll see your Handmaiden’s Tale and raise you a Harrison Bergeron.
If you read history, you would learn that humans pretty much suck, and suck far worse in groups than as individuals. That is why ideas like Murray's are so very appalling. He's writing the script for the reintroduction of Jim Crow laws. (Also "The Handmaid's Tale," as his views of women are, if anything, worse than his views of blacks. We're only good as breeders and floor-scrubbers and not one other thing. If you read the end of Atwood's novel, she describes a character based on Murray as one of the architects of Gilead. And yes, I believe Sailer and Murray would absolutely adore being Commanders of the Faithful, with Handmaids and powerless, miserable wives. It's their dearest wish to be in charge AND to make everyone else miserable.)
• Yawn: Jenner Ickham Errican
"No reasonable person would be offended by the observation that African people have curlier hair than the Chinese, notwithstanding the possibility of some future environment in which it is no longer true. But we can recognize a contention that Chinese people are genetically predisposed to be better table tennis players than Africans as silly, and the contention that they are smarter than Africans as ugly, because it is a matter of ethical principle that individual and cultural accomplishment is not tied to the genes in the same way as the appearance of our hair."
It is a matter of ethical principle. That's one of the authors, Turkheimer, ten years ago. Source: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/11/21/eric-turkheimer/race-iq
That’d be a nice white lie to tell in a political culture that’s not race obsessed and where the government didn’t consciously parcel out goodies inefficiently and inequitably for the purpose of concealing facts contrary to the lie. “Diversity” as our “greatest strength” is such a universal shibboleth that it requires a bit of empirical testing now and then, don’t you think?
https://fredrikdeboer.com/2017/05/13/no-really-race-is-a-social-construct/
https://fredrikdeboer.com/2017/04/10/disentangling-race-from-intelligence-and-genetics/
DeBoer’s arguments against HBD are always best read as Straussian arguments for HBD. A personal favorite was the post on his now defunct old blog where he said something to the effect of: “Okay, so even when you control for income and all other specific measurable factors, the gap is still pretty large. But racism is such a powerful and all encompassing force that it can never possibly be quantified or measured, so we definitely know that the gap isn’t at all genetic in origin.”
Because you Americans are so insulated and historically myopic, you fail to see what a spectacular U-turn this is. Bring back Imperialism then! The conservative European imperialists were right all along! Damn Woodrow Wilson! And all the egalitarian revolutionaries.
Conquer or be conquered is the way of the world. Power decides history. If you have it use it.
I don’t know which part of Europe you’re from, but if you’re in Western Europe, I don’t think you really are in a position to point and mock….
The Democrats can't concede the genetic foundation of the racial test score gap in schools because that might jeopardize the massive loot the education industry gets from the government to close the gap.
So let’s see- $50 million for dual autobiographies with his wife. $400k for a single 90 minute speech. And room & board on Richard Branson’s island and David Geffen’s yacht (did Dave entertain the Obamas with early, never-before-heard outtakes of ONE IN A MILLION?) Puppet is getting some nice new golden strings!
“Heritability is not a special property of certain traits that have turned out to be genetic”
Huh? Yes it is.
How does one inherit something, biologically speaking, but through genes?
Or are we talking about a trust fund inheritance, or something?
I've been teaching ethical theory for 25 years, and counting - and there is NO ethical theory known to me that has anything whatsoever to say about the relationship of "individual and cultural accomplishment" to genes.
These people know about as much about "ethical principle" as a pig knows about oranges.
It’s the Gas Chamber Principle of ethics. If you admit the genetic basis of racial differences beyond a certain point–and no one knows where that point is, exactly–you *must* try to exterminate other races. Ipso facto.
It sounds stupid when you lay it out like this, and it is stupid, but SJWs have made arguments like this time and again.
The big difference between hereditarians and blank slaters on race is that hereditarian arguments make immediate sense and generally line up with what you've seen in your daily life, whereas blank slaters are obscurantists who play word games while implying you're evil, stupid, or both if you disagree or can't follow what they're saying. The article presented here doesn't have any arguments in favor of egalitarianism which make you say, "Wow, that makes sense!"
Murray gets no credit for this?
THOUGHTCRIME IS DEATH
THOUGHTCRIME DOES NOT ENTAIL DEATH
Or just remember Trump criticizing the F-35 program for the same reasons Rachel Maddow cited. The goal is tribalism, not discussion.
Huh? Yes it is.
How does one inherit something, biologically speaking, but through genes?
Or are we talking about a trust fund inheritance, or something?
The argument is that beyond genetics, there are also cultural practices, food, toilet paper use, etc that get passed from parent to child in a normal household. But, well, we’ve shown such environmental effects to be relatively and at any rate, I’m not seeing propositions to promote “white culture” to be engaged by SJWs either.
https://fredrikdeboer.com/2017/05/13/no-really-race-is-a-social-construct/
https://fredrikdeboer.com/2017/04/10/disentangling-race-from-intelligence-and-genetics/
My bet is that we will solve racial IQ differences (without eugenics or Harrison Bergeron) at the same time that I sleep with Margot Robbie.
Argued like a woman , Kit . What an emotional mess you’ve made of this whole debate . Also , it’s YOU who wants to ” be in charge and make everyone else miserable “. Serious projection going on there , darlin’ .
That point is that there is nothing like an adequate description of the whole complex causal concatenation between genetic sequences and measured IQ. In the absence of such a description, all we can do is measure statistical correlations which of themselves may be interesting, but prove nothing. Interestingly, both HBDers and T&N agree with each other that this is not a permanent problem, that the science is getting better, and that these vast and tumultuous seas will eventually be charted. This is where I disagree with the entire field.
No causal description between genetic sequences and intelligence is forthcoming, nor will it ever be. This is not a result of our limited observational powers. This is a metaphysical barrier, not a physical one. Note, I am not saying that the problem is merely recondite, as if the causal connection exists but we lack the observational prowess to observe it or the theoretical panache to describe it. I am also not saying that the problem is intractably complex, as if the causal connection exists but is unsolvable by analytic techniques (as is the case with turbulence, for example). Furthermore, I am not even saying that the problem is irreducibly complex, as if the causal connection is real but is destined to remain shrouded in mystery due to essentially unobservable operations. I am saying that the resolution of the problem is literally impossible due to the confusion of metaphysical kinds.
Intelligence cannot be explained in terms of genetics for the same reason that mind cannot be explained in terms of material. That is to say, no matter how advanced the science becomes, no matter how exacting the observations or how brilliant the theoretical framework, the penultimate step in such an explanation---viz. the link between fully realized anatomical, physiological, or biochemical structures which are themselves explained genetically, and the actual operations of a functioning mind---must remain an unbridgeable gap. Leibnitz's Mill argument is as relevant here as ever.
It would be correct and proper for actual scientists to point this out, but we don't seem to have any of those anymore. Both HBDers and politically correct scientists alike have jumped onto the materialist-reductionist bandwagon; and, as is the case with the age-old debate between Keynesians and supply-siders, have doomed themselves to arguing with each other over the correct interpretation of a worldiew without realizing that the worldview itself is incorrect. This is one of the chief sources of my contention with HBD (the other being its uncritical acceptance of Darwinian evolutionary theory). Because this is a debate about something which is essentially nonexistent, it is a debate about unrealities. Because debates about unrealities can never be resolved, both sides can expect to go to their graves without ever having convinced the other of anything.
Note that up until now I have said nothing whatsoever about "race" or about the political agendas into which race figures. In terms of the politics alone, I am thoroughly aligned with the HBDers. I would also be inclined to agree with Steve Sailer that the statistical correlations which have thus far been measured between race, genetics, and intelligence are "close enough for government work." However, I would have to append the proviso that they are, additionally, completely superfluous. The ordinary information obtained by our senses is enough to tell us that blacks are usually not too bright, and it is enough to tell us who is and who isn't black.
In a sane world, a world unburdened by PC nonsense, that would be sufficient. Nothing is really gained by dragging genetic evidence into the picture, for in the end it amounts only to a garrulous way of saying blacks are black and whites are white. We should have known that already. Extraneous explanations are usually introduced into the discussion only by those who intend to obscure this simple fact, and I believe it is a tactical mistake for those who accept HBD's political persuasions to fight the battle on the enemy's turf.
Hopefully we will soon see the emergence of an altogether different kind of approach, one that from the outset simply refuses to take up the philosophical antecedents of political correctness and reductionist biology, and instead relies on the irrefutable facts which are plainly felt and observed. To do so would be to recover not only philosophical truth but cultural confidence as well.
The next to last paragraph says it all…
Steve is right that acknowledgment of this need not mean the end of the world. The fact that there are average group differences, whether biological or cultural, says nothing about any particular individual. There are highly intelligent (or stupid) people to be found in all races, just in varying proportional numbers.
For progressives, however, acknowledgment of reality would be the end of their world, i.e., the end of the core belief in universalism/egalitarianism, adherence to which defines them in their own eyes as being morally superior people.
This.
https://twitter.com/mksheikh/status/744909255338262528
MURRAY UNPERSON
THOUGHTCRIME IS DEATH
THOUGHTCRIME DOES NOT ENTAIL DEATH
Or just remember Trump criticizing the F-35 program for the same reasons Rachel Maddow cited. The goal is tribalism, not discussion.
As many on this site before me have so valuably pointed out, pretty much EVERYTHING is dynamic and on a continuum. There are no such categories as adolescent and adult, right, because an average 17 year old and an average 18 year old are closer in age and interests and mentality than the 18 year old is to a 22 year old, or the 17 year old is to a 13 year old? Similarly there are no such things as blue eyes or black hair because color is all on a continuum.
To the point though, a couple years ago the Obama administration invented out of whole cloth the category of moderate anti-Assad democratic Syrian rebel who-does-not-eat-the-organs-of-his-enemies and decided that anyone in this category will receive millions of $’s of money in “training”, and anyone outside this category will receive a Hellfire missile up the ar$e. Yet god forbid we trample over nature’s glorious dynamic continuity by saying someone who is or is not smart is probably typical/atypical of some ethnic or racial group.
One thing that’s fun is to ask them what evidence they have that all groups actually ARE equal in terms of intelligence. They’ll often be surprised that someone would ask them that.
If they can’t, just point out that a belief without any actual evidence is much more like a religious belief than a scientific one.
There is neither day nor night because twilight exists. Most liberal viewpoints make a lot more sense once you have taken a copious amount of psychotropics.
Ackshually, Caplan is arguing that the primary difference between rich and poor countries is institutions, not geography (“magic dirt.”) (And he’s quite right.)
Steve and iSteve commenters have a tendency to mock anyone who believes in anything other than 100% genetic determinism as believing in magic dirt. But the evidence is pretty clear that institutions have an effect over and above (real and important) genetic and cultural differences.
Firstly, because it’s always less time consuming to show that an argument proves too much than to show that it’s wrong, consider that “magic dirt” proves too much: if true, there would be no reason for anyone to move from one country to another. Mexicans wouldn’t gain any income from moving to America, Poles wouldn’t gain any labor market income from moving to the UK, etc. because they would have the same allegedly definitive ancestry. I guess you can argue that people would move just to collect generous welfare benefits produced by higher achieving groups, but at least in America the Hispanic labor force participation rate is higher than that of any other ethnic group (I presume due to its lower median age.) It’s a lot easier to make a living and raise a family by working a low wage job and collecting government benefits than just by collecting government benefits. And in the 19th century, large numbers of people immigrated to a pre-welfare state US. And institutions mattered a lot there— southern Italians and eastern European Jews both did a lot better under well organized Anglo-Saxon capitalism than they’d done in their countries of origin.
Secondly, because countries of people of the same ancestry who have different institutions imposed on them can have wildly different economic outcomes. The obvious and strongest examples being the post-WW2 divisions of Korea and Germany between capitalism and communism. Again, if ancestry is the only thing that matters, and anyone who believes otherwise is just a believer in magic dirt/tragic dirt, there should be no difference between North and South Korea.
Thirdly, consider that African-Americans have much, much higher per capita income (~$23,000) than all Afro-Caribbean and Sub-Saharan African countries. The white admixture of 20% explains a bit of this, but probably not all that much. The difference between Euro-Americans and African-Americans in terms of income isn’t due to institutions; but the difference between African-Americans and Haitians or Congolese obviously at least somewhat is.
Finally, in terms of actual empirical evidence, look at Clemens’, Pritchett’s and Montenegro’s 2009 paper on the “place premium”. They demonstrate that for observably identical individual workers from less developed countries, there are massive income gains from moving to a first world country. MAGIC DIRT! MAGIC DIRT! MAGIC DIRT! (Just saying “magic dirt” is notanargument.jpg.)
Same people, same genes.
(China was still putting satellites in orbit under Mao, just as North Korea is allegedly producing ICBMs today).
On the other hand, that only 'really' shows bad institutions can be stronger than high-IQ genes. Britain left the former Rhodesia and Singapore with a reasonable legal system, yet Zimbabwe suffered while Singapore prospered.
All wage rates in the US are substantially higher than the nations you cite. This is nothing more than a reflection of their individual economies. Are you actually arguing a McDonald's worker in the US produces more economic output than one in Jamiaca? What about a basic agricultural worker? Does a strawberry picker in the US provide more value than a coffee plantation worker in Guatamala? What about a doctor in Mexico versus a doctor in the United States? Assuming the same skills in each, each is compensated differently as a reflection of differences in national income and the going rate for labor. The gains in value are due to simply joining a new economy with higher wage rates. If you bring in enough foreign workers, the wage rates converge between nations.
I would not argue that institutions do not matter. But they do not seem to be the most important. Human capital transcends all.
In fact, your statement is the absolute reverse of the reality in all these nature/nurture debates. It's always the nurturists who are absolutists and insist that anyone who brings in genetics is a racist who has been discredited by ... uh ... well ... uh ... what we all know must be true! Geez--witness the very article Steve's referencing here. Turkheimer's claiming that there's no evidence for nature/genes in group differences. Which of course is utter nonsense.African-Americans have much higher per capita incomes than Africans almost entirely because they live in a white developed, white run society. A well-run white society is hugely more prosperous (and more well ordered) and provides labor market opportunities even for people of mediocre/low skills that pay much, much better than they do in less developed/lower IQ societies.
You could leave US blacks our "institutions" and even our capital base, but if white people themselves left, the US would quickly start heading in the African direction. Even if "magic institutions"--rule of law--were maintained, their white free US would still head in the African direction.John, you apparently don't understand Steve's quip of "Magic Dirt".
"Magic Dirt" just refers to all these claims--mostly in reference to blacks--that somehow whites are stealing/hoarding the good stuff--nice neighborhoods, "good schools", etc.--and excluding blacks holding them down. And further, if all this sort of "structural racism" was eliminated then blacks would be doing well. And yes, when a black moves from a black to a white neighborhood, they get a more peaceful, pleasant living experience. Likewise moving to a white school they do get a better school. Being in the white neighborhood doesn't stop them from acting black. Being in the white school doesn't raise their IQ. And when enough of their friends and family have also moved in the neighborhood stops being a nice neighborhood, the school stops being a "good school". Because there never was any "magic dirt". White people have nice things because white people create nice things.
"Magic dirt" does not imply that Mexicans moving the the US (or Africans to Europe) won't see their incomes rise relative to back home. Steve and everyone here all know that. The migrants incomes will rise because whites have created more peaceful and prosperous nations that as a result have much higher wages even for identical lower skill labor. (And because white societies are more efficient at using their labor.) But if this migration continues unchecked ... and Western nations fill with Mexicans or Africans, those nations will become crappier and crappier until they resemble Mexico or Africa. Because in fact, it is not "magic dirt", but only the genes and culture of white people behind white nations' prosperity.
https://twitter.com/mksheikh/status/744909255338262528
If memory serves, Murray lives in a 99% white/white bread community in Maryland just outside the Beltway. So he would rather live in a place like McAllen TX or a Somali ‘hood in the Twin Cities vs all-white ‘white bread’ Newport Beach CA? First of all, that’s a lie and secondly, not many people would go for McAllen over NB.
https://www.amazon.com/Income-Inequality-Studies-Understanding-Economic/dp/0844770949
"Income Inequality and IQ (AEI Studies on Understanding Economic Inequality) – January 1, 1998".
Let us make a judgement about this Scientist by his greatest achievements,
not by flaws of his character (which flaws each of us mortals has.)
Supposedly great physicist Albert Michelson (rumors)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_A._Michelson
was wife beater,
not to be confused with the specific type of a garment for males:
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_4_6?url=search-alias%3Dfashion-mens&field-keywords=white+beaters+for+men&sprefix=beater%
But we remember and respect Michelson for outstanding achievements in Physics.
Do you think a guaranteed annual income might do the trick?
https://twitter.com/mksheikh/status/744909255338262528
I notice that Murray doesn’t actually live in Little Vietnam or Little Guatemala (do these places even exist, outside of a two-block district of LA?), so he’s virtue-signaling. Though, like him (apparently) I wouldn’t want to live on Manhattan’s Upper West Side either.
Those arguments provide quite cogent explanations for how an IQ gap developed - not to mention the other cognitive differences outside of bare IQ that many of us suspect occur along racial lines. Executive function, toleration of boredom, time preference, and all.
The Cape of South Africa has a very pleasant climate. I don’t see why a great civilization could not have arisen there.
Given liberal hysteria on the question of racial IQ differences why not start ignoring liberals rather than continuing to placate them?
This article was overly long and full of bogus arguments to buttress a falling house, but for the true believers, it comes across as a lifeline. It confirms their "moral" superiority.
They want to eradicate us, our culture and our future. They deserve no comfort in this task.
I think the more interesting question is, does IQ still matter so much in today’s globalist, feminized, visual-driven world? Obviously it matters if you’re below a certain threshold, but in middle class and upper middle class society, IQ seems to matter less and less every decade. The role of looks, charisma, extroversion and being “high energy” seems to get larger with every generation. In my limited observation, at least, these things seem inversely correlated with IQ
Our Presidents are getting dumber based on their vocabulary tests. But they’re generally better looking and more charismatic than they used to be. High status today seems more likely to accrue to an actor, model or instagram star than a writer or artist. Managerial, academic and media positions are becoming increasingly feminine. The ones who get promoted are those with the best social skills, and just enough competence to get by. A nerd like Steve Wozniak could never climb a corporate ladder as fast as Ms Goodytwoshoes Carouselrider.
In a fully developed society, with established bureaucracies and little innovation/growth, the rewards flow to the most socially savvy.
If you look at the Nisbett article linked at the bottom, on page 146 it notes that The Gap varies considerably with age. It’s 17 points at age 24, but it’s a more modest 5 points at age 4. Liberals of course view this as proof of racism, but there are a lot of issues there such as rates of maturation, test reliability at young ages, and the fact that a genetic differences don’t have to manifest at birth (strength difference in men and women, for example).
Either the 10 points is at some younger age, or Nisbett is contradicting himself.
I personally doubt that the gap has narrowed in recent years. If, for example, black students had narrowed the game to 2/3rds of a standard deviation in 2014, we would've heard nearly endless praise for Obama.
Enough for Harvard, perhaps, but not for the higher standard held by Mensa:
They haven’t correlated in the lifetimes of today’s underclassmen.
Poe’s Law certainly at work here, particularly in the third sentence. That sentence makes me think funny troll.
http://whatishappeninginsouthafrica.blogspot.com/2013/03/racist-tornados.html?m=1
http://whatishappeninginsouthafrica.blogspot.com/2012/05/lightening-is-racism.html?m=1
Originally seen at Mike Smith's place but I cannot find that link because of its defiant organization style. And a minister named Dube lends herself to accusations of dubiousness.
You could be right -- but for similar stuff from peer reviewed academia follow these:
New Real Peer Review
Amir Sariaslan
https://twitter.com/AmirSariaslan/status/865263138450657280
As for rhetorical chops necessary to break the HBD news to the masses, I’d say Steven Pinker has been doing a pretty good job of it.
If one sees the sand belt golf courses outside Melbourne one cannot argue that Australia lacks for great land. http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/australia/royalmelbourne1/
Don’t know about “junk science”, but the science of “junk” is here.
Except for the torsion dystonia gene, which raises IQ by an estimated 10 points.
Cochran and Harpending think the other major Ashkenazi brain diseases raise IQ by about 5 points, but researchers are scared of running the data.
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2011/02/five-years-later-still-no-study.html
ROTFL
Better rhetorics won’t help much as you can’t argue against interest, that interest being make-work schemes for corrupt pseudo-academics through never ending social engineering.
• Yawn: Jenner Ickham Errican
Have you seen this?
http://whatishappeninginsouthafrica.blogspot.com/2013/03/racist-tornados.html?m=1
http://whatishappeninginsouthafrica.blogspot.com/2012/05/lightening-is-racism.html?m=1
Originally seen at Mike Smith’s place but I cannot find that link because of its defiant organization style. And a minister named Dube lends herself to accusations of dubiousness.
Chord! As in harmony. Not “cord” as in bondage and discipline.
(Though I must admit the prospect of disciplining the left by striking them with cords holds a certain appeal…)
Why do we keep seeing these homophonic errors in smart people’s writing today? Things like “tow the line” (lines tow), “didn’t phase me”, etc.
So Michelle Obama comes from a prominent Chicago political family and verifiably attended Princeton and Harvard; Barrack Obama attended some obscure liberal arts college in CA for mediocre students from a prestigious Hawaiian private school, then wended his way to Columbia (though his attendance there remains an article of faith) and wound up at Harvard. In spite of all this, because Barrack had a white parent (which would not be obvious except for that biographical tidbit) and Michelle did not, Barrack must be more intelligent. Huh? OK. The author, of course, does not reveal how he determined this other than inferring it from Barrack’s and Michelle’s respective parental pairings. But if his conjecture indeed has legs, then the implied policy prescription for the IQ gap problem in this country is to encourage more propagation through “race mixing.” Gets my vote, though I’m sure some of Mr. Sailer’s fans will suffer major heartburn digesting that conclusion. I commend him on his forward thinking.
baracky's dad via wiki:
"Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (/ˈbærək huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/;[11][12] 18 June 1936[2] – 24 November 1982) was a Kenyan senior governmental economist and the father of Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States. He is a central figure of his son's memoir, Dreams from My Father (1995). Obama married in 1954 and had two children with his first wife, Kezia. He was selected for a special program to attend college in the United States, and studied at the University of Hawaii. There, Obama met Stanley Ann Dunham, whom he married in 1961, and with whom he had a son, Barack II. She divorced him three years later.[13] The elder Obama later went to Harvard University for graduate school, where he earned an M.A. in economics, and returned to Kenya in 1964."
Barack Hussein Obama does not look pure Black in phenotype.
On the other hand, Cleveland Amory’s father had a point with “Nothing good ever came out of a warm climate.” (Spoken while little Cleveland was standing, shivering, in freezing cold Boston beach water.)
Have you listened to Barack and Michelle talk?
The Democrats can't concede the genetic foundation of the racial test score gap in schools because that might jeopardize the massive loot the education industry gets from the government to close the gap.
I am waiting for the day when the left acknowledges innate racial differences in ability as a rationale for more redistribution to compensate. That could sort of end a lot of arguments and obviate the need for other flim-flam rationales they adopt — historical discrimination, benefits of diversity for its own sake, institutional racism, temporary redress, etc.
I don't want to bring in the Old Testament but there's an enormous and vulnerable pattern involving Semitic tribalist grievance reasoning, which connects almost every leftoid program.
(This is highly developed and documented among a certain religio-ethnic group, but I use the word "Semitic" deliberately because it is not unique to them. It is probably an inescapable result of tribalism and diversity. There are many "convenient grievances" in Islam, notably Palestine and Shi'ism.)
Their story, for every case from blacks to mestizos to (at one time) blue collar workers to women, is always an adaptation of Exodus or Esther, and this both cuts off some options and sets up others. Once you learn the myths (which in this case means seeing the fallacies vindicated by tradition and why they are necessary) and start to look for the patterns, their words and actions have a visible logic and can be predicted. Or at least you can see what they won't do and why.
They are not normal people in a political discussion looking for a policy solution. They are wronged superior beings, held back by a nefarious conspiracy, itself only made possible by their own failure to maintain traditions and respect their prophets.
Far more important to their worldview is the notion that the inferior position they find themselves in is someone else's fault. That it's "just the way it is" wouldn't be nearly as much fun.
----------------------------------------------
The equalists treat working white class like shit. They selectively enforce anti-discrimination laws and overlook uncivilized behavior by activists because they believe they are doing god's work. During Jim Crow blacks were never prevented from forming blacks only organizations. If a private employer group of people want to use IQ tests then why make a federal case out of it? The activists don't believe in equality for a second - they believe in payback. My ancestors were Italian and Native American and Eastern European and had nothing to do with the slave trade or jim crow and I have to listen to the most disgusting rhetoric aimed at me. For things neither me nor my ancestors had anything to do with! And all because people such as yourself want to virtue signal themselves into secular heaven!
“During Jim Crow blacks were never prevented from forming blacks only organizations.”
Because the purpose of segregation was to have separate organizations! In 1902, W.E.B. Du Bois, found that 43 national unions had no black members, and 27 others barred black apprentices, kept membership to a minimum. Southern blacks were prohibited from creating their own groups out of fear of competing with southern whites.
“My ancestors were Italian and Native American and Eastern European and had nothing to do with the slave trade or jim crow and I have to listen to the most disgusting rhetoric aimed at me.”
Correct. You do realize they were subject to vile discriminatory practices by nativists, who believed your ancestors were “gutter whites” unworthy of assimilation into WASP society, who lacked the intellectual capacity to comprehend Anglo-Saxon ideals of law and politics. Somehow, they were “allowed” to remain here through their own virtue signaling efforts.
Correct. You do realize they were subject to vile discriminatory practices by nativists, who believed your ancestors were “gutter whites” unworthy of assimilation into WASP society, who lacked the intellectual capacity to comprehend Anglo-Saxon ideals of law and politics. Somehow, they were “allowed” to remain here through their own virtue signaling efforts.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The solution to these problems should be to allow private individuals to decide with whom to associate and for what purpose rather than relying on government mandates. Some groups are incapable of understanding Anglo-Saxon ideals of law and practice such as those to agree with Ginsburg's when is a quota not a quota legal reasoning. When the civil rights act of 1991 was passed the proponents wanted to overturn wards cove I believe because they stated that they didnt believe anyone should have the choice in whom to hire because giving anyone a choice would be against black interests. The phrase women and racial minorities comes from Gramsci's Prison notebook
The fairly high percentage of supportive comments on this AMS article is very depressing. But perhaps this is because they are discarding a higher percentage of negative comments (my non-supportive, but non-offensive, comment didn’t get put through for example). Or maybe it attracts many anti-hetero-white-male lunatics. I hope it’s not a representative sample of the mathematical community.
That, or, the poz is coursing through intellectual society in unimaginable ways and we are all doomed.
Steve, come on. Remember your Roissy.
Do you really think that it is eloquence that Murray is lacking?
Your credentialism is showing.
Your not one a them Mensa douché bags are you? You talk like one.
Steve is right that acknowledgment of this need not mean the end of the world. The fact that there are average group differences, whether biological or cultural, says nothing about any particular individual. There are highly intelligent (or stupid) people to be found in all races, just in varying proportional numbers.
For progressives, however, acknowledgment of reality would be the end of their world, i.e., the end of the core belief in universalism/egalitarianism, adherence to which defines them in their own eyes as being morally superior people.
Also, this belief is necessary for progressives to justify their status and privilege. They can sleep soundly believing that they achieved their station in life due to hard work and good character. However, if they understand that their achievements are largely due to the luck of their inheritance, their egalitarian values come into conflict with their extravagant lifestyle. They are an aristocratic class without nobility. The cognitive dissonance is unbearable.
(Though I must admit the prospect of disciplining the left by striking them with cords holds a certain appeal...)
Why do we keep seeing these homophonic errors in smart people's writing today? Things like "tow the line" (lines tow), "didn't phase me", etc.
Nobody ever taught me any stringed instruments…
If you read history, you would learn that humans pretty much suck, and suck far worse in groups than as individuals. That is why ideas like Murray's are so very appalling. He's writing the script for the reintroduction of Jim Crow laws. (Also "The Handmaid's Tale," as his views of women are, if anything, worse than his views of blacks. We're only good as breeders and floor-scrubbers and not one other thing. If you read the end of Atwood's novel, she describes a character based on Murray as one of the architects of Gilead. And yes, I believe Sailer and Murray would absolutely adore being Commanders of the Faithful, with Handmaids and powerless, miserable wives. It's their dearest wish to be in charge AND to make everyone else miserable.)
“If Murray is correct and people with significant sub-Saharan ancestry really do have less cognitive ability than those of European or Asian, the smarter groups will start imposing painful legal restrictions on the dumber groups.”
No they won’t. They’ll just stop expecting those groups to perform at the same level and forcing equal outcomes. The brightest would still succeed, society would simply stop forcing artificial equal outcomes above the abilities of the mediocre and the slow.
“He’s writing the script for the reintroduction of Jim Crow laws.”
No he’s not. Jim Crow was used for the purpose of restricting criminal behavior. Compare and contrast Selma Alabama, or any of a hundred other cities, in 1962 and today. Your statement
“The Handmaid’s Tale,” as his views of women are, if anything, worse than his views of blacks. We’re only good as breeders and floor-scrubbers and not one other thing. If you read the end of Atwood’s novel, she describes a character based on Murray as one of the architects of Gilead. ”
Read the book again. The society is indistinguishable from those run by Islamic fundamentalists like ISIS and the Taliban except without the violence, but Muslims tend to be browner than Europeans, so Atwood made them Christians in a fine display of Crimestop.
You are projecting your own pathologies and misanthropy on other people.
I might be totally wrong about this but I would bet money without looking it up that Margaret Atwood did not base any character in "The Handmaid's Tale" -- a very Early Eighties story reacting to Reagan, televangelism, nuclear waste, late feminist sex horror and other Early Eighties staples -- on Charles Murray, although it is vaguely possible because of his Vietnam War era work on counterinsurgency in Thailand. Vaguely possible. I haven't re-read it in years but certain parts are properly rooted in my memory and I do not recall anything that could possibly be Murray. I will check this now.
Clearly you were asleep in your American history class. Jim Crow was used exclusively to separate blacks and whites in all facets of southern life, so long as the accommodations were equal. It was meant to strip blacks of the political rights and ensure their economic dormancy. The problem was that southrons could not help themselves--nearly every aspect of life there was separate and unequal.
Not strategic enough. The current explanation accomplishes many things and prepares more, notably setting up the basis of a grievance-cult. Flat out admitting inferiority doesn’t get you anything but actual aid to the poor, which is the last thing they care about.
I don’t want to bring in the Old Testament but there’s an enormous and vulnerable pattern involving Semitic tribalist grievance reasoning, which connects almost every leftoid program.
(This is highly developed and documented among a certain religio-ethnic group, but I use the word “Semitic” deliberately because it is not unique to them. It is probably an inescapable result of tribalism and diversity. There are many “convenient grievances” in Islam, notably Palestine and Shi’ism.)
Their story, for every case from blacks to mestizos to (at one time) blue collar workers to women, is always an adaptation of Exodus or Esther, and this both cuts off some options and sets up others. Once you learn the myths (which in this case means seeing the fallacies vindicated by tradition and why they are necessary) and start to look for the patterns, their words and actions have a visible logic and can be predicted. Or at least you can see what they won’t do and why.
They are not normal people in a political discussion looking for a policy solution. They are wronged superior beings, held back by a nefarious conspiracy, itself only made possible by their own failure to maintain traditions and respect their prophets.
No they won't. They'll just stop expecting those groups to perform at the same level and forcing equal outcomes. The brightest would still succeed, society would simply stop forcing artificial equal outcomes above the abilities of the mediocre and the slow.
"He’s writing the script for the reintroduction of Jim Crow laws."
No he's not. Jim Crow was used for the purpose of restricting criminal behavior. Compare and contrast Selma Alabama, or any of a hundred other cities, in 1962 and today. Your statement
"The Handmaid’s Tale,” as his views of women are, if anything, worse than his views of blacks. We’re only good as breeders and floor-scrubbers and not one other thing. If you read the end of Atwood’s novel, she describes a character based on Murray as one of the architects of Gilead. "
Read the book again. The society is indistinguishable from those run by Islamic fundamentalists like ISIS and the Taliban except without the violence, but Muslims tend to be browner than Europeans, so Atwood made them Christians in a fine display of Crimestop.
You are projecting your own pathologies and misanthropy on other people.
I might be totally wrong about this but I would bet money without looking it up that Margaret Atwood did not base any character in “The Handmaid’s Tale” — a very Early Eighties story reacting to Reagan, televangelism, nuclear waste, late feminist sex horror and other Early Eighties staples — on Charles Murray, although it is vaguely possible because of his Vietnam War era work on counterinsurgency in Thailand. Vaguely possible. I haven’t re-read it in years but certain parts are properly rooted in my memory and I do not recall anything that could possibly be Murray. I will check this now.
I am not able to find anything about Charles Murray inspiring any character in Handmaid. I'm not even sure how that would work. Like I said, it was about being mad at televangelists, not "racist pseudoscienists." Gilead was thoroughly anti-science and had expressly medieval imagery, like the hanging of parts of executed criminals, high on city walls.
Barring a musing reconsideration by Atwood in a subsequent and much later interview, I think this is a great illustration of the sloppy herd-think lefties have in place of our humbly tended memes. It's like a target being a "Nazi" because he might as well be one or because he would be one if he was born at the right time and place.
In doing my genealogy, and helping others with theirs, it quickly becomes apparent that members of a nationality will have a common ancestor in the not too distant past. For example, the first Americans who came to this country in the 1600′s numbered in the thousands, not millions. That is why you hear about the fact that most of the presidents and other Wasp heavy groups, such as early captains of industry, were all related to one another. Franklin Roosevelt was a distant relative to something like 22 other presidents and Obama is a distant relative to Dick Chaney. Until about the 1600′s or so, much of the world was populated as sparsely as Colonial America. Also, the most successful people had the most offspring. You will always hear some people on genealogy sites brag about being descended from William the Conqueror or Charlemagne but so are most people of European descent. https://www.theguardian.com/science/commentisfree/2015/may/24/business-genetic-ancestry-charlemagne-adam-rutherford
They arrived on the island, from Hook of Holland or the like, sometime in the middle of the 3rd millennium BC.http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135962 That's the entire gene pool, not just chaps.
The blokes are all as far as can be determined R1b-L21, and the most well-preserved samples are a sub-branch of that, DF13, including the most prominent burials (metalworking archers, under 'kurgans'/barrows). Still comprises the vast majority of Isles yDNA, particularly in the "celtic" holdout areas, something like 90% in Ireland, from memory.
They brought quite a lot of their women and kids. And took some of the local farming folk's women as well. Their men basically "disappeared" in a few generations ... somehow or other. Tut, tut ...
Later incursions of their kinsmen, peaceful or not (these were all likely "proto-Celts", so what are the chances, eh?) were now well-armed (and armoured) caballeros, starting with Unetice-type culture, and serving only to reinforce the L21 steamroller.
The "Genghis Khan effect", before Genghis.
Its telling that neither the article’s authors nor its few defenders here (because “Vox” humorously does not allow comments) are able to make a rational argument in good faith.
Either the 10 points is at some younger age, or Nisbett is contradicting himself.
g also becomes more heritable as you get older. In other words, you can give black kids early childhood education, and they will score higher on standardized tests than they would have otherwise. Twenty years later and the effect will have long since vanished.
I personally doubt that the gap has narrowed in recent years. If, for example, black students had narrowed the game to 2/3rds of a standard deviation in 2014, we would’ve heard nearly endless praise for Obama.
Because the purpose of segregation was to have separate organizations! In 1902, W.E.B. Du Bois, found that 43 national unions had no black members, and 27 others barred black apprentices, kept membership to a minimum. Southern blacks were prohibited from creating their own groups out of fear of competing with southern whites.
"My ancestors were Italian and Native American and Eastern European and had nothing to do with the slave trade or jim crow and I have to listen to the most disgusting rhetoric aimed at me."
Correct. You do realize they were subject to vile discriminatory practices by nativists, who believed your ancestors were "gutter whites" unworthy of assimilation into WASP society, who lacked the intellectual capacity to comprehend Anglo-Saxon ideals of law and politics. Somehow, they were "allowed" to remain here through their own virtue signaling efforts.
“My ancestors were Italian and Native American and Eastern European and had nothing to do with the slave trade or jim crow and I have to listen to the most disgusting rhetoric aimed at me.”
Correct. You do realize they were subject to vile discriminatory practices by nativists, who believed your ancestors were “gutter whites” unworthy of assimilation into WASP society, who lacked the intellectual capacity to comprehend Anglo-Saxon ideals of law and politics. Somehow, they were “allowed” to remain here through their own virtue signaling efforts.
—————————————————————-
The solution to these problems should be to allow private individuals to decide with whom to associate and for what purpose rather than relying on government mandates. Some groups are incapable of understanding Anglo-Saxon ideals of law and practice such as those to agree with Ginsburg’s when is a quota not a quota legal reasoning. When the civil rights act of 1991 was passed the proponents wanted to overturn wards cove I believe because they stated that they didnt believe anyone should have the choice in whom to hire because giving anyone a choice would be against black interests. The phrase women and racial minorities comes from Gramsci’s Prison notebook
Private individuals decide even today who they are friends with and who they live near by. Private individuals, as members of the general public, also decided that past conduct, most notably by Southrons during the Jim Crow Era, was illegal and unconstitutional. That is how a representative government works. Freedom of association is NOT unfettered nor is it free. In our society, there are stipulations.
"Some groups are incapable of understanding Anglo-Saxon ideals of law and practice such as those to agree with Ginsburg’s when is a quota not a quota legal reasoning."
One of the leaders of the Alt Right, Vox Day, argues that the "second wave of immigrants"--in particular YOUR ancestors--were ill-equipped to comprehend those "Angl0-Saxon standards". In essence, you are supporting HIS argument. Therefore, as Vox Day says, you have to go back.
"When the civil rights act of 1991 was passed the proponents wanted to overturn wards cove I believe because they stated that they didnt believe anyone should have the choice in whom to hire because giving anyone a choice would be against black interests.
"The phrase women and racial minorities comes from Gramsci’s Prison notebook"
Woman originates from the late Old English wimman, wiman (plural wimmen), literally "woman-man," alteration of wifman (plural wifmen) "woman, female servant". The origin of the term "minorities” is traced to Europe. It was applied to various national groups who were identified with particular territories, but had lost their sovereignty there to another national group.
A technical question: if there is more mixing of a population so that women can preferentially select the tallest men so that the taller men have more children than the shorter men; what is the effect on the mean and standard error of the distribution? I would imagine that the mean would increase; and probably also the standard error.
Also, with increasing mixing of the population; enabling the higher IQ men to go to college where the higher IQ women can find them; and leaving the lower IQ men and women "in the country" we might get a Flynn effect. But it's a bit uncertain because the lower portion of the college-bound men might have fewer than the average number of children; and vice versa for those left behind. A detailed quantitative analysis would be needed.
The post WW2 rise in height in Japan is due to a change from a rice and vegetable diet to a diet higher in protein and calories.
Until about 30 years ago a lot of Japanese marriages were arranged by mothers grandmothers and aunts, not by sexual selection.
But you do bring up an important issue; how can we distinguish between the two explanations?
One approach might be to find an isolated population, perhaps a religious minority, which remained in a single location and for which there was no marriage outside the population. If it could be shown that their diet I had improved just as had that of the rest of the population; and that the sexual selection possibilities were also much the same; but that their height had not increased or decreased, that would favor the sexual selection hypothesis. And vice versa.
To add to the matter, the exact point changes from year to year. Saying that blacks have curlier hair than Chinese people would have been considered blandly true 10 years ago, but it is not something you want to say around SJWs. They might go on and on about bodies that have been identified as black, and talk about social factors having a role to play in whether hair is curly or not having a role to play (what if black people straighten their hair to look more white?). Then they will go into how white people in 1842 identified black people as having curly hair and strongly imply you’re a terrible racist for noticing that too.
It sounds stupid when you lay it out like this, and it is stupid, but SJWs have made arguments like this time and again.
The big difference between hereditarians and blank slaters on race is that hereditarian arguments make immediate sense and generally line up with what you’ve seen in your daily life, whereas blank slaters are obscurantists who play word games while implying you’re evil, stupid, or both if you disagree or can’t follow what they’re saying. The article presented here doesn’t have any arguments in favor of egalitarianism which make you say, “Wow, that makes sense!”
I am not especially young, but I am hardly ancient, yet I remember within my own life a time when to become (and remain) a professor meant being incredibly brilliant in a discipline and focusing upon its most challenging and erudite aspects. Mathematicians labored to prove rules and derive formulae. Physicians strove to understand diseases and perfect new surgerical techniques. Historians pored over obscure documents in musty archives hoping to uncover heretofore forgotten explanations for how the past unfolded as it did, and why. Archaelogists and philologists struggled to decipher strange artifacts and translate forgotten languages. These men had neither the time nor any inclination to bloviate about popular culture or write vapid pieces for newspapers and glossy magazines. Their works and discoveries were circulated in books and academic fora for others with the ability and initiative to understand and appreciate their great expertise. Today’s professiorate are no better than prostitutes, seeking notoriery, however fleeting and insignificant, for having appeared in a popular television programme or opining in a listicle. Even their vitae now highlight such dubious achievements as being a regular contributor or commentator on this or that talking-head circuit, where they purport to dispense deep wisdom on a topic in thirty-second sound-bytes – as if it were even possible!
Can anyone imagine Max Planck wasting his time hosting corny documentaries in the style of that fool Neil Tyson? Or J.R.R. Tolkien teaching graduate seminars in Klingon (or even Sindarin? – he had the humility to distinguish even his own masterworks from the study of weighty things that already had withstood the test of time, like Beowulf…).
The whole thing is so much confirmation universities increasingly serve less and less purpose at all. Let the scientists at St. Jude advance oncology, and the engineers at Boeing study physics, I begin to say….
I might be totally wrong about this but I would bet money without looking it up that Margaret Atwood did not base any character in "The Handmaid's Tale" -- a very Early Eighties story reacting to Reagan, televangelism, nuclear waste, late feminist sex horror and other Early Eighties staples -- on Charles Murray, although it is vaguely possible because of his Vietnam War era work on counterinsurgency in Thailand. Vaguely possible. I haven't re-read it in years but certain parts are properly rooted in my memory and I do not recall anything that could possibly be Murray. I will check this now.
Follow-up: THT published 1985, Bell Curve published 1994.
I am not able to find anything about Charles Murray inspiring any character in Handmaid. I’m not even sure how that would work. Like I said, it was about being mad at televangelists, not “racist pseudoscienists.” Gilead was thoroughly anti-science and had expressly medieval imagery, like the hanging of parts of executed criminals, high on city walls.
Barring a musing reconsideration by Atwood in a subsequent and much later interview, I think this is a great illustration of the sloppy herd-think lefties have in place of our humbly tended memes. It’s like a target being a “Nazi” because he might as well be one or because he would be one if he was born at the right time and place.
https://twitter.com/mksheikh/status/744909255338262528
Not quite sure why a Muslim is applauding this. Murray is simply admitting he is a typical upper-middle class libertarian male who likes Asians but doesn’t like blacks or rough working class whites. He doesn’t mention Muslims.
Kit,
” The Handmaid’s Tale” is a work of fiction, specifically sci fi fantasy. The basic premise of the book is ridiculous. In any society with a dangerously low birth rate and vast numbers of infertile women, the infertile ones would be cast aside and the fertile ones married into the aristocrats.
The aristocrats would want fertile daughters to produce grandsons.
That book is ridiculous and was only published because of the feminazis propaganda program.
Michelle is very insecure about her intelligence. Also, I wonder how her kids feel. They must be under a lot of pressure to be smart. But what happens if a president’s kids turn out to just be average? I guess there weren’t enough books in the white house.
If you read history, you would learn that humans pretty much suck, and suck far worse in groups than as individuals. That is why ideas like Murray's are so very appalling. He's writing the script for the reintroduction of Jim Crow laws. (Also "The Handmaid's Tale," as his views of women are, if anything, worse than his views of blacks. We're only good as breeders and floor-scrubbers and not one other thing. If you read the end of Atwood's novel, she describes a character based on Murray as one of the architects of Gilead. And yes, I believe Sailer and Murray would absolutely adore being Commanders of the Faithful, with Handmaids and powerless, miserable wives. It's their dearest wish to be in charge AND to make everyone else miserable.)
It’s vanishingly unlikely that Atwood knew who Murray was in 1985, when she wrote the book
You are forgetting Liberal Privilege.
When you are an aristocrat, no one calls you to account for being wrong. Indeed, Marxism proves that with your Liberal Privilege, you are free to be not only wrong, but as wrong as possible, and still be unimpeded by your vile, profane and malicious stupidity.
If Typhoid Mary were a modern Liberal, she’d be feted as a saintly humanitarian.
There is no downside for these servants of Sauron being wrong.
By “Many whitebread communities”. he means Fishtown and the like.
Turkheimer has gotten a lot of attention for a 2003 paper arguing that in one sample of poor people with lowish IQs, the heritability of IQ was lower than in better off populations, which is interesting but not hugely galvanizing.
It’s obvious. The threshold at which nurture or environment can influence IQ is much lower than the living standards of people who are more well-off.
Turkheimer is on record advocating for an intellectual goon squad that will around disputing valid science that supports hbd. This seems like the squad in action.
Until about 30 years ago a lot of Japanese marriages were arranged by mothers grandmothers and aunts, not by sexual selection.
I’m aware that that is the generally accepted explanation. However, the improvement in diet occurred at the same time as the movement of populations, so it seems plausible to me that sexual selection in a situation of greater available choice might have the same result.
But you do bring up an important issue; how can we distinguish between the two explanations?
One approach might be to find an isolated population, perhaps a religious minority, which remained in a single location and for which there was no marriage outside the population. If it could be shown that their diet I had improved just as had that of the rest of the population; and that the sexual selection possibilities were also much the same; but that their height had not increased or decreased, that would favor the sexual selection hypothesis. And vice versa.
https://twitter.com/mksheikh/status/744909255338262528
Stuff like this is why I wish the crowd had got its hands on Murray, whose last words could have been “At least I wasn’t racist!”
Who has ever argued that IQ is the only heritable trait?
Since genes and race don’t matter, I’m sure the authors wouldn’t notice any difference if their kids got swapped out as babies and replaced by some random black kids from the ghetto. Maybe an actual proposal like that would bring them the clarity of thought that comes with having some actual skin in the game. On second thought, my guess is that at least two of the three don’t have kids at all.
” because Barrack had a white parent (which would not be obvious except for that biographical tidbit) and Michelle did not, Barrack must be more intelligent. ”
baracky’s dad via wiki:
“Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (/ˈbærək huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/;[11][12] 18 June 1936[2] – 24 November 1982) was a Kenyan senior governmental economist and the father of Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States. He is a central figure of his son’s memoir, Dreams from My Father (1995). Obama married in 1954 and had two children with his first wife, Kezia. He was selected for a special program to attend college in the United States, and studied at the University of Hawaii. There, Obama met Stanley Ann Dunham, whom he married in 1961, and with whom he had a son, Barack II. She divorced him three years later.[13] The elder Obama later went to Harvard University for graduate school, where he earned an M.A. in economics, and returned to Kenya in 1964.”
https://twitter.com/mksheikh/status/744909255338262528
I can relate. I might also prefer a Little Vietnam or a Little Guatemala … or Little China or Little Mexico … just not Vietnam or Guatemala or China or Mexico.
But the bridge will fall down.
I’ll believe them when they have surgery performed by the affirmative action recipient instead of the white doctor.
To see this in math demonstrates that cancer in the body politic cannot be ignored. Next up: 2+2 = 5.
JOKE: using logic and factual evidence to express disagreement with someone.
WOKE: using [not-an-argument] to express disagreement with someone.
You do understand that before 1997 SATs were accepted by MENSA as a form of IQ test (drop the last digit/round off)? And when Michelle took her SATs and applied to Princeton she was spotted literally hundreds of SAT points?
SSAs did not create written languages or mathematical systems. A liberal former coworker once mentioned dolphins are brilliant and could have built civilization if they could write underwater. I asked him why blacks never created a writing system and if they, in his opinion, were no less intelligent than Asians or whites.
I suppose we’ll find out when someone pays a $15,000,000.00 advance for Chelsea Mezvinsky: My Life and Times.
"Until you get to 5, none of the premises is completely incorrect.". This would be more accurately and neutrally stated as "Until you get to 4, all of the premises are unambiguously true and non-controversial".
"These observations do not undermine the conclusion that intelligence is heritable, but rather the naive assumption that heritable traits cannot be changed via environmental mechanisms. (Murray flatly tells Harris that this is the case.)"
I haven't listened to the podcast, and Turkheimer doesn't cite the point in the podcast when Murray "flatly tells Harris that this is the case". I suspect that Charles Murray understands that the heritability of intelligence, height, etc would be much lower in populations exposed to extreme deprivation, such as wartime famine conditions. Murray has discussed the Wilson effect before - that the heritability of IQ increases with age, and early childhood interventions can increase the IQ of young children. Murray is likely referring to the failure of intensive childhood interventions to produce results approaching middle class white norms among lower and middle class African American groups.
"There is currently no reason at all to think that any significant portion of the IQ differences among socially defined racial groups is genetic in origin."
There is very good reason. We have controlled for the most obvious factor associated with environmental deprivation: poverty. In the 2003 College Bound cohort of SAT test-takers, black students with family incomes between 80k-100k averaged 461 on the SAT-M and 468 on the SAT-V. White test takers with family incomes between 15-20k averaged 485 on the SAT-M and 488 on the SAT-V. By our colloquial understanding of what constitutes deprivation, the black students in a comfortably middle class income bracket are "better off", yet still score worse than poor whites.
The biggest problem is not that interventions work – they do. But as research has shown, the improvement is not enough to surmount the social-economic equivalent white/black gap. The other, more important problem is the incredible cost associated with these small improvements.
Devoting enormous amounts of resources to marginally improving IQ may not produce positive returns. As western societies become more “diverse,” there will be far too many dumbs to educate. A more cost effective measure of improving life outcomes is necessary.
I did not read Gould’s Mismeasure of Man, so I do not know what points he made. But I can give my opinion about g. I suspect Gould would have agreed with me.
g is mathematically trivial
Any nonnegative symmetric matrix can be decomposed into principal components by some method. Different methods yield different results. One of this component will have larger loadings than any other component on average. Arriving at g from the covariance matrix which from its definition is nonnegative and symmetric is a mathematical necessity. Just like N different fractions have a lowest common denominator so N mutually correlated variables (test results) will produce g (by some method) that has “advertised” properties. For example you can take 60 question Raven matrix test and haphazardly divide into four 15 question subtests. You will obtain 4×4 covariance matrix that you can decompose and obtain g that most likely, if you have sufficient large sample of tested participants, will have similar loadings for each subtest. Would such a g have some meaning and tell you anything about some hidden intelligence factor that you have just revealed? No, it would not. Jut like finding that a common denominator of 1/2, 1/7 and 1/8 is 56. What is the meaning of 56?
g interpretation can be arbitrary
Mathematically g for each method with which it can be derived has (or at least should have) strict mathematical definition. All other features and qualities attributed to g outside of its mathematical definition are arbitrary and are detached from g’s definition; they can’t be proven or disproven by one’s ability to derive it mathematically. This mathematical g serves as pretext to utter statements about these features and qualities that are actually unprovable and have nothing to do with the inevitable existence of the mathematical g. Very often, frequently observed on unz.com pages, the concept of g and its mathematical existence is invoked as a purely rhetorical device to nobilitate the shoddy nature and lack of theoretical foundations of the IQ research. This argument works on mathematically unsavvy.
g non-uniqueness
g can be derived by different methods. Each method produces different g. The covariance matrix can be decomposed by means of eigenvectors which are orthogonal. Then g is associated with the eigenvector with greatest eigenvalue. This decomposition is unique and it is obtained with the principal component analysis (PCA). However one can combine the eigenvectors (by rotating them) and obtain a new set of also orthogonal vectors that are no longer eigenvectors. The orthogonality is a very important criterion for decomposition because it implies statistical independence among factors but by itself this orthogonality criterion does not guarantee the uniqueness of g. By doing so a new g can be defined that has a different distribution of loadings. Loading can be redistributed pretty much anyway one wants because the rotations can be arbitrary. When Spearman began his work mathematical tools to do PCA did not exist. Even if they did finding eigenvectors of large matrices w/o computers would be very cumbersome. He a priori postulated the existence of just one g so he defined a simpler less complex problem that guaranteed finding jus one g. He also looked for the second factor, the s-factor. These two factors were to account for the maximum of variance. This is how factor analysis (FA) was born. Invented by a non mathematician. Then once he had the two factors he still tweaked them by rotating them. He was using various ad hoc criteria’s to decide on the angle of rotation. In 1950s in order to salvage the FA (there were criticisms on its arbitrariness) various mathematical criteria and algorithms were developed that invoked vectors rotations as well as non-orthogonal rotations. Nowadays FA starts with PCA when the dominant vectors are found and then they are tweaked and there are different tweaking methods. Each will produce different g. Thus g is not unique. Different criteria produce different g. One set of data may yield different g’s depending which method is used. I presume that researchers following Jensen’s work through the process of convergence eventually agreed which method to use so their results that suppose to reinforce each other (this is a social group with common interests) are consistent.
There is also aspect of empirical non-uniqueness. Different batteries of subtest produce different g’s that are mutually correlated but not identical. This is one of the reason why no scale of g was ever created. That’s why g unlike IQ is not used to label the test subjects. You never hear that you need to have at least g=0.7 to go to college or what is Asian g as opposed to African g, right? Nobody knows if g=0.7 is good or bad because no scale was created nor agreed upon. So where does g is used? In research papers, where it is either argued by faction A that we showed that we have one g or by faction B that these two g’s are not really the same g or by faction C that one g is not enough and we need to look at s-factor as well. Pointless and meaningless efforts.
The bottom line is that most what you will hear about g is hyped up. It is just a rhetorical device. Nothing else. But once you understand the mathematics behind it you see it is a trivial concept that is also inevitable.
I suspect that Gould’s argument about g were correct though I will have to read him.
As I recall from my student days, the purpose of the rotation of the Principle Components is not only to simplify the mathematics, which has not been a big deal since computers came into common usage, but to improve interpretability of the factors. The criteria was to have each factor contain a few items with high weights and the rest with low weights. The factor was then identified by the items with the high weightings.
The real question is how close to any sort of reality are the factors? Does the rotation give you a concept which, in fact, is useful, valid, and reliable?
PCA and factor analysis are correlational methods. They are based on co-variance, or correlation coefficients. You may have items which hang together statistically, but is the relationship a physical association, or simply a coincidental association as a result of a particular background? There is probably a hefty correlation between lung cancer and buying cigarettes from a convenience store, but banning cigarettes from convenience stores would not lower the incidence of lung cancer.
If we concede that intelligence is a multi-genetic trait, there is no way that a g factor would hang together over time unless there were a selection process maintaining the correlation. My own suspicion, entirely without corroborating evidence, is that modern welfare society dramatically removes all environmental stresses on survivability. The result is that the natural rate of genetic mutation uncouples all the correlated traits caused by particular environmental stresses.
I suspect this is part of the explanation of why high-IQ societies such as Sweden are committing suicide through migration at such a fast and incomprehensible rate. Sweden is also one of the oldest social-welfare states. The traits previously correlated with, say, verbal ability, such as integrity and courage, have been decoupled to the extent that the traits needed to achieve political success are decoupled from any traits associated with accomplishment or even comprehension. Again, this is pure speculation.
http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-woodley-effect/#comment-1771365
The fact that eigenvalues fade very quickly, and the first one is much greater than the second is an argument in favor of the concept of g.
The point isn't that you can do factor analysis and come up with a "g", the point is that the "g" you come up with is strong.
First off--if you had no prior knowledge of humanity--the subtest correlations do not even have to be positive. That's sort of the (older) hyper-nerd model, some guy who's good at math+science by re-purposing the parts of his brain that would have been doing verbal and appreciating poetry. And so he's math smart and verbal dumb. That's not the case.
Secondly, not only are all the subtest correlations positive, but they don't throw up multiple "g"s, they through up one "g". There isn't some "general verbal factor" that accounts for most human language skills, and then a separate "general math factor" that accounts for math skills. No there's a huge "general smarts factor" that accounts for people being what we think of as "smart" and then much, much smaller components. I.e. the nerd is a nerd first and foremost because he's "smart" and can do the math and as a result he also pretty good at the verbal too. (The "multiple intelligence" guys are just wrong.)
These two points--all positive correlations and one huge first component rather than multiple strong components is real information about human intelligence. Though i admit it's hardly earth-shattering insight to people with any life experience. Even at a young age one figures out that some of your peers are "smart" and some "non-smart". And you expect the smart ones to be better at figuring stuff out than the less smart ones even if this one has a more mathematical bent, this one more artistic, this one more literary, this one more mechanical.
The underlying biological reality being captured here is that some brains are just "better" or "faster and more efficient processors". Some combination or cortex volume, neural densities or synapse processing (neurotransmitters, neural receptors, etc.) This is the stuff the neurogenomics guys should be figuring out.
If you read history, you would learn that humans pretty much suck, and suck far worse in groups than as individuals. That is why ideas like Murray's are so very appalling. He's writing the script for the reintroduction of Jim Crow laws. (Also "The Handmaid's Tale," as his views of women are, if anything, worse than his views of blacks. We're only good as breeders and floor-scrubbers and not one other thing. If you read the end of Atwood's novel, she describes a character based on Murray as one of the architects of Gilead. And yes, I believe Sailer and Murray would absolutely adore being Commanders of the Faithful, with Handmaids and powerless, miserable wives. It's their dearest wish to be in charge AND to make everyone else miserable.)
>We’re only good as breeders and floor-scrubbers
Not at all. Some of you can cook too
If that’s the case, he’s never been in or near Fishtown.
1. We should accept that intelligence has a strong hereditary component and different races most likely have different levels of mean intelligence.
2. We should not change or develop policy in light of this realization.
I think his current shtick is that race realism shouldn't trump liberal values. Fine, but let's make sure our values are also based in reality!
Maybe he means the poor should move south towards the equator to warmer temperatures, longer growing seasons and greater rainfall which is all more favorable to agriculture. Fruit trees like oranges only grow in the far southern regions of America because the rest is too cold, and tropical fruits like bananas not at all.
Iceland, Sweden and Canada with it’s snowy winters compare unfavorably with the warm climates and rich soils of Africa.
"No reasonable person would be offended by the observation that African people have curlier hair than the Chinese, notwithstanding the possibility of some future environment in which it is no longer true. But we can recognize a contention that Chinese people are genetically predisposed to be better table tennis players than Africans as silly, and the contention that they are smarter than Africans as ugly, because it is a matter of ethical principle that individual and cultural accomplishment is not tied to the genes in the same way as the appearance of our hair."
It is a matter of ethical principle. That's one of the authors, Turkheimer, ten years ago. Source: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/11/21/eric-turkheimer/race-iq
It’s not about an “ethical principle”, and it’s not fear of a 4th Reich. What I wrote on LOTB’s blog about this recently:
As someone there wrote in response:
He was aiming at 1% professors and the like who get to have prestige, power and wealth while also bathing in moral superiority because they're political rawlsians, etc. nice work if you can get it
Does that mean Iceland and Sweden can send the migrants away from their cold, rocky soil to sunnier, fertile climes, like the Indus valley?
"No reasonable person would be offended by the observation that African people have curlier hair than the Chinese, notwithstanding the possibility of some future environment in which it is no longer true. But we can recognize a contention that Chinese people are genetically predisposed to be better table tennis players than Africans as silly, and the contention that they are smarter than Africans as ugly, because it is a matter of ethical principle that individual and cultural accomplishment is not tied to the genes in the same way as the appearance of our hair."
It is a matter of ethical principle. That's one of the authors, Turkheimer, ten years ago. Source: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/11/21/eric-turkheimer/race-iq
Didn’t it used to be a matter of ethical principle that God created a terracentric world from nothing in six days, that the fossils of dinosaurs were the remnants of dragons, and that diseases were caused by evil spirits?
I thought science had to do with empiricism, irrespective of principles. Children’s deaths from from cancer certainly do not comport with ehtical ideas about fairness and justness, so must we deny that they occur…?
Here is an extremely important work by Murray:
https://www.amazon.com/Income-Inequality-Studies-Understanding-Economic/dp/0844770949
“Income Inequality and IQ (AEI Studies on Understanding Economic Inequality) – January 1, 1998″.
Let us make a judgement about this Scientist by his greatest achievements,
not by flaws of his character (which flaws each of us mortals has.)
Supposedly great physicist Albert Michelson (rumors)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_A._Michelson
was wife beater,
not to be confused with the specific type of a garment for males:
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_4_6?url=search-alias%3Dfashion-mens&field-keywords=white+beaters+for+men&sprefix=beater%
But we remember and respect Michelson for outstanding achievements in Physics.
But you do bring up an important issue; how can we distinguish between the two explanations?
One approach might be to find an isolated population, perhaps a religious minority, which remained in a single location and for which there was no marriage outside the population. If it could be shown that their diet I had improved just as had that of the rest of the population; and that the sexual selection possibilities were also much the same; but that their height had not increased or decreased, that would favor the sexual selection hypothesis. And vice versa.
sexual selections acts far too slowly.
If you read history, you would learn that humans pretty much suck, and suck far worse in groups than as individuals. That is why ideas like Murray's are so very appalling. He's writing the script for the reintroduction of Jim Crow laws. (Also "The Handmaid's Tale," as his views of women are, if anything, worse than his views of blacks. We're only good as breeders and floor-scrubbers and not one other thing. If you read the end of Atwood's novel, she describes a character based on Murray as one of the architects of Gilead. And yes, I believe Sailer and Murray would absolutely adore being Commanders of the Faithful, with Handmaids and powerless, miserable wives. It's their dearest wish to be in charge AND to make everyone else miserable.)
humans treat those they perceive as inferior like shit, and will use all the power of the government to enforce that shit-state. [35 words later] For one example, the death penalty cannot be imposed on someone with an IQ below 70.
The most remarkable thing about the Vox piece is that the authors don’t deny the truth of their claims 1 – 3. Given the terribly low expectations for public discourse on this topic, that’s something.
> 1) Intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, is a meaningful construct that describes differences in cognitive ability among humans.
> 2) Individual differences in intelligence are moderately heritable.
> 3) Racial groups differ in their mean scores on IQ tests.
> 4) Discoveries about genetic ancestry have validated commonly used racial groupings.
> 5) On the basis of points 1 through 4, it is natural to assume that the reasons for racial differences in IQ scores are themselves at least partly genetic.
They do, however, get #4 wrong in a way that’s entirely unnecessary. They write:
> Murray talks about advances in population genetics as if they have validated modern racial groups. In reality, the racial groups used in the US — white, black, Hispanic, Asian — are such a poor proxy for underlying genetic ancestry that no self-respecting statistical geneticist would undertake a study based only on self-identified racial category as a proxy for genetic ancestry measured from DNA.
Of course that’s false. Risch et al (2002) answered that question and it’s been corroborated since then. Even on a charitable reading of their claim (e.g. one-drop rule and other social factors skew racial identification), it’s at best irrelevant. As Murray describes at length in the podcast, any lack of perfect correlation between self-identified racial and ethnic groups and genetically definable populations merely attenuates our ability to observe a genetic effect and thus the fact that we see such large phenotypic group differences does nothing to make a genetic hypothesis less likely. Such a refutation would require literally no genetic basis for racial groups at all, which is of course not the case.
Their arguments in favor of an entirely environmental explanation are weak and suffer from a failure to discuss contrary evidence. There arguments mostly consist of reasons why it’s not logically necessary for their to be a genetic component. It was never logically necessary, and so their arguments are mostly weak. As a piece of scholarship, this article is thus shoddy. But as a polemic it is not terrible.
Although many folks in the HBD-sphere lauded them at the time, Jensen and Rushton’s 2005 review article was similarly lopsided. Much of the evidence they presented for a hereditarian hypothesis was also weak. The method of correlated vectors has been shown to be non-specific, for example. The strongest evidence comes from things like transracial adoption studies and the handful of nearly direct genetic tests (e.g. admixture analysis with proxy variables like educational attainment). There’s also the fact that a definitive test (genetic admixture analysis) has been feasible for at least a decade and yet somehow never done.
Back to the Vox article: the authors bring up the Flynn Effect and then dismiss the rather lengthy exposition in the podcast as “hand-waving”. Murray properly cites Jelte Wicherts’ work on measurement invariance and the fact that it causes one to doubt the relevance of the Flynn effect for Black-White IQ differences.
So what about the author’s claim that “there is no evidence for any such genetic hypothesis”? Well, yes and no. The smoking gun hasn’t been uncovered because the proper experiment has never been performed, and even in 2017 we really should be agnostic as to the extent to which genes cause IQ differences between races. However, there have been enough near hits and all of them have been in the direction of a genetic effect.
They make this claim and then go over a whole bunch of evidence. What they actually mean to say is that, "While there is a good deal of evidence for the genetic hypothesis, the evidence is not sufficient to constitute proof." Which is a very different statement indeed.
For some obscure reason many, including scientists, will commonly state "there is no evidence," when what they really mean is "there is insufficient evidence."
baracky's dad via wiki:
"Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (/ˈbærək huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/;[11][12] 18 June 1936[2] – 24 November 1982) was a Kenyan senior governmental economist and the father of Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States. He is a central figure of his son's memoir, Dreams from My Father (1995). Obama married in 1954 and had two children with his first wife, Kezia. He was selected for a special program to attend college in the United States, and studied at the University of Hawaii. There, Obama met Stanley Ann Dunham, whom he married in 1961, and with whom he had a son, Barack II. She divorced him three years later.[13] The elder Obama later went to Harvard University for graduate school, where he earned an M.A. in economics, and returned to Kenya in 1964."
I thought Obama’s father was Frank Davis.
I'll believe them when they have surgery performed by the affirmative action recipient instead of the white doctor.
To see this in math demonstrates that cancer in the body politic cannot be ignored. Next up: 2+2 = 5.
Credit where credit is due, Kanye West’s mother Donda had her surgery performed by Dr. Jan Adams.
I think that Turkheimer was not really hard hitting. He could have hit harder emphasizing the Flynn effect which undermines the methodology and/or integrity in the IQ research. There are two possibilities:
(1) Flynn effect is the actual intelligence increase which was hidden by the habit of normalization of IQ data. Flynn effect can be accounted by environmental effects only. The increase of IQ in Holland by 18 points on IQ scale is very significant. That’s good, right? We can make people smarter. The question is why the effect was hidden for so long and it took James Flynn to blow a whistle on it? Is it because IQ researcher are really a bunch of racists who do not like the result showing that environment has large impact on IQ?
We often hear that IQ is constant during a lifetime (except for Blacks who went to Head Start when young and once they got older they also got more stupid again or so they say) how do we really know if various normalizations are done now and then and not all researchers are really aware of them. If they were they would discovered Flynn effect long before Flynn.
What else is hidden from the public eye?
(2) Flynn effect is not actual intelligence it is [here comes the hand waving] an effect of subjects getting just savvy and clever but not really smarter. Yeah, that’s ticket. If it so, how sure are they that the so-called smart fraction of their IQ tests are not just savvy and clever but not really smarter? Besides, what kind of science it is where the tape measure is shrinking? Perhaps the increase of height since WWII is also not real. I am sure there is some physical phenomena explaining a shrinkage of all tape measures in the world since WWII.
Anyone who refers to passing down cultural traits with the term “heritability” is being misleading at best.
Mr. Murray, do you believe, in your best judgment, that you been rehabilitated?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7XRooRW8_4
OK, OK, this is not the original from The Shawshank Redemption, but I’m kinda busy right now.
If you read history, you would learn that humans pretty much suck, and suck far worse in groups than as individuals. That is why ideas like Murray's are so very appalling. He's writing the script for the reintroduction of Jim Crow laws. (Also "The Handmaid's Tale," as his views of women are, if anything, worse than his views of blacks. We're only good as breeders and floor-scrubbers and not one other thing. If you read the end of Atwood's novel, she describes a character based on Murray as one of the architects of Gilead. And yes, I believe Sailer and Murray would absolutely adore being Commanders of the Faithful, with Handmaids and powerless, miserable wives. It's their dearest wish to be in charge AND to make everyone else miserable.)
Just be glad that you do not reside in the dozens of Muslim majority nations where blacks are still held as slaves , female genital mutilation is the order of the day , homosexually is punishable by the death penalty , women’s testimony is worth half a man’s testimony in court , conversion from Islam to Christianity is punishable by the death penalty and atheism is punishable by the death penalty. Talk about hateful , bigoted and abusive. And they are a cishet patriarchy to boot, bacha bazzi not withstanding.
LTGTR is evil for stereotyping blacks but…
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/photos/0/0c3952b3829a4a99abdee9bfd0d47fe6_0.html
----------------------------------------------
The equalists treat working white class like shit. They selectively enforce anti-discrimination laws and overlook uncivilized behavior by activists because they believe they are doing god's work. During Jim Crow blacks were never prevented from forming blacks only organizations. If a private employer group of people want to use IQ tests then why make a federal case out of it? The activists don't believe in equality for a second - they believe in payback. My ancestors were Italian and Native American and Eastern European and had nothing to do with the slave trade or jim crow and I have to listen to the most disgusting rhetoric aimed at me. For things neither me nor my ancestors had anything to do with! And all because people such as yourself want to virtue signal themselves into secular heaven!
Read the SJW lit. It doesn’t matter what your ancestors did. All Europeans are guilty. All Europeans must pay.
-------------------------------------------
I agree thats what the SJW lit says but it doesnt make it true. The reason I brought this up however was to attack Kit's assertion that equalism doesnt harm anyone. Deliberately evading the issue of racial differences in IQ in order to protect blacks from the theoretical actions of people isnt harmless. The Soviet Union was based upon the lie that human acquistiveness was immoral and many died. The Empire ended and brought in a reign of lawless mobsters. Ignoring racial and sex differences will probably end with a similiar reign of bloodshed.
"No reasonable person would be offended by the observation that African people have curlier hair than the Chinese, notwithstanding the possibility of some future environment in which it is no longer true. But we can recognize a contention that Chinese people are genetically predisposed to be better table tennis players than Africans as silly, and the contention that they are smarter than Africans as ugly, because it is a matter of ethical principle that individual and cultural accomplishment is not tied to the genes in the same way as the appearance of our hair."
It is a matter of ethical principle. That's one of the authors, Turkheimer, ten years ago. Source: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/11/21/eric-turkheimer/race-iq
Exactly. There’s not a lick of science or scientific thought here. This is a couple old reds demanding ideological submission. No science, just politics–or religion.
In the context of actual “science” none of this stuff is even semi-controversial.
A few points are sufficient:
1) Any genetically influenced trait which varies between people in a population, must vary between population groups–families, tribes, races. *Must*.
(I don’t know if the evo-bio guys have a named law for this, but if not just call it AnotherDad’s law. It’s just math.)
The things “all humans share” are the things which are fixed–brain in skull, two eyes, upright walking, ten fingers, ten toes, etc. The things we vary in are the ones selection is working on and that selection is not identical. between population groups. Ergo those traits vary across population groups. (And it’s particularly ludicrous to think selection has been anything close to identical between separated races on the sort of mental traits of increasing use in “civilized life” during these past 10,000 years since the neolithic.)
2) What the heck has selection been working on but mental traits–smarts, conscientiousness, etc. etc.
Ok, disease resistance might top that. Potentially genes affecting metabolizing new foods in our diet. But we’re the thinking ape. Our big brain is our special survival skill. The idea we haven’t had wildly *increased* selection on mental traits these past few thousand years as we settled down and developed trade, metalurgy, social hierarchies, towns, cities, written language, money, industry … it’s ludicrous. And that selection was different everywhere due to different civilizations everywhere.
3) For American blacks and whites, the data is in–the wave packet has collapsed.
If a person did not understand the evolutionary stuff–points 1+2–then i’d say maybe as late as 4o or 50 years ago one could posit some sort of semi-credible environment hypothesis. Not so today. If US blacks of a given income\class\educational background raised kids that were within IQ shouting distance of white kids raised with the same background, and the overall black-white gap was simply because proportionally more white kids are in the higher classes, then we could still be having a real argument. But this is not close to being the case.
Black kids with parents of the same social/educational class, living in the same neighborhoods, going to the same schools, eating food from the same grocery stores and restaurants are considerably behind their white peers. In fact, the most privileged blacks, from the highest US income quintile have mean SAT scores that barely beat whites from the lowest income quintile. All the other blacks are way way behind. Environmental explanations can account for something–perhaps. But they simply can’t account for the gap, because even well nurtured blacks, sharing the same environment are woefully behind their white peers.
Again, if you’re talking about actual science, between basic evolutionary theory and the data we have, the big picture is crystal clear. (Debate would be about the size of effects, how they manifest themselves structurally, biochemically, finding particular genes, and perhaps how fast, various eugenic policies could improve things.) Turkheimer and company aren’t doing science. They are doing political/religious propaganda.
I think you left out one of the most persuasive effects that Jensen raised in his paper ""How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?" That effect is regression to the mean. If a set of black parents are matched against a set of white parents, equivalent not only in environment, but in the IQ of the parents, the black parents will still have children of lower mean IQ than the white parents. The most parsimonious interpretation of this is that the population from which the black parents came was of a lower IQ, genetically-determined, than the population of the white parents.
Regression to the mean, to be boringly pedantic about it, is the tendency of outliers in a population to have children that are closer to the population as a whole.
An example of my father's researches, as a musician, came from the Bach family. Johann S. Bach came from a family of musicians, but obviously outshone them all by far. Interestingly enough, although he married a very talented musician, the children were gifted musicians, but none came close to Johann S. This illustrates regression to the mean.
Michelle’s family wasn’t a prominently political in Chicago. Her dad was a post man or something.
It’s imported to appear as if you’re conceding ground so as to look magnanimous and reasonable.
Please refrain from the tasteless gay ex-president jokes.
Who’s this ‘ice cream’ dude, anyway?
Duh. Hence, a bell curve.
A gaussian probability distribution arises when the thing being measured depends on many factors, none of which have a large impact.
I had to regurgitate a proof of this in a Probability and Stochastic Processes exam in the 2nd year of my BSc.
The central limit theorem is racist. Straight up.
Read the SJW lit. It doesn’t matter what your ancestors did. All Europeans are guilty. All Europeans must pay.
——————————————-
I agree thats what the SJW lit says but it doesnt make it true. The reason I brought this up however was to attack Kit’s assertion that equalism doesnt harm anyone. Deliberately evading the issue of racial differences in IQ in order to protect blacks from the theoretical actions of people isnt harmless. The Soviet Union was based upon the lie that human acquistiveness was immoral and many died. The Empire ended and brought in a reign of lawless mobsters. Ignoring racial and sex differences will probably end with a similiar reign of bloodshed.
In the context of actual "science" none of this stuff is even semi-controversial.
A few points are sufficient:
1) Any genetically influenced trait which varies between people in a population, must vary between population groups--families, tribes, races. *Must*.
(I don't know if the evo-bio guys have a named law for this, but if not just call it AnotherDad's law. It's just math.)
The things "all humans share" are the things which are fixed--brain in skull, two eyes, upright walking, ten fingers, ten toes, etc. The things we vary in are the ones selection is working on and that selection is not identical. between population groups. Ergo those traits vary across population groups. (And it's particularly ludicrous to think selection has been anything close to identical between separated races on the sort of mental traits of increasing use in "civilized life" during these past 10,000 years since the neolithic.)
2) What the heck has selection been working on but mental traits--smarts, conscientiousness, etc. etc.
Ok, disease resistance might top that. Potentially genes affecting metabolizing new foods in our diet. But we're the thinking ape. Our big brain is our special survival skill. The idea we haven't had wildly *increased* selection on mental traits these past few thousand years as we settled down and developed trade, metalurgy, social hierarchies, towns, cities, written language, money, industry ... it's ludicrous. And that selection was different everywhere due to different civilizations everywhere.
3) For American blacks and whites, the data is in--the wave packet has collapsed.
If a person did not understand the evolutionary stuff--points 1+2--then i'd say maybe as late as 4o or 50 years ago one could posit some sort of semi-credible environment hypothesis. Not so today. If US blacks of a given income\class\educational background raised kids that were within IQ shouting distance of white kids raised with the same background, and the overall black-white gap was simply because proportionally more white kids are in the higher classes, then we could still be having a real argument. But this is not close to being the case.
Black kids with parents of the same social/educational class, living in the same neighborhoods, going to the same schools, eating food from the same grocery stores and restaurants are considerably behind their white peers. In fact, the most privileged blacks, from the highest US income quintile have mean SAT scores that barely beat whites from the lowest income quintile. All the other blacks are way way behind. Environmental explanations can account for something--perhaps. But they simply can't account for the gap, because even well nurtured blacks, sharing the same environment are woefully behind their white peers.
Again, if you're talking about actual science, between basic evolutionary theory and the data we have, the big picture is crystal clear. (Debate would be about the size of effects, how they manifest themselves structurally, biochemically, finding particular genes, and perhaps how fast, various eugenic policies could improve things.) Turkheimer and company aren't doing science. They are doing political/religious propaganda.
To AnotherDad:
I think you left out one of the most persuasive effects that Jensen raised in his paper “”How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?” That effect is regression to the mean. If a set of black parents are matched against a set of white parents, equivalent not only in environment, but in the IQ of the parents, the black parents will still have children of lower mean IQ than the white parents. The most parsimonious interpretation of this is that the population from which the black parents came was of a lower IQ, genetically-determined, than the population of the white parents.
Regression to the mean, to be boringly pedantic about it, is the tendency of outliers in a population to have children that are closer to the population as a whole.
An example of my father’s researches, as a musician, came from the Bach family. Johann S. Bach came from a family of musicians, but obviously outshone them all by far. Interestingly enough, although he married a very talented musician, the children were gifted musicians, but none came close to Johann S. This illustrates regression to the mean.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDSGrQadsEM&t=718s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCr0l_0Gkno
CPE Bach and JC Bach are firmly in the Western music cannon. Bach's eldest son, Wilhelm Friedemann Bach, is a lesser-known composer, but still somewhat known. JCF was also a composer and virtuoso, I think, but I don't know anything about his music. One grandson of Bach--JCF's son--became a famous composer in his own time: Wilhelm Friedrich Ernst Bach. He's not known anymore.
That's five successful descendants in a difficult and competitive field. Most impressively, two world-famous offspring, whose accomplishments far outlived their natural lives. Now, JS's talents were as far beyond his sons' and grandsons as he was beyond other great composers. But still, I wouldn't use the Bach family as a regression example.
The regression to the mean should work in both direction. Children of smart parents are less smart than them and children of stupid parents are smarter than them.
If the breeder's equation really works as advertised then its effect should be narrowing the standard deviation of IQ in population providing there is no selective breeding and no mutations.
Robert Hume asks, “Do you think a guaranteed annual income might do the trick?”
Yes, I think it is an important part of the answer, at least in the form Milton Friedman proposed (a negative income tax), whose sophistication I did not appreciate until I watched this 15 minute interview on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM
That still leaves the problem of how to raise the revenues required to fully fund such a program. For that I propose a single parameter version of the graduated expenditure tax, which I describe in a one-page appendix to my Notes Toward a New Way of Life in America:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WIdVnQEWdYgYYly9iKkesWCVhfINvbtwuVq2GMOxMbw/edit?usp=sharing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit
No way.
That's Bill Nye's specialty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wllc5gSc-N8
The bit might work better if that person were capable of dancing (or merely moving around in a coordinated manner), singing, and cracking jokes at the same time. But they don’t train for that stuff anymore, do they?
Or is part of the joke that she’s a bad hip-hopper? More of a joke than the actual jokes, I suppose.
Off-topic, but interesting account – through the eyes of his daughter – of a black GI taken prisoner during the Korean War, after which he defected to China. His daughter opens up about his return to America as a refugee from China’s Cultural Revolution, with Chinese wife and two children in tow, complicated by the fallout from what many considered treasonous* behavior:
Upon returning stateside, the man opened a chain of Chinese restaurants, but his son lost his way, like so many black youth, despite being the son of a successful entrepreneur and the grandson of a Nationalist Chinese general, on his mother’s side.
* It’s possible, or perhaps even likely, that he acted as an informant for his Chinese captors in the POW camps.
From coloration alone, it’s obvious that Obama has non-African ancestry. Whether it’s white, native American or Asian is not as clear, but he would have gotten flak for it in a black majority public school, in the form of racist slurs. The children of this GI certainly did.
If you read history, you would learn that humans pretty much suck, and suck far worse in groups than as individuals. That is why ideas like Murray's are so very appalling. He's writing the script for the reintroduction of Jim Crow laws. (Also "The Handmaid's Tale," as his views of women are, if anything, worse than his views of blacks. We're only good as breeders and floor-scrubbers and not one other thing. If you read the end of Atwood's novel, she describes a character based on Murray as one of the architects of Gilead. And yes, I believe Sailer and Murray would absolutely adore being Commanders of the Faithful, with Handmaids and powerless, miserable wives. It's their dearest wish to be in charge AND to make everyone else miserable.)
Fine, but pay for them and police them, and keep them out of sight.
That means no magic negro media bs as well, and no disparate impact lack of enforcement/lack of standards/frivolous lawsuit bs
Barack communicates more effectively, but he and Michelle are probably fairly close in raw IQ. Assuming their girls are both theirs, which I think is probable, they will probably be 95 to 105 IQ. In other words Talented Tenth but not really in the league of those they will associate with in life, and will resent it.
I assume there will be another genteel conspiracy of silence about their performance. Perhaps that they will 'act out' and hypothetically dropping out will be attributed to this if the public becomes aware. (Their sainted daddy had some sketchy academic years too, hadn't he?)
But then, does anyone ever fail Ivy League these days? They will be just fine, don't worry.
"Until you get to 5, none of the premises is completely incorrect.". This would be more accurately and neutrally stated as "Until you get to 4, all of the premises are unambiguously true and non-controversial".
"These observations do not undermine the conclusion that intelligence is heritable, but rather the naive assumption that heritable traits cannot be changed via environmental mechanisms. (Murray flatly tells Harris that this is the case.)"
I haven't listened to the podcast, and Turkheimer doesn't cite the point in the podcast when Murray "flatly tells Harris that this is the case". I suspect that Charles Murray understands that the heritability of intelligence, height, etc would be much lower in populations exposed to extreme deprivation, such as wartime famine conditions. Murray has discussed the Wilson effect before - that the heritability of IQ increases with age, and early childhood interventions can increase the IQ of young children. Murray is likely referring to the failure of intensive childhood interventions to produce results approaching middle class white norms among lower and middle class African American groups.
"There is currently no reason at all to think that any significant portion of the IQ differences among socially defined racial groups is genetic in origin."
There is very good reason. We have controlled for the most obvious factor associated with environmental deprivation: poverty. In the 2003 College Bound cohort of SAT test-takers, black students with family incomes between 80k-100k averaged 461 on the SAT-M and 468 on the SAT-V. White test takers with family incomes between 15-20k averaged 485 on the SAT-M and 488 on the SAT-V. By our colloquial understanding of what constitutes deprivation, the black students in a comfortably middle class income bracket are "better off", yet still score worse than poor whites.
“the naive assumption that heritable traits cannot be changed via environmental mechanisms”
Strawman!
Let’s say I’m the son of the greatest right-handed pitcher in the history of Major League Baseball. Genetically, I’m a born righty, with a killer arm that will give me all the ability I’ll need to excel at baseball when I grow up should I train for it.
Then, suddenly, at the age of 14, my environment conspires to cut off my right arm. Car accident, or whatever. Let’s further stipulate I lose my left arm, just in case I could’ve magically switched to it. Now I’ll never be a great pitcher like dad.
Does anyone on earth believe this is impossible, because genes? No. Sorry, we’re not that stupid, Vox.
Simpler thought exercise: you’re born to two mathematical geniuses. You get straight A’s throughout elementary school in math class. Everyone expects you to do well in junior high, too. Then you get shot in the head and die. Your genes didn’t kill you, but an environmental bullet did. Would Charles Murray naively think that’s impossible?
funny troll
You could be right — but for similar stuff from peer reviewed academia follow these:
New Real Peer Review
Amir Sariaslan
https://twitter.com/AmirSariaslan/status/865263138450657280
"Until you get to 5, none of the premises is completely incorrect.". This would be more accurately and neutrally stated as "Until you get to 4, all of the premises are unambiguously true and non-controversial".
"These observations do not undermine the conclusion that intelligence is heritable, but rather the naive assumption that heritable traits cannot be changed via environmental mechanisms. (Murray flatly tells Harris that this is the case.)"
I haven't listened to the podcast, and Turkheimer doesn't cite the point in the podcast when Murray "flatly tells Harris that this is the case". I suspect that Charles Murray understands that the heritability of intelligence, height, etc would be much lower in populations exposed to extreme deprivation, such as wartime famine conditions. Murray has discussed the Wilson effect before - that the heritability of IQ increases with age, and early childhood interventions can increase the IQ of young children. Murray is likely referring to the failure of intensive childhood interventions to produce results approaching middle class white norms among lower and middle class African American groups.
"There is currently no reason at all to think that any significant portion of the IQ differences among socially defined racial groups is genetic in origin."
There is very good reason. We have controlled for the most obvious factor associated with environmental deprivation: poverty. In the 2003 College Bound cohort of SAT test-takers, black students with family incomes between 80k-100k averaged 461 on the SAT-M and 468 on the SAT-V. White test takers with family incomes between 15-20k averaged 485 on the SAT-M and 488 on the SAT-V. By our colloquial understanding of what constitutes deprivation, the black students in a comfortably middle class income bracket are "better off", yet still score worse than poor whites.
“socially defined racial groups”
What other kind of racial groups are there? Even if they were defined scientifically, they’d still be socially defined. Because guess who does Science? Human beings, who have a tendency to interact socially with one another.
How would these guys write the sports page? “The socially-defined Yankees topped the socially-defined Red Sox at the socially-defined Fenway Park one socially-defined day ago.”
What does this suggest about choosing a wife to be the mother of my future children?
Women have lower mean IQ and a tighter dispersion.
BTW I am a 2+ Sigma white man and I want very smart kids.
Seems logical that I should find the smartest woman (Asian?) but really smart women tend to crazy and can be very difficult to live with
Maybe we can get male/male genes combined in a test tube and raised in one of those artificial wombs?
OMG, sounds like “Brave New World”!
Actually, you should follow custom and pick a wife based on prettiness. That used to work for our civilization. Ain't broke, don't fix it.
“Who does have the rhetorical skills to…”
No one. It would require Shakespeare x a million.
Race Blindness is a multigenerational, international delusion. It’s more than fashionable; it’s an article of faith, defended militantly. We’ll require a paradigm shift like quantum mechanics. Something radically new.
Maybe the coming race wars will do it. Or goodwhites losing all power.
"No reasonable person would be offended by the observation that African people have curlier hair than the Chinese, notwithstanding the possibility of some future environment in which it is no longer true. But we can recognize a contention that Chinese people are genetically predisposed to be better table tennis players than Africans as silly, and the contention that they are smarter than Africans as ugly, because it is a matter of ethical principle that individual and cultural accomplishment is not tied to the genes in the same way as the appearance of our hair."
It is a matter of ethical principle. That's one of the authors, Turkheimer, ten years ago. Source: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/11/21/eric-turkheimer/race-iq
That is a very revealing quote — Turkheimer’s view essentially is that one should avoid looking at the evidence regarding race and IQ since it is an unshakeable religious principal to believe there is no link! So all this nonsense about “junk science” is just his attempt at propagandizing for his religious principals. Very telling about what really motivates his nonsensical discussion of the scientific evidence.
.
Steve calling this ‘silly’ takes measured response to extreme; it’s a bald faced Orwellian lie, right up there at the Stephen Jay Gould level. It’s not a mis statement or error, the author’s of the Vox piece know it’s a lie.
This is what we are dealing with.
ROTFL
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/death-in-venice/
Art grew sick.
Then it died.
Now, it’s in zombie form.
I would be eager to see the results of a study on the IQ of transracial (“racial non-conforming”?) people.
Women have lower mean IQ and a tighter dispersion.
BTW I am a 2+ Sigma white man and I want very smart kids.
Seems logical that I should find the smartest woman (Asian?) but really smart women tend to crazy and can be very difficult to live with
Maybe we can get male/male genes combined in a test tube and raised in one of those artificial wombs?
OMG, sounds like "Brave New World"!
Why not just clone yourself?
Actually, you should follow custom and pick a wife based on prettiness. That used to work for our civilization. Ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Modern/postmodern art is trolling.
According to the logic set forth by these authors, everyone is race queer.
Factor analysis, or “g” as you term it, is not only used in intelligence research, it is used in engineering, biology, chemistry, physics, finance, health research, marketing, etc. etc. So if you have a new mathematical proof that factor analysis is mathematically invalid, you need to explain it carefully to tens of thousand of researchers using “g” successfully in hundreds of thousands of applications over the last fifty years. Good luck with that.
Whether g might be said to exist in the abstract, without any particular biological underpinning, is one question. But insofar as it represents a testable hypothesis about the organization of our brains, it certainly has scientific meaning.
Actually, you should follow custom and pick a wife based on prettiness. That used to work for our civilization. Ain't broke, don't fix it.
Taking a pretty wife would be the easiest and most pleasant resolution.
I’ll take it!
“we ought to aim for a society in which anyone who works hard and plays by the rules can reasonably expect to lead a rich and fulfilling life, no matter if they are of only average or below-average intelligence”
You’re describing Britain and most of the USA in 1957. We had that, and it’s been deliberately undermined and wrecked.
Commenter Kit is obviously an idiot (when cishet white men had all the power in the US, they removed Jim Crow and gave women the vote long before that) but he makes one reasonable point.
“humans treat those they perceive as inferior like shit, and will use all the power of the government to enforce that shit-state”
Who is more inferior in the eyes of our elite than cishet white males? You can literally celebrate their slaughter in popular movies.
When I was taught UK history, one question never seemed to be raised either by teachers or students – why did ordinary people put up with it, with serfdom, feudalism, with your life being in the power of the big house, right up to Victorian times? Perhaps the question didn’t need answering, we saw what happened to the Rising of the North under William I, Peasants Revolt, to the Pilgrimage of Grace, right down to the trades unionists transported to Australia. The sword, rope, or dungeon, your wife and children homeless, starving and/or worse.
Those with power will use that power to maintain their position. The justification will never be explicit, then it was “they are defying God’s will”, “subverting the ordained order of society”, “stirring up hatred and envy” – that latter pretty close to today’s UK “race relations” laws.
The post-war US and UK settlement, as Mark Steyn observed, is historically highly unusual and precious – and it’s vanishing fast.
Here is an interesting AP story on interracial marriage in the US. One in Six marriages are now interracial with black men and Asian women most likely to marry outside their race.
http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/ap/2017/05/18/1_in_6_newlyweds_spouse_is_of_different_race_or_ethnicity.html
Of course marriage itself is becoming a class issue so the degree to which it is interracial and what the race mixture is will tell the tale so while a negro marrying a low IQ Mexican is one thing while a high IQ Asian marrying a high IQ white another. Americans may lose their racial identity but Murray’s concern of a cognitive elite may only accelerate as people self segregate by IQ rather than race.
Steve, sorry my comment thinking Murray is a hypocrite and not some holy greatest thinker evar sent you to the fainting couch.
He should have gotten caught by the crowd.
The killer “institutions > genes” factoid is China under the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution, and China today.
Same people, same genes.
(China was still putting satellites in orbit under Mao, just as North Korea is allegedly producing ICBMs today).
On the other hand, that only ‘really’ shows bad institutions can be stronger than high-IQ genes. Britain left the former Rhodesia and Singapore with a reasonable legal system, yet Zimbabwe suffered while Singapore prospered.
Crackpot. Ranting about not just race and gender but about “cis”. Not even “cishet”.
Meaning, you gays are just part of the patriarchy if you’re “cis.”
Taranto is greatly missed by this reader.
I have raised this issue with a couple of conventionally liberal friends who I thought might be capable of discussing it without going into full hysteria mode. Their response was more or less, “Well, there may be differences in average IQs among racial groups, but if this is the case, it is such provocative information that it should be kept hidden.”
The problem with this appproach — the pursuit of scientific knowledge aside — is that there is a default position in America that differences in performance and outcome among races — well actually, between black and white Americans; other races don’t count so much — are the result of racism and deprivation, or perhaps legacy effects of racism and deprivation. Therefore, these differences are correctable over time, and since they result from political, legal, and economic inequity, we are obliged to do everything possible to correct them, even if the results we seek are not soon forthcoming.
This, in essence, is the socially acceptable starting point for any discussion of race-based differences in levels of education or income, as well as incarceration rates, illegitimacy rates (if this is even still categorized as a problem), mortality and morbidity rates, and so forth. Again, this principally applies to black-white differences. No one is scandalized to learn that Asian Americans earn more on average that White Americans, even if the comparison is limited to college graduates.
One way to finesse this problem would be for the default position to shift toward the following: the factors that lead to “success” are so multifarious and complex in their interactions that we can’t really disentangle why certain groups seem to do better at certain things. One might go on to concede that “success” itself is highly subjective, and has to do ultimately with the types of lives that people wish to lead. A lot of people really don’t want to become computer programmers, insurance actuaries, accountants, or any one of other undramatic but economically and socially useful professions. It’s easy to make fun of the zillions of young black aspiring rappers, but I doubt that many of these kids wish they could become successful branch managers of a bank, if only the white man would stop holding them down. They want to be rappers.
So long as our society’s default position presumes that black underachievement in various areas is and must be the result of white prejudice, institutional racism, a host of micro-aggressions, and a catalogue of past injustices, then in each case the culpable party will be white people, or at the least, the “dominant culture,” and it is those people and that culture which will have to be “fixed” in order for justice to prevail, which is of course the actual default position. That’s also why media and political elites are fighting so hard to vilify any other interpretation of differences in outcomes among races.
Need to check your privilege, dude. Our society doesn't believe those things. Their society does. They're freaking out because their society isn't what they were sold/told it would be. If they want to be one society, they've got to interrogate those specific beliefs.
That's the problem. A society of permanent adolescents addicted to living in the Perpetual Now is not a stable entity.
Same people, same genes.
(China was still putting satellites in orbit under Mao, just as North Korea is allegedly producing ICBMs today).
On the other hand, that only 'really' shows bad institutions can be stronger than high-IQ genes. Britain left the former Rhodesia and Singapore with a reasonable legal system, yet Zimbabwe suffered while Singapore prospered.
I think like most things, its some combination of genetic heritage and institutional environmental/landscape. And of course, if institutions are downstream from politics, politics is downstream from culture, then culture is downstream of genetics.
There are some exceptions such as colonial governments, where that link is broken. But in the end, it does seem like they tend to acquire the flavor of the majority population nonetheless: i.e. the apartheid government in South Africa was still more rent-seeking and corrupt than equivalents in Europe. Yet its still a vast, vast step above its successor, which is in the process of going full Zimbabwe.
He seems 100% confident that such movement will become legal.
Scary.
Are the shareholders of these huge companies really on board with splashing out murky payola to various politicians and officials, over and over? Let’s put it to a vote on the next shareholder meetings. It’s time for an Ethical Banking initiative.
Because they dominate huge areas of our society: media, education, entertainment. These folks are very powerful. They will steamroll us, if we don’t keep fighting back.
Descartes was on the other hand invited by Queen Christina to Stockholm, where he quickly died in February from pneumonia. Wikipedia notes that “the winter seems to have been mild”.
Nah. Wrong century, I think. The Swedes held off too long on accepting that Papist Gregorian calendar.
So she's a coward, and a climber?
I think she’s a mother with young children in the early stages of her career.
The Obama children have already been marshalled through the most exquisite private schools that haut-bourgeois America has to offer, so it shouldn’t be a shock to anyone in the know.
I assume there will be another genteel conspiracy of silence about their performance. Perhaps that they will ‘act out’ and hypothetically dropping out will be attributed to this if the public becomes aware. (Their sainted daddy had some sketchy academic years too, hadn’t he?)
But then, does anyone ever fail Ivy League these days? They will be just fine, don’t worry.
It’s like Plato’s Noble Lie except not used for benign purposes.
What’s so bizarre about Charles Murray in this decade is how he believes in two things:
1. We should accept that intelligence has a strong hereditary component and different races most likely have different levels of mean intelligence.
2. We should not change or develop policy in light of this realization.
I think his current shtick is that race realism shouldn’t trump liberal values. Fine, but let’s make sure our values are also based in reality!
One of my favorite book titles of all time is GA Cohen’s “If you’re an egalitarian how come you’re so rich?”
He was aiming at 1% professors and the like who get to have prestige, power and wealth while also bathing in moral superiority because they’re political rawlsians, etc. nice work if you can get it
Wow, I knew the Green Arrow was notable for it's high body count, but the Flash played the hero straight. Black Lightning straight up kills a few gang bangers here. Guess it's okay since the guy doing it is black.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LAUGA01mUc
And yet the most unbelievable thing about the show will be that a black guy stayed around to raise his kids and stayed married to their mom.
IQ exists.
Race exists.
The two are correlated.
And there is meaningful difference in average racial IQ.
Until those four points are accepted in society, we cannot advance beyond a few technological do-dads.
And because we have not accepted them, we are retarding: we are now denying that sex exists or that certain sexual disorders are “normal.”
Read her CV and dissertation for more amusement:
https://t.co/zM7iakHtwB
Even during sudden massive changes in the external conditions of the population?
“hereditary inequality” = white privilege
Remember some SJWs want babies to be distributed randomly, which would never be accepted. But females may be enticed to use better sperm , which many already do, to improve the genetics of their children. Females would still be raising their own offspring, and artificial insemination does not require any medical procedures and hormonal treatments like In-vitro treatments. Since 60% of Black women raise their children with no support from fathers, it would not alter their lifestyles nor effect the marriage prospects of African American females. Would be interesting if 30% of Black females decided to use white or Asian sperm to narrow the gap and obtain some white genetic privilege. I suppose their children would qualify for affirmative action, as they do today. The vast majority of African Americans at our top schools are mulattos already.
Bryan would have to leave his carefully engineered bubble for that to happen.
Who creates, builds and maintains institutions? If institutions are the key, why did the majority of non-anglo populated former British empire states all perpetuate/descend into obscurity and poverty?
All wage rates in the US are substantially higher than the nations you cite. This is nothing more than a reflection of their individual economies. Are you actually arguing a McDonald’s worker in the US produces more economic output than one in Jamiaca? What about a basic agricultural worker? Does a strawberry picker in the US provide more value than a coffee plantation worker in Guatamala? What about a doctor in Mexico versus a doctor in the United States? Assuming the same skills in each, each is compensated differently as a reflection of differences in national income and the going rate for labor. The gains in value are due to simply joining a new economy with higher wage rates. If you bring in enough foreign workers, the wage rates converge between nations.
I would not argue that institutions do not matter. But they do not seem to be the most important. Human capital transcends all.
I think you left out one of the most persuasive effects that Jensen raised in his paper ""How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?" That effect is regression to the mean. If a set of black parents are matched against a set of white parents, equivalent not only in environment, but in the IQ of the parents, the black parents will still have children of lower mean IQ than the white parents. The most parsimonious interpretation of this is that the population from which the black parents came was of a lower IQ, genetically-determined, than the population of the white parents.
Regression to the mean, to be boringly pedantic about it, is the tendency of outliers in a population to have children that are closer to the population as a whole.
An example of my father's researches, as a musician, came from the Bach family. Johann S. Bach came from a family of musicians, but obviously outshone them all by far. Interestingly enough, although he married a very talented musician, the children were gifted musicians, but none came close to Johann S. This illustrates regression to the mean.
Carl Philipp Emanuel and Johann Christian were geniuses in their own right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDSGrQadsEM&t=718s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCr0l_0Gkno
Those arguments provide quite cogent explanations for how an IQ gap developed - not to mention the other cognitive differences outside of bare IQ that many of us suspect occur along racial lines. Executive function, toleration of boredom, time preference, and all.
No part of that argument is unique to Africa. Superior civilizations were developed almost everywhere else in the world. In other places where they weren’t like Australia, none of those factors would held back the Aborigines.
I didn’t know there were people who still took Jeffrey Sachs seriously.
Hereditary inequality will be added to the list of grievances against whites when the science becomes overwhelmingly strong. When they can estimate the IQ quality of sperm and zygotes I suppose they will advocate for free artificial insemination for Blacks to narrow the gap. Government could mandate or encourage insemination of Smart sperm, designed to work well with African DNA to increase the odds of having children with >100 IQ. Free high quality semen combined with Monetary incentives for women who select smart sperm. Unfortunately SJWs will also try to force White females to use Black semen to narrow the gap and eliminate white genetic privilege.
Remember some SJWs want babies to be distributed randomly, which would never be accepted. But females may be enticed to use better sperm , which many already do, to improve the genetics of their children. Females would still be raising their own offspring, and artificial insemination does not require any medical procedures and hormonal treatments like In-vitro treatments. Since 60% of Black women raise their children with no support from fathers, it would not alter their lifestyles nor effect the marriage prospects of African American females. Would be interesting if 30% of Black females decided to use white or Asian sperm to narrow the gap and obtain some white genetic privilege. I suppose their children would qualify for affirmative action, as they do today. The vast majority of African Americans at our top schools are mulattos already.
Correct. You do realize they were subject to vile discriminatory practices by nativists, who believed your ancestors were “gutter whites” unworthy of assimilation into WASP society, who lacked the intellectual capacity to comprehend Anglo-Saxon ideals of law and politics. Somehow, they were “allowed” to remain here through their own virtue signaling efforts.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The solution to these problems should be to allow private individuals to decide with whom to associate and for what purpose rather than relying on government mandates. Some groups are incapable of understanding Anglo-Saxon ideals of law and practice such as those to agree with Ginsburg's when is a quota not a quota legal reasoning. When the civil rights act of 1991 was passed the proponents wanted to overturn wards cove I believe because they stated that they didnt believe anyone should have the choice in whom to hire because giving anyone a choice would be against black interests. The phrase women and racial minorities comes from Gramsci's Prison notebook
“The solution to these problems should be to allow private individuals to decide with whom to associate and for what purpose rather than relying on government mandates.”
Private individuals decide even today who they are friends with and who they live near by. Private individuals, as members of the general public, also decided that past conduct, most notably by Southrons during the Jim Crow Era, was illegal and unconstitutional. That is how a representative government works. Freedom of association is NOT unfettered nor is it free. In our society, there are stipulations.
“Some groups are incapable of understanding Anglo-Saxon ideals of law and practice such as those to agree with Ginsburg’s when is a quota not a quota legal reasoning.”
One of the leaders of the Alt Right, Vox Day, argues that the “second wave of immigrants”–in particular YOUR ancestors–were ill-equipped to comprehend those “Angl0-Saxon standards”. In essence, you are supporting HIS argument. Therefore, as Vox Day says, you have to go back.
“When the civil rights act of 1991 was passed the proponents wanted to overturn wards cove I believe because they stated that they didnt believe anyone should have the choice in whom to hire because giving anyone a choice would be against black interests.
“The phrase women and racial minorities comes from Gramsci’s Prison notebook”
Woman originates from the late Old English wimman, wiman (plural wimmen), literally “woman-man,” alteration of wifman (plural wifmen) “woman, female servant”. The origin of the term “minorities” is traced to Europe. It was applied to various national groups who were identified with particular territories, but had lost their sovereignty there to another national group.
--------------------------------------
Freedom of association does not exist. Every organization has to report whom they hire to the federal government or they will be sued for disparate impact liability. One of the major reason we have a student loan bubble is because of the prohibition of IQ and aptitude testing by supreme court rulings.
One of the leaders of the Alt Right, Vox Day, argues that the “second wave of immigrants”–in particular YOUR ancestors–were ill-equipped to comprehend those “Angl0-Saxon standards”. In essence, you are supporting HIS argument. Therefore, as Vox Day says, you have to go back.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I dont think the WASPS control anything important enough to force anyone to go back but the country was better when it was out of Jewish and non-WASP control. I say that as a non-WASP. When the WASPs controlled the US the social system invented the following: the automobile, antibiotics, antihistamines, X-Ray, cancer treatments, the radio, the television, AC/DC currents, advances in metallurgy, the beginnings of the computers, the foundation for the internet, etc etc. There were social systems that were far more repressive of religious and racial minorities as well as to their underclass that produced no real advancements for the masses.
Well, she’s a lousy writer for one. She also failed the Illinois bar exam, which has and had a reputation as one of the easier one’s to pass (they have since toughened it up).
http://clashdaily.com/2017/04/exposed-heres-michelles-race-obsessed-thesis-princeton-written-unknown-language/
Black chick whose dad was a blue collar type? If she could spell her name correctly on the application, the Ivy League schools would fight over her.
Btw, I’m not a Michelle hater. In fact, I agreed with her efforts to make school lunches healthier.
No they won't. They'll just stop expecting those groups to perform at the same level and forcing equal outcomes. The brightest would still succeed, society would simply stop forcing artificial equal outcomes above the abilities of the mediocre and the slow.
"He’s writing the script for the reintroduction of Jim Crow laws."
No he's not. Jim Crow was used for the purpose of restricting criminal behavior. Compare and contrast Selma Alabama, or any of a hundred other cities, in 1962 and today. Your statement
"The Handmaid’s Tale,” as his views of women are, if anything, worse than his views of blacks. We’re only good as breeders and floor-scrubbers and not one other thing. If you read the end of Atwood’s novel, she describes a character based on Murray as one of the architects of Gilead. "
Read the book again. The society is indistinguishable from those run by Islamic fundamentalists like ISIS and the Taliban except without the violence, but Muslims tend to be browner than Europeans, so Atwood made them Christians in a fine display of Crimestop.
You are projecting your own pathologies and misanthropy on other people.
“No he’s not. Jim Crow was used for the purpose of restricting criminal behavior. Compare and contrast Selma Alabama, or any of a hundred other cities, in 1962 and today.”
Clearly you were asleep in your American history class. Jim Crow was used exclusively to separate blacks and whites in all facets of southern life, so long as the accommodations were equal. It was meant to strip blacks of the political rights and ensure their economic dormancy. The problem was that southrons could not help themselves–nearly every aspect of life there was separate and unequal.
That point is that there is nothing like an adequate description of the whole complex causal concatenation between genetic sequences and measured IQ. In the absence of such a description, all we can do is measure statistical correlations which of themselves may be interesting, but prove nothing. Interestingly, both HBDers and T&N agree with each other that this is not a permanent problem, that the science is getting better, and that these vast and tumultuous seas will eventually be charted. This is where I disagree with the entire field.
No causal description between genetic sequences and intelligence is forthcoming, nor will it ever be. This is not a result of our limited observational powers. This is a metaphysical barrier, not a physical one. Note, I am not saying that the problem is merely recondite, as if the causal connection exists but we lack the observational prowess to observe it or the theoretical panache to describe it. I am also not saying that the problem is intractably complex, as if the causal connection exists but is unsolvable by analytic techniques (as is the case with turbulence, for example). Furthermore, I am not even saying that the problem is irreducibly complex, as if the causal connection is real but is destined to remain shrouded in mystery due to essentially unobservable operations. I am saying that the resolution of the problem is literally impossible due to the confusion of metaphysical kinds.
Intelligence cannot be explained in terms of genetics for the same reason that mind cannot be explained in terms of material. That is to say, no matter how advanced the science becomes, no matter how exacting the observations or how brilliant the theoretical framework, the penultimate step in such an explanation---viz. the link between fully realized anatomical, physiological, or biochemical structures which are themselves explained genetically, and the actual operations of a functioning mind---must remain an unbridgeable gap. Leibnitz's Mill argument is as relevant here as ever.
It would be correct and proper for actual scientists to point this out, but we don't seem to have any of those anymore. Both HBDers and politically correct scientists alike have jumped onto the materialist-reductionist bandwagon; and, as is the case with the age-old debate between Keynesians and supply-siders, have doomed themselves to arguing with each other over the correct interpretation of a worldiew without realizing that the worldview itself is incorrect. This is one of the chief sources of my contention with HBD (the other being its uncritical acceptance of Darwinian evolutionary theory). Because this is a debate about something which is essentially nonexistent, it is a debate about unrealities. Because debates about unrealities can never be resolved, both sides can expect to go to their graves without ever having convinced the other of anything.
Note that up until now I have said nothing whatsoever about "race" or about the political agendas into which race figures. In terms of the politics alone, I am thoroughly aligned with the HBDers. I would also be inclined to agree with Steve Sailer that the statistical correlations which have thus far been measured between race, genetics, and intelligence are "close enough for government work." However, I would have to append the proviso that they are, additionally, completely superfluous. The ordinary information obtained by our senses is enough to tell us that blacks are usually not too bright, and it is enough to tell us who is and who isn't black.
In a sane world, a world unburdened by PC nonsense, that would be sufficient. Nothing is really gained by dragging genetic evidence into the picture, for in the end it amounts only to a garrulous way of saying blacks are black and whites are white. We should have known that already. Extraneous explanations are usually introduced into the discussion only by those who intend to obscure this simple fact, and I believe it is a tactical mistake for those who accept HBD's political persuasions to fight the battle on the enemy's turf.
Hopefully we will soon see the emergence of an altogether different kind of approach, one that from the outset simply refuses to take up the philosophical antecedents of political correctness and reductionist biology, and instead relies on the irrefutable facts which are plainly felt and observed. To do so would be to recover not only philosophical truth but cultural confidence as well.
It looks as if there’d be data showing things, of which you think they’dbe clear by simply looking at blacks and whites and asians etc.
But the problems with different kinds of people in different kinds of societies (usually) do not arise from the fact, that there is this elite-discussion about genes and alleles and Charles Darwin and so forth. The problems are there – right in front of us, worldwide.
Then there is something different alltogether: The question, what makes a decent behavior. That’s cultural – there’s just nothing else, it reasonably could be.
If once you have decided to go down the path of enlightenment, it’s hard to make a u-turn (that’s what Purity is about, Jonathan Franzen’s last novel – amongst other very interesting things) – and that’s what Kleist had in mind, when he wrote, that as soon as the enlightenment thinking had come into the world, there was no direct way to – happiness, redemption, societal harmony … any more. The Christian way to express this insight is, to state, that we’re all sinners; the enightenment way would be to acknowldge, that science especially is not so much about the last solution as about the better argument – and the best solution only – - for the time being (= until proven wrong).
Therefore, there is no freedom of association by its most meaningful definition. Its not complex. The fact that many countries possess that without collapsing into hellholes of anarchy show that current government infringements are largely invasive.
On Monday, Oceana is allied with Eurasian in war against Eastasia, and always has been. On Tuesday, Oceana is allied with Eastasia in war against Eurasia, and always has been.
Nineteen Eighty-Four remains a complete 101-450 level college degree in political science, all in a single book.
"No reasonable person would be offended by the observation that African people have curlier hair than the Chinese, notwithstanding the possibility of some future environment in which it is no longer true. But we can recognize a contention that Chinese people are genetically predisposed to be better table tennis players than Africans as silly, and the contention that they are smarter than Africans as ugly, because it is a matter of ethical principle that individual and cultural accomplishment is not tied to the genes in the same way as the appearance of our hair."
It is a matter of ethical principle. That's one of the authors, Turkheimer, ten years ago. Source: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/11/21/eric-turkheimer/race-iq
“But we can recognize a contention that Chinese people are genetically predisposed to be better table tennis players than Africans as silly, and the contention that they are smarter than Africans as ugly,”
If the Chinese on average are not smarter than the Blacks why are there like 3 trillion Chinese people in Silicon Valley and only like 3 Blacks there? Lol.
And Silicon Valley is the ultimate example of an industry that requires having a triple digit IQ. If you have a double digit IQ you can only get a job cleaning toilets in Silicon Valley.
Private individuals decide even today who they are friends with and who they live near by. Private individuals, as members of the general public, also decided that past conduct, most notably by Southrons during the Jim Crow Era, was illegal and unconstitutional. That is how a representative government works. Freedom of association is NOT unfettered nor is it free. In our society, there are stipulations.
"Some groups are incapable of understanding Anglo-Saxon ideals of law and practice such as those to agree with Ginsburg’s when is a quota not a quota legal reasoning."
One of the leaders of the Alt Right, Vox Day, argues that the "second wave of immigrants"--in particular YOUR ancestors--were ill-equipped to comprehend those "Angl0-Saxon standards". In essence, you are supporting HIS argument. Therefore, as Vox Day says, you have to go back.
"When the civil rights act of 1991 was passed the proponents wanted to overturn wards cove I believe because they stated that they didnt believe anyone should have the choice in whom to hire because giving anyone a choice would be against black interests.
"The phrase women and racial minorities comes from Gramsci’s Prison notebook"
Woman originates from the late Old English wimman, wiman (plural wimmen), literally "woman-man," alteration of wifman (plural wifmen) "woman, female servant". The origin of the term "minorities” is traced to Europe. It was applied to various national groups who were identified with particular territories, but had lost their sovereignty there to another national group.
Private individuals decide even today who they are friends with and who they live near by. Private individuals, as members of the general public, also decided that past conduct, most notably by Southrons during the Jim Crow Era, was illegal and unconstitutional. That is how a representative government works. Freedom of association is NOT unfettered nor is it free. In our society, there are stipulations.
————————————–
Freedom of association does not exist. Every organization has to report whom they hire to the federal government or they will be sued for disparate impact liability. One of the major reason we have a student loan bubble is because of the prohibition of IQ and aptitude testing by supreme court rulings.
One of the leaders of the Alt Right, Vox Day, argues that the “second wave of immigrants”–in particular YOUR ancestors–were ill-equipped to comprehend those “Angl0-Saxon standards”. In essence, you are supporting HIS argument. Therefore, as Vox Day says, you have to go back.
—————————————————————
I dont think the WASPS control anything important enough to force anyone to go back but the country was better when it was out of Jewish and non-WASP control. I say that as a non-WASP. When the WASPs controlled the US the social system invented the following: the automobile, antibiotics, antihistamines, X-Ray, cancer treatments, the radio, the television, AC/DC currents, advances in metallurgy, the beginnings of the computers, the foundation for the internet, etc etc. There were social systems that were far more repressive of religious and racial minorities as well as to their underclass that produced no real advancements for the masses.
It assuredly exists. There are a number of white communities that you can reside in, a number of white owned businesses you can work at.
"Every organization has to report whom they hire to the federal government or they will be sued for disparate impact liability."
And this legislation reflects the will of the people. Now, there are specific standards in place when it comes to litigation on this particular matter. You don't sue willy nilly. It falls upon the plaintiff to make the case who must "draw an explicit, causal connection between a policy or practice and the disparate impact or statistical disparity...[with the] defendant having the opportunity to prove the policy is necessary to achieve a valid interest...[with the] plaintiff then show[ing] there is 'an available alternative practice that has less disparate impact and serves the [entity’s] legitimate needs'. If a plaintiff cannot do so, then their disparate impact claim must fail."
"One of the major reason we have a student loan bubble is because of the prohibition of IQ and aptitude testing by supreme court rulings."
You do realize students take aptitude tests to get into colleges, right? Now, which court cases are you referring to?
"I dont think the WASPS control anything important enough to force anyone to go back but the country was better when it was out of Jewish and non-WASP control."
Thank you for your opinion on this matter. But you still have to go back.
"When the WASPs controlled the US the social system invented the following: the automobile, antibiotics, antihistamines, X-Ray, cancer treatments, the radio, the television, AC/DC currents, advances in metallurgy, the beginnings of the computers, the foundation for the internet, etc etc."
Actually, it was individuals from various ethnic groups developed those innovations. Although, one has to wonder what about those Eastern and Southern Europeans who came here in droves in the late 1800's? What were their technological contributions? Did not WASPS generally view them as dim-witted creatures prone to socialism and anarchy?
"There were social systems that were far more repressive of religious and racial minorities as well as to their underclass that produced no real advancements for the masses."
Regardless, you are circumventing the relevant point I had made. Southern and Eastern Europeans were viewed by nativists as being undesirable. The quota acts of the 1920's worked to prevent large numbers of your brethren from reaching our shores. Remarkably, you share the same attitudes of contempt toward today's immigrants as the nativists had against your ancestors. Undoubtedly, your great-grandparents who came here to the United States would have loudly opposed those sentiments. They would be rolling in their graves given your position.
“Barrack had a white parent (which would not be obvious except for that biographical tidbit)”
Barack Hussein Obama does not look pure Black in phenotype.
http://whatishappeninginsouthafrica.blogspot.com/2013/03/racist-tornados.html?m=1
http://whatishappeninginsouthafrica.blogspot.com/2012/05/lightening-is-racism.html?m=1
Originally seen at Mike Smith's place but I cannot find that link because of its defiant organization style. And a minister named Dube lends herself to accusations of dubiousness.
I imagine if blacks were disproportionate victims of tornadoes they would protest about the institutional racism of wind.
That point is that there is nothing like an adequate description of the whole complex causal concatenation between genetic sequences and measured IQ. In the absence of such a description, all we can do is measure statistical correlations which of themselves may be interesting, but prove nothing. Interestingly, both HBDers and T&N agree with each other that this is not a permanent problem, that the science is getting better, and that these vast and tumultuous seas will eventually be charted. This is where I disagree with the entire field.
No causal description between genetic sequences and intelligence is forthcoming, nor will it ever be. This is not a result of our limited observational powers. This is a metaphysical barrier, not a physical one. Note, I am not saying that the problem is merely recondite, as if the causal connection exists but we lack the observational prowess to observe it or the theoretical panache to describe it. I am also not saying that the problem is intractably complex, as if the causal connection exists but is unsolvable by analytic techniques (as is the case with turbulence, for example). Furthermore, I am not even saying that the problem is irreducibly complex, as if the causal connection is real but is destined to remain shrouded in mystery due to essentially unobservable operations. I am saying that the resolution of the problem is literally impossible due to the confusion of metaphysical kinds.
Intelligence cannot be explained in terms of genetics for the same reason that mind cannot be explained in terms of material. That is to say, no matter how advanced the science becomes, no matter how exacting the observations or how brilliant the theoretical framework, the penultimate step in such an explanation---viz. the link between fully realized anatomical, physiological, or biochemical structures which are themselves explained genetically, and the actual operations of a functioning mind---must remain an unbridgeable gap. Leibnitz's Mill argument is as relevant here as ever.
It would be correct and proper for actual scientists to point this out, but we don't seem to have any of those anymore. Both HBDers and politically correct scientists alike have jumped onto the materialist-reductionist bandwagon; and, as is the case with the age-old debate between Keynesians and supply-siders, have doomed themselves to arguing with each other over the correct interpretation of a worldiew without realizing that the worldview itself is incorrect. This is one of the chief sources of my contention with HBD (the other being its uncritical acceptance of Darwinian evolutionary theory). Because this is a debate about something which is essentially nonexistent, it is a debate about unrealities. Because debates about unrealities can never be resolved, both sides can expect to go to their graves without ever having convinced the other of anything.
Note that up until now I have said nothing whatsoever about "race" or about the political agendas into which race figures. In terms of the politics alone, I am thoroughly aligned with the HBDers. I would also be inclined to agree with Steve Sailer that the statistical correlations which have thus far been measured between race, genetics, and intelligence are "close enough for government work." However, I would have to append the proviso that they are, additionally, completely superfluous. The ordinary information obtained by our senses is enough to tell us that blacks are usually not too bright, and it is enough to tell us who is and who isn't black.
In a sane world, a world unburdened by PC nonsense, that would be sufficient. Nothing is really gained by dragging genetic evidence into the picture, for in the end it amounts only to a garrulous way of saying blacks are black and whites are white. We should have known that already. Extraneous explanations are usually introduced into the discussion only by those who intend to obscure this simple fact, and I believe it is a tactical mistake for those who accept HBD's political persuasions to fight the battle on the enemy's turf.
Hopefully we will soon see the emergence of an altogether different kind of approach, one that from the outset simply refuses to take up the philosophical antecedents of political correctness and reductionist biology, and instead relies on the irrefutable facts which are plainly felt and observed. To do so would be to recover not only philosophical truth but cultural confidence as well.
What would be the correct worldview for that?
“Our” kimosabe?
Need to check your privilege, dude. Our society doesn’t believe those things. Their society does. They’re freaking out because their society isn’t what they were sold/told it would be. If they want to be one society, they’ve got to interrogate those specific beliefs.
I am not sure for certain, but I imagine there is some sort of Drudge Report type effect here. I would venture to guess that some number of liberal outlets posted this as part of their narrative. This attracted the leftist posters.
That, or, the poz is coursing through intellectual society in unimaginable ways and we are all doomed.
He’s still tweeting.
A large thrust of this article is that socially defined genetic groups are problematic. There is a solution: use haplogroup information that you would get from the gene tests like 23andme. It would be like a mixture model where you are predicting IQ and want to estimate separate means and variances for each haplogroup. One interesting thing is that you could incorporate the hierarchical nature of haplogroups, supposing you had enough data points.
It’s a paradox:
In their fear that !Science! could be used to rationalize “Literally Hitler” political policies, those defending race-based public policies (that openly favor non-whites) actually contribute to the likelihood that when eugenics becomes fashionable again, the rage reservoir (of whites –especially men–systematically demonized for their whole lives) will actually result in race-based extermination programs.
The Left is rapidly running out of time to safely drain this rage-reservoir. The folks at Elliott Wave International & the Socionomics Institute have long predicted a very large “correction” in social mood once this long boom ends (and yes, they expected it to end a long time ago, so no, their timing model is fuzzy.) At the same time, a 2009 article excerpted below shows that interest in eugenics-based political policies rises in “fourth waves,” and the correction to follow this mania is (by their premises) a huge fourth wave.
If we enter it with minorities addicted to special privileges and expecting even more, while the people who make the USA function (overwhelmingly cishet white men) have fresh in their minds unjust mistreatment in employment opportunities & family court, I suggest that race-based extermination policies will be but a matter of time.
For what it’s worth, the “fourth wave of one lesser degree” for the larger correction we’re due is the 3rd Reich. As I said, instead of fighting tooth and nail to keep and expand race-based superiority before the law and flooding the West with non-Westerners, the Left had better wake up and stop demonizing white men lest they raise the very demons of their nightmares. I don’t actually expect Leftists to do this, however. Everyone plays his or her assigned role in the flow of history.
There will be no true introspection of what happened. Just like the third Erich happened because the German are inherently hateful. Not that they faced very real threats to their existence from Westerns powers and Jewish Bolsheviks.
Daniel, you notice as do I that we can peel every one of the Left Cult’s arguments down to nothing but sophistry. A is not-A. Up is down. Words mean whatever we decide, and we change their meaning whenever it suits our position. “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is,’ is. “
On Monday, Oceana is allied with Eurasian in war against Eastasia, and always has been. On Tuesday, Oceana is allied with Eastasia in war against Eurasia, and always has been.
Nineteen Eighty-Four remains a complete 101-450 level college degree in political science, all in a single book.
Clearly you were asleep in your American history class. Jim Crow was used exclusively to separate blacks and whites in all facets of southern life, so long as the accommodations were equal. It was meant to strip blacks of the political rights and ensure their economic dormancy. The problem was that southrons could not help themselves--nearly every aspect of life there was separate and unequal.
So you two agree, right? Or do I need to go back to American history class?
or you could learn American history.
Agree on what? All you did was put in boldface two sentences. You offered no insight into how they are connected.
"Or do I need to go back to American history class?"
Yes.
“People who identify as non-Hispanic African-Americans are largely at least 50% black.”
The NAACP has a history of admitting so-called “Black” members who have way less than 50% Sub Saharan African ancestry. Benjamin Jealous only has 18% Sub Saharan African ancestry and the late Walter Francis White was described as having blond hair, which would make him physically Whiter than most Mediterranean Southern Europeans.
The reason the libs cannot accept Murray’s thesis (which I believe to be largely correct) is that in so doing they would be undermining the very linchpin of modern liberalism-”equality.”
OT OT OT
_____________
Companies need workers — but people keep getting high
Workers at McLane drive forklifts and load hefty boxes into trucks. The grocery supplier, which runs a warehouse in Colorado, needs people who will stay alert — but prospective hires keep failing drug screens.
“Some weeks this year, 90 percent of applicants would test positive for something,” ruling them out for the job, said Laura Stephens, a human resources manager for the company in Denver.
The state’s unemployment rate is already low — 3 percent, compared to 4.7 percent for the entire nation. Failed drug tests, which are rising locally and nationally, further drain the pool of eligible job candidates.
“Finding people to fill jobs,” Stephens said, “is really challenging.”
Job applicants are testing positive for marijuana, cocaine, amphetamine and heroin at the highest rate in 12 years, according to a new report from Quest Diagnostics, a clinical lab that follows national employment trends. An analysis of about 10 million workplace drug screens from across the country in 2016 found positive results from urine samples increased from 4 percent in 2015 to 4.2 percent in 2016.
The most significant increase was in positive tests for marijuana, said Barry Sample, the scientist who wrote the report. Positive tests for the drug reached 2 percent last year, compared with 1.6 percent in 2012.
(Washington Post — May 17 2017)
Using marihuana is ostensibly legal in Colorado (though, paradoxically, it is illegal everywhere in the U.S.A....). That suggests if employees chose to use marihuana on their own time but remain sober during working hours, the matter is no business of any employer, in the same way that an employee's choice to have wine with dinner or even to get drunk as a sailor on his Saturday off, is no business of any employer – especially an employer who hiring him for work as a drayer or stevedore, which is basically what we have here; even the folks operating the forklifts, who I agree should be held to a somewhat higher standard, can hardly be expected to pass the kind of rigorous screening expected of SEALs, nuclear engineers, airline-pilots, surgeons, etc. for character and alertness....
And marihuana, unlike alcohol, does not metabolise very quickly: someone who smokes marihuana on his Saturday off (unlike someone who drinks a case of beer on his Saturday off) will still test positive for marihuana on Monday morning (whereas our drinker will not test positive for alcohol in his system...).
Employment in the U.S.A. is conventionally at-will and employers have had broad discretion to impose any number of requirements on employers – hairstyles, clothing, comportment in public off duty which must not mar the employers reputation, etc. – but courts have generally not recognised any right to intrude upon or dictate behaviour which is not illegal per se and which cannot have any effect upon the employer's goodwill or otherwise be related to a bona fide occupational requirement or business, especially not such behaviour confined to the privacy of the employees own home whilst off-duty, such as smoking a bit of weed in one's living room on a Saturday whilst watching reruns of of Spongebob Squarepants, which, I suspect, more or less sums up the behaviour of the great majority of these employees.
So grab some popcorn, kids; as soon as an enterprising plaintiff's lawyers perfects his angle, I foresee some interesting test-cases.
Thanks so much for your very enlightening and comprehendable explanation of a technical mathematical analysis.
As I recall from my student days, the purpose of the rotation of the Principle Components is not only to simplify the mathematics, which has not been a big deal since computers came into common usage, but to improve interpretability of the factors. The criteria was to have each factor contain a few items with high weights and the rest with low weights. The factor was then identified by the items with the high weightings.
The real question is how close to any sort of reality are the factors? Does the rotation give you a concept which, in fact, is useful, valid, and reliable?
PCA and factor analysis are correlational methods. They are based on co-variance, or correlation coefficients. You may have items which hang together statistically, but is the relationship a physical association, or simply a coincidental association as a result of a particular background? There is probably a hefty correlation between lung cancer and buying cigarettes from a convenience store, but banning cigarettes from convenience stores would not lower the incidence of lung cancer.
If we concede that intelligence is a multi-genetic trait, there is no way that a g factor would hang together over time unless there were a selection process maintaining the correlation. My own suspicion, entirely without corroborating evidence, is that modern welfare society dramatically removes all environmental stresses on survivability. The result is that the natural rate of genetic mutation uncouples all the correlated traits caused by particular environmental stresses.
I suspect this is part of the explanation of why high-IQ societies such as Sweden are committing suicide through migration at such a fast and incomprehensible rate. Sweden is also one of the oldest social-welfare states. The traits previously correlated with, say, verbal ability, such as integrity and courage, have been decoupled to the extent that the traits needed to achieve political success are decoupled from any traits associated with accomplishment or even comprehension. Again, this is pure speculation.
Whenever Gould is mentioned in an article on IQ I post this:
“S J Gould in the March 29, 1984 issue of The New York Review of Books:
“I am hopeless at deductive sequencing…I never scored particularly well on so-called objective tests of intelligence because they stress logical reasoning…”
(That explains so much.)
Here is a link to the original article by Gould, but the preview does not include that quote: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1984/03/29/triumph-of-a-naturalist/
I wonder if people who quote Gould as an authority on IQ realize how much it outs them as being unaware of the field?
A strikingly unmathematical piece, from the unlabeled chart to the jargony ramblings about family and politics.
And some of the lines are just completely self-mocking:
Free cash, without a big beautiful wall? I think we all know how that would play out.
For fuck’s sake, how many hundred comments and not one points out the obvious reason to be honest about all this. Liberals are using the specter of racism to cause black people (and other minorities and many whites) to hate society. We don’t want to do ANYTHING with any of this knowledge other than say, look, G-d damn it, the black community has developed horrible pathologies that vastly outweigh the adverse affects of any systemic racism. Little old ladies are not being racist because the black students score worse than their white ones. Now can’t we all just go do something productive with our lives?!!?
We need to challenge them. To force them go even more off the deep end in defense of their lies, thus exposing it for what it is.
This article was overly long and full of bogus arguments to buttress a falling house, but for the true believers, it comes across as a lifeline. It confirms their “moral” superiority.
They want to eradicate us, our culture and our future. They deserve no comfort in this task.
But they all seem to expect the high lifestyles of those doing so.
They want to be rappers who drive Escalades, wear $20,000 worth of gold chains and can buy anything they see The Rich And Famous have on TV.
That’s the problem. A society of permanent adolescents addicted to living in the Perpetual Now is not a stable entity.
Fascinating. Contrast that with this comment from utu after I criticized Gould in another thread (emphasis mine, I also added the context of his initial comment and my response as well as parenthetical notes of who said what):
http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-woodley-effect/#comment-1771365
Most people, and the men in particular, who form the current native population of the British Isles (including the Left Island), are descended from a single branch or clan of a spectacularly successful tribe based somewhere along the Rhine which spread out to encompass almost the whole of Western Europe.
They arrived on the island, from Hook of Holland or the like, sometime in the middle of the 3rd millennium BC.
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135962 That’s the entire gene pool, not just chaps.
The blokes are all as far as can be determined R1b-L21, and the most well-preserved samples are a sub-branch of that, DF13, including the most prominent burials (metalworking archers, under ‘kurgans’/barrows). Still comprises the vast majority of Isles yDNA, particularly in the “celtic” holdout areas, something like 90% in Ireland, from memory.
They brought quite a lot of their women and kids. And took some of the local farming folk’s women as well. Their men basically “disappeared” in a few generations … somehow or other. Tut, tut …
Later incursions of their kinsmen, peaceful or not (these were all likely “proto-Celts”, so what are the chances, eh?) were now well-armed (and armoured) caballeros, starting with Unetice-type culture, and serving only to reinforce the L21 steamroller.
The “Genghis Khan effect”, before Genghis.
There is the further quite important point that g, in the context of cognitive ability, has generally been regarded as reflecting a biological reality, namely, something akin to processing speeds in a CPU. Certainly Jensen, its champion, saw g as arising from an aspect of brain structure or mechanism.
Whether g might be said to exist in the abstract, without any particular biological underpinning, is one question. But insofar as it represents a testable hypothesis about the organization of our brains, it certainly has scientific meaning.
Same people, same genes.
(China was still putting satellites in orbit under Mao, just as North Korea is allegedly producing ICBMs today).
On the other hand, that only 'really' shows bad institutions can be stronger than high-IQ genes. Britain left the former Rhodesia and Singapore with a reasonable legal system, yet Zimbabwe suffered while Singapore prospered.
“On the other hand, that only ‘really’ shows bad institutions can be stronger than high-IQ genes. Britain left the former Rhodesia and Singapore with a reasonable legal system, yet Zimbabwe suffered while Singapore prospered.”
Economic prosperity resulted not in the legal system, but of how the various parts of the British Empire ranked in terms of financial significance. Singapore was a major commercial hub and center for British military operations. It had immense strategic importance. Merchant houses were set up here by the Chinese, Arabs, Jewish, Armenians, and Indians (dot). Furthermore, Singapore had enjoyed political stability that contributed to its growth in wealth. On the other hand, Rhodesia served as a source for vital minerals for the British. It experience far greater political turmoil, with old tribal hostilities kept in check by the British army remerging and local populations being subjected to perpetual substandard treatment.
It was a feat of brilliance to keep the nation together.
It's good to be the king.
Jews, who once took moral pride using boycotts to break segregation in the American South, pressured all 50 governors into supporting Zionist apartheid in West Bank.
“50 governors into supporting Zionist apartheid in West Bank.”
It’s pretty amazing to me how people so well-versed on biological differences in intelligence and behavior are so resentful towards identitarian Jews who don’t happen to like getting blown up when they go out for a pizza.
So, what’s the difference between the BDS movement and the systematic denial of heritable racial differences? Both are derived from cultural Marxist pressure to dissolve any semblance of an ordered society. BDS is not simply not buying from Israel, but a systematic attempt to use leftist, Allinsky methods to leverage the power of governments and public institutions to enforce BDS against Israel, a rather minuscule entity.
But, to have this kind of uniformity among governors on an issue which is really not relevant to the act of governing a state is indicative of a high pressure to conformity and coercion. Jewish institutions were not only involved in pressuring the south, but also South Africa and are currently supporting massive Muslim immigration. It may benefit the leaders of the organizations, but it devastates the average Jew, who has to live with the results like anyone else.
My own opinion is that you need to dissolve the massive, state-supported institutions that make leveraging so productive. Then, you can argue the virtues of BDS in a rational, rather than coercive, manner.
Thinking back, “Guns, Germs, and Steel”, a popular book by Jarred Diamond a few decades ago, also made a quite literal “magic dirt” argument, augmented by specific details on the botanical diversity and geological features of a particular area.
He sees mankind as a wonder of potential and - adaptation. And all in all, this is true.
The modern problems of power and status struggles for him are - only modern problems, so to speak.
The funny thing is, Jared Diamond is really good at describing hunter- and gatherer practices and almost incompetent the closer you come to the present. In his last book, "the World Until Yesterday - What We Can Learn From Traditional Societies" he gives tips for modern life, that are not decernible anymore from deliberate self-parody, like: Be careful in the shower, don't use too much salt etc.
I agree that a guaranteed annual income can only be maintained if immigration is strongly controlled.
You can have a covariance matrix that yields two roughly equal first eigenvalues if the variables are divided into two groups correlated within each other but not cross-correlated. This would be easily interpreted as two kinds of intelligence if applied to the cognitive research.
The fact that eigenvalues fade very quickly, and the first one is much greater than the second is an argument in favor of the concept of g.
One would think so. But we can easily change it by restructuring the battery of subtests that generate the covariance matrix. We can add extra subtests that will enhance the second eigenvalue.
Do you think that that Spearman received the battery of tests from God on Mount Sinai or on Hill Cumorah in Palmyra, NY?
If you give an IQ test to a cohort of 18 year olds and retest at, say, age 40, how robust is the ordinal ranking? If it’s robust, that suggests IQ is pretty reliable over a lifetime, at least within the cohort. Contrary to your implication, I don’t see why within-cohort reliability can’t coexist with the observed Flynn effect.
So if you compare IQ results of a given person at age 18 and 40 what conclusion can you draw from it? Does it represent a real change (or real no change) or is it somehow the effect of scaling? It seems that the absolute value of IQ is not very meaningful. On the other hand this value indicates where you are with respect to the arbitrary scale where IQ has Gaussian distribution N(100,15).
Since normalizations are age dependent, I think, then when the society is getting older, then again you do not know what your IQ represent with respect to true national mean and variance.
It is some kind of bootstrap of a bootstrap...that at some point begins to chase its on tail bordering on Münchausen trilemma. Who keeps the track of it?
Say if your parent in in UK in 1955 tested IQ=100 and you tested also IQ=100 30 years later, he was smarter than 50% of British people and you are smarter than 50% of British people now. If that's all what you care the scale denormalizations should not bother you but perhaps your dad would be happy to know that on his IQ scale you are 20 points smarter than him (if we assume that Flynn effect is real in terms of intelligence).
"S J Gould in the March 29, 1984 issue of The New York Review of Books:
"I am hopeless at deductive sequencing...I never scored particularly well on so-called objective tests of intelligence because they stress logical reasoning..."
(That explains so much.)
Thanks. For those who like citations, here is a secondary source
Here is a link to the original article by Gould, but the preview does not include that quote: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1984/03/29/triumph-of-a-naturalist/
I wonder if people who quote Gould as an authority on IQ realize how much it outs them as being unaware of the field?
Given the heritable and genetic basis of intelligence, if you want smart children you should screen for a smart wife.
“There is currently no reason at all to think that any significant portion of the IQ differences among socially defined racial groups is genetic in origin.”
Sesardic explains why this statement is false. https://www.amazon.com/Heritability-Cambridge-Studies-Philosophy-Biology/dp/052182818X
Sesardic examines Jensen’s argument, for example. I’ll state for your information that Turkheimer and Nisbett are intellectual lightweights. Check out their pubs for evidence.
If psychological traits have some genetic foundation, then it would be irrational to believe that all ancestral groups have the same genetic trait endowment. Consider the pygmies and the bushmen, for example. They are thought to have lived in different enviroments for more than 100,000 years. Why believe that the obvious physical differences are the only genetically influenced differences?
Christopher Hitchens joked that her thesis wasnt written in any known language, it was that poorly written. She failed at the time an easy bar exam, she let her law license expire soon after getting it. No editorships, no clerkships. Despite bein hired by an elite firm, she was working at the Mayors office a few years later, She was a legacy at Princeton, in addition to being an AA admit, because her older brother was the star of the basketball team
In their fear that !Science! could be used to rationalize "Literally Hitler" political policies, those defending race-based public policies (that openly favor non-whites) actually contribute to the likelihood that when eugenics becomes fashionable again, the rage reservoir (of whites --especially men--systematically demonized for their whole lives) will actually result in race-based extermination programs.
The Left is rapidly running out of time to safely drain this rage-reservoir. The folks at Elliott Wave International & the Socionomics Institute have long predicted a very large "correction" in social mood once this long boom ends (and yes, they expected it to end a long time ago, so no, their timing model is fuzzy.) At the same time, a 2009 article excerpted below shows that interest in eugenics-based political policies rises in "fourth waves," and the correction to follow this mania is (by their premises) a huge fourth wave.
If we enter it with minorities addicted to special privileges and expecting even more, while the people who make the USA function (overwhelmingly cishet white men) have fresh in their minds unjust mistreatment in employment opportunities & family court, I suggest that race-based extermination policies will be but a matter of time.For what it's worth, the "fourth wave of one lesser degree" for the larger correction we're due is the 3rd Reich. As I said, instead of fighting tooth and nail to keep and expand race-based superiority before the law and flooding the West with non-Westerners, the Left had better wake up and stop demonizing white men lest they raise the very demons of their nightmares. I don't actually expect Leftists to do this, however. Everyone plays his or her assigned role in the flow of history.
When the equal but opposite reaction of whites finally occurs, the leftists will just say “see, we were right!”
There will be no true introspection of what happened. Just like the third Erich happened because the German are inherently hateful. Not that they faced very real threats to their existence from Westerns powers and Jewish Bolsheviks.
Biology preceded culture. How long did humans exists before they lived in what could be defined as “cultures.” Humans existed for tens of thousands of years before they created societies that could be described as “civilizations.” Biology created and informs culture.
The average low intelligence, higher levels of testosterone, and greater impulsiveness of negro males (and, to a lesser degree, black females) created and sustains the cultures of sub-Saharan Africa, Haiti, inner-city Detroit, Baltimore, St. Louis, etc., the south side of Chicago, the north side of Milwaukee, etc.
There’s no “human nature,” essentialyl immutable and rooted in genetics/ biology. Humans are infinitely malleable, and perfectible. Socialization and culture are everything. The races are exactly the same apart from skin color and other superficial, and thus negligible, anatomical differences. Race beneath the skin is an “artifical social construct.” The sexes are exactly the same apart from the inescapable differences in anatomy. “Gender” (masculine and feminine identities and behaviors) as opposed to sex (male/female) is an “artificial social construct.”
Thus explains why black males on average are humdreds of times more likely than “Asian” females to commit violent crimes (aggravated assault, robbery, murder, etc.), and thousands of times more likely to commit violent sexual assaults. for obvious anatomical reasons, female can’t commit rape in the pure and literal sense of the word.
If socialization and culture were everything, it would not only be possible to create societies in which “Asian” females were as violent and criminal as black males but also, even more absurdly, societies in which “Asian” females were far more violent and criminal than negro males and the males of all other races!
If you read history, you would learn that humans pretty much suck, and suck far worse in groups than as individuals. That is why ideas like Murray's are so very appalling. He's writing the script for the reintroduction of Jim Crow laws. (Also "The Handmaid's Tale," as his views of women are, if anything, worse than his views of blacks. We're only good as breeders and floor-scrubbers and not one other thing. If you read the end of Atwood's novel, she describes a character based on Murray as one of the architects of Gilead. And yes, I believe Sailer and Murray would absolutely adore being Commanders of the Faithful, with Handmaids and powerless, miserable wives. It's their dearest wish to be in charge AND to make everyone else miserable.)
I think there’s something to be said for the claim that advantaged people will use the legal and political process to leverage their own advantage. For instance, in the Roman empire, the wealthy moneylenders, who were literally rolling in wealth, used their power in the Senate to pass draconian laws of indebtedness, including permanent enslavement, imprisonment, and death. At least one historian attributes the effect of these laws as the widely-known depopulation of vast tracts of land and the non-replacement birthrate. The depopulation, by the way, was widely recognized as a problem at the time, but they never developed any effective counter-measures.
Human biology being what it is, you can expect all means, fair and foul, to be used to benefit those who have the power to implement laws.
The existence of a problem, however, does not validate all means employed to address the problem. Before affirmative-action laws, there were quite real instances of qualified blacks being denied professional licenses, or women being denied positions for which they were individually qualified. The existence of that problem does not justify affirmative action, which is a by-the-numbers requirement for proportionality, qualified or not.
The framers of the Constitution attempted to address the problem by having two legislative houses: one through popular election, and one appointed through elites. It didn’t remove inequities by any means, but it provided a powerful check on the ability of wealthy and politically-connected elites to bend the state to their interests. I think that was a far better solution than what we have now as a result of legislative and judicial tampering to solve marginal so-called problems.
A technical question: if there is more mixing of a population so that women can preferentially select the tallest men so that the taller men have more children than the shorter men; what is the effect on the mean and standard error of the distribution? I would imagine that the mean would increase; and probably also the standard error.
Also, with increasing mixing of the population; enabling the higher IQ men to go to college where the higher IQ women can find them; and leaving the lower IQ men and women "in the country" we might get a Flynn effect. But it's a bit uncertain because the lower portion of the college-bound men might have fewer than the average number of children; and vice versa for those left behind. A detailed quantitative analysis would be needed.
Suppose shorter, slimmer women were viewed as the standards of beauty, and taller, more desirable males, got their choice of the smallest, slimmest females?
Abstract theorizing on selection criteria is pretty funny.
Darwin determined from observation of animals that it was almost always the female who did the choosing; it was the males who displayed.
We have to imagine what women today look for, but if evolution is any guide they would look for good providers and defenders; I would imagine that height would be a signifier of those characteristics.
Men would look for signs of a good mother; good health, wide hips, signs of responsibility – – – whatever those would be. I don't see why being short would be a plus, specially if it implied narrow hips which could not handle a large baby resulting from a tall man.
Fun, but falsifiable.
Missing the point.
The point isn’t that you can do factor analysis and come up with a “g”, the point is that the “g” you come up with is strong.
First off–if you had no prior knowledge of humanity–the subtest correlations do not even have to be positive. That’s sort of the (older) hyper-nerd model, some guy who’s good at math+science by re-purposing the parts of his brain that would have been doing verbal and appreciating poetry. And so he’s math smart and verbal dumb. That’s not the case.
Secondly, not only are all the subtest correlations positive, but they don’t throw up multiple “g”s, they through up one “g”. There isn’t some “general verbal factor” that accounts for most human language skills, and then a separate “general math factor” that accounts for math skills. No there’s a huge “general smarts factor” that accounts for people being what we think of as “smart” and then much, much smaller components. I.e. the nerd is a nerd first and foremost because he’s “smart” and can do the math and as a result he also pretty good at the verbal too. (The “multiple intelligence” guys are just wrong.)
These two points–all positive correlations and one huge first component rather than multiple strong components is real information about human intelligence. Though i admit it’s hardly earth-shattering insight to people with any life experience. Even at a young age one figures out that some of your peers are “smart” and some “non-smart”. And you expect the smart ones to be better at figuring stuff out than the less smart ones even if this one has a more mathematical bent, this one more artistic, this one more literary, this one more mechanical.
The underlying biological reality being captured here is that some brains are just “better” or “faster and more efficient processors”. Some combination or cortex volume, neural densities or synapse processing (neurotransmitters, neural receptors, etc.) This is the stuff the neurogenomics guys should be figuring out.
Correlations don't have to be positive in order to be amenable to PCA. The symmetry of the correlation/covariance matrices does mean the eigenvectors have some nice properties (http://www.math.umd.edu/~tjh/340_symmetric.pdf), but that's a secondary issue. Even correlation matrices with plenty of negative values will likewise work.
2. the heritability of g: it is g that is most heritable of the many aspects of tests
3. it best accounts for the gap in performance between whites and blacks
4. the inability of test makers, over the course of more than a century, to construct a test that satisfies the goal of measuring cognitive ability that doesn't involve g, and a g that correlates very well with the g of other standard testsIn some ways it is 4 that demonstrates the inescapability of g. Ignorant people talk about how one could just construct new tests that get a different "g", or would not display any "g". But test-makers and psychologists have been trying, sometimes rather desperately, and in service of an ideology, to do so for over a century to come up with such tests. Yet they have encountered nothing but failure. Most recently, Howard Gardner and Robert Sternberg have tried to devise tests which capture different aspects of intelligence, but those tests, insofar as they possess any validity and reliability, always produce the same g component as before. All the accolades of our society would be visited upon any social scientist who could devise a new kind of cognitive ability test avoiding "g". Nobody has succeeded.Points 1-4 go well beyond merely finding a big first principal component. They are each independent evidence that g is real and important -- how indeed explain them if g is just some arbitrary construct?
(Though I must admit the prospect of disciplining the left by striking them with cords holds a certain appeal...)
Why do we keep seeing these homophonic errors in smart people's writing today? Things like "tow the line" (lines tow), "didn't phase me", etc.
Your hole post was to express the pun.
What about the truth-respecting statistical geneticists? “Self-respect” is what makes people submit to morality based precepts without any challenge.
And as to his point, don’t researchers use self-identified racial or ethnic categories for group based inheritance of susceptibility to certain diseases, like sickle cell anemia for blacks or breast cancer for Jewish women or dental development problems for northern and western Europeans?
(Though I must admit the prospect of disciplining the left by striking them with cords holds a certain appeal...)
Why do we keep seeing these homophonic errors in smart people's writing today? Things like "tow the line" (lines tow), "didn't phase me", etc.
I suspect it’s the dumbing down effect (not affect) of low vocabulary autocorrect spellcheckers.
Actually, I think you’re wrong on the Constitution.
The Constitution (first 10 amendments, actually) specified individual rights (with respect to the federal, not the state) government. But, the basic unit of the Constitution was actually the state. This is the basis of the electoral college, which gives priority to the state as a conceptual unit, over the individual. It is the number of electoral, rather than popular, votes which determine the President.
In fact, the major failing of libertarian thinking is that it focuses on the individual, rather than the group. An example where the conflict becomes accentuated is in the question of free markets versus protected markets. A free trading market will devastate the lower economic class of a country like the US: products based on cheap labor and relaxed labor and environmental laws can out-compete local producers. Yet, the quality of life depends on more than the unit-cost of items.
I’m not opposed to individual rights, but if you don’t recognize the importance of groups, areas, and identity, you’re going to miss a critical part of political reality and actually lower your chances of maximizing individual rights.
“Personally, I think, this seemingly horrifying potential scientific discovery ought to be easily endurable, just as the NBA has survived the rise of the popular suspicion that the reasons LeBron James and other blacks make up most of the best basketball players include genetic differences.”
Almost all people also live in and accept a world with an international partner market which strongly benefits males of West African ancestry and affects adversely males of East Asian ancestry. This is important as in the end success on the partner market is more important for life satisfaction than success in professional life, which is of course affected by IQ.
Sesardic explains why this statement is false. https://www.amazon.com/Heritability-Cambridge-Studies-Philosophy-Biology/dp/052182818X
Sesardic examines Jensen's argument, for example. I'll state for your information that Turkheimer and Nisbett are intellectual lightweights. Check out their pubs for evidence.
If psychological traits have some genetic foundation, then it would be irrational to believe that all ancestral groups have the same genetic trait endowment. Consider the pygmies and the bushmen, for example. They are thought to have lived in different enviroments for more than 100,000 years. Why believe that the obvious physical differences are the only genetically influenced differences?
Thanks for the book reference. His more recent book also looks interesting (and relevant to this conversation): https://www.amazon.com/When-Reason-Goes-Holiday-Philosophers/dp/1594038791
Here is a link to the original article by Gould, but the preview does not include that quote: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1984/03/29/triumph-of-a-naturalist/
I wonder if people who quote Gould as an authority on IQ realize how much it outs them as being unaware of the field?
They haven’t a clue. For such people, Gould is their excuse for dismissing the entire field as junk science. They don’t need to actually learn anything about it to know that it’s garbage, because GOULD.
I think you’re bringing up several points, some of which are good, some fallacious.
I agree that people of lower IQ, and in general, lower prospects, should not be forced to subsidize people with higher IQ. Thus, the whole system of state-supported education and subsidies is a morass of unfairness and inequality. A plumber or laborer should not be taxed to enhance the education of the children of corporate managers.
But,it’s every bit as fallacious to expect the state to provide equality of outcomes or even equality of happiness. A woman with movie star looks, solid values and half a brain can parlay her gifts into a prosperous life as a mother or, if she prefers, a lucrative and rewarding career. It’s just the breaks. Tall men are, on the whole, more successful than short men: they have a more impressive appearance, which counts for something.
Also, some people are prone to addictions. Donald Trump recognizes his proclivity and deals with it by teetotalling; his brother dealt with it by drinking himself to death. Do you see the state intervening in that process?
Here is what the Constitution recognizes as the goals of government:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”
No more and no less.
The treatment they receive from the current Zimbabwean administration being way above standard of course.
That point is that there is nothing like an adequate description of the whole complex causal concatenation between genetic sequences and measured IQ. In the absence of such a description, all we can do is measure statistical correlations which of themselves may be interesting, but prove nothing. Interestingly, both HBDers and T&N agree with each other that this is not a permanent problem, that the science is getting better, and that these vast and tumultuous seas will eventually be charted. This is where I disagree with the entire field.
No causal description between genetic sequences and intelligence is forthcoming, nor will it ever be. This is not a result of our limited observational powers. This is a metaphysical barrier, not a physical one. Note, I am not saying that the problem is merely recondite, as if the causal connection exists but we lack the observational prowess to observe it or the theoretical panache to describe it. I am also not saying that the problem is intractably complex, as if the causal connection exists but is unsolvable by analytic techniques (as is the case with turbulence, for example). Furthermore, I am not even saying that the problem is irreducibly complex, as if the causal connection is real but is destined to remain shrouded in mystery due to essentially unobservable operations. I am saying that the resolution of the problem is literally impossible due to the confusion of metaphysical kinds.
Intelligence cannot be explained in terms of genetics for the same reason that mind cannot be explained in terms of material. That is to say, no matter how advanced the science becomes, no matter how exacting the observations or how brilliant the theoretical framework, the penultimate step in such an explanation---viz. the link between fully realized anatomical, physiological, or biochemical structures which are themselves explained genetically, and the actual operations of a functioning mind---must remain an unbridgeable gap. Leibnitz's Mill argument is as relevant here as ever.
It would be correct and proper for actual scientists to point this out, but we don't seem to have any of those anymore. Both HBDers and politically correct scientists alike have jumped onto the materialist-reductionist bandwagon; and, as is the case with the age-old debate between Keynesians and supply-siders, have doomed themselves to arguing with each other over the correct interpretation of a worldiew without realizing that the worldview itself is incorrect. This is one of the chief sources of my contention with HBD (the other being its uncritical acceptance of Darwinian evolutionary theory). Because this is a debate about something which is essentially nonexistent, it is a debate about unrealities. Because debates about unrealities can never be resolved, both sides can expect to go to their graves without ever having convinced the other of anything.
Note that up until now I have said nothing whatsoever about "race" or about the political agendas into which race figures. In terms of the politics alone, I am thoroughly aligned with the HBDers. I would also be inclined to agree with Steve Sailer that the statistical correlations which have thus far been measured between race, genetics, and intelligence are "close enough for government work." However, I would have to append the proviso that they are, additionally, completely superfluous. The ordinary information obtained by our senses is enough to tell us that blacks are usually not too bright, and it is enough to tell us who is and who isn't black.
In a sane world, a world unburdened by PC nonsense, that would be sufficient. Nothing is really gained by dragging genetic evidence into the picture, for in the end it amounts only to a garrulous way of saying blacks are black and whites are white. We should have known that already. Extraneous explanations are usually introduced into the discussion only by those who intend to obscure this simple fact, and I believe it is a tactical mistake for those who accept HBD's political persuasions to fight the battle on the enemy's turf.
Hopefully we will soon see the emergence of an altogether different kind of approach, one that from the outset simply refuses to take up the philosophical antecedents of political correctness and reductionist biology, and instead relies on the irrefutable facts which are plainly felt and observed. To do so would be to recover not only philosophical truth but cultural confidence as well.
Sounds to me like you’re arguing that anything more complex than your casual observations are unknowable.
I thought this was a good response to the Vox article: https://medium.com/@houstoneuler/the-cherry-picked-science-in-voxs-charles-murray-article-bd534a9c4476
And to echo his concluding paragraph:
It is fun that these people keep doubling down as the genetics of IQ are becoming better understood. Turkheimer is at least somewhat understandable since he will likely be retired before all the evidence is in, but why would a young academic like Paige Harden commit to falsifiable positions?
Abstract theorizing on selection criteria is pretty funny.
“suppose shorter slimmer women were viewed as the the standard of beauty.”
Darwin determined from observation of animals that it was almost always the female who did the choosing; it was the males who displayed.
We have to imagine what women today look for, but if evolution is any guide they would look for good providers and defenders; I would imagine that height would be a signifier of those characteristics.
Men would look for signs of a good mother; good health, wide hips, signs of responsibility – – – whatever those would be. I don’t see why being short would be a plus, specially if it implied narrow hips which could not handle a large baby resulting from a tall man.
Fun, but falsifiable.
Because you Americans are so insulated and historically myopic, you fail to see what a spectacular U-turn this is. Bring back Imperialism then! The conservative European imperialists were right all along! Damn Woodrow Wilson! And all the egalitarian revolutionaries.
Conquer or be conquered is the way of the world. Power decides history. If you have it use it.
Machiavelli advised the ruler to abstain from foreign conquests unless he intended to uproot himself and live there.
He must have foreseen our expensive misadventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc.
The British colonial rule in Ireland and India was associated with famines and the starvation of millions. Was this the fault of the British? Some said, the imposition of British methods of commerce disrupted the native methods of preparing for, and alleviating, famines.
Is this true? I don’t care. I don’t want to be responsible for the deaths of millions of people, and so I would prefer my government not be involved at all. There’s a world of difference between leaving someone alone, and forcing lethal measures on him, even if he dies in either case.
I don’t mind the model in Saudi Arabia: the government there more or less gained power through its own treachery, and invited us there to provide protection and technical services. As long as we leave when asked to, I have no problem with that at all.
I would be fine if racial IQ differences remained unsolved forever if I could sleep with Margot Robbie.
She is right to be insecure.
We already have a guaranteed income; it’s called the EITC put in place by the HATED HATED HATED Richard Nixon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit
So a man without a job is not a plausible husband if his income comes from the EITC. Whereas if his income comes from the guaranteed income he could be serious contributor to the foundation of a reasonable family
Yes. In general selection for sex differences acts slowly, something like 100 times more slowly than generic selection. And generic selection could hardly make a noticeable difference in a couple of generation, except under really, really extreme conditions.
The main point of Diamond suffers from a little obfuscation. Diamond did not say, that all peoples have the same IQ. He rather said, that given the big changes, that might lie ahead in the future of mankind, such as a partial nuclear winter, for example, it might well turn out that erverything kind of ends in the Biblical sense of “the last ones now will be the first ones”.
He sees mankind as a wonder of potential and – adaptation. And all in all, this is true.
The modern problems of power and status struggles for him are – only modern problems, so to speak.
The funny thing is, Jared Diamond is really good at describing hunter- and gatherer practices and almost incompetent the closer you come to the present. In his last book, “the World Until Yesterday – What We Can Learn From Traditional Societies” he gives tips for modern life, that are not decernible anymore from deliberate self-parody, like: Be careful in the shower, don’t use too much salt etc.
The main point of Diamond suffers from a little obfuscation. Diamond did not say, that all peoples have the same IQ. He rather said, that given the big changes, that might lie ahead in the future of mankind, such as a partial nuclear winter, for example, it might well turn out that erverything kind of ends in the Biblical sense of “the first one now will later be last”.
He sees mankind as a wonder of potential and – adaptation. And all in all, this is true.
The modern problems of power and status struggles for him are – only modern problems, so to speak.
The funny thing is, Jared Diamond is really good at describing hunter- and gatherer practices and almost incompetent the closer you come to the present. In his last book, “The World Until Yesterday – What We Can Learn From Traditional Societies” he gives tips for modern life, that are not decernible anymore from deliberate self-parody, like: Be careful in the shower, don’t use too much salt etc.
I think you left out one of the most persuasive effects that Jensen raised in his paper ""How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?" That effect is regression to the mean. If a set of black parents are matched against a set of white parents, equivalent not only in environment, but in the IQ of the parents, the black parents will still have children of lower mean IQ than the white parents. The most parsimonious interpretation of this is that the population from which the black parents came was of a lower IQ, genetically-determined, than the population of the white parents.
Regression to the mean, to be boringly pedantic about it, is the tendency of outliers in a population to have children that are closer to the population as a whole.
An example of my father's researches, as a musician, came from the Bach family. Johann S. Bach came from a family of musicians, but obviously outshone them all by far. Interestingly enough, although he married a very talented musician, the children were gifted musicians, but none came close to Johann S. This illustrates regression to the mean.
That’s not a very good example of regression, because as another poster pointed out Bach’s offspring were exceptionally talented. Though you’re right in saying Daddy Bach outshone the rest, how many great composers produced two children who are still famous names, at least in the classical music world, 200+ years later?
CPE Bach and JC Bach are firmly in the Western music cannon. Bach’s eldest son, Wilhelm Friedemann Bach, is a lesser-known composer, but still somewhat known. JCF was also a composer and virtuoso, I think, but I don’t know anything about his music. One grandson of Bach–JCF’s son–became a famous composer in his own time: Wilhelm Friedrich Ernst Bach. He’s not known anymore.
That’s five successful descendants in a difficult and competitive field. Most impressively, two world-famous offspring, whose accomplishments far outlived their natural lives. Now, JS’s talents were as far beyond his sons’ and grandsons as he was beyond other great composers. But still, I wouldn’t use the Bach family as a regression example.
I've been teaching ethical theory for 25 years, and counting - and there is NO ethical theory known to me that has anything whatsoever to say about the relationship of "individual and cultural accomplishment" to genes.
These people know about as much about "ethical principle" as a pig knows about oranges.
Indeed, the only proposition on which all self-consistent systems of ethics must concur is that one should prefer the better to the worse – though of course they differ in their judgements of what is better and worse. Therefore under all self-consistent systems of ethics one must judge which is better and which worse. Any “ethics” that claims that it is better to assume equality or that it is better not to judge is inconsistent because it is actually preferring what it claims to be better to what it claims to be worse, while at the same time denying the inevitable corollary of the proposition that one should prefer the better to the worse: that one must judge.
The incoherent egalitarians go much further, preferring the worse to the better – perversity. The fact of inferiority confronting the dogma of equality is used as a justification for claiming that shortcomings of less capable groups are due to unjust discrimination and prejudice and must be balanced by treating objectively inferior people better than those who are superior to them. This leads to society systematically investing in the people with lowest prospective return, and actively discriminating against those who are capable of doing the most and the best, a policy which leads not to the promised utopia but rather to the fall of civilizations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit
No, The EITC is not a guaranteed income. If your work income rises The EITC decreases; that is there’s a very high marginal tax rate that discourages earning more income. And I imagine that if you’re not working at all there is no EITC. I might be wrong about that.
So a man without a job is not a plausible husband if his income comes from the EITC. Whereas if his income comes from the guaranteed income he could be serious contributor to the foundation of a reasonable family
CPE Bach and JC Bach are firmly in the Western music cannon. Bach's eldest son, Wilhelm Friedemann Bach, is a lesser-known composer, but still somewhat known. JCF was also a composer and virtuoso, I think, but I don't know anything about his music. One grandson of Bach--JCF's son--became a famous composer in his own time: Wilhelm Friedrich Ernst Bach. He's not known anymore.
That's five successful descendants in a difficult and competitive field. Most impressively, two world-famous offspring, whose accomplishments far outlived their natural lives. Now, JS's talents were as far beyond his sons' and grandsons as he was beyond other great composers. But still, I wouldn't use the Bach family as a regression example.
And JS Bach had lots of locally prominent musical ancestors. So the Bachs also regress toward the mean backward over time.
The Bachs married the daughters of other leading musicians, in part because they wanted wives who could read music in order to copy musical scores.
[…] the logical gibberish of the […]
Progs have fallen under the fallacy of automatic radicalism. They assume, because Murray believes in racial differences, he must be a Nazi since Nazis also believed in racial differences.
But truth is a matter of degrees, not an either/or dichotomy.
For example, not every socialist is a Stalinist or Pol-Pot-ist. One can be a socialist in the sense of social-democrat who doesn’t want to eradicate entire classes of ‘kulaks’.
Likewise, one can be race-ist in the sense of believing that races exist and racial differences are real. Being this kind of rational race-ist isn’t same as being a radical racist like a Nazi. Also, a rational race-ist is open to new facts and data about race. In contrast, what radical racists and radical anti-racists have in common is a dogmatic belief that truth is fixed and no deviance shall be tolerated. So, Nazism said ‘Aryans’ are better than Slavs, and that’s that, no need for any further argument. So, radical anti-racists say there are NO racial differences, and if you say otherwise, you are a renegade who must be destroyed… despite the mountain of evidence that the main reason for black violence is (1) blacks are more muscular (2) blacks are more aggressive. Radical racism of Nazis justified mass invasion of lands of ‘lesser races’. And radical anti-racism of Progs ignores the threat that black immigrant-invaders pose to Europeans as weaker race vulnerable to black physical, criminal, and sexual conquest.
So, the problem isn’t race-ism(belief in races and racial differences) but radical race-ism. But then radicalizing ANYTHING turns it evil. Rational Socialism can mean public libraries. Radical socialism can lead to Gulag and Khmer Rouge. Rational Race-ism can mean better understanding of why Jews dominate Wall Street and why blacks dominate NFL. Radical racism can mean Nazi Concentration Camps and War on Russia and Jews.
One can be a rational socialist like a social-democrat who sees both the value of socialism but also the need for market economics. One can be a rational race-ist and understand the factor of racial differences in society but still work towards racial cooperation and understanding. One would have to give into the Fallacy of Automatic Radicalism to believe that someone’s rational view must be radical because radical versions of it have existed in the past or can exist among some minds.
If we follow that logic, we might as believe that those who believe in political freedom MUST BE anarchists. And we must assume that since there have been extreme religious communities(like Jones-town), every religious person must be a theocratic fanatic or cultist. Just like not every Muslims is a radical Islamist who supports terrorism, not every race-ist is a radical racist. He can be a rational race-ist who, based on facts and reason, notices that races are the product of evolution and that differences exist among races that are consequential.
Also, the best way to defeat radicalism is rationalism, not radical ignorance, which is what PC is about. In the end, truth cannot be suppressed forever. It’s like the best way to combat sexual disease and debauchery is sensible and rational education about sexuality and sexual morality, not total sexual ignorance.
A rational discussion of race and racial differences can take the subject away from radicals. But if PC insists on Radical Ignorance/Mendacity, then the issue of race and racial differences will be owned by radical racists since they are the only ones with the mad courage to discuss it.
It’s like when the ruling orders in the past ignored or suppressed the problems of poverty and terrible conditions among the working masses and the poor, the issue came to owned by radical socialists in some parts of the world. Best weapon against radicalism is rationalism, not willful ignorance, censorship, dogmatism, and coercive consensusism.
In a way, progs are secretly envious of Murray because he’s had the courage and conviction that they lack. Sure, they mask their craven cowardice with Social Justice sermonizing, but the fact is Murray has shown a willingness to think outside the box. Prog scribes haven’t. It’s like communist commissars beat their chest and made lots of noble-sounding noises about the heroic proles and evil bourgeoisie. In truth, they were hack careerists who just regurgitated approved cliches to protect their privilege in the system. It was all about Peer Pressure than Peer Review. Their fury at dissidents and free thinkers wasn’t only due to ideology. It owed to their sense of shame of lacking the honesty and courage to think freely as well. Often, cowardice fears and hates courage like roaches fear and hate the light that exposes them.
Now, the problem wasn’t so much that Murray wrote about race differences in IQ.
The real problem was he found differences between whites and blacks showing lower IQ among blacks.
Suppose Murray had written about relative IQs of Chinese and Russians or between Iranians and Kurds. Suppose his findings said Iranians have higher IQ than Kurds or some such. I don’t think anyone would have cared.
Or, suppose his finding showed that blacks have higher IQ than whites. That too wouldn’t have made much difference among PC folks.
The problem is that he provided data showing that blacks have lower IQ.
THAT was the no-no. Why?
It’s due to the historiography of taboo and senso-politics(or sensotics). It’s because blacks have a special place in the US due to peculiarities of history and their representation in media/entertainment, and this had led to certain social sacraments and taboos.
Because blacks are louder in oratory and more colorful in expression, there is a senso-spiritual worship of Magic-Negro-ness as some kind of holiness, especially as secularized whites have lost faith in God and Jesus; they seek new gods.
This goes beyond rationality or morality. It’s a sensory-reaction to certain attributes. It’s like people have more positive views of lions over hyenas even though lions steal more from hyenas, which are often victimized by lions. Lions just look more regal and proud whereas hyenas seem like a bunch of laughing tards. Likewise, even though pigs are as smart or smarter than dogs and cats, our ‘sensotics’ make us prefer dogs and cats(as cute pets) while feeling nothing for fat ugly pigs. (Also, the sensotics of appeal of pork make people prefer pigs as food than objects of sympathy. Sensotics matter. It’s like the study that showed men are more likely to help sexy woman with car problems than fat women with car problems.)
There is also the matter of history, but actual history matters less than who gets to shape its Narrative. When the White South controlled the Narrative, they hardly felt any guilt since their narrative said, “despite unpleasantness of slavery, white folks nevertheless civilized Africans mired in savagery.” In other words, even slavery was a step-up for blacks. Also, the Southern Narrative ennobled the tragedy of the South that lost the Civil War and was exploited by carpet-beggars and black rabble. So, white southerners were made out to be the main victims of them Yankees as race traitors and enables of black violence.
Cult of Justice depends less on history than on narrative, an ideological or tribal shaping of history-telling. After all, the only reason Zionists got away with Nakba and oppression of Palestinians is they control the Narrative. So, despite apartheid conditions in West Bank, most Americans are with Israel. Also, Jews cleverly associated Nakba with Holocaust even though Palestinians had NOTHING to do with the Holocaust. Holocaust Narrative made Jews holy and sacred, a forever victim-folks. That gave cover to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Also, Jewish-dominant US media favored Israeli interests over those of Palestinians, a people who also lacked sensotic appeal since, unlike Jews, few Palestinians were heavy-hitters as journalists, academics, artists, writers, musicians, comedians, philanthropists, etc.
Anyway, the current Narrative on race relations is as follows: In the past, whites justified their supremacism over blacks on basis that blacks are not as intelligent or capable. So, slavery and explicit racial discrimination came to be associated with such ideas and attitudes.
Therefore, any discussion of black-white IQ differences, however true it may be, tends to be controversial because of cult of ‘white guilt’ in relation to history.
Now, I can understand why this would be morally or emotionally charged due to historical reasons, but from a scientific viewpoint, truth is still truth and must be discussed honestly and freely. True social science must always favor rationalism and factualism over emotionalism and sympathism.
Here is a thought experiment. Suppose bigger and stronger blacks had enslaved the smaller and weaker Japanese. Suppose blacks justify their dominance over Japanese on basis that blacks are tougher and stronger, thereby superior(on those terms), people whereas Japanese are weaker and smaller people, therefore inferior and deserving to be ruled by blacks.
Suppose black enslavement of Japanese is ended because blacks come to realize that slavery is wrong regardless of racial differences.
Suppose blacks try to make amends by pretending that blacks and Japanese are equal in size and strength. Because blacks had used black physical domination over the Japanese as rationale for enslavement of Japanese, blacks come to see any discussion of physical differences as associated with slavery and racial oppression. So, black PC insists that race is just a social construct and there are no differences in physical attributes. However, despite this dogma, Japanese continue to under-perform in sports, fighting, and etc in relation to blacks.
But suppose a black Charles Murray, or Leroy Murray, comes along and says the reason why Japanese continue to do less well in sports is due to them being smaller and weaker.
But then, suppose Leroy Murray is attacked for his ‘racism’ that demeans Japanese.
Leroy Murray is accused of thinking like the old black slavers who justified Japanese slavery on the basis of Japanese being smaller and weaker than blacks.
Since Leroy Murray’s views(blacks are bigger and stronger than Japanese) sound similar to the views of black supremacists who’d once justified Japanese slavery on black physical power, he is reviled as a ‘black supremacist’.
But the thing is Leroy Murray is not calling for return of Japanese slavery or racial discrimination. He is not calling for taking away rights from Japanese. He is just saying that the reason why Japanese continue to achieve less in sports is because there are natural-racial differences, and that the continued failure of Japanese relative to blacks cannot be blamed on past slavery.
Indeed, Abraham Lincoln made a moral anti-slavery argument despite arguing that blacks are not as smart as whites.
And even within the same race, we can believe in IQ differences and still not believe in slavery.
If US were all white, people would still believe that those who go to elite colleges are smarter than those who go community colleges. But it doesn’t mean people with IQ of 140 or above should enslave people with IQ of 100 or below or deny them rights.
But then, the elites do seem to believe that democracy is too good for Deplorables who voted for Trump and nationalism than for Hillary and replacism. In a way, how the elites see the native masses is worse than slavery. At least masters felt some degree of responsibility to his slaves. In contrast, today’s Western elites see their own people as trash to get rid of and replace with Third World folks. Even when White Death was devastating communities, there was silence among white elites. Funny that the elites who idolize Emma Lazarus(who called on the ‘wretched refuse’ to come to America) see their own people as wretched refuse to be disposed of and replaced by new peoples, as if running a nation is like shopping. Get rid of ‘old stuff’ and just get new stuff. This is worse than Bush II telling people to shopping after 9/11. He meant shopping for stuff. Today’s elite toss out native folks and shop for new folks.
It’s Stepford Lives.
A lot of interesting talk about genetics and IQ and testing and so on. But really, all you have to do is go to a mixed race kindergarten class and spend half an hour interacting with children of various races, and you will know unequivocally that there are racial differences in intelligence.
https://t.co/zM7iakHtwB
Wow. Section leader for two classes shoehorned into that eighteen year academic adventure.
I see that she is married to a blazingly white Canadian guy.
Have a computer divide up the world’s population into a billion different groups based on DNA clustering. The 7 people in the group you fit into, the ones most genetically similar to you, will be your immediate family.
Have it divide up the world’s population into seven different groups the same way and the group you fit into, the ones most genetically similar to you, will be your very extended family aka “race”.
“And the most decisive and permanent environmental intervention that an individual can experience, adoption from a poor family into a better-off one, is associated with IQ gains of 12 to 18 points”
It may have been from Amren, but apparently when a young child of one race is adopted by a family of a different race, the IQ gains, while real enough, are only for the first few years. Then the IQ of the child reverts back to the norm of their own race (regresion toward the mean). In other words, Arnold Jackson may have seen real gains when he was initially adopted by Mr. Drummond, but after a while, his IQ reverted back to his race. Arnold’s initial gains in IQ, however, ensured that he would at least be smarter than his Harlem compadres, even though he could never quite catch up to his new neighbors residing on Park Avenue. Of course, with Affirmative Action, it all came out good for Arnold in the wash. He was adopted into the Park Avenue family, so he was good enough.
I don’t think Arnold ever legally changed his surname to Drummond. He always kept Jackson.
Well, you could “go back to American history class”
or you could learn American history.
I’m glad you brought up the shifting and self-identified categories of race. This is the most frustrating aspect of the Flynn Effect. No attempt (that I am aware of) has been made to pare down the groups cited as having increased IQ to a common genetic ancestry. So saying that ‘White American” or “Black American” IQ has increased is not saying nearly as much as many seem to think. When it comes to other nations/groups the problem is still present. A national IQ average may have changed significantly, but the ethnic makeup of the country may have changed significantly as well. It’s interesting that those who cling the hardest to ‘race is a social construct’ never seem to be interested in whether or not their categories of Black or White have shifted from one data set to another over the decades. If a 70% European Mulatto is ‘Black American’ and a 70% Nigerian is ‘Kenyan’ then there is an entire axis that is being ignored in measurement. Even in countries that have stayed relatively homogeneous there is the problem of changing mating habits across classes. As always, the Leftist impulse is to obfuscate the issue as much as possible, claiming race isn’t real on the one hand while telling you your premise is flawed because your racial categories are not precise enough on the other.
Nope, the primary difference is people–genes and culture. The institutions flow from them in a semi-chaotic process, and are only one piece of a whole baggage train of capabilities or lack there of that people drag along with them.
Straw man. Everyone here is aware of the North/South Korea example. People are also aware that for some set of genetic/cultural/historical reasons China has been civilized for a very long time, but declined relative to the West, was poor a century back but is now rapidly gaining ground against the West.
In fact, your statement is the absolute reverse of the reality in all these nature/nurture debates. It’s always the nurturists who are absolutists and insist that anyone who brings in genetics is a racist who has been discredited by … uh … well … uh … what we all know must be true! Geez–witness the very article Steve’s referencing here. Turkheimer’s claiming that there’s no evidence for nature/genes in group differences. Which of course is utter nonsense.
African-Americans have much higher per capita incomes than Africans almost entirely because they live in a white developed, white run society. A well-run white society is hugely more prosperous (and more well ordered) and provides labor market opportunities even for people of mediocre/low skills that pay much, much better than they do in less developed/lower IQ societies.
You could leave US blacks our “institutions” and even our capital base, but if white people themselves left, the US would quickly start heading in the African direction. Even if “magic institutions”–rule of law–were maintained, their white free US would still head in the African direction.
John, you apparently don’t understand Steve’s quip of “Magic Dirt”.
“Magic Dirt” just refers to all these claims–mostly in reference to blacks–that somehow whites are stealing/hoarding the good stuff–nice neighborhoods, “good schools”, etc.–and excluding blacks holding them down. And further, if all this sort of “structural racism” was eliminated then blacks would be doing well. And yes, when a black moves from a black to a white neighborhood, they get a more peaceful, pleasant living experience. Likewise moving to a white school they do get a better school. Being in the white neighborhood doesn’t stop them from acting black. Being in the white school doesn’t raise their IQ. And when enough of their friends and family have also moved in the neighborhood stops being a nice neighborhood, the school stops being a “good school”. Because there never was any “magic dirt”. White people have nice things because white people create nice things.
“Magic dirt” does not imply that Mexicans moving the the US (or Africans to Europe) won’t see their incomes rise relative to back home. Steve and everyone here all know that. The migrants incomes will rise because whites have created more peaceful and prosperous nations that as a result have much higher wages even for identical lower skill labor. (And because white societies are more efficient at using their labor.) But if this migration continues unchecked … and Western nations fill with Mexicans or Africans, those nations will become crappier and crappier until they resemble Mexico or Africa. Because in fact, it is not “magic dirt”, but only the genes and culture of white people behind white nations’ prosperity.
charles murray doesn’t even understand what “heritability” means.
he’s such an obvious retard. 100% fake accent. he sounds like peggy noonan for fuck’s sake.
when HBDers defend him they lose all credibility, if they had any to begin with.
SAD!
I would not be surprised. I think, that lots of people do not understand what heritability really is, what it means and how it is measured (estimated). Some people think that say 70% heritability means that their IQ of 100 is partitioned between genes and nurture according to 70:40 ratio.
What did he say about heritability that indicates that he does not understand it?
I would not be surprised. I think, that lots of people do not understand what heritability really is, what it means and how it is measured (estimated). Some people think that say 70% heritability means that their IQ of 100 is partitioned between genes and nurture according to 70:40 ratio.
What did he say about heritability that indicates that he does not understand it?
Sam Harris emphatically defends Murray and scolds the political left. Harris goes as far to express shock and horror that he had believed Murray to be some horrific monster based on what he had heard and avoided reading or interacting with Murray. He later realized that Murray was a very reasonable, careful, respectful man and the hysteria was deliberately manufactured to shut him down, Sam Harris was quite emphatically disgusted with the left.
Have you ever read Yew’s account of the creation of Signapore? Building the state was an enormously challenging task that was rife with major internal ethnic instability and the external threat of invasion by Malaysia or Indonesia. Even marshaling a functioning police force proved extremely challenging as ethnic grievance simmered amongst the Chinese, Malay and Indian populations.
It was a feat of brilliance to keep the nation together.
Yes, a Herculean effort. Why have a vital trade hub fall into the hands of savages, right? Absolute benevolence on the part of the English. Amazingly, Singapore is the epitome of multiculturalism--from the glorious sights of Chinatown, to the influence of Muslims on Arab Street, and of course the Serangoon Road emits the vibe of Little India. Certainly not last are the breathtaking neo-classical buildings that mark British influence.
charles murray doesn’t even understand what “heritability” means.
I would not be surprised. I think, that lots of people do not understand what heritability really is, what it means and how it is measured (estimated). Some people think that say 70% heritability means that their IQ of 100 is partitioned between genes and nurture according to 70:40 ratio.
What did he say about heritability that indicates that he does not understand it?
“The treatment they receive from the current Zimbabwean administration being way above standard of course.”
As I stated earlier, tribal conflicts were generally kept in check as they focused their attention on becoming independent from their colonial masters. It was other than surprising that a leadership vacuum would occur, one by which open hostilities was the norm until one side ultimately won or both sides came to a compromise. For 30 years, there has been brutal dictatorship. Sure, Europeans would say they brought law and order…but it was imposed upon. Perhaps today’s Zimbabweans would rather be free from that and beat each other to a bloody pulp when figuring out their future than return to the meat grinder known as European colonialism.
I think you left out one of the most persuasive effects that Jensen raised in his paper ""How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?" That effect is regression to the mean. If a set of black parents are matched against a set of white parents, equivalent not only in environment, but in the IQ of the parents, the black parents will still have children of lower mean IQ than the white parents. The most parsimonious interpretation of this is that the population from which the black parents came was of a lower IQ, genetically-determined, than the population of the white parents.
Regression to the mean, to be boringly pedantic about it, is the tendency of outliers in a population to have children that are closer to the population as a whole.
An example of my father's researches, as a musician, came from the Bach family. Johann S. Bach came from a family of musicians, but obviously outshone them all by far. Interestingly enough, although he married a very talented musician, the children were gifted musicians, but none came close to Johann S. This illustrates regression to the mean.
Regression to the mean, to be boringly pedantic about it, is the tendency of outliers in a population to have children that are closer to the population as a whole.
The regression to the mean should work in both direction. Children of smart parents are less smart than them and children of stupid parents are smarter than them.
If the breeder’s equation really works as advertised then its effect should be narrowing the standard deviation of IQ in population providing there is no selective breeding and no mutations.
It was a feat of brilliance to keep the nation together.
“Have you ever read Yew’s account of the creation of Signapore? Building the state was an enormously challenging task that was rife with major internal ethnic instability and the external threat of invasion by Malaysia or Indonesia.”
Yes, a Herculean effort. Why have a vital trade hub fall into the hands of savages, right? Absolute benevolence on the part of the English. Amazingly, Singapore is the epitome of multiculturalism–from the glorious sights of Chinatown, to the influence of Muslims on Arab Street, and of course the Serangoon Road emits the vibe of Little India. Certainly not last are the breathtaking neo-classical buildings that mark British influence.
"...And whether you have one-man-one-vote, or some-men-one-vote or othermen-two-votes, those are forms which should be worked out. I'm not intellectually convinced that one-man-one-vote is the best. "At the end of the day, you cannot maintain Chinese culture without Chinese people, or Western culture without Western people.
Singapore's dominant majority, Chinese is 77% of the population.
USA's dominant majority, White is 77% of the population.
Singapore schools are English only:
“So you two agree, right?”
Agree on what? All you did was put in boldface two sentences. You offered no insight into how they are connected.
“Or do I need to go back to American history class?”
Yes.
The point isn't that you can do factor analysis and come up with a "g", the point is that the "g" you come up with is strong.
First off--if you had no prior knowledge of humanity--the subtest correlations do not even have to be positive. That's sort of the (older) hyper-nerd model, some guy who's good at math+science by re-purposing the parts of his brain that would have been doing verbal and appreciating poetry. And so he's math smart and verbal dumb. That's not the case.
Secondly, not only are all the subtest correlations positive, but they don't throw up multiple "g"s, they through up one "g". There isn't some "general verbal factor" that accounts for most human language skills, and then a separate "general math factor" that accounts for math skills. No there's a huge "general smarts factor" that accounts for people being what we think of as "smart" and then much, much smaller components. I.e. the nerd is a nerd first and foremost because he's "smart" and can do the math and as a result he also pretty good at the verbal too. (The "multiple intelligence" guys are just wrong.)
These two points--all positive correlations and one huge first component rather than multiple strong components is real information about human intelligence. Though i admit it's hardly earth-shattering insight to people with any life experience. Even at a young age one figures out that some of your peers are "smart" and some "non-smart". And you expect the smart ones to be better at figuring stuff out than the less smart ones even if this one has a more mathematical bent, this one more artistic, this one more literary, this one more mechanical.
The underlying biological reality being captured here is that some brains are just "better" or "faster and more efficient processors". Some combination or cortex volume, neural densities or synapse processing (neurotransmitters, neural receptors, etc.) This is the stuff the neurogenomics guys should be figuring out.
In most cases you will end up with a one dominant component but you can change it by adding more subtests to your battery of tests that are more dependent on language abilities instead of say geometric imagination. So you can manipulate the outcome by selecting subtests that constitute the battery of subtests that generate the covariance matrix. The fact that the second factor (s-factor) is significantly lower (less strong) than g-factor resulted form the construction of the battery of tests that somebody decided to use at some point. Was it Spearman? He wanted to get one dominant g and low and behold he got one dominate g. Gods of science make favors to really creative scientists. Ask and it shall be given to you.
I outlined this example of splitting Raven matrices into 4 separate tests (randomly) and create 4×4 covariance matrix. How do you think the most dominate factor would compare with next one in this case. Besides would you call it g in Spearman/Jensen sense?
Since you raised only the issue of one dominant factor does it mean that you concur on all others points I made?
charles murray doesn’t even understand what “heritability” means.
I would not be surprised. I think, that lots of people do not understand what heritability really is, what it means and how it is measured (estimated). Some people think that say 70% heritability means that their IQ of 100 is partitioned between genes and nurture according to 70:40 ratio.
What did he say about heritability that indicates that he does not understand it?
--------------------------------------
Freedom of association does not exist. Every organization has to report whom they hire to the federal government or they will be sued for disparate impact liability. One of the major reason we have a student loan bubble is because of the prohibition of IQ and aptitude testing by supreme court rulings.
One of the leaders of the Alt Right, Vox Day, argues that the “second wave of immigrants”–in particular YOUR ancestors–were ill-equipped to comprehend those “Angl0-Saxon standards”. In essence, you are supporting HIS argument. Therefore, as Vox Day says, you have to go back.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I dont think the WASPS control anything important enough to force anyone to go back but the country was better when it was out of Jewish and non-WASP control. I say that as a non-WASP. When the WASPs controlled the US the social system invented the following: the automobile, antibiotics, antihistamines, X-Ray, cancer treatments, the radio, the television, AC/DC currents, advances in metallurgy, the beginnings of the computers, the foundation for the internet, etc etc. There were social systems that were far more repressive of religious and racial minorities as well as to their underclass that produced no real advancements for the masses.
“Freedom of association does not exist.”
It assuredly exists. There are a number of white communities that you can reside in, a number of white owned businesses you can work at.
“Every organization has to report whom they hire to the federal government or they will be sued for disparate impact liability.”
And this legislation reflects the will of the people. Now, there are specific standards in place when it comes to litigation on this particular matter. You don’t sue willy nilly. It falls upon the plaintiff to make the case who must “draw an explicit, causal connection between a policy or practice and the disparate impact or statistical disparity…[with the] defendant having the opportunity to prove the policy is necessary to achieve a valid interest…[with the] plaintiff then show[ing] there is ‘an available alternative practice that has less disparate impact and serves the [entity’s] legitimate needs’. If a plaintiff cannot do so, then their disparate impact claim must fail.”
“One of the major reason we have a student loan bubble is because of the prohibition of IQ and aptitude testing by supreme court rulings.”
You do realize students take aptitude tests to get into colleges, right? Now, which court cases are you referring to?
“I dont think the WASPS control anything important enough to force anyone to go back but the country was better when it was out of Jewish and non-WASP control.”
Thank you for your opinion on this matter. But you still have to go back.
“When the WASPs controlled the US the social system invented the following: the automobile, antibiotics, antihistamines, X-Ray, cancer treatments, the radio, the television, AC/DC currents, advances in metallurgy, the beginnings of the computers, the foundation for the internet, etc etc.”
Actually, it was individuals from various ethnic groups developed those innovations. Although, one has to wonder what about those Eastern and Southern Europeans who came here in droves in the late 1800′s? What were their technological contributions? Did not WASPS generally view them as dim-witted creatures prone to socialism and anarchy?
“There were social systems that were far more repressive of religious and racial minorities as well as to their underclass that produced no real advancements for the masses.”
Regardless, you are circumventing the relevant point I had made. Southern and Eastern Europeans were viewed by nativists as being undesirable. The quota acts of the 1920′s worked to prevent large numbers of your brethren from reaching our shores. Remarkably, you share the same attitudes of contempt toward today’s immigrants as the nativists had against your ancestors. Undoubtedly, your great-grandparents who came here to the United States would have loudly opposed those sentiments. They would be rolling in their graves given your position.
And this legislation reflects the will of the people. Now, there are specific standards in place when it comes to litigation on this particular matter. You don’t sue willy nilly. It falls upon the plaintiff to make the case who must “draw an explicit, causal connection between a policy or practice and the disparate impact or statistical disparity…[with the] defendant having the opportunity to prove the policy is necessary to achieve a valid interest…[with the] plaintiff then show[ing] there is ‘an available alternative practice that has less disparate impact and serves the [entity’s] legitimate needs’. If a plaintiff cannot do so, then their disparate impact claim must fail.”
----------------------------------------------------
How can a plaintiff prove that their policy achieved a valid interest? What qualifies as a valid interest? If a plaintiff thought their policy would increase profits and the judge disagrees then whose will is to prevail? If the judge makes the wrong decision do they lose financially? In civil rights parlance what is acceptable as a business necessity? These questions have never been answered by anyone.
---------------------------------------------
What I said was the social system developed those innovations when the WASPS were in charge. That is not the same thing as saying the WASPS developed all of those things. The WASPS believed in individuals rights whereas most social systems believed in group rights. Many people who are very intelligent from different cultures dont understand social systems based upon individual rights rather than group rights. The WASPS were right in limiting people from those cultures based upon group rights because their system was unique and could be destroyed by people who dont understand non group rights based systems, just as civil rights activists had destroyed capital investment in the US.
You know what? The nativist WASPs were 100% correct. The Eastern and Southern European hordes -- and by that what you mean is Jews and Italians so why not just say it? -- were massively harmful to American life, even if they did contribute to it in many ways, especially the Jews.
The important question in this context is simply, would America be a better place today had they never been allowed in? Unquestionably yes. It would be a far more unified nation. It would have moved far less to the Left. There probably would not even have been a civil rights movement. To say nothing of feminism, anti-war hysteria, no nukes movement, gay rights, etc. Very likely we would not have gone on the outsourcing and de-industrialization binge we went on. We may not even have entered WWI without Jewish influence or had the monster that is the Federal Reserve (though that was mostly the earlier wave of Jews).Yes, good idea, but far too late.First off, stop arguing like a woman with emotional nonsense like this. Actually, the immigrants of the time might very well have thought -- much like the immigrants of today think -- why are these suckers in America letting us in? Don't they know we're coming here to leech what we can and exploit their very nice country? You know it's perfectly possible to look at a situation and say, "this will be bad for America, but I don't care, I'm getting my piece while I can." An adult can discern a difference between these two notions. Robbing a bank might be good for me, assuming I can get away with it. That doesn't mean I think it would be a great idea if everyone else robbed a bank too.
The fact that eigenvalues fade very quickly, and the first one is much greater than the second is an argument in favor of the concept of g.
The fact that eigenvalues fade very quickly, and the first one is much greater than the second is an argument in favor of the concept of g.
One would think so. But we can easily change it by restructuring the battery of subtests that generate the covariance matrix. We can add extra subtests that will enhance the second eigenvalue.
Do you think that that Spearman received the battery of tests from God on Mount Sinai or on Hill Cumorah in Palmyra, NY?
One would think so. But we can easily change it by restructuring the battery of subtests that generate the covariance matrix. We can add extra subtests that will enhance the second eigenvalue.
Do you think that that Spearman received the battery of tests from God on Mount Sinai or on Hill Cumorah in Palmyra, NY?
Spearman came up with his g theory the year before the IQ test was invented.
Yes, a Herculean effort. Why have a vital trade hub fall into the hands of savages, right? Absolute benevolence on the part of the English. Amazingly, Singapore is the epitome of multiculturalism--from the glorious sights of Chinatown, to the influence of Muslims on Arab Street, and of course the Serangoon Road emits the vibe of Little India. Certainly not last are the breathtaking neo-classical buildings that mark British influence.
I’m familiar enough with Singapore also to know that Yew intentionally ensured that Han China would be a majority population in the government, something that he stated himself in order to maintain “seeing through the eyes of Chinese scholars.” He also, incidentally, quite anti-democracy.
“…And whether you have one-man-one-vote, or some-men-one-vote or othermen-two-votes, those are forms which should be worked out. I’m not intellectually convinced that one-man-one-vote is the best. “
At the end of the day, you cannot maintain Chinese culture without Chinese people, or Western culture without Western people.
That wouldn’t have been the one Swedish February with thirty days, would it?
Nah. Wrong century, I think. The Swedes held off too long on accepting that Papist Gregorian calendar.
I am not sure if I understand your point. But let me try. Longitudinal study (age 18 and age 40) pose a problem. First, because scaling of test scores often is age dependent. Second, because there is extra rescaling that is epoch dependent. I think that the scaling and rescaling is done in such a way to keep mean and variance the same, say Mean IQ=100 and SD IQ=15 in UK. For this reason Flynn effect was not noticed (not without intention, imo) for such a long time.
So if you compare IQ results of a given person at age 18 and 40 what conclusion can you draw from it? Does it represent a real change (or real no change) or is it somehow the effect of scaling? It seems that the absolute value of IQ is not very meaningful. On the other hand this value indicates where you are with respect to the arbitrary scale where IQ has Gaussian distribution N(100,15).
Since normalizations are age dependent, I think, then when the society is getting older, then again you do not know what your IQ represent with respect to true national mean and variance.
It is some kind of bootstrap of a bootstrap…that at some point begins to chase its on tail bordering on Münchausen trilemma. Who keeps the track of it?
Say if your parent in in UK in 1955 tested IQ=100 and you tested also IQ=100 30 years later, he was smarter than 50% of British people and you are smarter than 50% of British people now. If that’s all what you care the scale denormalizations should not bother you but perhaps your dad would be happy to know that on his IQ scale you are 20 points smarter than him (if we assume that Flynn effect is real in terms of intelligence).
Thanks for the info.
I am not able to find anything about Charles Murray inspiring any character in Handmaid. I'm not even sure how that would work. Like I said, it was about being mad at televangelists, not "racist pseudoscienists." Gilead was thoroughly anti-science and had expressly medieval imagery, like the hanging of parts of executed criminals, high on city walls.
Barring a musing reconsideration by Atwood in a subsequent and much later interview, I think this is a great illustration of the sloppy herd-think lefties have in place of our humbly tended memes. It's like a target being a "Nazi" because he might as well be one or because he would be one if he was born at the right time and place.
So it’s kind of a utopian novel?
The point isn't that you can do factor analysis and come up with a "g", the point is that the "g" you come up with is strong.
First off--if you had no prior knowledge of humanity--the subtest correlations do not even have to be positive. That's sort of the (older) hyper-nerd model, some guy who's good at math+science by re-purposing the parts of his brain that would have been doing verbal and appreciating poetry. And so he's math smart and verbal dumb. That's not the case.
Secondly, not only are all the subtest correlations positive, but they don't throw up multiple "g"s, they through up one "g". There isn't some "general verbal factor" that accounts for most human language skills, and then a separate "general math factor" that accounts for math skills. No there's a huge "general smarts factor" that accounts for people being what we think of as "smart" and then much, much smaller components. I.e. the nerd is a nerd first and foremost because he's "smart" and can do the math and as a result he also pretty good at the verbal too. (The "multiple intelligence" guys are just wrong.)
These two points--all positive correlations and one huge first component rather than multiple strong components is real information about human intelligence. Though i admit it's hardly earth-shattering insight to people with any life experience. Even at a young age one figures out that some of your peers are "smart" and some "non-smart". And you expect the smart ones to be better at figuring stuff out than the less smart ones even if this one has a more mathematical bent, this one more artistic, this one more literary, this one more mechanical.
The underlying biological reality being captured here is that some brains are just "better" or "faster and more efficient processors". Some combination or cortex volume, neural densities or synapse processing (neurotransmitters, neural receptors, etc.) This is the stuff the neurogenomics guys should be figuring out.
“First off–if you had no prior knowledge of humanity–the subtest correlations do not even have to be positive….Secondly, not only are all the subtest correlations positive…”
Correlations don’t have to be positive in order to be amenable to PCA. The symmetry of the correlation/covariance matrices does mean the eigenvectors have some nice properties (http://www.math.umd.edu/~tjh/340_symmetric.pdf), but that’s a secondary issue. Even correlation matrices with plenty of negative values will likewise work.
It assuredly exists. There are a number of white communities that you can reside in, a number of white owned businesses you can work at.
"Every organization has to report whom they hire to the federal government or they will be sued for disparate impact liability."
And this legislation reflects the will of the people. Now, there are specific standards in place when it comes to litigation on this particular matter. You don't sue willy nilly. It falls upon the plaintiff to make the case who must "draw an explicit, causal connection between a policy or practice and the disparate impact or statistical disparity...[with the] defendant having the opportunity to prove the policy is necessary to achieve a valid interest...[with the] plaintiff then show[ing] there is 'an available alternative practice that has less disparate impact and serves the [entity’s] legitimate needs'. If a plaintiff cannot do so, then their disparate impact claim must fail."
"One of the major reason we have a student loan bubble is because of the prohibition of IQ and aptitude testing by supreme court rulings."
You do realize students take aptitude tests to get into colleges, right? Now, which court cases are you referring to?
"I dont think the WASPS control anything important enough to force anyone to go back but the country was better when it was out of Jewish and non-WASP control."
Thank you for your opinion on this matter. But you still have to go back.
"When the WASPs controlled the US the social system invented the following: the automobile, antibiotics, antihistamines, X-Ray, cancer treatments, the radio, the television, AC/DC currents, advances in metallurgy, the beginnings of the computers, the foundation for the internet, etc etc."
Actually, it was individuals from various ethnic groups developed those innovations. Although, one has to wonder what about those Eastern and Southern Europeans who came here in droves in the late 1800's? What were their technological contributions? Did not WASPS generally view them as dim-witted creatures prone to socialism and anarchy?
"There were social systems that were far more repressive of religious and racial minorities as well as to their underclass that produced no real advancements for the masses."
Regardless, you are circumventing the relevant point I had made. Southern and Eastern Europeans were viewed by nativists as being undesirable. The quota acts of the 1920's worked to prevent large numbers of your brethren from reaching our shores. Remarkably, you share the same attitudes of contempt toward today's immigrants as the nativists had against your ancestors. Undoubtedly, your great-grandparents who came here to the United States would have loudly opposed those sentiments. They would be rolling in their graves given your position.
“Every organization has to report whom they hire to the federal government or they will be sued for disparate impact liability.”
And this legislation reflects the will of the people. Now, there are specific standards in place when it comes to litigation on this particular matter. You don’t sue willy nilly. It falls upon the plaintiff to make the case who must “draw an explicit, causal connection between a policy or practice and the disparate impact or statistical disparity…[with the] defendant having the opportunity to prove the policy is necessary to achieve a valid interest…[with the] plaintiff then show[ing] there is ‘an available alternative practice that has less disparate impact and serves the [entity’s] legitimate needs’. If a plaintiff cannot do so, then their disparate impact claim must fail.”
—————————————————-
How can a plaintiff prove that their policy achieved a valid interest? What qualifies as a valid interest? If a plaintiff thought their policy would increase profits and the judge disagrees then whose will is to prevail? If the judge makes the wrong decision do they lose financially? In civil rights parlance what is acceptable as a business necessity? These questions have never been answered by anyone.
Evidence.
"What qualifies as a valid interest?"
The plaintiff has to offer specific details.
"If a plaintiff thought their policy would increase profits and the judge disagrees then whose will is to prevail?"
Certainly not the plaintiff in your simplistic case.
"If the judge makes the wrong decision do they lose financially?"
The judge renders a decision. It is only "wrong" if an appeals court rules the case differently. If that be the case, then the plaintiff is liable to pay for the fees for the defense attorneys.
"In civil rights parlance what is acceptable as a business necessity?"
That is based on the merits of the argument.
"These questions have never been answered by anyone."
Patently false. I just answered those questions. Furthermore, those questions were addressed in past court cases.
As I recall from my student days, the purpose of the rotation of the Principle Components is not only to simplify the mathematics, which has not been a big deal since computers came into common usage, but to improve interpretability of the factors. The criteria was to have each factor contain a few items with high weights and the rest with low weights. The factor was then identified by the items with the high weightings.
The real question is how close to any sort of reality are the factors? Does the rotation give you a concept which, in fact, is useful, valid, and reliable?
PCA and factor analysis are correlational methods. They are based on co-variance, or correlation coefficients. You may have items which hang together statistically, but is the relationship a physical association, or simply a coincidental association as a result of a particular background? There is probably a hefty correlation between lung cancer and buying cigarettes from a convenience store, but banning cigarettes from convenience stores would not lower the incidence of lung cancer.
If we concede that intelligence is a multi-genetic trait, there is no way that a g factor would hang together over time unless there were a selection process maintaining the correlation. My own suspicion, entirely without corroborating evidence, is that modern welfare society dramatically removes all environmental stresses on survivability. The result is that the natural rate of genetic mutation uncouples all the correlated traits caused by particular environmental stresses.
I suspect this is part of the explanation of why high-IQ societies such as Sweden are committing suicide through migration at such a fast and incomprehensible rate. Sweden is also one of the oldest social-welfare states. The traits previously correlated with, say, verbal ability, such as integrity and courage, have been decoupled to the extent that the traits needed to achieve political success are decoupled from any traits associated with accomplishment or even comprehension. Again, this is pure speculation.
As I recall from my student days, the purpose of the rotation of the Principle Components is not only to simplify the mathematics, which has not been a big deal since computers came into common usage, but to improve interpretability of the factors.
Yes. The question is what is interpretability? It is a value added that is not in data. You rotate as much as needed to get the interpretation you desire. In 1950 there was lots of criticism and questions about FA mainly because it seemed too flexible, too arbitrary. So mathematicians came to the rescue and created mathematically solid criteria (which btw, computationally can be demanding) that redistribute errors and loadings in particular way like e.g., varimax. This restrained a little bit the creative freedom of the interpreters though it still did not make the process unique. When your first component which is the strongest does not load all variable to your liking you can do rotation and increase loading of one particular variable at expense of loadings of other variables.
My position is that the proof is in the pudding. This pudding for IQ testing is its predictive ability of life outcomes but it must be kept in mind that often the results are overstated. But there is no pudding that g can prove. g proves nothing. It is just a fancy concept that could only pop out in the optimistic period of the pre WWI Europe when psychologists where thinking that they can emulate physics and mathematics by pushing reductionism beyond absurdity and constructing axiomatic pseudo-mathematical theories.
I would not go as far as Gould: “The chimerical nature of g is the rotten core of Jensen’s edifice …” though I agree that g is chimerical. It is not unique and by restructuring the test battery you can get increase the strength of the second factor if you want disproving the claim of a single g. So I will repeat myself that the only purpose of g concept is to serve as a rhetorical device that mathematical unsavvy can be swayed to believe that there is a deeper foundation behind the intelligence testing. So, no, it is not a rotten core because there is no core just like in the onion. More layers you remove closer you are to finding out there is nothing inside.
Again, I'm grateful for your bringing a mathematicians perspective and ability to the discussion. I'm also following your contributions on regression to the mean, so I'll be commenting on that as well.
I agree completely with you on the vague nature of 'g', although as Phil pointed out http://www.unz.com/isteve/vox-charles-murray-is-once-again-peddling-junk-science-about/#comment-1880870
it has some significant correlations with other measures which are probably more physiologically related than a psychometric score.
But we can't forget that factor analysis in personality analysis is done on correlations or covariance, and thus, does not imply any causality and might very well reflect a coincidence of development.
In my opinion, the only way to really make an argument for a physical grounding of g is to use replication. The replication should use not only the factor loadings from previous studies, but the raw weightings of the scores. After all, we're arguing physical reality of a coherent population. Correlations actually provide a normalization on the variance and covariance: but, if we're arguing that we're reflecting a physical reality, I think using a normalization for the replication is biasing the analysis towards our hypothesis. For example, if the correlations remained the same, but the variance changed widely from sample to sample, have we really shown an underlying physical quality?
I think your discussion on the regression to the mean actually adds to the discussion of g. What you did was to find a mathematical formulation of heritability which reflects both the observed regression to the mean and the invariance of variance (didn't really mean to make a pun) across generations.
It seems to be accepted that intelligence is a polygenetic trait (begging the question of whether we can speak of "trait" in the singular). Let me construct a model where there are 100 genes affecting intelligence, each gene with two alleles, a dumb allele and a smart allele. Suppose intelligence is determined by the raw number of genes where there are two smart alleles. You could have a smart father and smart mother, but smart because of different genes. The offspring would have a higher chance of having more than average genes with smart alleles, but their expected intelligence would still be lower than their parent outliers, who were really lucky in the number of matched genes.
The question is, is there any necessary connection of the smart genes to each other, or is it an artifact of population development within a stressful environment? It's pretty accepted that gene alleles have a constant rate of mutation, so in the absence of environmental stresses selecting for a particular allele, it will eventually get replaced in the population. I will assume this holds true for correlations between alleles on different genes. My conclusion is that in the high-technology, low stress environment we are now in, the g construct will become weaker, and mean intelligence test scores (whatever they mean) will decrease. This will take place even without dysgenic immigration.
That would make sense, but will never happen.
Far more important to their worldview is the notion that the inferior position they find themselves in is someone else’s fault. That it’s “just the way it is” wouldn’t be nearly as much fun.
So if you compare IQ results of a given person at age 18 and 40 what conclusion can you draw from it? Does it represent a real change (or real no change) or is it somehow the effect of scaling? It seems that the absolute value of IQ is not very meaningful. On the other hand this value indicates where you are with respect to the arbitrary scale where IQ has Gaussian distribution N(100,15).
Since normalizations are age dependent, I think, then when the society is getting older, then again you do not know what your IQ represent with respect to true national mean and variance.
It is some kind of bootstrap of a bootstrap...that at some point begins to chase its on tail bordering on Münchausen trilemma. Who keeps the track of it?
Say if your parent in in UK in 1955 tested IQ=100 and you tested also IQ=100 30 years later, he was smarter than 50% of British people and you are smarter than 50% of British people now. If that's all what you care the scale denormalizations should not bother you but perhaps your dad would be happy to know that on his IQ scale you are 20 points smarter than him (if we assume that Flynn effect is real in terms of intelligence).
Forget the scale for a moment. Suppose you have 500 18 year old classmates who are tested and ranked. Then suppose the same people are retested and reranked at age 40 at a reunion. How much shake-up will there be in the rankings? If say someone was 75th percentile at 18, is that a reliable predictor of where they will fall relative to their peers at age 40?
Correlations don't have to be positive in order to be amenable to PCA. The symmetry of the correlation/covariance matrices does mean the eigenvectors have some nice properties (http://www.math.umd.edu/~tjh/340_symmetric.pdf), but that's a secondary issue. Even correlation matrices with plenty of negative values will likewise work.
Correct. Besides you can change signs on some subtests scores from+ to – and make all correlation nonnegative.
“There were social systems that were far more repressive of religious and racial minorities as well as to their underclass that produced no real advancements for the masses.”
Regardless, you are circumventing the relevant point I had made. Southern and Eastern Europeans were viewed by nativists as being undesirable. The quota acts of the 1920′s worked to prevent large numbers of your brethren from reaching our shores. Remarkably, you share the same attitudes of contempt toward today’s immigrants as the nativists had against your ancestors. Undoubtedly, your great-grandparents who came here to the United States would have loudly opposed those sentiments. They would be rolling in their graves given your position.
——————————————
My grandparents would be rolling in their graves witnessing the shocking lack of sexual restrain in black communities. There really was no welfare state back then.
Irrelevant to our discussion. Stay connected here. How do you address those nativists who in part believed your ancestors were "dangerous radicals"?
“Any nonnegative symmetric matrix can be decomposed into principal components by some method. Different methods yield different results. One of this component will have larger loadings than any other component on average. Arriving at g from the covariance matrix which from its definition is nonnegative and symmetric is a mathematical necessity.”
As noted earlier, nonnegativity of the matrix is irrelevant here, so I’m not sure why you mention it. Did you mean positive definite? Secondly, your second sentence — that I boldfaced — is simply incorrect. Try doing a PCA on, say, random data. You can do that with an Excel spreadsheet — google it. You’ll see that the eigenvalues are actually more or less equal, up to a noise differential that gets smaller and smaller as your data sample gets larger. If that’s not the case, it means your random data generator is flawed.
Also, “g” would not be irrelevant or trivial even if there were some still-larger factors. In fact, there ARE larger factors — some very obvious ones — but typically one chooses samples with that in mind. For example, we don’t administer IQ tests to penguins along with humans (unless we’re in a Monty Python skit) or to children who are severely mentally disabled. If we did, the “IsNotAPenguin” and “IsNotSeverelyMentallyDisabled” variables would both be far more “explanatory” than “g” is, and the associated factor loadings would likewise be far greater. So that’s irrelevant, too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhtfizONYOc
I did know you would be in the audience. In the contest of g most people are used to think of nonnegative correlations because the subtest were constructed that way.
Try doing a PCA on, say, random data. You can do that with an Excel spreadsheet — google it. You’ll see that the eigenvalues are actually more or less equal, up to a noise differential that gets smaller and smaller as your data sample gets larger.
This example is trivial and not a propos. As random data samples get larger the covariance matrix will approach the identity (diagonal) matrix as correlations between pseudo random data will tend to zero. Then obviously all eigenvalues will be more similar. But still before you reach the infinity (let me know when you get there) you will have N eigenvalues of which one will be the largest. So the boldface sentence stands.
You can look up the Scottish 1932 IQ test of all 11 years olds. Deary came back many decades later and gave some of the now elderly people IQ tests.
Darwin determined from observation of animals that it was almost always the female who did the choosing; it was the males who displayed.
We have to imagine what women today look for, but if evolution is any guide they would look for good providers and defenders; I would imagine that height would be a signifier of those characteristics.
Men would look for signs of a good mother; good health, wide hips, signs of responsibility – – – whatever those would be. I don't see why being short would be a plus, specially if it implied narrow hips which could not handle a large baby resulting from a tall man.
Fun, but falsifiable.
Sorry, but if you look back at traditional human societies, the females very seldom indeed had any choice about who they mated with. Their families and in particular their fathers normally made those decisions, for their own criteria.
Certainly true if you were on the west coast of Scotland when a Viking ship called in, but IIRC not generally true in the UK for a thousand years or more, I think one Gertrude Himmelfarb is the authority.
In the absence of a welfare state and no-fault divorce for cash and prizes, women had to be very careful about selecting the best mate they could attract from the limited supply (i.e. those within walking distance). On the other hand, they knew their families, and their families knew them too.
The point isn't that you can do factor analysis and come up with a "g", the point is that the "g" you come up with is strong.
First off--if you had no prior knowledge of humanity--the subtest correlations do not even have to be positive. That's sort of the (older) hyper-nerd model, some guy who's good at math+science by re-purposing the parts of his brain that would have been doing verbal and appreciating poetry. And so he's math smart and verbal dumb. That's not the case.
Secondly, not only are all the subtest correlations positive, but they don't throw up multiple "g"s, they through up one "g". There isn't some "general verbal factor" that accounts for most human language skills, and then a separate "general math factor" that accounts for math skills. No there's a huge "general smarts factor" that accounts for people being what we think of as "smart" and then much, much smaller components. I.e. the nerd is a nerd first and foremost because he's "smart" and can do the math and as a result he also pretty good at the verbal too. (The "multiple intelligence" guys are just wrong.)
These two points--all positive correlations and one huge first component rather than multiple strong components is real information about human intelligence. Though i admit it's hardly earth-shattering insight to people with any life experience. Even at a young age one figures out that some of your peers are "smart" and some "non-smart". And you expect the smart ones to be better at figuring stuff out than the less smart ones even if this one has a more mathematical bent, this one more artistic, this one more literary, this one more mechanical.
The underlying biological reality being captured here is that some brains are just "better" or "faster and more efficient processors". Some combination or cortex volume, neural densities or synapse processing (neurotransmitters, neural receptors, etc.) This is the stuff the neurogenomics guys should be figuring out.
Some further points supporting g as a real thing:
1. the “validity” of g: it is g, rather than anything else, that predicts the outcomes of interest (e.g., academic and financial)
2. the heritability of g: it is g that is most heritable of the many aspects of tests
3. it best accounts for the gap in performance between whites and blacks
4. the inability of test makers, over the course of more than a century, to construct a test that satisfies the goal of measuring cognitive ability that doesn’t involve g, and a g that correlates very well with the g of other standard tests
In some ways it is 4 that demonstrates the inescapability of g. Ignorant people talk about how one could just construct new tests that get a different “g”, or would not display any “g”. But test-makers and psychologists have been trying, sometimes rather desperately, and in service of an ideology, to do so for over a century to come up with such tests. Yet they have encountered nothing but failure. Most recently, Howard Gardner and Robert Sternberg have tried to devise tests which capture different aspects of intelligence, but those tests, insofar as they possess any validity and reliability, always produce the same g component as before. All the accolades of our society would be visited upon any social scientist who could devise a new kind of cognitive ability test avoiding “g”. Nobody has succeeded.
Points 1-4 go well beyond merely finding a big first principal component. They are each independent evidence that g is real and important — how indeed explain them if g is just some arbitrary construct?
(2) I do not know of any research that showed that the heritability of g is higher than IQ.
(3) Neither g nor IQ explains the B-W gap. They measure it.
(4) Any battery of tests produces some g. g's from different batteries of tests usually correlate with each other more or less well but they are not the same.
As noted earlier, nonnegativity of the matrix is irrelevant here, so I’m not sure why you mention it.
I did know you would be in the audience. In the contest of g most people are used to think of nonnegative correlations because the subtest were constructed that way.
Try doing a PCA on, say, random data. You can do that with an Excel spreadsheet — google it. You’ll see that the eigenvalues are actually more or less equal, up to a noise differential that gets smaller and smaller as your data sample gets larger.
This example is trivial and not a propos. As random data samples get larger the covariance matrix will approach the identity (diagonal) matrix as correlations between pseudo random data will tend to zero. Then obviously all eigenvalues will be more similar. But still before you reach the infinity (let me know when you get there) you will have N eigenvalues of which one will be the largest. So the boldface sentence stands.
If no connection exist between genetics and social/cultural advancements, then why are all predominantly white cultures light-years ahead of where they were 2,000 years ago, while black Africa remains virtually unchanged? Huh?
It assuredly exists. There are a number of white communities that you can reside in, a number of white owned businesses you can work at.
"Every organization has to report whom they hire to the federal government or they will be sued for disparate impact liability."
And this legislation reflects the will of the people. Now, there are specific standards in place when it comes to litigation on this particular matter. You don't sue willy nilly. It falls upon the plaintiff to make the case who must "draw an explicit, causal connection between a policy or practice and the disparate impact or statistical disparity...[with the] defendant having the opportunity to prove the policy is necessary to achieve a valid interest...[with the] plaintiff then show[ing] there is 'an available alternative practice that has less disparate impact and serves the [entity’s] legitimate needs'. If a plaintiff cannot do so, then their disparate impact claim must fail."
"One of the major reason we have a student loan bubble is because of the prohibition of IQ and aptitude testing by supreme court rulings."
You do realize students take aptitude tests to get into colleges, right? Now, which court cases are you referring to?
"I dont think the WASPS control anything important enough to force anyone to go back but the country was better when it was out of Jewish and non-WASP control."
Thank you for your opinion on this matter. But you still have to go back.
"When the WASPs controlled the US the social system invented the following: the automobile, antibiotics, antihistamines, X-Ray, cancer treatments, the radio, the television, AC/DC currents, advances in metallurgy, the beginnings of the computers, the foundation for the internet, etc etc."
Actually, it was individuals from various ethnic groups developed those innovations. Although, one has to wonder what about those Eastern and Southern Europeans who came here in droves in the late 1800's? What were their technological contributions? Did not WASPS generally view them as dim-witted creatures prone to socialism and anarchy?
"There were social systems that were far more repressive of religious and racial minorities as well as to their underclass that produced no real advancements for the masses."
Regardless, you are circumventing the relevant point I had made. Southern and Eastern Europeans were viewed by nativists as being undesirable. The quota acts of the 1920's worked to prevent large numbers of your brethren from reaching our shores. Remarkably, you share the same attitudes of contempt toward today's immigrants as the nativists had against your ancestors. Undoubtedly, your great-grandparents who came here to the United States would have loudly opposed those sentiments. They would be rolling in their graves given your position.
“When the WASPs controlled the US the social system invented the following: the automobile, antibiotics, antihistamines, X-Ray, cancer treatments, the radio, the television, AC/DC currents, advances in metallurgy, the beginnings of the computers, the foundation for the internet, etc etc.”
Actually, it was individuals from various ethnic groups developed those innovations. Although, one has to wonder what about those Eastern and Southern Europeans who came here in droves in the late 1800′s? What were their technological contributions? Did not WASPS generally view them as dim-witted creatures prone to socialism and anarchy?
———————————————
What I said was the social system developed those innovations when the WASPS were in charge. That is not the same thing as saying the WASPS developed all of those things. The WASPS believed in individuals rights whereas most social systems believed in group rights. Many people who are very intelligent from different cultures dont understand social systems based upon individual rights rather than group rights. The WASPS were right in limiting people from those cultures based upon group rights because their system was unique and could be destroyed by people who dont understand non group rights based systems, just as civil rights activists had destroyed capital investment in the US.
2. the heritability of g: it is g that is most heritable of the many aspects of tests
3. it best accounts for the gap in performance between whites and blacks
4. the inability of test makers, over the course of more than a century, to construct a test that satisfies the goal of measuring cognitive ability that doesn't involve g, and a g that correlates very well with the g of other standard testsIn some ways it is 4 that demonstrates the inescapability of g. Ignorant people talk about how one could just construct new tests that get a different "g", or would not display any "g". But test-makers and psychologists have been trying, sometimes rather desperately, and in service of an ideology, to do so for over a century to come up with such tests. Yet they have encountered nothing but failure. Most recently, Howard Gardner and Robert Sternberg have tried to devise tests which capture different aspects of intelligence, but those tests, insofar as they possess any validity and reliability, always produce the same g component as before. All the accolades of our society would be visited upon any social scientist who could devise a new kind of cognitive ability test avoiding "g". Nobody has succeeded.Points 1-4 go well beyond merely finding a big first principal component. They are each independent evidence that g is real and important -- how indeed explain them if g is just some arbitrary construct?
(1) Actually IQ predicts it better than g and one can construct linear combinations of subtest that predict some life outcomes even better than IQ.
(2) I do not know of any research that showed that the heritability of g is higher than IQ.
(3) Neither g nor IQ explains the B-W gap. They measure it.
(4) Any battery of tests produces some g. g’s from different batteries of tests usually correlate with each other more or less well but they are not the same.
And this legislation reflects the will of the people. Now, there are specific standards in place when it comes to litigation on this particular matter. You don’t sue willy nilly. It falls upon the plaintiff to make the case who must “draw an explicit, causal connection between a policy or practice and the disparate impact or statistical disparity…[with the] defendant having the opportunity to prove the policy is necessary to achieve a valid interest…[with the] plaintiff then show[ing] there is ‘an available alternative practice that has less disparate impact and serves the [entity’s] legitimate needs’. If a plaintiff cannot do so, then their disparate impact claim must fail.”
----------------------------------------------------
How can a plaintiff prove that their policy achieved a valid interest? What qualifies as a valid interest? If a plaintiff thought their policy would increase profits and the judge disagrees then whose will is to prevail? If the judge makes the wrong decision do they lose financially? In civil rights parlance what is acceptable as a business necessity? These questions have never been answered by anyone.
“How can a plaintiff prove that their policy achieved a valid interest?”
Evidence.
“What qualifies as a valid interest?”
The plaintiff has to offer specific details.
“If a plaintiff thought their policy would increase profits and the judge disagrees then whose will is to prevail?”
Certainly not the plaintiff in your simplistic case.
“If the judge makes the wrong decision do they lose financially?”
The judge renders a decision. It is only “wrong” if an appeals court rules the case differently. If that be the case, then the plaintiff is liable to pay for the fees for the defense attorneys.
“In civil rights parlance what is acceptable as a business necessity?”
That is based on the merits of the argument.
“These questions have never been answered by anyone.”
Patently false. I just answered those questions. Furthermore, those questions were addressed in past court cases.
------------------------------------
What is the delineation between an argument without merit and an argument with merit? What you are not willing to come out and say is that the original civil rights act of 1964 section 703j prohibited statistical quotas and you are trying to insert them in. The civil rights act of 1964 would never have passed without prohibiting statistical quotas and civil rights activists are trying to re-instate them.
------------------------------------------
My grandparents would be rolling in their graves witnessing the shocking lack of sexual restrain in black communities. There really was no welfare state back then.
“My grandparents would be rolling in their graves witnessing the shocking lack of sexual restrain in black communities. There really was no welfare state back then.”
Irrelevant to our discussion. Stay connected here. How do you address those nativists who in part believed your ancestors were “dangerous radicals”?
Evidence.
"What qualifies as a valid interest?"
The plaintiff has to offer specific details.
"If a plaintiff thought their policy would increase profits and the judge disagrees then whose will is to prevail?"
Certainly not the plaintiff in your simplistic case.
"If the judge makes the wrong decision do they lose financially?"
The judge renders a decision. It is only "wrong" if an appeals court rules the case differently. If that be the case, then the plaintiff is liable to pay for the fees for the defense attorneys.
"In civil rights parlance what is acceptable as a business necessity?"
That is based on the merits of the argument.
"These questions have never been answered by anyone."
Patently false. I just answered those questions. Furthermore, those questions were addressed in past court cases.
an civil rights parlance what is acceptable as a business necessity?”
That is based on the merits of the argument.
————————————
What is the delineation between an argument without merit and an argument with merit? What you are not willing to come out and say is that the original civil rights act of 1964 section 703j prohibited statistical quotas and you are trying to insert them in. The civil rights act of 1964 would never have passed without prohibiting statistical quotas and civil rights activists are trying to re-instate them.
Exactly why we have lawyers to hash it out.
"What you are not willing to come out and say is that the original civil rights act of 1964 section 703j prohibited statistical quotas and you are trying to insert them in."
The only thing I am trying to insert is logic here in our discussion. I made no such claim directly or indirectly. You are erecting a straw man.
"The civil rights act of 1964 would never have passed without prohibiting statistical quotas..."
Thank you for your opinion on this matter.
delete
Moops!
_____________
Companies need workers — but people keep getting high
Workers at McLane drive forklifts and load hefty boxes into trucks. The grocery supplier, which runs a warehouse in Colorado, needs people who will stay alert — but prospective hires keep failing drug screens.
“Some weeks this year, 90 percent of applicants would test positive for something,” ruling them out for the job, said Laura Stephens, a human resources manager for the company in Denver.
The state’s unemployment rate is already low — 3 percent, compared to 4.7 percent for the entire nation. Failed drug tests, which are rising locally and nationally, further drain the pool of eligible job candidates.
“Finding people to fill jobs,” Stephens said, “is really challenging.”
Job applicants are testing positive for marijuana, cocaine, amphetamine and heroin at the highest rate in 12 years, according to a new report from Quest Diagnostics, a clinical lab that follows national employment trends. An analysis of about 10 million workplace drug screens from across the country in 2016 found positive results from urine samples increased from 4 percent in 2015 to 4.2 percent in 2016.
The most significant increase was in positive tests for marijuana, said Barry Sample, the scientist who wrote the report. Positive tests for the drug reached 2 percent last year, compared with 1.6 percent in 2012.
(Washington Post -- May 17 2017)
This is all a bit weird, and a good example of the trouble with pretending states can override federal laws.
Using marihuana is ostensibly legal in Colorado (though, paradoxically, it is illegal everywhere in the U.S.A….). That suggests if employees chose to use marihuana on their own time but remain sober during working hours, the matter is no business of any employer, in the same way that an employee’s choice to have wine with dinner or even to get drunk as a sailor on his Saturday off, is no business of any employer – especially an employer who hiring him for work as a drayer or stevedore, which is basically what we have here; even the folks operating the forklifts, who I agree should be held to a somewhat higher standard, can hardly be expected to pass the kind of rigorous screening expected of SEALs, nuclear engineers, airline-pilots, surgeons, etc. for character and alertness….
And marihuana, unlike alcohol, does not metabolise very quickly: someone who smokes marihuana on his Saturday off (unlike someone who drinks a case of beer on his Saturday off) will still test positive for marihuana on Monday morning (whereas our drinker will not test positive for alcohol in his system…).
Employment in the U.S.A. is conventionally at-will and employers have had broad discretion to impose any number of requirements on employers – hairstyles, clothing, comportment in public off duty which must not mar the employers reputation, etc. – but courts have generally not recognised any right to intrude upon or dictate behaviour which is not illegal per se and which cannot have any effect upon the employer’s goodwill or otherwise be related to a bona fide occupational requirement or business, especially not such behaviour confined to the privacy of the employees own home whilst off-duty, such as smoking a bit of weed in one’s living room on a Saturday whilst watching reruns of of Spongebob Squarepants, which, I suspect, more or less sums up the behaviour of the great majority of these employees.
So grab some popcorn, kids; as soon as an enterprising plaintiff’s lawyers perfects his angle, I foresee some interesting test-cases.
------------------------------------
What is the delineation between an argument without merit and an argument with merit? What you are not willing to come out and say is that the original civil rights act of 1964 section 703j prohibited statistical quotas and you are trying to insert them in. The civil rights act of 1964 would never have passed without prohibiting statistical quotas and civil rights activists are trying to re-instate them.
“What is the delineation between an argument without merit and an argument with merit?”
Exactly why we have lawyers to hash it out.
“What you are not willing to come out and say is that the original civil rights act of 1964 section 703j prohibited statistical quotas and you are trying to insert them in.”
The only thing I am trying to insert is logic here in our discussion. I made no such claim directly or indirectly. You are erecting a straw man.
“The civil rights act of 1964 would never have passed without prohibiting statistical quotas…”
Thank you for your opinion on this matter.
Exactly why we have lawyers to hash it out.
---------------------------------------
and how have they hashed it out? You dont know or you are unwilling to say? Why was Bayard Rustin thrown out of the civil rights movement after 1964?
So what exactly would happen? In what ways would the world be a better place? Or a worse place?
The regression to the mean should work in both direction. Children of smart parents are less smart than them and children of stupid parents are smarter than them.
If the breeder's equation really works as advertised then its effect should be narrowing the standard deviation of IQ in population providing there is no selective breeding and no mutations.
You don’t understand. There is indeed regression towards the mean – but it does not change the distribution, as long as TFR ( or more exactly, reproductive fitness) is the same for people with different trait values.
This problem was of course one of the major issues Darwin was obliged to explain in his theory -- indeed, so desperate was he to avoid regression that he went Lamarkean in his thinking (variation was maintained by ecological pressures).
The breeder's equation if taken literally (offsprings are closer to the mean than parents) implies the distribution change (narrowing of variance). I must be missing something.
The danger of applying the breeder’s equation in observational studies of natural populations
http://www.indiana.edu/~curtweb/L567/readings/breeder%27s_equation.pdf
Yes, the precise contribution of Fisher (and indirectly Mendel) was his account of how genetic variation was not lost from generation to generation via regression. The particulate account of genes allowed variation to be retained across generations without a population wide regression to the mean.
This problem was of course one of the major issues Darwin was obliged to explain in his theory — indeed, so desperate was he to avoid regression that he went Lamarkean in his thinking (variation was maintained by ecological pressures).
>”Besides you can change signs on some subtests scores from+ to – and make all correlation nonnegative.”
That won’t work either, in general, if the correlation matrix has both positive and negative values along one (upper-diagonal) row or column. Changing the sign of one subtest will change the sign of all the correlations along that row or column, so if both positive and negative entries exist before the sign change, they’ll still be there afterwards.
https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2004-deary.pdf
Correlation 0.8 translates to St. Dev of IQ(80)-IQ(11) 9.5 IQ puts (1 -sigma).
"...And whether you have one-man-one-vote, or some-men-one-vote or othermen-two-votes, those are forms which should be worked out. I'm not intellectually convinced that one-man-one-vote is the best. "At the end of the day, you cannot maintain Chinese culture without Chinese people, or Western culture without Western people.
Lee, not Yew.
Singaporean Chinese don’t write their full names in the Western style.
Lee Kuan Yew aka K.Y. “Harry” Lee. His son, Hsien Loong, is Lee Hsien Loong.
No offense intended.
Exactly why we have lawyers to hash it out.
"What you are not willing to come out and say is that the original civil rights act of 1964 section 703j prohibited statistical quotas and you are trying to insert them in."
The only thing I am trying to insert is logic here in our discussion. I made no such claim directly or indirectly. You are erecting a straw man.
"The civil rights act of 1964 would never have passed without prohibiting statistical quotas..."
Thank you for your opinion on this matter.
“What is the delineation between an argument without merit and an argument with merit?”
Exactly why we have lawyers to hash it out.
—————————————
and how have they hashed it out? You dont know or you are unwilling to say? Why was Bayard Rustin thrown out of the civil rights movement after 1964?
In those cases that have met the legal standards for court proceedings.
In the the halls of Congress where representatives and Senators propose laws.
On blogs on leftist and conservative sites.
Why was Bayard Rustin thrown out of the civil rights movement after 1964?
He was not removed from the movement. Where did you even get this silly notion? As a Socialist, he ended up directing his attention on the financial issues of the working class and jobless blacks.
It was a feat of brilliance to keep the nation together.
“You get dirty, and the pig enjoys it”
“the females very seldom indeed had any choice about who they mated with”
Certainly true if you were on the west coast of Scotland when a Viking ship called in, but IIRC not generally true in the UK for a thousand years or more, I think one Gertrude Himmelfarb is the authority.
In the absence of a welfare state and no-fault divorce for cash and prizes, women had to be very careful about selecting the best mate they could attract from the limited supply (i.e. those within walking distance). On the other hand, they knew their families, and their families knew them too.
Those words were for most of human history entirely literal. A young woman - might - in some places and times have a veto on who she married, but she almost never had an unconstrained choice that would allow her to pick the one she was most attracted to sexually.
Did you mean to make this absolutist statement, or did you mean to say, “But if there is no pudding that g can prove, then g proves nothing.”?
It is one of the best predictors we have in the social sciences. People do attribute magical powers to it, but that is another matter.
One way of looking at it is in the sense of Occam's razor: "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." What was explained by postulating g? In the empirical realm g does not perform better than IQ test scores. Does g explains why IQ performs well as a predictor of some life outcomes? No, it can't because correlation between g and IQ is less than 1 and between life outcomes and g the correlation is less than the correlation between the same life outcomes and IQ.
Quite possibly, but here we’re not talking about sub-Saharan blacks or what we used to call “the Negro race.” These people hadn’t reached the Cape when the Euros arrived. It was still inhabited only by Khoisan people, who are pretty clearly a different “race” from the Negros, probably as different as they are from Euros. The Khoisan were all either hunter-gatherers or pastoral, no agriculture.
Quite possibly, but here we’re not talking about sub-Saharan blacks or what we used to call “the Negro race.” These people hadn’t reached the Cape when the Euros arrived. It was still inhabited only by Khoisan people, who are pretty clearly a different “race” from the Negros, probably as different as they are from Euros. The Khoisan were all either hunter-gatherers or pastoral, no agriculture.
> 1) Intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, is a meaningful construct that describes differences in cognitive ability among humans.
> 2) Individual differences in intelligence are moderately heritable.
> 3) Racial groups differ in their mean scores on IQ tests.
> 4) Discoveries about genetic ancestry have validated commonly used racial groupings.
> 5) On the basis of points 1 through 4, it is natural to assume that the reasons for racial differences in IQ scores are themselves at least partly genetic.
They do, however, get #4 wrong in a way that's entirely unnecessary. They write:
> Murray talks about advances in population genetics as if they have validated modern racial groups. In reality, the racial groups used in the US — white, black, Hispanic, Asian — are such a poor proxy for underlying genetic ancestry that no self-respecting statistical geneticist would undertake a study based only on self-identified racial category as a proxy for genetic ancestry measured from DNA.
Of course that's false. Risch et al (2002) answered that question and it's been corroborated since then. Even on a charitable reading of their claim (e.g. one-drop rule and other social factors skew racial identification), it's at best irrelevant. As Murray describes at length in the podcast, any lack of perfect correlation between self-identified racial and ethnic groups and genetically definable populations merely attenuates our ability to observe a genetic effect and thus the fact that we see such large phenotypic group differences does nothing to make a genetic hypothesis less likely. Such a refutation would require literally no genetic basis for racial groups at all, which is of course not the case.
Their arguments in favor of an entirely environmental explanation are weak and suffer from a failure to discuss contrary evidence. There arguments mostly consist of reasons why it's not logically necessary for their to be a genetic component. It was never logically necessary, and so their arguments are mostly weak. As a piece of scholarship, this article is thus shoddy. But as a polemic it is not terrible.
Although many folks in the HBD-sphere lauded them at the time, Jensen and Rushton's 2005 review article was similarly lopsided. Much of the evidence they presented for a hereditarian hypothesis was also weak. The method of correlated vectors has been shown to be non-specific, for example. The strongest evidence comes from things like transracial adoption studies and the handful of nearly direct genetic tests (e.g. admixture analysis with proxy variables like educational attainment). There's also the fact that a definitive test (genetic admixture analysis) has been feasible for at least a decade and yet somehow never done.
Back to the Vox article: the authors bring up the Flynn Effect and then dismiss the rather lengthy exposition in the podcast as "hand-waving". Murray properly cites Jelte Wicherts' work on measurement invariance and the fact that it causes one to doubt the relevance of the Flynn effect for Black-White IQ differences.
So what about the author's claim that "there is no evidence for any such genetic hypothesis"? Well, yes and no. The smoking gun hasn't been uncovered because the proper experiment has never been performed, and even in 2017 we really should be agnostic as to the extent to which genes cause IQ differences between races. However, there have been enough near hits and all of them have been in the direction of a genetic effect.
“So what about the author’s claim that “there is no evidence for any such genetic hypothesis”?”
They make this claim and then go over a whole bunch of evidence. What they actually mean to say is that, “While there is a good deal of evidence for the genetic hypothesis, the evidence is not sufficient to constitute proof.” Which is a very different statement indeed.
For some obscure reason many, including scientists, will commonly state “there is no evidence,” when what they really mean is “there is insufficient evidence.”
Certainly true if you were on the west coast of Scotland when a Viking ship called in, but IIRC not generally true in the UK for a thousand years or more, I think one Gertrude Himmelfarb is the authority.
In the absence of a welfare state and no-fault divorce for cash and prizes, women had to be very careful about selecting the best mate they could attract from the limited supply (i.e. those within walking distance). On the other hand, they knew their families, and their families knew them too.
“Who giveth this woman to this man?”
Those words were for most of human history entirely literal. A young woman – might – in some places and times have a veto on who she married, but she almost never had an unconstrained choice that would allow her to pick the one she was most attracted to sexually.
The argument here is not about “a society in which everyone’s happiness is equally important.” We very cheerfully accept the fact that less-intelligent and less-attractive and less-socially adept people will have less-happy lives. If we were a mono-racial society this would simply not be an issue.
The issue arises because intelligence, attractiveness and social aptitude, however you define them, are not evenly distributed among “races,” again however you choose to define them. The peculiar part is that we assume they “should be” so distributed and that any resulting disparity in outcomes somehow means the “dominant” race is invidiously causing that disparity.
I’ve always enjoyed a thought experiment. Assume that tomorrow morning America wakes up and every person in the country has mysteriously become a blue-eyed blond. How will the lives of those who were previously members of “visible minorities” change? Answer, not much.
Open borders will even eventually make all Americans blue eyed blondes. After all according to many people here on The Unz Hispanic is a White ethnic group. Didn't you notice all of the Spanish speaking blondes taking your food order at Wendy's or all of the Spanish speaking blondes who cleaned your room the last time you stayed at a Holiday Inn?
I think you are perhaps confusing happiness with success. Follow my link to see what I mean by "a rich and fulfilling life."
It assuredly exists. There are a number of white communities that you can reside in, a number of white owned businesses you can work at.
"Every organization has to report whom they hire to the federal government or they will be sued for disparate impact liability."
And this legislation reflects the will of the people. Now, there are specific standards in place when it comes to litigation on this particular matter. You don't sue willy nilly. It falls upon the plaintiff to make the case who must "draw an explicit, causal connection between a policy or practice and the disparate impact or statistical disparity...[with the] defendant having the opportunity to prove the policy is necessary to achieve a valid interest...[with the] plaintiff then show[ing] there is 'an available alternative practice that has less disparate impact and serves the [entity’s] legitimate needs'. If a plaintiff cannot do so, then their disparate impact claim must fail."
"One of the major reason we have a student loan bubble is because of the prohibition of IQ and aptitude testing by supreme court rulings."
You do realize students take aptitude tests to get into colleges, right? Now, which court cases are you referring to?
"I dont think the WASPS control anything important enough to force anyone to go back but the country was better when it was out of Jewish and non-WASP control."
Thank you for your opinion on this matter. But you still have to go back.
"When the WASPs controlled the US the social system invented the following: the automobile, antibiotics, antihistamines, X-Ray, cancer treatments, the radio, the television, AC/DC currents, advances in metallurgy, the beginnings of the computers, the foundation for the internet, etc etc."
Actually, it was individuals from various ethnic groups developed those innovations. Although, one has to wonder what about those Eastern and Southern Europeans who came here in droves in the late 1800's? What were their technological contributions? Did not WASPS generally view them as dim-witted creatures prone to socialism and anarchy?
"There were social systems that were far more repressive of religious and racial minorities as well as to their underclass that produced no real advancements for the masses."
Regardless, you are circumventing the relevant point I had made. Southern and Eastern Europeans were viewed by nativists as being undesirable. The quota acts of the 1920's worked to prevent large numbers of your brethren from reaching our shores. Remarkably, you share the same attitudes of contempt toward today's immigrants as the nativists had against your ancestors. Undoubtedly, your great-grandparents who came here to the United States would have loudly opposed those sentiments. They would be rolling in their graves given your position.
Oh Corvy, this really is a bugbear with you. You say this repeatedly, and you seem to think it’s some kind of killer point. Sorry chico, but it’s not.
You know what? The nativist WASPs were 100% correct. The Eastern and Southern European hordes — and by that what you mean is Jews and Italians so why not just say it? — were massively harmful to American life, even if they did contribute to it in many ways, especially the Jews.
The important question in this context is simply, would America be a better place today had they never been allowed in? Unquestionably yes. It would be a far more unified nation. It would have moved far less to the Left. There probably would not even have been a civil rights movement. To say nothing of feminism, anti-war hysteria, no nukes movement, gay rights, etc. Very likely we would not have gone on the outsourcing and de-industrialization binge we went on. We may not even have entered WWI without Jewish influence or had the monster that is the Federal Reserve (though that was mostly the earlier wave of Jews).
Yes, good idea, but far too late.
First off, stop arguing like a woman with emotional nonsense like this. Actually, the immigrants of the time might very well have thought — much like the immigrants of today think — why are these suckers in America letting us in? Don’t they know we’re coming here to leech what we can and exploit their very nice country? You know it’s perfectly possible to look at a situation and say, “this will be bad for America, but I don’t care, I’m getting my piece while I can.” An adult can discern a difference between these two notions. Robbing a bank might be good for me, assuming I can get away with it. That doesn’t mean I think it would be a great idea if everyone else robbed a bank too.
You're going to have to muster up an argument rather than make a blanket statement here.
"You know what? The nativist WASPs were 100% correct. The Eastern and Southern European hordes — and by that what you mean is Jews and Italians so why not just say it? — were massively harmful to American life, even if they did contribute to it in many ways, especially the Jews."
At least you are being honest here with siding with the WASPs. You do realize you are taking an anti-ethnic and anti-white position here. Now, in what specific ways were Eastern and Southern Europeans--which is what I clearly stated--were "massively harmful", considering that the great-grandchildren of these immigrants are immersed into American life?
"The important question in this context is simply, would America be a better place today had they never been allowed in? Unquestionably yes."
Thank you very much for your opinion on this matter.
"It would be a far more unified nation. It would have moved far less to the Left."
So without Italians and Serbs, for example, the United States today would be cohesive? Interesting. How do you exactly figure? Now, you do realize that these two groups are generally more conservative in their political views, which actually assists the Republican Party.
"There probably would not even have been a civil rights movement. To say nothing of feminism, anti-war hysteria, no nukes movement, gay rights, etc."
Really, the Civil Rights Movement would have most likely never occurred had it not been for the inclusion of Eastern and Southern Europeans? That opposition to the Vietnam War would have been blunted if Italians and Serbians had not entered our nation? Wow, just wow.
"Very likely we would not have gone on the outsourcing and de-industrialization binge we went on. We may not even have entered WWI without Jewish influence or had the monster that is the Federal Reserve (though that was mostly the earlier wave of Jews)."
Your fixation on Jews is duly noted.
"First off, stop arguing like a woman with emotional nonsense like this."
I'm not the one huffing and puffing about da Joos like a jilted school girl.
"Actually, the immigrants of the time might very well have thought — much like the immigrants of today think — why are these suckers in America letting us in? Don’t they know we’re coming here to leech what we can and exploit their very nice country?"
Some immigrants perhaps felt that way. Most likely they came to our nation for the same reasons as the English, Scotch-Irish, Irish, and Germans before them--for political freedom and economic opportunity. And today's immigrants share the same feelings as how YOUR own relatives who came here felt--they had the desire to improve themselves and the society they are now part of. Why do you seemingly despise your own family members?
"You know it’s perfectly possible to look at a situation and say, “this will be bad for America, but I don’t care, I’m getting my piece while I can.”
Would not these attitudes also represent YOUR immigrant ancestors?
"An adult can discern a difference between these two notions. Robbing a bank might be good for me, assuming I can get away with it. That doesn’t mean I think it would be a great idea if everyone else robbed a bank too."
False equivalency. We are not talking about two situations involving illegal activity. We are discussing how immigrants were legally entering our nation in hopes of making a better life for themselves.
It assuredly exists. There are a number of white communities that you can reside in, a number of white owned businesses you can work at.
"Every organization has to report whom they hire to the federal government or they will be sued for disparate impact liability."
And this legislation reflects the will of the people. Now, there are specific standards in place when it comes to litigation on this particular matter. You don't sue willy nilly. It falls upon the plaintiff to make the case who must "draw an explicit, causal connection between a policy or practice and the disparate impact or statistical disparity...[with the] defendant having the opportunity to prove the policy is necessary to achieve a valid interest...[with the] plaintiff then show[ing] there is 'an available alternative practice that has less disparate impact and serves the [entity’s] legitimate needs'. If a plaintiff cannot do so, then their disparate impact claim must fail."
"One of the major reason we have a student loan bubble is because of the prohibition of IQ and aptitude testing by supreme court rulings."
You do realize students take aptitude tests to get into colleges, right? Now, which court cases are you referring to?
"I dont think the WASPS control anything important enough to force anyone to go back but the country was better when it was out of Jewish and non-WASP control."
Thank you for your opinion on this matter. But you still have to go back.
"When the WASPs controlled the US the social system invented the following: the automobile, antibiotics, antihistamines, X-Ray, cancer treatments, the radio, the television, AC/DC currents, advances in metallurgy, the beginnings of the computers, the foundation for the internet, etc etc."
Actually, it was individuals from various ethnic groups developed those innovations. Although, one has to wonder what about those Eastern and Southern Europeans who came here in droves in the late 1800's? What were their technological contributions? Did not WASPS generally view them as dim-witted creatures prone to socialism and anarchy?
"There were social systems that were far more repressive of religious and racial minorities as well as to their underclass that produced no real advancements for the masses."
Regardless, you are circumventing the relevant point I had made. Southern and Eastern Europeans were viewed by nativists as being undesirable. The quota acts of the 1920's worked to prevent large numbers of your brethren from reaching our shores. Remarkably, you share the same attitudes of contempt toward today's immigrants as the nativists had against your ancestors. Undoubtedly, your great-grandparents who came here to the United States would have loudly opposed those sentiments. They would be rolling in their graves given your position.
Which are disappearing and soon to be gone, replaced by Corvinus lecturing us on how YT didn’t properly train or give enough stuff to POC.
Not really.
Ethic and racial homogeneity certainly is of interest, but you sure as heck can’t mention that in court.
You are weaseling. The impact of the Griggs decision has been oft discussed here.
Past is not necessarily prologue. One could well be wrong then and correct now.
Hardly. Move here. Enjoy!
http://www.newser.com/story/223330/10-us-states-are-more-than-90-white.html
"Not really."
Yes, really. Those laws were passed by Congress to reflect what voters generally preferred.
"Ethic and racial homogeneity certainly is of interest, but you sure as heck can’t mention that in court."
For some people, sure. And of course you can mention it in court.
"You are weaseling. The impact of the Griggs decision has been oft discussed here."
The weasel was epochehusserl who didn't provide the specific case, which involved a public utility company that was subject to federal rules. The criteria apparently was met, and the Supreme Court thus rendered a judgement.
"Past is not necessarily prologue. One could well be wrong then and correct now."
So, are you saying that the nativists back then were wrong?
Yes, I do not understand. A literal interpretation of the breeder’s equation implies that the standard deviation would get smaller.
"...And whether you have one-man-one-vote, or some-men-one-vote or othermen-two-votes, those are forms which should be worked out. I'm not intellectually convinced that one-man-one-vote is the best. "At the end of the day, you cannot maintain Chinese culture without Chinese people, or Western culture without Western people.
“At the end of the day, you cannot maintain Chinese culture without Chinese people, or Western culture without Western people.”
Then, by your own logic, you have to go back since you are an uninvited Asian living in the West. Start packing your bags.
Nah. Wrong century, I think. The Swedes held off too long on accepting that Papist Gregorian calendar.
Well, 28 days are generally sufficient to do the job.
Actually, I’d say the physical mid-Sweden winter stretches from sometime in November when the snow rolls in, to about the middle of April or so. March can be achingly beautiful out in the countryside, with the sunlight back but everything still crisp and white and frozen.
Though winter has happily been shorter and milder in recent years, Descartes if he had lived would likely have had several more cold, cold weeks before the ice break when he could set sail back home.
You are correct. It won’t work in general. But in some cases it will.
There is indeed regression towards the mean – but it does not change the distribution
The breeder’s equation if taken literally (offsprings are closer to the mean than parents) implies the distribution change (narrowing of variance). I must be missing something.
Perhaps the answer is here:
The danger of applying the breeder’s equation in observational studies of natural populations
http://www.indiana.edu/~curtweb/L567/readings/breeder%27s_equation.pdf
he concept of regression toward the mean can be misused very easily.
In the student test example above, it was assumed implicitly that what was being measured did not change between the two measurements. Suppose, however, that the course was pass/fail and students were required to score above 70 on both tests to pass. Then the students who scored under 70 the first time would have no incentive to do well, and might score worse on average the second time. The students just over 70, on the other hand, would have a strong incentive to study and concentrate while taking the test. In that case one might see movement away from 70, scores below it getting lower and scores above it getting higher. It is possible for changes between the measurement times to augment, offset or reverse the statistical tendency to regress toward the mean.
Statistical regression toward the mean is not a causal phenomenon. A student with the worst score on the test on the first day will not necessarily increase his score substantially on the second day due to the effect. On average, the worst scorers improve, but that is only true because the worst scorers are more likely to have been unlucky than lucky. To the extent that a score is determined randomly, or that a score has random variation or error, as opposed to being determined by the student's academic ability or being a "true value", the phenomenon will have an effect. A classic mistake in this regard was in education. The students that received praise for good work were noticed to do more poorly on the next measure, and the students who were punished for poor work were noticed to do better on the next measure. The educators decided to stop praising and keep punishing on this basis.[10] Such a decision was a mistake, because regression toward the mean is not based on cause and effect, but rather on random error in a natural distribution around a mean.
Although extreme individual measurements regress toward the mean, the second sample of measurements will be no closer to the mean than the first. Consider the students again. Suppose their tendency is to regress 10% of the way toward the mean of 80, so a student who scored 100 the first day is expected to score 98 the second day, and a student who scored 70 the first day is expected to score 71 the second day. Those expectations are closer to the mean than the first day scores. But the second day scores will vary around their expectations; some will be higher and some will be lower. This will make the second set of measurements farther from the mean, on average, than their expectations. The effect is the exact reverse of regression toward the mean, and exactly offsets it. So for every individual, we expect the second score to be closer to the mean than the first score, but for all individuals, we expect the average distance from the mean to be the same on both sets of measurements.
Related to the point above, regression toward the mean works equally well in both directions. We expect the student with the highest test score on the second day to have done worse on the first day. And if we compare the best student on the first day to the best student on the second day, regardless of whether it is the same individual or not, there is a tendency to regress toward the mean going in either direction. We expect the best scores on both days to be equally far from the mean.
Go hitchhiking in Eastern Europe while wearing your Jeffrey Sachs Fan Club t-shirt and see how many rides you get, and where you end up. Lefortovo is nice this time of year, so book early.
We’ve discussed this before. Please refer back to previous rebuttal in your continuing efforts to embarrass yourself.
You were exposed as a Civic Nationalist and Magic Dirt advocate. You were exposed to hold the same attitudes as those nativists had against your ancestors who made their way to the States and set up shop here. How were they able to assimilate into the body politic when opponents claimed there societal upbringing automatically disqualified them?
Consider these arguments made by one prominent leader of the Alt Right--"[The second immigrant wave destroyed the political foundations of the state"..."those second-generation United States citizens proved to be considerably more loyal to their people than to their paperwork citizenship. They weren't 'every bit as American' as the descendants of the Mayflower and the Founding Fathers, they were Fake Americans and precursors to the post-1965 crowd...[This is] why it was never possible for the USA to survive as Constitutional nation respecting the Rights of Englishmen, [since] non-English people were permitted to become citizens. No other people shared the Englishman's view of the law. The Northern Europeans didn't grasp the concept of its theoretical limits. The Southern Europeans saw it as a racket to benefit the powerful and the well-connected. The Jews and Irish saw it as a game to be exploited for the benefit of their tribes."
So, in this context, how in the hell are Asians able to grasp the Rights of Englishmen compared to Europeans?
I understand why you would be upset regarding your own hypocrisy. Remember, you were the one who stated that one cannot "maintain Western culture without Western people". You are not from the West. You are not welcome here. Don't blame me, point the finger at those on the Alt Right who support this position.
“We’ve discussed this before. Please refer back to previous rebuttal in your continuing efforts to embarrass yourself.”
You were exposed as a Civic Nationalist and Magic Dirt advocate. You were exposed to hold the same attitudes as those nativists had against your ancestors who made their way to the States and set up shop here. How were they able to assimilate into the body politic when opponents claimed there societal upbringing automatically disqualified them?
Consider these arguments made by one prominent leader of the Alt Right–”[The second immigrant wave destroyed the political foundations of the state"..."those second-generation United States citizens proved to be considerably more loyal to their people than to their paperwork citizenship. They weren't 'every bit as American' as the descendants of the Mayflower and the Founding Fathers, they were Fake Americans and precursors to the post-1965 crowd...[This is] why it was never possible for the USA to survive as Constitutional nation respecting the Rights of Englishmen, [since] non-English people were permitted to become citizens. No other people shared the Englishman’s view of the law. The Northern Europeans didn’t grasp the concept of its theoretical limits. The Southern Europeans saw it as a racket to benefit the powerful and the well-connected. The Jews and Irish saw it as a game to be exploited for the benefit of their tribes.”
So, in this context, how in the hell are Asians able to grasp the Rights of Englishmen compared to Europeans?
I understand why you would be upset regarding your own hypocrisy. Remember, you were the one who stated that one cannot “maintain Western culture without Western people”. You are not from the West. You are not welcome here. Don’t blame me, point the finger at those on the Alt Right who support this position.
Exactly why we have lawyers to hash it out.
---------------------------------------
and how have they hashed it out? You dont know or you are unwilling to say? Why was Bayard Rustin thrown out of the civil rights movement after 1964?
“and how have they hashed it out? You dont know or you are unwilling to say?”
In those cases that have met the legal standards for court proceedings.
In the the halls of Congress where representatives and Senators propose laws.
On blogs on leftist and conservative sites.
Why was Bayard Rustin thrown out of the civil rights movement after 1964?
He was not removed from the movement. Where did you even get this silly notion? As a Socialist, he ended up directing his attention on the financial issues of the working class and jobless blacks.
In those cases that have met the legal standards for court proceedings.
In the the halls of Congress where representatives and Senators propose laws.
On blogs on leftist and conservative sites.
-------------------------------------
They still havent hashed it out. There really is no way for anyone to know if they are breaking the law ahead of time. Nietzsche arguments about the last man apply here as we pay homage to MLK.
Yes, a Herculean effort. Why have a vital trade hub fall into the hands of savages, right? Absolute benevolence on the part of the English. Amazingly, Singapore is the epitome of multiculturalism--from the glorious sights of Chinatown, to the influence of Muslims on Arab Street, and of course the Serangoon Road emits the vibe of Little India. Certainly not last are the breathtaking neo-classical buildings that mark British influence.
If only we could be so multicultural…
Singapore’s dominant majority, Chinese is 77% of the population.
USA’s dominant majority, White is 77% of the population.
Singapore schools are English only:
“Which are disappearing and soon to be gone, replaced by Corvinus lecturing us on how YT didn’t properly train or give enough stuff to POC.”
Hardly. Move here. Enjoy!
http://www.newser.com/story/223330/10-us-states-are-more-than-90-white.html
“Not really.”
Yes, really. Those laws were passed by Congress to reflect what voters generally preferred.
“Ethic and racial homogeneity certainly is of interest, but you sure as heck can’t mention that in court.”
For some people, sure. And of course you can mention it in court.
“You are weaseling. The impact of the Griggs decision has been oft discussed here.”
The weasel was epochehusserl who didn’t provide the specific case, which involved a public utility company that was subject to federal rules. The criteria apparently was met, and the Supreme Court thus rendered a judgement.
“Past is not necessarily prologue. One could well be wrong then and correct now.”
So, are you saying that the nativists back then were wrong?
Jimmy the Greek did nothing wrong!
You were exposed as a Civic Nationalist and Magic Dirt advocate. You were exposed to hold the same attitudes as those nativists had against your ancestors who made their way to the States and set up shop here. How were they able to assimilate into the body politic when opponents claimed there societal upbringing automatically disqualified them?
Consider these arguments made by one prominent leader of the Alt Right--"[The second immigrant wave destroyed the political foundations of the state"..."those second-generation United States citizens proved to be considerably more loyal to their people than to their paperwork citizenship. They weren't 'every bit as American' as the descendants of the Mayflower and the Founding Fathers, they were Fake Americans and precursors to the post-1965 crowd...[This is] why it was never possible for the USA to survive as Constitutional nation respecting the Rights of Englishmen, [since] non-English people were permitted to become citizens. No other people shared the Englishman's view of the law. The Northern Europeans didn't grasp the concept of its theoretical limits. The Southern Europeans saw it as a racket to benefit the powerful and the well-connected. The Jews and Irish saw it as a game to be exploited for the benefit of their tribes."
So, in this context, how in the hell are Asians able to grasp the Rights of Englishmen compared to Europeans?
I understand why you would be upset regarding your own hypocrisy. Remember, you were the one who stated that one cannot "maintain Western culture without Western people". You are not from the West. You are not welcome here. Don't blame me, point the finger at those on the Alt Right who support this position.
Ah, my dear sophist, apparently your theory of mind and your reading comprehension are as limited as your ability to accuse anything meaningful. Perhaps this can help you jog your memory:
http://www.unz.com/isteve/ny-mag-the-man-who-invented-identity-politics-for-the-new-right/#comment-1859663
In short, you’re a gay idiot trying to exploit divisions. Alas, it won’t work. I’m sure that the Alt-Right has many people who object to my existence, and perhaps even want to give us all nice little helicopter rides. I’m quite okay with them, so as long as you get to experience gravity first.
Remember, traitors get the first bullet.
At any rate, I’ve never supported having more than 10%-15% minority, so the notion that Western customs need Westerners is completely consistent. I’ve actually thought that it might be appropriate if people such as myself shouldn’t get voting rights, or at the least, that government needs to be kept consistent with the majority population. Its the only way to keep a culture.
Salty are your tears. And recall that the accusations being made are from recognized leaders of the Alt Right. I'm summarizing their positions. Are you ready to accuse them of "anything meaningful"? Are you prepared to call them "sophists"?
"In short, you’re a gay idiot trying to exploit divisions. Alas, it won’t work. I’m sure that the Alt-Right has many people who object to my existence, and perhaps even want to give us all nice little helicopter rides. I’m quite okay with them, so as long as you get to experience gravity first."
I'm an American who is exposing your hypocrisy, as well as those on the Alt Right. And if you have to bitterly cling to this hope that I will be hanging from a tree for my alleged treason, be my guest. Because in the end, that is all you've got. It's sad.
"At any rate, I’ve never supported having more than 10%-15% minority, so the notion that Western customs need Westerners is completely consistent. I’ve actually thought that it might be appropriate if people such as myself shouldn’t get voting rights, or at the least, that government needs to be kept consistent with the majority population. Its the only way to keep a culture."
Thank you very much for your opinion on this matter.
Remember, traitors get the first bullet.
At any rate, I’ve never supported having more than 10%-15% minority, so the notion that Western customs need Westerners is completely consistent. I’ve actually thought that it might be appropriate if people such as myself shouldn’t get voting rights, or at the least, that government needs to be kept consistent with the majority population. Its the only way to keep a culture.
----------------------------------------------
I am a white man and I have no problems with Asians in general. I think we need to greatly lessen if not eliminate both legal and illegal immigration because a political entity should have stable identities not ever changing ones not because I am racist. I think the country would be better off without laws saying we should prohibit IQ testing because that is common sense.
Ah yes, thanks for the correction there.
The danger of applying the breeder’s equation in observational studies of natural populations
http://www.indiana.edu/~curtweb/L567/readings/breeder%27s_equation.pdf
No, it’s here [ from Wiki]:
he concept of regression toward the mean can be misused very easily.
In the student test example above, it was assumed implicitly that what was being measured did not change between the two measurements. Suppose, however, that the course was pass/fail and students were required to score above 70 on both tests to pass. Then the students who scored under 70 the first time would have no incentive to do well, and might score worse on average the second time. The students just over 70, on the other hand, would have a strong incentive to study and concentrate while taking the test. In that case one might see movement away from 70, scores below it getting lower and scores above it getting higher. It is possible for changes between the measurement times to augment, offset or reverse the statistical tendency to regress toward the mean.
Statistical regression toward the mean is not a causal phenomenon. A student with the worst score on the test on the first day will not necessarily increase his score substantially on the second day due to the effect. On average, the worst scorers improve, but that is only true because the worst scorers are more likely to have been unlucky than lucky. To the extent that a score is determined randomly, or that a score has random variation or error, as opposed to being determined by the student’s academic ability or being a “true value”, the phenomenon will have an effect. A classic mistake in this regard was in education. The students that received praise for good work were noticed to do more poorly on the next measure, and the students who were punished for poor work were noticed to do better on the next measure. The educators decided to stop praising and keep punishing on this basis.[10] Such a decision was a mistake, because regression toward the mean is not based on cause and effect, but rather on random error in a natural distribution around a mean.
Although extreme individual measurements regress toward the mean, the second sample of measurements will be no closer to the mean than the first. Consider the students again. Suppose their tendency is to regress 10% of the way toward the mean of 80, so a student who scored 100 the first day is expected to score 98 the second day, and a student who scored 70 the first day is expected to score 71 the second day. Those expectations are closer to the mean than the first day scores. But the second day scores will vary around their expectations; some will be higher and some will be lower. This will make the second set of measurements farther from the mean, on average, than their expectations. The effect is the exact reverse of regression toward the mean, and exactly offsets it. So for every individual, we expect the second score to be closer to the mean than the first score, but for all individuals, we expect the average distance from the mean to be the same on both sets of measurements.
Related to the point above, regression toward the mean works equally well in both directions. We expect the student with the highest test score on the second day to have done worse on the first day. And if we compare the best student on the first day to the best student on the second day, regardless of whether it is the same individual or not, there is a tendency to regress toward the mean going in either direction. We expect the best scores on both days to be equally far from the mean.
“I’ve always enjoyed a thought experiment. Assume that tomorrow morning America wakes up and every person in the country has mysteriously become a blue-eyed blond.”
Open borders will even eventually make all Americans blue eyed blondes. After all according to many people here on The Unz Hispanic is a White ethnic group. Didn’t you notice all of the Spanish speaking blondes taking your food order at Wendy’s or all of the Spanish speaking blondes who cleaned your room the last time you stayed at a Holiday Inn?
So the context of Turkheimer and Nisbett being quoted, is a demand for integrating immigrants by not reducing immigration. All this sounds like a claim for compensating immigrants, and taking from non-immigrants to do it
As Michael Levin said in his book Why Race Matters,
Turkheimer, Nisbett ect are quite correct that hereditarians cannot assert their views as scientifically proven, and no certainty exists about what could be achieved by liberal immigration reform and consequent assimilation.
Turkheimer and Nisbett are winning all the way among scientist, philosophers (who see the cloven hoof of essentialism) and media. However their real nemesis is not Murray and his abstruse arguments, which have zero influence on policy, but the unfolding rejection of mass immigration by non immigrant voters’ who can see their interests are being damaged.
“Ah, my dear sophist, apparently your theory of mind and your reading comprehension are as limited as your ability to accuse anything meaningful. Perhaps this can help you jog your memory.”
Salty are your tears. And recall that the accusations being made are from recognized leaders of the Alt Right. I’m summarizing their positions. Are you ready to accuse them of “anything meaningful”? Are you prepared to call them “sophists”?
“In short, you’re a gay idiot trying to exploit divisions. Alas, it won’t work. I’m sure that the Alt-Right has many people who object to my existence, and perhaps even want to give us all nice little helicopter rides. I’m quite okay with them, so as long as you get to experience gravity first.”
I’m an American who is exposing your hypocrisy, as well as those on the Alt Right. And if you have to bitterly cling to this hope that I will be hanging from a tree for my alleged treason, be my guest. Because in the end, that is all you’ve got. It’s sad.
“At any rate, I’ve never supported having more than 10%-15% minority, so the notion that Western customs need Westerners is completely consistent. I’ve actually thought that it might be appropriate if people such as myself shouldn’t get voting rights, or at the least, that government needs to be kept consistent with the majority population. Its the only way to keep a culture.”
Thank you very much for your opinion on this matter.
Salty are your tears. And recall that the accusations being made are from recognized leaders of the Alt Right. I'm summarizing their positions. Are you ready to accuse them of "anything meaningful"? Are you prepared to call them "sophists"?
"In short, you’re a gay idiot trying to exploit divisions. Alas, it won’t work. I’m sure that the Alt-Right has many people who object to my existence, and perhaps even want to give us all nice little helicopter rides. I’m quite okay with them, so as long as you get to experience gravity first."
I'm an American who is exposing your hypocrisy, as well as those on the Alt Right. And if you have to bitterly cling to this hope that I will be hanging from a tree for my alleged treason, be my guest. Because in the end, that is all you've got. It's sad.
"At any rate, I’ve never supported having more than 10%-15% minority, so the notion that Western customs need Westerners is completely consistent. I’ve actually thought that it might be appropriate if people such as myself shouldn’t get voting rights, or at the least, that government needs to be kept consistent with the majority population. Its the only way to keep a culture."
Thank you very much for your opinion on this matter.
Its adorable how you figure if you keep repeating something, it’ll become true. Keep it up.
The only person with salty tears is the only who keeps repeating long refuted rambles in an effort to create division, because you’re a sad, sad little gay idiot.
In those cases that have met the legal standards for court proceedings.
In the the halls of Congress where representatives and Senators propose laws.
On blogs on leftist and conservative sites.
Why was Bayard Rustin thrown out of the civil rights movement after 1964?
He was not removed from the movement. Where did you even get this silly notion? As a Socialist, he ended up directing his attention on the financial issues of the working class and jobless blacks.
“and how have they hashed it out? You dont know or you are unwilling to say?”
In those cases that have met the legal standards for court proceedings.
In the the halls of Congress where representatives and Senators propose laws.
On blogs on leftist and conservative sites.
————————————-
They still havent hashed it out. There really is no way for anyone to know if they are breaking the law ahead of time. Nietzsche arguments about the last man apply here as we pay homage to MLK.
When new cases arise, correct.
"There really is no way for anyone to know if they are breaking the law ahead of time."
That is why they to court.
"Nietzsche arguments about the last man apply here as we pay homage to MLK."
So you're throwing in some dude without offering the proper context here. OK.
Hardly. Move here. Enjoy!
http://www.newser.com/story/223330/10-us-states-are-more-than-90-white.html
"Not really."
Yes, really. Those laws were passed by Congress to reflect what voters generally preferred.
"Ethic and racial homogeneity certainly is of interest, but you sure as heck can’t mention that in court."
For some people, sure. And of course you can mention it in court.
"You are weaseling. The impact of the Griggs decision has been oft discussed here."
The weasel was epochehusserl who didn't provide the specific case, which involved a public utility company that was subject to federal rules. The criteria apparently was met, and the Supreme Court thus rendered a judgement.
"Past is not necessarily prologue. One could well be wrong then and correct now."
So, are you saying that the nativists back then were wrong?
It is the trend that should concern us. I’m sure that those are nice places, but for how long?
Most legislation is driven by interested minorities; expert; and “expert” opinion. There is a multitude of legislation that has been passed over popular opinion.
Thus making it harder to screen job applicants.
I’d say the skeptics back then underestimated the ability of European immigrants to adapt and carry on the extant culture. I’d say the immigrant boosters of today overestimate the ability of their non-Asian and non-European poster children to keep the lights on.
Should concern some people. And those places have been nice for a long time. Really no need to worry too much. Life is short.
"Most legislation is driven by interested minorities; expert; and “expert” opinion."
Corrected for accuracy --> Legislation is driven by the general citizenry and interest groups, which include minority groups and experts in their related fields.
"There is a multitude of legislation that has been passed over popular opinion."
Because one political party controls the House or Senate or presidency. It is up to the people then to remove those individuals from office.
"Thus making it harder to screen job applicants."
Not really. It actually gives employers specific criteria to follow.
"I’d say the skeptics back then underestimated the ability of European immigrants to adapt and carry on the extant culture."
You are sanitizing the language like an SJW, and it would appear you are a supporter of Magic Dirt. Nativists had NO doubts as to the ability of European newcomers to be able to assimilate. They looked not at the "whiteness" of these groups, but of their ethnic and religious background.
"I’d say the immigrant boosters of today overestimate the ability of their non-Asian and non-European poster children to keep the lights on."
Further affirming your support for Magic Dirt.
In short, you’re a gay idiot trying to exploit divisions. Alas, it won’t work. I’m sure that the Alt-Right has many people who object to my existence, and perhaps even want to give us all nice little helicopter rides. I’m quite okay with them, so as long as you get to experience gravity first.
Remember, traitors get the first bullet.
At any rate, I’ve never supported having more than 10%-15% minority, so the notion that Western customs need Westerners is completely consistent. I’ve actually thought that it might be appropriate if people such as myself shouldn’t get voting rights, or at the least, that government needs to be kept consistent with the majority population. Its the only way to keep a culture.
———————————————-
I am a white man and I have no problems with Asians in general. I think we need to greatly lessen if not eliminate both legal and illegal immigration because a political entity should have stable identities not ever changing ones not because I am racist. I think the country would be better off without laws saying we should prohibit IQ testing because that is common sense.
“Ethical principle” = “ignoring facts that give me badfeelz.” Who knew?
Using marihuana is ostensibly legal in Colorado (though, paradoxically, it is illegal everywhere in the U.S.A....). That suggests if employees chose to use marihuana on their own time but remain sober during working hours, the matter is no business of any employer, in the same way that an employee's choice to have wine with dinner or even to get drunk as a sailor on his Saturday off, is no business of any employer – especially an employer who hiring him for work as a drayer or stevedore, which is basically what we have here; even the folks operating the forklifts, who I agree should be held to a somewhat higher standard, can hardly be expected to pass the kind of rigorous screening expected of SEALs, nuclear engineers, airline-pilots, surgeons, etc. for character and alertness....
And marihuana, unlike alcohol, does not metabolise very quickly: someone who smokes marihuana on his Saturday off (unlike someone who drinks a case of beer on his Saturday off) will still test positive for marihuana on Monday morning (whereas our drinker will not test positive for alcohol in his system...).
Employment in the U.S.A. is conventionally at-will and employers have had broad discretion to impose any number of requirements on employers – hairstyles, clothing, comportment in public off duty which must not mar the employers reputation, etc. – but courts have generally not recognised any right to intrude upon or dictate behaviour which is not illegal per se and which cannot have any effect upon the employer's goodwill or otherwise be related to a bona fide occupational requirement or business, especially not such behaviour confined to the privacy of the employees own home whilst off-duty, such as smoking a bit of weed in one's living room on a Saturday whilst watching reruns of of Spongebob Squarepants, which, I suspect, more or less sums up the behaviour of the great majority of these employees.
So grab some popcorn, kids; as soon as an enterprising plaintiff's lawyers perfects his angle, I foresee some interesting test-cases.
What I thought about when I saw how so many job applicants flunked drug tests is along the lines of the “White death” we have been hearing about. Assuming that many of the job applicants are white, I just see more bad news for younger white men and more job replacement by south of the border legal/illegal immigrants. Asians too.
“We very cheerfully accept the fact that less-intelligent and less-attractive and less-socially adept people will have less-happy lives.”
I think you are perhaps confusing happiness with success. Follow my link to see what I mean by “a rich and fulfilling life.”
Although I would suggest that it is not me, but our society as a whole that confuses happiness with success.
he concept of regression toward the mean can be misused very easily.
In the student test example above, it was assumed implicitly that what was being measured did not change between the two measurements. Suppose, however, that the course was pass/fail and students were required to score above 70 on both tests to pass. Then the students who scored under 70 the first time would have no incentive to do well, and might score worse on average the second time. The students just over 70, on the other hand, would have a strong incentive to study and concentrate while taking the test. In that case one might see movement away from 70, scores below it getting lower and scores above it getting higher. It is possible for changes between the measurement times to augment, offset or reverse the statistical tendency to regress toward the mean.
Statistical regression toward the mean is not a causal phenomenon. A student with the worst score on the test on the first day will not necessarily increase his score substantially on the second day due to the effect. On average, the worst scorers improve, but that is only true because the worst scorers are more likely to have been unlucky than lucky. To the extent that a score is determined randomly, or that a score has random variation or error, as opposed to being determined by the student's academic ability or being a "true value", the phenomenon will have an effect. A classic mistake in this regard was in education. The students that received praise for good work were noticed to do more poorly on the next measure, and the students who were punished for poor work were noticed to do better on the next measure. The educators decided to stop praising and keep punishing on this basis.[10] Such a decision was a mistake, because regression toward the mean is not based on cause and effect, but rather on random error in a natural distribution around a mean.
Although extreme individual measurements regress toward the mean, the second sample of measurements will be no closer to the mean than the first. Consider the students again. Suppose their tendency is to regress 10% of the way toward the mean of 80, so a student who scored 100 the first day is expected to score 98 the second day, and a student who scored 70 the first day is expected to score 71 the second day. Those expectations are closer to the mean than the first day scores. But the second day scores will vary around their expectations; some will be higher and some will be lower. This will make the second set of measurements farther from the mean, on average, than their expectations. The effect is the exact reverse of regression toward the mean, and exactly offsets it. So for every individual, we expect the second score to be closer to the mean than the first score, but for all individuals, we expect the average distance from the mean to be the same on both sets of measurements.
Related to the point above, regression toward the mean works equally well in both directions. We expect the student with the highest test score on the second day to have done worse on the first day. And if we compare the best student on the first day to the best student on the second day, regardless of whether it is the same individual or not, there is a tendency to regress toward the mean going in either direction. We expect the best scores on both days to be equally far from the mean.
Why did you paste this from Wiki? This is not about implication of breeder’s equation.
The issue is as follows:
The first inequality is breeders equation; E( ) is expected value; Var( ) is variance
Conclusion: Breeder’s equation (implies regression to the mean) implies reduction of trait’s variance over time as new generation replaces paren’t generation. Reduction of variance is not observed in nature. Thus the regression the mean can’t universally valid.
Explain this w/o obfuscation this time, pls.
“The only person with salty tears is the only who keeps repeating long refuted rambles in an effort to create division, because you’re a sad, sad little gay idiot.”
All your lies are belong to us.
“It is the trend that should concern us. I’m sure that those are nice places, but for how long?”
Should concern some people. And those places have been nice for a long time. Really no need to worry too much. Life is short.
“Most legislation is driven by interested minorities; expert; and “expert” opinion.”
Corrected for accuracy –> Legislation is driven by the general citizenry and interest groups, which include minority groups and experts in their related fields.
“There is a multitude of legislation that has been passed over popular opinion.”
Because one political party controls the House or Senate or presidency. It is up to the people then to remove those individuals from office.
“Thus making it harder to screen job applicants.”
Not really. It actually gives employers specific criteria to follow.
“I’d say the skeptics back then underestimated the ability of European immigrants to adapt and carry on the extant culture.”
You are sanitizing the language like an SJW, and it would appear you are a supporter of Magic Dirt. Nativists had NO doubts as to the ability of European newcomers to be able to assimilate. They looked not at the “whiteness” of these groups, but of their ethnic and religious background.
“I’d say the immigrant boosters of today overestimate the ability of their non-Asian and non-European poster children to keep the lights on.”
Further affirming your support for Magic Dirt.
http://www.unz.com/freed/notes-for-a-white-kid-in-university/
Your response is otherwise your usual autistic obtuseness. Most people graciously accept newcomers and immigrants with the understanding that they should be in modest amounts; and not so outlier that they are ghetto man or overlord. Demanding racial purity is a death spiral, but actively importing anyone is another death spiral. Most people intuit this, but not you.
In those cases that have met the legal standards for court proceedings.
In the the halls of Congress where representatives and Senators propose laws.
On blogs on leftist and conservative sites.
-------------------------------------
They still havent hashed it out. There really is no way for anyone to know if they are breaking the law ahead of time. Nietzsche arguments about the last man apply here as we pay homage to MLK.
“They still havent hashed it out.”
When new cases arise, correct.
“There really is no way for anyone to know if they are breaking the law ahead of time.”
That is why they to court.
“Nietzsche arguments about the last man apply here as we pay homage to MLK.”
So you’re throwing in some dude without offering the proper context here. OK.
Open borders will even eventually make all Americans blue eyed blondes. After all according to many people here on The Unz Hispanic is a White ethnic group. Didn't you notice all of the Spanish speaking blondes taking your food order at Wendy's or all of the Spanish speaking blondes who cleaned your room the last time you stayed at a Holiday Inn?
This woman is (racially) European and (ethnically) Hispanic.
This woman is (racially) mestiza and (ethnically) Hispanic.
The trouble with the invading helots you mention is not that they are Hispanic; it is that they are mestizos, just as the trouble with the descendants of the helots our (racially European) ancestors imported is not that they are Americans, it is that they are (racially) African.
If your beef is that “Hispanic” and “Latin” as ethnonyms have got completlely out of hand, I agree; as I’ve suggested elsewhere in this platform, they really ought to be replaced by a term like “Españaphone” at this point – after all, no one confuses Francophones Pierre Trudeau and Macky Sall as belonging to the same race….
Otherwise, those of us who know the difference between a race and an ethnicity will be happy to explain more any time you like.
That's an Amerindian woman. She could be the sister of the murderer They Pablo's sister. Eva Longoria is an example of a Mestiza.
“There really is no way for anyone to know if they are breaking the law ahead of time.”
That is why they to court.
——————————————-
the idea of the rule of law is that people are supposed to know if they are following it or not without “going to court”. You are providing an excellent confirmation of the idea that some people are not capable of understanding anglo saxon law
Laws are complex. There are situations where the law may or may not apply. Thus, people go to court to clarify its language as being constitutional or unconstitutional.
"You are providing an excellent confirmation of the idea that some people are not capable of understanding anglo saxon law."
I would agree that you fit this profile.
Should concern some people. And those places have been nice for a long time. Really no need to worry too much. Life is short.
"Most legislation is driven by interested minorities; expert; and “expert” opinion."
Corrected for accuracy --> Legislation is driven by the general citizenry and interest groups, which include minority groups and experts in their related fields.
"There is a multitude of legislation that has been passed over popular opinion."
Because one political party controls the House or Senate or presidency. It is up to the people then to remove those individuals from office.
"Thus making it harder to screen job applicants."
Not really. It actually gives employers specific criteria to follow.
"I’d say the skeptics back then underestimated the ability of European immigrants to adapt and carry on the extant culture."
You are sanitizing the language like an SJW, and it would appear you are a supporter of Magic Dirt. Nativists had NO doubts as to the ability of European newcomers to be able to assimilate. They looked not at the "whiteness" of these groups, but of their ethnic and religious background.
"I’d say the immigrant boosters of today overestimate the ability of their non-Asian and non-European poster children to keep the lights on."
Further affirming your support for Magic Dirt.
a nice yap frm Unc’ Fred
http://www.unz.com/freed/notes-for-a-white-kid-in-university/
“is (racially) mestiza and (ethnically) Hispanic.”
That’s an Amerindian woman. She could be the sister of the murderer They Pablo’s sister. Eva Longoria is an example of a Mestiza.
(I suppose I should have used a photo of Longoria or America Ferrera.)
Should concern some people. And those places have been nice for a long time. Really no need to worry too much. Life is short.
"Most legislation is driven by interested minorities; expert; and “expert” opinion."
Corrected for accuracy --> Legislation is driven by the general citizenry and interest groups, which include minority groups and experts in their related fields.
"There is a multitude of legislation that has been passed over popular opinion."
Because one political party controls the House or Senate or presidency. It is up to the people then to remove those individuals from office.
"Thus making it harder to screen job applicants."
Not really. It actually gives employers specific criteria to follow.
"I’d say the skeptics back then underestimated the ability of European immigrants to adapt and carry on the extant culture."
You are sanitizing the language like an SJW, and it would appear you are a supporter of Magic Dirt. Nativists had NO doubts as to the ability of European newcomers to be able to assimilate. They looked not at the "whiteness" of these groups, but of their ethnic and religious background.
"I’d say the immigrant boosters of today overestimate the ability of their non-Asian and non-European poster children to keep the lights on."
Further affirming your support for Magic Dirt.
How so? Countries very much reflect their human capital; thus lands with sparse resources (such as Japan) can still prosper through cleverness and effort; while resource rich regions languish. If you import the latter peoples, you get the latter people’s accomplishments.
Your response is otherwise your usual autistic obtuseness. Most people graciously accept newcomers and immigrants with the understanding that they should be in modest amounts; and not so outlier that they are ghetto man or overlord. Demanding racial purity is a death spiral, but actively importing anyone is another death spiral. Most people intuit this, but not you.
America prospered with this "cleverness and effort", and do you ever forget it. They were wealthy in resources, and took in millions and millions of immigrants to run their factories in urban areas. There was no "languishing" in the late 1800's when it came to American industrial output.
"If you import the latter peoples, you get the latter people’s accomplishments."
Using your logic, Eastern and Southern Europeans who emigrated to America by the early 1900's lacked any significant contributions according to Anglos, sans their dilution of traditional culture through their alien social and religious customs. Since you conveniently label the Anglo perspective as "underestimating" their abilities, you are affirming Magic Dirt. Indeed, one imports Eastern and Southern Europeans, one gets less than stellar achievements.
"Most people graciously accept newcomers and immigrants with the understanding that they should be in modest amounts"
Were millions of Japanese and Chinese "modest" amounts? Did tens of millions of Eastern and Southern Europeans meet your numerical standard?
"Demanding racial purity is a death spiral..."
Nativists demanded ethnic purity. They put a premium on Northern and Western Europeans; they were "higher up" on the ethnic totem pole.
I wasn’t trying to confuse. the children of individuals far from the mean tend to have trait values closer to the mean – but the children of individuals close to the mean tend to have trait values farther from the mean ( in both directions). The effects balance: as long as there is no selection, no systematic reproductive edge for different trait values, nothing changes.
If you plotted the ratio k=|X_child-Mean|/|X_parent-Mean| as a function of x=|X_parent-Mean| k(x) is smaller than 1 far away from zero (x is large) but at some point closer to zero it becomes larger than 1. How would you call the region where k(x) (which technically is heritability) is greater than 1? What's is the explanation for this process?
In order for population to maintain the same distribution (constant variance) there must exist a process that replaces the parents P of high IQ that produced an offspring with lower IQ (parents P obeyed the breeder's equation) with next generation members of equally high IQ as parents P who were produced by other parents R who did not obey the breeder's equation.
It is reasonable to question the wisdom of talking about the regression to the mean if the regression to the mean process must be counterbalanced by some other process acting in opposite direction.
I got the impression that the regression to the mean is often talked on racialist, HBD and eugenics sites to make a particular self serving arguments. Now I doubt the validity of those arguments as you revealed that the breeder's equation is not applicable across the whole population. People closer to the mean will produce smarter children to counter balance the effect of smart people producing less smart children.
Your response is otherwise your usual autistic obtuseness. Most people graciously accept newcomers and immigrants with the understanding that they should be in modest amounts; and not so outlier that they are ghetto man or overlord. Demanding racial purity is a death spiral, but actively importing anyone is another death spiral. Most people intuit this, but not you.
“How so? Countries very much reflect their human capital; thus lands with sparse resources (such as Japan) can still prosper through cleverness and effort; while resource rich regions languish.”
America prospered with this “cleverness and effort”, and do you ever forget it. They were wealthy in resources, and took in millions and millions of immigrants to run their factories in urban areas. There was no “languishing” in the late 1800′s when it came to American industrial output.
“If you import the latter peoples, you get the latter people’s accomplishments.”
Using your logic, Eastern and Southern Europeans who emigrated to America by the early 1900′s lacked any significant contributions according to Anglos, sans their dilution of traditional culture through their alien social and religious customs. Since you conveniently label the Anglo perspective as “underestimating” their abilities, you are affirming Magic Dirt. Indeed, one imports Eastern and Southern Europeans, one gets less than stellar achievements.
“Most people graciously accept newcomers and immigrants with the understanding that they should be in modest amounts”
Were millions of Japanese and Chinese “modest” amounts? Did tens of millions of Eastern and Southern Europeans meet your numerical standard?
“Demanding racial purity is a death spiral…”
Nativists demanded ethnic purity. They put a premium on Northern and Western Europeans; they were “higher up” on the ethnic totem pole.
Thanks. What you saying is this:
If you plotted the ratio k=|X_child-Mean|/|X_parent-Mean| as a function of x=|X_parent-Mean| k(x) is smaller than 1 far away from zero (x is large) but at some point closer to zero it becomes larger than 1. How would you call the region where k(x) (which technically is heritability) is greater than 1? What’s is the explanation for this process?
In order for population to maintain the same distribution (constant variance) there must exist a process that replaces the parents P of high IQ that produced an offspring with lower IQ (parents P obeyed the breeder’s equation) with next generation members of equally high IQ as parents P who were produced by other parents R who did not obey the breeder’s equation.
It is reasonable to question the wisdom of talking about the regression to the mean if the regression to the mean process must be counterbalanced by some other process acting in opposite direction.
I got the impression that the regression to the mean is often talked on racialist, HBD and eugenics sites to make a particular self serving arguments. Now I doubt the validity of those arguments as you revealed that the breeder’s equation is not applicable across the whole population. People closer to the mean will produce smarter children to counter balance the effect of smart people producing less smart children.
Thank you for your explanations.
As far as the issue with whether variance remains the same, the answer is, of course, yes (under usual assumptions).
I begin to see that the breeder’s equation does not need to contradict the observation that the variance of population is constant. For IQ_parent the breeder’s equation predicts the expected value of children IQ_child
E(IQ_child) = Mean+ (IQ_parent -Mean)*h^2
where h^2≤1 is heritability which probably is not constant across the population but depends on IQ_parent. IQ_child is a random variable with mean E(IQ_child) and some variance V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) that probably must be dependent on IQ_parent. Say, this variable IQ_child has a normal distribution. The question is what constraints must be imposed on the variance V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) to assure than variance of population V(IQ) remains unchanged. Knowing the variance V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) we will be able to answer the question what is a the probability of having offspring of equal or higher IQ than your IQ if your IQ is (IQ -Mean) points off of the Mean?
So when we talk about the breeder’s equation and the implied regression to the mean we do not need to sound alarmist. The “smart fraction” will not be lost. Equally smart children will be born. So if your children are not as smart as you do not despair. Somebody will produce children that are as smart as you. Population’s statistics will remain unchanged.
___________
(i) I have an impression that the regression to the mean is way too often invoked in an alarmist way.
(ii) It would be interesting to find out who has a higher probability of having children smarter than them: parents with IQ=120 or parents with IQ=140? To answer this, as I said above I think we need to know V(IQ_child|IQ_parent). There should be some empirical data that V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) could be estimated.
(iii) The breeder’s equation does not tell us what happens to the Mean when the actual mean of population is changing as the result e.g. that smarter people have less children than others. The Mean in the equation is not the actual mean but it will not remain unchanged.
If you plotted the ratio k=|X_child-Mean|/|X_parent-Mean| as a function of x=|X_parent-Mean| k(x) is smaller than 1 far away from zero (x is large) but at some point closer to zero it becomes larger than 1. How would you call the region where k(x) (which technically is heritability) is greater than 1? What's is the explanation for this process?
In order for population to maintain the same distribution (constant variance) there must exist a process that replaces the parents P of high IQ that produced an offspring with lower IQ (parents P obeyed the breeder's equation) with next generation members of equally high IQ as parents P who were produced by other parents R who did not obey the breeder's equation.
It is reasonable to question the wisdom of talking about the regression to the mean if the regression to the mean process must be counterbalanced by some other process acting in opposite direction.
I got the impression that the regression to the mean is often talked on racialist, HBD and eugenics sites to make a particular self serving arguments. Now I doubt the validity of those arguments as you revealed that the breeder's equation is not applicable across the whole population. People closer to the mean will produce smarter children to counter balance the effect of smart people producing less smart children.
I think I got it after some exchange with candid_observer. Here is my comment I wrote to him:
Thank you for your explanations.
As far as the issue with whether variance remains the same, the answer is, of course, yes (under usual assumptions).
I begin to see that the breeder’s equation does not need to contradict the observation that the variance of population is constant. For IQ_parent the breeder’s equation predicts the expected value of children IQ_child
E(IQ_child) = Mean+ (IQ_parent -Mean)*h^2
where h^2≤1 is heritability which probably is not constant across the population but depends on IQ_parent. IQ_child is a random variable with mean E(IQ_child) and some variance V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) that probably must be dependent on IQ_parent. Say, this variable IQ_child has a normal distribution. The question is what constraints must be imposed on the variance V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) to assure than variance of population V(IQ) remains unchanged. Knowing the variance V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) we will be able to answer the question what is a the probability of having offspring of equal or higher IQ than your IQ if your IQ is (IQ -Mean) points off of the Mean?
So when we talk about the breeder’s equation and the implied regression to the mean we do not need to sound alarmist. The “smart fraction” will not be lost. Equally smart children will be born. So if your children are not as smart as you do not despair. Somebody will produce children that are as smart as you. Population’s statistics will remain unchanged.
___________
(i) I have an impression that the regression to the mean is way too often invoked in an alarmist way.
(ii) It would be interesting to find out who has a higher probability of having children smarter than them: parents with IQ=120 or parents with IQ=140? To answer this, as I said above I think we need to know V(IQ_child|IQ_parent). There should be some empirical data that V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) could be estimated.
(iii) The breeder’s equation does not tell us what happens to the Mean when the actual mean of population is changing as the result e.g. that smarter people have less children than others. The Mean in the equation is not the actual mean but it will not remain unchanged.
iii. Sure it does.
Thanks for the link. Between age 11 and 80 correlation is 0.71-0.78. Then they say it could be higher (0.8) if correcting for test-retest repeatability that has correlation of approx. 0.9.
Correlation 0.8 translates to St. Dev of IQ(80)-IQ(11) 9.5 IQ puts (1 -sigma).
They got correlation of 0.8 between 11 and 80 age. Which is pretty good, I think. I just wonder how can you reconcile this with age dependent heritability twin studies that show that at young age heritability is 0.3 and in adulthood it is 0.7-0.8? If correlation between twins can change so much how can they be so high between ages? Perhaps there is no contradiction here but I need to think about it.
Did you mean to make this absolutist statement, or did you mean to say, “But if there is no pudding that g can prove, then g proves nothing.”?
One way of looking at it is in the sense of Occam’s razor: “Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.” What was explained by postulating g? In the empirical realm g does not perform better than IQ test scores. Does g explains why IQ performs well as a predictor of some life outcomes? No, it can’t because correlation between g and IQ is less than 1 and between life outcomes and g the correlation is less than the correlation between the same life outcomes and IQ.
of IQ scores, and is embedded to a greater or lesser extent in
every question on an intelligence test. He showed that a
test’s g loading is the best predictor, not just of that test’s
correlation with scholastic and work-place performance, but
of biological measures such as heritability coefficients determined
from twin studies, inbreeding depression scores
calculated in children of cousin-marriages, brain evoked potentials,
brain pH levels, brain glucose metabolism, as well
as nerve conduction velocity and reaction time measures.
These correlations argue strongly for the heritable and biological,
as opposed to the mere statistical reality of g. '
The Open Psychology Journal, 2010, Volume 3, p. 15
I think you are perhaps confusing happiness with success. Follow my link to see what I mean by "a rich and fulfilling life."
A good point.
Although I would suggest that it is not me, but our society as a whole that confuses happiness with success.
There is some consolation that articles as ‘honest’ as this one, so ably reviewed by our Steve, are now appearing – that, gradually, the acceptance is coming that science cannot be denied. Dumb as we are, science is actually becoming more dominant – certainly than religion and maybe now PC too.
Well said – and we can apply this quite universally: how many of us in professional life know of colleagues with huge reputations built upon nothing but voluminous paper qualifications and membership on ever more distinguished committees?
In the fields of art and music, how many framed pieces of crap (even literally!) are worshiped in deference to their creators (and, yes, I do have Picasso in mind too!).
So there!
From a medical standpoint, there ARE substantial differences between the races.When it comes to organ donations and transplants, the most difficult recipients to find organ donors for are “bi-racial” individuals.
There are other medical aspects that clearly define racial differences but, in our culture of “political correctness”, it is career suicide to publicize the differences…the truth be damned–not unlike “holocaust ™” truth.
There ARE differences in the races that cannot be dismissed…
Here is a tool that allows looking at the ethnicities associated with HLA alleles: http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ipd/imgt/hla/ethnicity.html
One way of looking at it is in the sense of Occam's razor: "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." What was explained by postulating g? In the empirical realm g does not perform better than IQ test scores. Does g explains why IQ performs well as a predictor of some life outcomes? No, it can't because correlation between g and IQ is less than 1 and between life outcomes and g the correlation is less than the correlation between the same life outcomes and IQ.
‘Jensen [in The g Factor] documented that g is the “active ingredient”
of IQ scores, and is embedded to a greater or lesser extent in
every question on an intelligence test. He showed that a
test’s g loading is the best predictor, not just of that test’s
correlation with scholastic and work-place performance, but
of biological measures such as heritability coefficients determined
from twin studies, inbreeding depression scores
calculated in children of cousin-marriages, brain evoked potentials,
brain pH levels, brain glucose metabolism, as well
as nerve conduction velocity and reaction time measures.
These correlations argue strongly for the heritable and biological,
as opposed to the mere statistical reality of g. ‘
The Open Psychology Journal, 2010, Volume 3, p. 15
Here is a link to the original article by Gould, but the preview does not include that quote: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1984/03/29/triumph-of-a-naturalist/
I wonder if people who quote Gould as an authority on IQ realize how much it outs them as being unaware of the field?
Thanks for that link.
I’ve had a print subscription to NYRB (I thinke) since its founding but I do not have an electronic subscription so cannot post the actual quote.
I would also love to find a video I once saw on television. It was Gould in a lecture hall probably at Harvard. He extended both arms above his head and said the following “Contingency! Contingency! All is contingent.” Some people call that science I call it BS.
Here’s something I put on line a few years ago about my very first encounter with the fraud:
http://cancerselection.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-axillae-of-san-stefano.html
I just ordered a copy of Storm Over Biology . Thanks for the recommendation. More copies available at Abebooks for $4 if anyone else is interested. The review on Amazon makes it sound apropos to this and other conversations here. It is interesting that Davis would criticize a Harvard colleague like that.
I looked for your Gould video, but no luck. I wonder if it is the video mentioned (Gould - Wonderful life) in this PDF: http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic545468.files/lecture-5.pdf
That sounds as though it was meant to sound wise in the 18th century: it certainly doesn’t sound wise now. The big geographic move is to cities and cities can flourish in any geographical conditions given a number of changeable circumstances like transport connections, education and skill levels, power costs etc.
There are other medical aspects that clearly define racial differences but, in our culture of "political correctness", it is career suicide to publicize the differences...the truth be damned--not unlike "holocaust ™" truth.
There ARE differences in the races that cannot be dismissed...
Thanks. I did not know that. Here is a decent popular article discussing the issue in more detail: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/31/AR2010053102481.html
Here is a tool that allows looking at the ethnicities associated with HLA alleles: http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ipd/imgt/hla/ethnicity.html
Thanks for linking to your interesting blog post.
I just ordered a copy of Storm Over Biology . Thanks for the recommendation. More copies available at Abebooks for $4 if anyone else is interested. The review on Amazon makes it sound apropos to this and other conversations here. It is interesting that Davis would criticize a Harvard colleague like that.
I looked for your Gould video, but no luck. I wonder if it is the video mentioned (Gould – Wonderful life) in this PDF: http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic545468.files/lecture-5.pdf
You probably got this, but worth emphasizing that I’m pretty sure Caplan’s claim is for increasing global per capita GDP, not that of the receiving (or contributing!) country. Reminds me of the old joke about a particular person moving from A to B and lowering the average IQ in both places.
I just ordered a copy of Storm Over Biology . Thanks for the recommendation. More copies available at Abebooks for $4 if anyone else is interested. The review on Amazon makes it sound apropos to this and other conversations here. It is interesting that Davis would criticize a Harvard colleague like that.
I looked for your Gould video, but no luck. I wonder if it is the video mentioned (Gould - Wonderful life) in this PDF: http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic545468.files/lecture-5.pdf
I read your blog post with interest but couldn’t quite fathom your reaction to what I took you to be saying was a poor analogy or illustration used by Gould for his point. Obviously some features of organisms are accidents by mutation on the way to possible adaptations that weren’t needed but were not harmful enough to be eliminated. Have I missed something?
Yes, but you have lots of company.
http://cancerselection.blogspot.com/2012/08/speeding-neutrinos-cold-fusion-and.html
https://cancerselection.blogspot.com/2013/11/an-open-letter-to-armand-marie-leroi.html
I see, I think. Very much Ricardo, not necessarily Harvard’s (Competitive Advantage) Michael Porter. And the old joke reminds me of what an English friend said of a talented but rather obnoxious English immigrant to Australia whom we both knew. “Indeed, our loss is your loss” – not original of course, there being no new jokes.
How is it so clear that Barack has the higher IQ?
(I have my own less generous and more cynical guessed interpretation of what happened).
I just ordered a copy of Storm Over Biology . Thanks for the recommendation. More copies available at Abebooks for $4 if anyone else is interested. The review on Amazon makes it sound apropos to this and other conversations here. It is interesting that Davis would criticize a Harvard colleague like that.
I looked for your Gould video, but no luck. I wonder if it is the video mentioned (Gould - Wonderful life) in this PDF: http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic545468.files/lecture-5.pdf
Oops! My first reply was intended for JamesG.
#403 was meant for you…
Yep. I believe it but would like it nailed down. Privately I give some weight to a former investment banker and pre Tea Party Republican telling me that Professor Laurence Tribe was present when Obama was elected President (?Editor) of the Harvard Law Review and said he was outstanding.
(I have my own less generous and more cynical guessed interpretation of what happened).
Extensive research indicates genetics is generally the major contributor to IQ.
The problem is that “race” is a fictional, arbitrary construct. We are all mongrels, of mixed ancestry of some kind or other, if one looks far back enough.
It couldn’t be otherwise. Considering population growth over the centuries, the necessary amount of inbreeding is simply too large to arrive at a pure “race” and, much less, one with inherently superior characteristics.
Now, does breeding matter? Absolutely. On traits and exhibited by specific individuals. But on “racial” grounds and exhibited systematically at large, nope, such a notion starts with a puerile fable and ends in a tragic fiasco.
Obvious example: Nepalese population group has larger hearts and more efficient adaptations to deal with low oxygen environments. You don't need to single out the Nepalese as a "race" to notice that its a real, and meaningful difference.
It couldn't be otherwise. Considering population growth over the centuries, the necessary amount of inbreeding is simply too large to arrive at a pure "race" and, much less, one with inherently superior characteristics.
Now, does breeding matter? Absolutely. On traits and exhibited by specific individuals. But on "racial" grounds and exhibited systematically at large, nope, such a notion starts with a puerile fable and ends in a tragic fiasco.
You must be new here.
Race exists.
The two are correlated.
And there is meaningful difference in average racial IQ.
Until those four points are accepted in society, we cannot advance beyond a few technological do-dads.
And because we have not accepted them, we are retarding: we are now denying that sex exists or that certain sexual disorders are "normal."
So what?
It couldn't be otherwise. Considering population growth over the centuries, the necessary amount of inbreeding is simply too large to arrive at a pure "race" and, much less, one with inherently superior characteristics.
Now, does breeding matter? Absolutely. On traits and exhibited by specific individuals. But on "racial" grounds and exhibited systematically at large, nope, such a notion starts with a puerile fable and ends in a tragic fiasco.
Yes, but if you look back far enough, you will not just see groups mixing to give rise to new groups, but also the same group splitting into two and diverging because of differing pressures in the environment, from weather to social institutions (polygamy, warrior culture, clans etc). The issue here is a level of homogeneity that comes from endogamy, which establishes you as your own group. Way back when, you were a product of Cro Magnons and Neanderthals. But, in the meantine, you became ethnicity X or Y, established as your own groups. Even today, blend the entire world into a brown mix of ice cream flavors and say that humanity is finally homogeneous. The very next day, groups will start to differentiate. Eventually, they might split off completely, from culture to skin tones to average personality and IQ.
“Have I missed something?”
Yes, but you have lots of company.
http://cancerselection.blogspot.com/2012/08/speeding-neutrinos-cold-fusion-and.html
https://cancerselection.blogspot.com/2013/11/an-open-letter-to-armand-marie-leroi.html
It couldn't be otherwise. Considering population growth over the centuries, the necessary amount of inbreeding is simply too large to arrive at a pure "race" and, much less, one with inherently superior characteristics.
Now, does breeding matter? Absolutely. On traits and exhibited by specific individuals. But on "racial" grounds and exhibited systematically at large, nope, such a notion starts with a puerile fable and ends in a tragic fiasco.
As a word in an English dictionary, “race” is a social construct. The word is used in different ways in different contexts. The biological reality is one of ancestry groupings. To be sure admixture levels vary across individuals, but it highly unlikely that intelligence was evenly distributed over continental or even sub=continental ancestry groups. We can do more to identify admixture and its relevance to cognitve ability scores than your post suggests.
Thank you for your explanations.
As far as the issue with whether variance remains the same, the answer is, of course, yes (under usual assumptions).
I begin to see that the breeder’s equation does not need to contradict the observation that the variance of population is constant. For IQ_parent the breeder’s equation predicts the expected value of children IQ_child
E(IQ_child) = Mean+ (IQ_parent -Mean)*h^2
where h^2≤1 is heritability which probably is not constant across the population but depends on IQ_parent. IQ_child is a random variable with mean E(IQ_child) and some variance V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) that probably must be dependent on IQ_parent. Say, this variable IQ_child has a normal distribution. The question is what constraints must be imposed on the variance V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) to assure than variance of population V(IQ) remains unchanged. Knowing the variance V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) we will be able to answer the question what is a the probability of having offspring of equal or higher IQ than your IQ if your IQ is (IQ -Mean) points off of the Mean?
So when we talk about the breeder’s equation and the implied regression to the mean we do not need to sound alarmist. The “smart fraction” will not be lost. Equally smart children will be born. So if your children are not as smart as you do not despair. Somebody will produce children that are as smart as you. Population’s statistics will remain unchanged.
___________
(i) I have an impression that the regression to the mean is way too often invoked in an alarmist way.
(ii) It would be interesting to find out who has a higher probability of having children smarter than them: parents with IQ=120 or parents with IQ=140? To answer this, as I said above I think we need to know V(IQ_child|IQ_parent). There should be some empirical data that V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) could be estimated.
(iii) The breeder’s equation does not tell us what happens to the Mean when the actual mean of population is changing as the result e.g. that smarter people have less children than others. The Mean in the equation is not the actual mean but it will not remain unchanged.
ii. parents with IQ= 120
iii. Sure it does.
E[X_child-X_mean]=E[X_child-X_mean]*h^2
then X_child has normal distribution with mean E[X_child-X_mean]*h^2 and variance V*(1-h^2).
Then the convolution of this distribution with the distribution of parents population will produce the population of the next generation with unchanged variance. No point of writing down formulas here but if you did it after some variable substitution you will see the result right away and remember that the fact convolution of two Gaussian is Gaussian with variance equal to the sum of variances.
When h^2--->1 that X_child distribution ---> Dirac delta and the result right away obvious.
Yes, but you have lots of company.
http://cancerselection.blogspot.com/2012/08/speeding-neutrinos-cold-fusion-and.html
https://cancerselection.blogspot.com/2013/11/an-open-letter-to-armand-marie-leroi.html
Yes, but you haven’t included an answer to my question about the precise nature of your objection at the Gould lecture on the assumption that you don’t reject the proposition that there may be genetic changes which are neither adaptive nor eliminated.
As to your point my final response is that you read all of section 1. in the following.
https://cancerselection.blogspot.com/2014/05/an-open-letter-to-armand-marie-leroi.html
Its part of the act. Its supposed to illicit cringe. And it does.
You know what? The nativist WASPs were 100% correct. The Eastern and Southern European hordes -- and by that what you mean is Jews and Italians so why not just say it? -- were massively harmful to American life, even if they did contribute to it in many ways, especially the Jews.
The important question in this context is simply, would America be a better place today had they never been allowed in? Unquestionably yes. It would be a far more unified nation. It would have moved far less to the Left. There probably would not even have been a civil rights movement. To say nothing of feminism, anti-war hysteria, no nukes movement, gay rights, etc. Very likely we would not have gone on the outsourcing and de-industrialization binge we went on. We may not even have entered WWI without Jewish influence or had the monster that is the Federal Reserve (though that was mostly the earlier wave of Jews).Yes, good idea, but far too late.First off, stop arguing like a woman with emotional nonsense like this. Actually, the immigrants of the time might very well have thought -- much like the immigrants of today think -- why are these suckers in America letting us in? Don't they know we're coming here to leech what we can and exploit their very nice country? You know it's perfectly possible to look at a situation and say, "this will be bad for America, but I don't care, I'm getting my piece while I can." An adult can discern a difference between these two notions. Robbing a bank might be good for me, assuming I can get away with it. That doesn't mean I think it would be a great idea if everyone else robbed a bank too.
“Oh Corvy, this really is a bugbear with you. You say this repeatedly, and you seem to think it’s some kind of killer point. Sorry chico, but it’s not.”
You’re going to have to muster up an argument rather than make a blanket statement here.
“You know what? The nativist WASPs were 100% correct. The Eastern and Southern European hordes — and by that what you mean is Jews and Italians so why not just say it? — were massively harmful to American life, even if they did contribute to it in many ways, especially the Jews.”
At least you are being honest here with siding with the WASPs. You do realize you are taking an anti-ethnic and anti-white position here. Now, in what specific ways were Eastern and Southern Europeans–which is what I clearly stated–were “massively harmful”, considering that the great-grandchildren of these immigrants are immersed into American life?
“The important question in this context is simply, would America be a better place today had they never been allowed in? Unquestionably yes.”
Thank you very much for your opinion on this matter.
“It would be a far more unified nation. It would have moved far less to the Left.”
So without Italians and Serbs, for example, the United States today would be cohesive? Interesting. How do you exactly figure? Now, you do realize that these two groups are generally more conservative in their political views, which actually assists the Republican Party.
“There probably would not even have been a civil rights movement. To say nothing of feminism, anti-war hysteria, no nukes movement, gay rights, etc.”
Really, the Civil Rights Movement would have most likely never occurred had it not been for the inclusion of Eastern and Southern Europeans? That opposition to the Vietnam War would have been blunted if Italians and Serbians had not entered our nation? Wow, just wow.
“Very likely we would not have gone on the outsourcing and de-industrialization binge we went on. We may not even have entered WWI without Jewish influence or had the monster that is the Federal Reserve (though that was mostly the earlier wave of Jews).”
Your fixation on Jews is duly noted.
“First off, stop arguing like a woman with emotional nonsense like this.”
I’m not the one huffing and puffing about da Joos like a jilted school girl.
“Actually, the immigrants of the time might very well have thought — much like the immigrants of today think — why are these suckers in America letting us in? Don’t they know we’re coming here to leech what we can and exploit their very nice country?”
Some immigrants perhaps felt that way. Most likely they came to our nation for the same reasons as the English, Scotch-Irish, Irish, and Germans before them–for political freedom and economic opportunity. And today’s immigrants share the same feelings as how YOUR own relatives who came here felt–they had the desire to improve themselves and the society they are now part of. Why do you seemingly despise your own family members?
“You know it’s perfectly possible to look at a situation and say, “this will be bad for America, but I don’t care, I’m getting my piece while I can.”
Would not these attitudes also represent YOUR immigrant ancestors?
“An adult can discern a difference between these two notions. Robbing a bank might be good for me, assuming I can get away with it. That doesn’t mean I think it would be a great idea if everyone else robbed a bank too.”
False equivalency. We are not talking about two situations involving illegal activity. We are discussing how immigrants were legally entering our nation in hopes of making a better life for themselves.
America prospered with this "cleverness and effort", and do you ever forget it. They were wealthy in resources, and took in millions and millions of immigrants to run their factories in urban areas. There was no "languishing" in the late 1800's when it came to American industrial output.
"If you import the latter peoples, you get the latter people’s accomplishments."
Using your logic, Eastern and Southern Europeans who emigrated to America by the early 1900's lacked any significant contributions according to Anglos, sans their dilution of traditional culture through their alien social and religious customs. Since you conveniently label the Anglo perspective as "underestimating" their abilities, you are affirming Magic Dirt. Indeed, one imports Eastern and Southern Europeans, one gets less than stellar achievements.
"Most people graciously accept newcomers and immigrants with the understanding that they should be in modest amounts"
Were millions of Japanese and Chinese "modest" amounts? Did tens of millions of Eastern and Southern Europeans meet your numerical standard?
"Demanding racial purity is a death spiral..."
Nativists demanded ethnic purity. They put a premium on Northern and Western Europeans; they were "higher up" on the ethnic totem pole.
Some probably did, but people in general are willing to compromise and accommodate. You have a penchant for the absolutist position that the nativists in 1880 were wrong, so therefore all nativist sentiments are wrong, and we must not in any way discourage the intermingling of people.
Were they wrong to do so? Current migration patterns indicate that such peoples created the cultures and built the places to which the rest of the world aspires. I would suggest the migrants not overwhelm and destroy the goose laying the golden eggs.
One first lays down a principle, then argues an amount.
You are fixated on this “magic dirt” concept. Most here subscribe to a 50-50 nature-nurture split. Importing group A can increase their accomplishments and have a net positive impact; importing group B can increase their accomplishment and have a net negative benefit.
Not nativists in general. They in the late 1800's held the same position as yourself--the influx of Eastern and Southern Europeans were "massively harmful" to America (even though you have neglected to explain how and why). Why should nativists "compromise and accommodate" when they are of the mindset they are from superior ethnic groups? It would appear you hold a similar perspective.
"You have a penchant for the absolutist position that the nativists in 1880 were wrong, so therefore all nativist sentiments are wrong, and we must not in any way discourage the intermingling of people."
Nativists held the absolute position, like yourself, due to confirmation bias, fear of economic competition, and belief that certain groups are utterly incapable of assimilating into a society.
Their concerns may be valid, but they are also subject to scrutiny. I don't know why, for example, you insist that Eastern and Southern Europeans had posed significant risks for Americans. Feel free to discourage this "intermingling", but as you just stated, Americans tend to "compromise and accommodate" newcomers. It's our history. It's in our blood as a mutt nation.
"Current migration patterns indicate that such peoples created the cultures and built the places to which the rest of the world aspires"
Such peoples HELPED to create these cultures. These places were built for other people to improve their lot in life, similar to the perspective of Northern and Western Europeans. What makes these groups more "special" than Southern and Eastern Europeans from your vantage point?
"I would suggest the migrants not overwhelm and destroy the goose laying the golden eggs."
What about your ancestors? Were they from the magical lands of Northern and Western Europe? And you seem to forget that immigrant labor from several European nations was in part responsible for America's streets to be paved with gold.
"One first lays down a principle, then argues an amount."
Don't be an SJW, answer the question. Were millions of Japanese and Chinese "modest amounts"?
"You are fixated on this “magic dirt” concept."
That would be Mr. Sailer.
------------------------------------------------------------
What I said was the social system developed those innovations when the WASPS were in charge. That is not the same thing as saying the WASPS developed all of those things. The WASPS believed in individuals rights whereas most social systems believed in group rights. Many people who are very intelligent from different cultures dont understand social systems based upon individual rights rather than group rights. The WASPS were right in limiting people from those cultures based upon group rights because their system was unique and could be destroyed by people who dont understand non group rights based systems, just as civil rights activists had destroyed capital investment in the US.
-----------------------------------------
when you answer a question that corvy makes successfully then he stops asking then brings the same question to someone else.
How is contingency BS?
“Some probably did, but people in general are willing to compromise and accommodate.”
Not nativists in general. They in the late 1800′s held the same position as yourself–the influx of Eastern and Southern Europeans were “massively harmful” to America (even though you have neglected to explain how and why). Why should nativists “compromise and accommodate” when they are of the mindset they are from superior ethnic groups? It would appear you hold a similar perspective.
“You have a penchant for the absolutist position that the nativists in 1880 were wrong, so therefore all nativist sentiments are wrong, and we must not in any way discourage the intermingling of people.”
Nativists held the absolute position, like yourself, due to confirmation bias, fear of economic competition, and belief that certain groups are utterly incapable of assimilating into a society.
Their concerns may be valid, but they are also subject to scrutiny. I don’t know why, for example, you insist that Eastern and Southern Europeans had posed significant risks for Americans. Feel free to discourage this “intermingling”, but as you just stated, Americans tend to “compromise and accommodate” newcomers. It’s our history. It’s in our blood as a mutt nation.
“Current migration patterns indicate that such peoples created the cultures and built the places to which the rest of the world aspires”
Such peoples HELPED to create these cultures. These places were built for other people to improve their lot in life, similar to the perspective of Northern and Western Europeans. What makes these groups more “special” than Southern and Eastern Europeans from your vantage point?
“I would suggest the migrants not overwhelm and destroy the goose laying the golden eggs.”
What about your ancestors? Were they from the magical lands of Northern and Western Europe? And you seem to forget that immigrant labor from several European nations was in part responsible for America’s streets to be paved with gold.
“One first lays down a principle, then argues an amount.”
Don’t be an SJW, answer the question. Were millions of Japanese and Chinese “modest amounts”?
“You are fixated on this “magic dirt” concept.”
That would be Mr. Sailer.
I hold that ethnic/genetic/race factors as commonly understood are a component that is useful in organizing our affairs. When organizing an enterprise, I have found that it is useful to consider if the workforce consists of Swedes; or Welshmen; or Haitians; or Armenians; etc. It makes a difference worth considering, and everyone does it implicitly.
And, yes, it has been misused, and it is quaint now to read about Englishmen fretting about the inferior Welshmen dragging down the species. That doesn't mean these things are not worth considering in some contexts.
It couldn't be otherwise. Considering population growth over the centuries, the necessary amount of inbreeding is simply too large to arrive at a pure "race" and, much less, one with inherently superior characteristics.
Now, does breeding matter? Absolutely. On traits and exhibited by specific individuals. But on "racial" grounds and exhibited systematically at large, nope, such a notion starts with a puerile fable and ends in a tragic fiasco.
Actually, the opposite. On an individual level, there’s substantial level of variation but from a group level, there’s enough isolation to be able to determine differences in ability and function.
Obvious example: Nepalese population group has larger hearts and more efficient adaptations to deal with low oxygen environments. You don’t need to single out the Nepalese as a “race” to notice that its a real, and meaningful difference.
Many of those “nepalese” groups are part of the larger tibetan race, with sherpa being part of the larger tibetan family, though distantly related due to the inaccessibility of the high himalayas
I decided a long time ago that Gould’s published work comprise a pretty handy de facto test of general intelligence. People who admire his work should stay away from my idea that lethal juvenile cancer played a significant role in bilaterian evolution; they will not be capable of understanding the idea or arguments for it.
As to your point my final response is that you read all of section 1. in the following.
https://cancerselection.blogspot.com/2014/05/an-open-letter-to-armand-marie-leroi.html
I answered all of the questions that Corvy brought up in an earlier thread when I said the following
————————————————————
What I said was the social system developed those innovations when the WASPS were in charge. That is not the same thing as saying the WASPS developed all of those things. The WASPS believed in individuals rights whereas most social systems believed in group rights. Many people who are very intelligent from different cultures dont understand social systems based upon individual rights rather than group rights. The WASPS were right in limiting people from those cultures based upon group rights because their system was unique and could be destroyed by people who dont understand non group rights based systems, just as civil rights activists had destroyed capital investment in the US.
—————————————–
when you answer a question that corvy makes successfully then he stops asking then brings the same question to someone else.
I had missed that particular response and now offered my rebuttal.
Furthermore, it would be most helpful for you to articulate or specify as to what entails this "social system". This concept is vague. Is that an oversight on your part, or is it purposeful?
"What I said was the social system developed those innovations when the WASPS were in charge."
The social system, whatever that means, was developed by the colonists of several European nations, which facilitated innovations. The resulting technologies were due to the individual efforts of nativists and newcomers, each of whom clearly understood how that social system operated. WASPS who were in control recognized that if citizens contributed to the financial success of the nation, regardless of their race or ethnicity, then the nation would be on the road to self-reliance.
"The WASPS believed in individuals rights whereas most social systems believed in group rights."
Our social system developed and protects individual liberties (e.g. freedom of speech, right to own a firearm) AND group rights (e.g. right to assemble, right to freely practice a religion). Praytell, what social systems believe in group rights? You are vague here.
"Many people who are very intelligent from different cultures dont understand social systems based upon individual rights rather than group rights."
Again, what particular cultures are you referring to? Let us assume you are speaking about Asian societies. Well, American citizens of Japanese and Chinese ancestry, whose relatives generally arrived as laborers in the late 1800's, have clearly understood how life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness operate.
"The WASPS were right in limiting people from those cultures based upon group rights because their system was unique and could be destroyed by people who dont understand non group rights based systems."
The social system was indeed unique because it enabled immigrants regardless of their background to exercise political freedoms and pursue economic opportunities. You assume that certain groups of people, whoever those people are (as you neglected to mention) lacked the ability to be able to identify and execute these individual rights on a daily basis. You entire argument rests on this false premise.
"just as civil rights activists had destroyed capital investment in the US."
You make this statement as if it is accurate. So, please offer in what ways capital investment was "destroyed" due to the actions of promoters of civil rights.
That is why they to court.
-------------------------------------------
the idea of the rule of law is that people are supposed to know if they are following it or not without "going to court". You are providing an excellent confirmation of the idea that some people are not capable of understanding anglo saxon law
“the idea of the rule of law is that people are supposed to know if they are following it or not without “going to court”.”
Laws are complex. There are situations where the law may or may not apply. Thus, people go to court to clarify its language as being constitutional or unconstitutional.
“You are providing an excellent confirmation of the idea that some people are not capable of understanding anglo saxon law.”
I would agree that you fit this profile.
Laws are complex. There are situations where the law may or may not apply. Thus, people go to court to clarify its language as being constitutional or unconstitutional.
"You are providing an excellent confirmation of the idea that some people are not capable of understanding anglo saxon law."
I would agree that you fit this profile.
. the constitutionality of a law is not the same as the law being compatible with the rule of law. There is really no aspect of public policy whatsoever that is as purposefully vague as disparate impact. Laws are not complex. People have to know if they are following the laws or not in order to carry on the business of life. Carrying on the idea of disparate impact as far as the liberals would like would undermine the very idea of private property.
The rule of law implies each and every citizen, including those who are elected to make the laws, are subject to those laws. Those laws must be made according to an outlined process and must be in accordance to specific standards, i.e. a Constitution.
"There is really no aspect of public policy whatsoever that is as purposefully vague as disparate impact."
I had listed the specific criteria as what constitutes disparate impact. The legal process sorts it out.
"Laws are not complex."
Patently false. A wide range of interests must be taken into account. Laws reflect those sophisticated statements as to the direction of a society. The legislature understands how challenging it is to definitively draw a line in light of competing interests without having applied the law practically. In other words, a law may have unintended consequences. Thus, there must be discussion and revision.
"People have to know if they are following the laws or not in order to carry on the business of life."
Except sometimes laws are poorly defined, not vigorously enforced, or are in violation of other laws, or may even contradict other laws.
"Carrying on the idea of disparate impact as far as the liberals would like would undermine the very idea of private property."
Private property rights have never been unfettered in a society. There are always rules and regulations made by the citizens of that society through elected representatives as to what constitutes private property, how private property may be accumulated, or how private property may be exercised by individuals or groups of people. Sometimes the majority interests come out on top, while in other cases the minority interests come out on top. Such is life in a society. It has always been that way.
I will lol when the results show Africans have the same allele frequency as Europeans. Okbay shows it.
http://popgen.uchicago.edu/ggv/?data=%221000genomes%22&chr=6&pos=108895386
Gosh, vastly different allele frequencies between Africa and the rest of the world. I am shocked. Feel free to repeat the exercise for other alleles.
Before anyone comes back gleefully pointing out the results for populations ASW or ACB in the Americas, please see the FAQ at http://www.internationalgenome.org/faq/which-populations-are-part-your-study/
and notice that ASW is African Americans in the Southwest and ACB is African Caribbeans in Barbados.
By Okbay I assume you mean: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v533/n7604/full/nature17671.html
I searched for frequency (1 hit) and Africa (0 hits) and saw nothing like what you assert.
------------------------------------------------------------
What I said was the social system developed those innovations when the WASPS were in charge. That is not the same thing as saying the WASPS developed all of those things. The WASPS believed in individuals rights whereas most social systems believed in group rights. Many people who are very intelligent from different cultures dont understand social systems based upon individual rights rather than group rights. The WASPS were right in limiting people from those cultures based upon group rights because their system was unique and could be destroyed by people who dont understand non group rights based systems, just as civil rights activists had destroyed capital investment in the US.
-----------------------------------------
when you answer a question that corvy makes successfully then he stops asking then brings the same question to someone else.
“when you answer a question that corvy makes successfully then he stops asking then brings the same question to someone else.”
I had missed that particular response and now offered my rebuttal.
Furthermore, it would be most helpful for you to articulate or specify as to what entails this “social system”. This concept is vague. Is that an oversight on your part, or is it purposeful?
“What I said was the social system developed those innovations when the WASPS were in charge.”
The social system, whatever that means, was developed by the colonists of several European nations, which facilitated innovations. The resulting technologies were due to the individual efforts of nativists and newcomers, each of whom clearly understood how that social system operated. WASPS who were in control recognized that if citizens contributed to the financial success of the nation, regardless of their race or ethnicity, then the nation would be on the road to self-reliance.
“The WASPS believed in individuals rights whereas most social systems believed in group rights.”
Our social system developed and protects individual liberties (e.g. freedom of speech, right to own a firearm) AND group rights (e.g. right to assemble, right to freely practice a religion). Praytell, what social systems believe in group rights? You are vague here.
“Many people who are very intelligent from different cultures dont understand social systems based upon individual rights rather than group rights.”
Again, what particular cultures are you referring to? Let us assume you are speaking about Asian societies. Well, American citizens of Japanese and Chinese ancestry, whose relatives generally arrived as laborers in the late 1800′s, have clearly understood how life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness operate.
“The WASPS were right in limiting people from those cultures based upon group rights because their system was unique and could be destroyed by people who dont understand non group rights based systems.”
The social system was indeed unique because it enabled immigrants regardless of their background to exercise political freedoms and pursue economic opportunities. You assume that certain groups of people, whoever those people are (as you neglected to mention) lacked the ability to be able to identify and execute these individual rights on a daily basis. You entire argument rests on this false premise.
“just as civil rights activists had destroyed capital investment in the US.”
You make this statement as if it is accurate. So, please offer in what ways capital investment was “destroyed” due to the actions of promoters of civil rights.
“the constitutionality of a law is not the same as the law being compatible with the rule of law.”
The rule of law implies each and every citizen, including those who are elected to make the laws, are subject to those laws. Those laws must be made according to an outlined process and must be in accordance to specific standards, i.e. a Constitution.
“There is really no aspect of public policy whatsoever that is as purposefully vague as disparate impact.”
I had listed the specific criteria as what constitutes disparate impact. The legal process sorts it out.
“Laws are not complex.”
Patently false. A wide range of interests must be taken into account. Laws reflect those sophisticated statements as to the direction of a society. The legislature understands how challenging it is to definitively draw a line in light of competing interests without having applied the law practically. In other words, a law may have unintended consequences. Thus, there must be discussion and revision.
“People have to know if they are following the laws or not in order to carry on the business of life.”
Except sometimes laws are poorly defined, not vigorously enforced, or are in violation of other laws, or may even contradict other laws.
“Carrying on the idea of disparate impact as far as the liberals would like would undermine the very idea of private property.”
Private property rights have never been unfettered in a society. There are always rules and regulations made by the citizens of that society through elected representatives as to what constitutes private property, how private property may be accumulated, or how private property may be exercised by individuals or groups of people. Sometimes the majority interests come out on top, while in other cases the minority interests come out on top. Such is life in a society. It has always been that way.
------------------------------------------
“just as civil rights activists had destroyed capital investment in the US.”
You make this statement as if it is accurate. So, please offer in what ways capital investment was “destroyed” due to the actions of promoters of civil rights.
------------------------------
No one one is going to invest in an area where hiring decisions are made by government officials rather than business owners in an era of international finance. Why subject yourself to the foolishness of disparate impact if you can build a factory in vietnam or china? At some point in the next 15 years expect life expectancy to drop for a large number of people.
No one has been able to provide any kind of substantial reality to the notion of “race” beyond ephemeral examples circumscribed to tribal or, at best, ethnic groups and yet, even in those cases, still governed by mixed ancestry. Thus, still no “race” to pin anything on.
You're wrong. On so many levels. Race is important to health, for example. Now tell us how your health is "ephemeral."
Steve's ever-relevant basic race FAQ
http://isteve.blogspot.in/2014/05/the-race-faq.html
Unz's "Does race exist?"
http://www.unz.com/runz/does-race-exist-do-hills-exist/
Laura,
You’re wrong. On so many levels. Race is important to health, for example. Now tell us how your health is “ephemeral.”
Right… A random person from Sweden and a random person from the Luba tribe of Africa don’t belong to different races, even though their respective ancestors have been separated for 100k+ years. Also, green and yellow don’t exist as separate colors because yellow-green exists. Fixation indices must not exist either.
Steve’s ever-relevant basic race FAQ
http://isteve.blogspot.in/2014/05/the-race-faq.html
Unz’s “Does race exist?”
http://www.unz.com/runz/does-race-exist-do-hills-exist/
That's an Amerindian woman. She could be the sister of the murderer They Pablo's sister. Eva Longoria is an example of a Mestiza.
Sure. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I don’t have calibrated eyeballs, but I reckon you take my point.
(I suppose I should have used a photo of Longoria or America Ferrera.)
The rule of law implies each and every citizen, including those who are elected to make the laws, are subject to those laws. Those laws must be made according to an outlined process and must be in accordance to specific standards, i.e. a Constitution.
"There is really no aspect of public policy whatsoever that is as purposefully vague as disparate impact."
I had listed the specific criteria as what constitutes disparate impact. The legal process sorts it out.
"Laws are not complex."
Patently false. A wide range of interests must be taken into account. Laws reflect those sophisticated statements as to the direction of a society. The legislature understands how challenging it is to definitively draw a line in light of competing interests without having applied the law practically. In other words, a law may have unintended consequences. Thus, there must be discussion and revision.
"People have to know if they are following the laws or not in order to carry on the business of life."
Except sometimes laws are poorly defined, not vigorously enforced, or are in violation of other laws, or may even contradict other laws.
"Carrying on the idea of disparate impact as far as the liberals would like would undermine the very idea of private property."
Private property rights have never been unfettered in a society. There are always rules and regulations made by the citizens of that society through elected representatives as to what constitutes private property, how private property may be accumulated, or how private property may be exercised by individuals or groups of people. Sometimes the majority interests come out on top, while in other cases the minority interests come out on top. Such is life in a society. It has always been that way.
The law is purposefully vague so that no one can ever be in compliance thus undermining the idea of private property. You are right not all groups of people respect private property or sexual restraint, hence the mayhem in Chicago. Another economic downturn and the chaos of the black matriarchy will spill over to suburbia. The idea of the rule of law is that people are supposed to know if they are breaking the law ahead of time, saying the courts will sort it out really isnt a solution.
——————————————
“just as civil rights activists had destroyed capital investment in the US.”
You make this statement as if it is accurate. So, please offer in what ways capital investment was “destroyed” due to the actions of promoters of civil rights.
——————————
No one one is going to invest in an area where hiring decisions are made by government officials rather than business owners in an era of international finance. Why subject yourself to the foolishness of disparate impact if you can build a factory in vietnam or china? At some point in the next 15 years expect life expectancy to drop for a large number of people.
When people use terms such as "never", "always", "every time", or "no one can ever be", it undermines your argument. A number of statutes and regulations give broad latitude to governmental agencies. This discretion offers flexibility. Companies today do comply with those laws while maintaining their liberty to private property. If your premise is true, then there would be perpetual investigations by government over business transactions and dealings. Only when there is specific evidence of wrongdoing will the Feds initiate a case against those corporations.
"Another economic downturn and the chaos of the black matriarchy will spill over to suburbia."
Thank you for your opinion on this matter.
"The idea of the rule of law is that people are supposed to know if they are breaking the law ahead of time, saying the courts will sort it out really isnt a solution."
Corrected for accuracy --> According to the rule of law, citizens and government officials are to be held accountable to the same laws. They generally know about the law and its consequences. In other cases where the law is complicated, or a situation arises where the law neglected to take it into account, the court system will hear arguments and render a decision.
"No one one is going to invest in an area where hiring decisions are made by government officials rather than business owners in an era of international finance."
American businesses continue to invest in our nation in spite of governmental decisions they oppose, so your statement is totally false. In order to operate, companies must receive permission from the government in the form of a license. Citizens long ago wanted assurances that businesses would be held accountable for their products and practices. Corporations may object to some of these rules, but they continue to be created and continue invest their profits.
"At some point in the next 15 years expect life expectancy to drop for a large number of people."
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
iii. Sure it does.
I have figured out what should be the variance of the distribution of the X_child to keep the same distribution in the next generation. If population of parents is normal with variance V and the breeder’s eq. holds:
E[X_child-X_mean]=E[X_child-X_mean]*h^2
then X_child has normal distribution with mean E[X_child-X_mean]*h^2 and variance V*(1-h^2).
Then the convolution of this distribution with the distribution of parents population will produce the population of the next generation with unchanged variance. No point of writing down formulas here but if you did it after some variable substitution you will see the result right away and remember that the fact convolution of two Gaussian is Gaussian with variance equal to the sum of variances.
When h^2—>1 that X_child distribution —> Dirac delta and the result right away obvious.
Your second equation for child variance (third paragraph) is new to me (I assume mean should also be based on parent there). That works at both the 0 and 1 limits for h^2. What justification do you have for the in between behavior?
Greg, does that calculation of child variance seem reasonable to you? Perhaps it is well known, but I had searched for a way to calculate child SD previously without success.
Thanks, utu.
------------------------------------------
“just as civil rights activists had destroyed capital investment in the US.”
You make this statement as if it is accurate. So, please offer in what ways capital investment was “destroyed” due to the actions of promoters of civil rights.
------------------------------
No one one is going to invest in an area where hiring decisions are made by government officials rather than business owners in an era of international finance. Why subject yourself to the foolishness of disparate impact if you can build a factory in vietnam or china? At some point in the next 15 years expect life expectancy to drop for a large number of people.
“The law is purposefully vague so that no one can ever be in compliance thus undermining the idea of private property.”
When people use terms such as “never”, “always”, “every time”, or “no one can ever be”, it undermines your argument. A number of statutes and regulations give broad latitude to governmental agencies. This discretion offers flexibility. Companies today do comply with those laws while maintaining their liberty to private property. If your premise is true, then there would be perpetual investigations by government over business transactions and dealings. Only when there is specific evidence of wrongdoing will the Feds initiate a case against those corporations.
“Another economic downturn and the chaos of the black matriarchy will spill over to suburbia.”
Thank you for your opinion on this matter.
“The idea of the rule of law is that people are supposed to know if they are breaking the law ahead of time, saying the courts will sort it out really isnt a solution.”
Corrected for accuracy –> According to the rule of law, citizens and government officials are to be held accountable to the same laws. They generally know about the law and its consequences. In other cases where the law is complicated, or a situation arises where the law neglected to take it into account, the court system will hear arguments and render a decision.
“No one one is going to invest in an area where hiring decisions are made by government officials rather than business owners in an era of international finance.”
American businesses continue to invest in our nation in spite of governmental decisions they oppose, so your statement is totally false. In order to operate, companies must receive permission from the government in the form of a license. Citizens long ago wanted assurances that businesses would be held accountable for their products and practices. Corporations may object to some of these rules, but they continue to be created and continue invest their profits.
“At some point in the next 15 years expect life expectancy to drop for a large number of people.”
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
“The law is purposefully vague so that no one can ever be in compliance thus undermining the idea of private property.”
When people use terms such as “never”, “always”, “every time”, or “no one can ever be”, it undermines your argument. A number of statutes and regulations give broad latitude to governmental agencies. This discretion offers flexibility. Companies today do comply with those laws while maintaining their liberty to private property. If your premise is true, then there would be perpetual investigations by government over business transactions and dealings. Only when there is specific evidence of wrongdoing will the Feds initiate a case against those corporations.
————————————-
In an interview about the doctrine of disparate impact and the rule of law the advocate said the opposite. He admitted that a certain land use regulation indicated that people would always be in violation but that that we had to take re-assurances that government wouldnt go after them. He admitted that it would be impossible in theory to not violate the law. There are perpetual investigations over accusations of racism and sexism which continue to this day. IQ tests, literacy tests, drug tests, criminal background investigations, height and weight requirements have all been investigated by the EEOC. It is an evolving standard that no one can ever be in compliance with. Here is a good link:
https://www.littler.com/update-criminal-background-checks-impact-eeoc-v-freeman-and-ongoing-challenges-continuously-changing
Here is the key line:
While employers have been patiently awaiting the Fourth Circuit’s decision in this case in hopes of gleaning some clarity on the topic, they may be disappointed to read that the court stopped short of analyzing whether the company’s background check policy was lawful.
————————————————–
Let me say that again, the court refused to affirm whether or not the conduct was allowed or not because they wanted to continue the perpetual investigations as a source of government patronage.
No, there are specific criteria involved. The company emerged victorious in the legal process, as the federal government failed to meet the standard of proof required to show there was a disparate impact. Furthermore, the court was not in a position to analyze the company's policy since they were only focusing on the merit of the claim made by the federal government. The decision made clear this analysis does not get to the “job-related” inquiry unless there is first reliable evidence of a disparate impact.
E[X_child-X_mean]=E[X_child-X_mean]*h^2
then X_child has normal distribution with mean E[X_child-X_mean]*h^2 and variance V*(1-h^2).
Then the convolution of this distribution with the distribution of parents population will produce the population of the next generation with unchanged variance. No point of writing down formulas here but if you did it after some variable substitution you will see the result right away and remember that the fact convolution of two Gaussian is Gaussian with variance equal to the sum of variances.
When h^2--->1 that X_child distribution ---> Dirac delta and the result right away obvious.
That is interesting. For your first equation computing child expected mean I assume the right hand side should be parent, not child, right?
Your second equation for child variance (third paragraph) is new to me (I assume mean should also be based on parent there). That works at both the 0 and 1 limits for h^2. What justification do you have for the in between behavior?
Greg, does that calculation of child variance seem reasonable to you? Perhaps it is well known, but I had searched for a way to calculate child SD previously without success.
Thanks, utu.
The Proof
Notation: G(X,M,V)= A*exp[-(X-M)^2/(2V)] - normal distribution
(1) Distribution of trait X in population (of parents) is G(X,M,V) (with M=100 and V=15*15 for IQ)
(2) Breeder's equation gives us expected value of child's trait given the parent's trait(2) What is the distribution of X_child of parent with trait X_parent? Let us consider Gaussianwhere k is yet unknown coefficient to be determined.
(3) Let's calculate now children's generation distribution as a convolution:Introduce new variable Y=(X_parent-M)*h^2 then dY=h^2*dX_parentFrom property of convolution of two Gaussians we get that
(i) pdf(X, M_c,V_c) is Gaussian
and
(ii) V_c=V*k+V*(h^2)^2
In order for V_c=V k must be 1-(h^2)^2.
Note that when h^2-->1 then G(X, M+(X_paren-M)*h^2, V*k)--->Dirac delta. This make sense and gives correct end results because children are identical to parents.
When h^2=0 we also seem to get a correct result.
Application: One can calculate what is the probability of having a smarter child than yourself. Breeder's equation itself does not give you this ability.
I would not recommend getting your hopes up on that. Let’s take a look at the most significant IQ SNP from the recent Nature Genetics paper (see Figure 2a): rs2490272 (1000 Genomes uses different IDs, put rs2490272 in yourself to double check if needed, their data input supports both rsID and chr#:pos but the map only displays the latter).
http://popgen.uchicago.edu/ggv/?data=%221000genomes%22&chr=6&pos=108895386
Gosh, vastly different allele frequencies between Africa and the rest of the world. I am shocked. Feel free to repeat the exercise for other alleles.
Before anyone comes back gleefully pointing out the results for populations ASW or ACB in the Americas, please see the FAQ at http://www.internationalgenome.org/faq/which-populations-are-part-your-study/
and notice that ASW is African Americans in the Southwest and ACB is African Caribbeans in Barbados.
By Okbay I assume you mean: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v533/n7604/full/nature17671.html
I searched for frequency (1 hit) and Africa (0 hits) and saw nothing like what you assert.
Your second equation for child variance (third paragraph) is new to me (I assume mean should also be based on parent there). That works at both the 0 and 1 limits for h^2. What justification do you have for the in between behavior?
Greg, does that calculation of child variance seem reasonable to you? Perhaps it is well known, but I had searched for a way to calculate child SD previously without success.
Thanks, utu.
Thanks for catching it. I found another problem. The result is different than what I claimed before. I was doing the math in my head before. Now I wrote it down and I think I fixed it. The result is as follow:
I haven’t seen this shown anywhere! But I am not well read in genetics. Recently I tried to figure our why correlations are used in twin studies instead of R-square to account for variance explained. Could not find it anywhere looking at internet. But finally I have figured it out and now I see when variance explained is given by (1) a slope of regression line, by (2) correlation (Pearson) and when by (3) R-square. I am afraid that there is a small core of people working in this area (genetics) who really know the math while the majority (80% or more) just memorize the rules and formulas as it is common among biologists. Neither gcochran nor candid_observer who tried to answer my equation about the stability of population’s distribution came close. It was just well intentioned, I hope, hand waving.
The Proof
Notation: G(X,M,V)= A*exp[-(X-M)^2/(2V)] – normal distribution
(1) Distribution of trait X in population (of parents) is G(X,M,V) (with M=100 and V=15*15 for IQ)
(2) Breeder’s equation gives us expected value of child’s trait given the parent’s trait
(2) What is the distribution of X_child of parent with trait X_parent? Let us consider Gaussian
where k is yet unknown coefficient to be determined.
(3) Let’s calculate now children’s generation distribution as a convolution:
Introduce new variable Y=(X_parent-M)*h^2 then dY=h^2*dX_parent
From property of convolution of two Gaussians we get that
(i) pdf(X, M_c,V_c) is Gaussian
and
(ii) V_c=V*k+V*(h^2)^2
In order for V_c=V k must be 1-(h^2)^2.
Note that when h^2–>1 then G(X, M+(X_paren-M)*h^2, V*k)—>Dirac delta. This make sense and gives correct end results because children are identical to parents.
When h^2=0 we also seem to get a correct result.
Application: One can calculate what is the probability of having a smarter child than yourself. Breeder’s equation itself does not give you this ability.
______________
Your IQ=140
Heritability h^2=0.8
Children's IQ expected value=100+(140-100)*0.8=132
Children SD=sqrt(V)=9
where V=15^2*(1-0.8^2)=81
Probability that your children have IQ≥132 is 50% IQ≥141 is 17%
______________
Your IQ=140
Heritability h^2=0.5
Children's IQ expected value=100+(140-100)*0.5=120
Children SD=sqrt(V)=13
where V=15^2*(1-0.5^2)= 168.75
Probability that your children have IQ≥120 is 50% IQ≥133 is 17%
The Proof
Notation: G(X,M,V)= A*exp[-(X-M)^2/(2V)] - normal distribution
(1) Distribution of trait X in population (of parents) is G(X,M,V) (with M=100 and V=15*15 for IQ)
(2) Breeder's equation gives us expected value of child's trait given the parent's trait(2) What is the distribution of X_child of parent with trait X_parent? Let us consider Gaussianwhere k is yet unknown coefficient to be determined.
(3) Let's calculate now children's generation distribution as a convolution:Introduce new variable Y=(X_parent-M)*h^2 then dY=h^2*dX_parentFrom property of convolution of two Gaussians we get that
(i) pdf(X, M_c,V_c) is Gaussian
and
(ii) V_c=V*k+V*(h^2)^2
In order for V_c=V k must be 1-(h^2)^2.
Note that when h^2-->1 then G(X, M+(X_paren-M)*h^2, V*k)--->Dirac delta. This make sense and gives correct end results because children are identical to parents.
When h^2=0 we also seem to get a correct result.
Application: One can calculate what is the probability of having a smarter child than yourself. Breeder's equation itself does not give you this ability.
______________
Your IQ=140
Heritability h^2=0.8
Children’s IQ expected value=100+(140-100)*0.8=132
Children SD=sqrt(V)=9
where V=15^2*(1-0.8^2)=81
Probability that your children have IQ≥132 is 50% IQ≥141 is 17%
______________
Your IQ=140
Heritability h^2=0.5
Children’s IQ expected value=100+(140-100)*0.5=120
Children SD=sqrt(V)=13
where V=15^2*(1-0.5^2)= 168.75
Probability that your children have IQ≥120 is 50% IQ≥133 is 17%
When people use terms such as “never”, “always”, “every time”, or “no one can ever be”, it undermines your argument. A number of statutes and regulations give broad latitude to governmental agencies. This discretion offers flexibility. Companies today do comply with those laws while maintaining their liberty to private property. If your premise is true, then there would be perpetual investigations by government over business transactions and dealings. Only when there is specific evidence of wrongdoing will the Feds initiate a case against those corporations.
-------------------------------------
In an interview about the doctrine of disparate impact and the rule of law the advocate said the opposite. He admitted that a certain land use regulation indicated that people would always be in violation but that that we had to take re-assurances that government wouldnt go after them. He admitted that it would be impossible in theory to not violate the law. There are perpetual investigations over accusations of racism and sexism which continue to this day. IQ tests, literacy tests, drug tests, criminal background investigations, height and weight requirements have all been investigated by the EEOC. It is an evolving standard that no one can ever be in compliance with. Here is a good link:
https://www.littler.com/update-criminal-background-checks-impact-eeoc-v-freeman-and-ongoing-challenges-continuously-changing
Here is the key line:
While employers have been patiently awaiting the Fourth Circuit's decision in this case in hopes of gleaning some clarity on the topic, they may be disappointed to read that the court stopped short of analyzing whether the company's background check policy was lawful.
--------------------------------------------------
Let me say that again, the court refused to affirm whether or not the conduct was allowed or not because they wanted to continue the perpetual investigations as a source of government patronage.
“It is an evolving standard that no one can ever be in compliance with.”
No, there are specific criteria involved. The company emerged victorious in the legal process, as the federal government failed to meet the standard of proof required to show there was a disparate impact. Furthermore, the court was not in a position to analyze the company’s policy since they were only focusing on the merit of the claim made by the federal government. The decision made clear this analysis does not get to the “job-related” inquiry unless there is first reliable evidence of a disparate impact.
Still no evidence of race.
Inevitable, of course.
Europeans, for example, are said to have 1% to 4% DNA from another species of the genus Homo.
Yet the claim is that our “race” is pure somehow, allowing a “your are in, you are out” classification.
As I said, “race” is a puerile fable that ends in a tragic fiasco.
In addition, there are drugs that work more effectively in one race than another...This is documented in medical journals.
Race is not only "real" but is necessary for the human species to survive...
LOL
Nice strawman.
And a rhetorical flourish for the conclusion. Are you a liberal arts grad perchance?
Not nativists in general. They in the late 1800's held the same position as yourself--the influx of Eastern and Southern Europeans were "massively harmful" to America (even though you have neglected to explain how and why). Why should nativists "compromise and accommodate" when they are of the mindset they are from superior ethnic groups? It would appear you hold a similar perspective.
"You have a penchant for the absolutist position that the nativists in 1880 were wrong, so therefore all nativist sentiments are wrong, and we must not in any way discourage the intermingling of people."
Nativists held the absolute position, like yourself, due to confirmation bias, fear of economic competition, and belief that certain groups are utterly incapable of assimilating into a society.
Their concerns may be valid, but they are also subject to scrutiny. I don't know why, for example, you insist that Eastern and Southern Europeans had posed significant risks for Americans. Feel free to discourage this "intermingling", but as you just stated, Americans tend to "compromise and accommodate" newcomers. It's our history. It's in our blood as a mutt nation.
"Current migration patterns indicate that such peoples created the cultures and built the places to which the rest of the world aspires"
Such peoples HELPED to create these cultures. These places were built for other people to improve their lot in life, similar to the perspective of Northern and Western Europeans. What makes these groups more "special" than Southern and Eastern Europeans from your vantage point?
"I would suggest the migrants not overwhelm and destroy the goose laying the golden eggs."
What about your ancestors? Were they from the magical lands of Northern and Western Europe? And you seem to forget that immigrant labor from several European nations was in part responsible for America's streets to be paved with gold.
"One first lays down a principle, then argues an amount."
Don't be an SJW, answer the question. Were millions of Japanese and Chinese "modest amounts"?
"You are fixated on this “magic dirt” concept."
That would be Mr. Sailer.
Your responses are trending off into the weeds.
I hold that ethnic/genetic/race factors as commonly understood are a component that is useful in organizing our affairs. When organizing an enterprise, I have found that it is useful to consider if the workforce consists of Swedes; or Welshmen; or Haitians; or Armenians; etc. It makes a difference worth considering, and everyone does it implicitly.
And, yes, it has been misused, and it is quaint now to read about Englishmen fretting about the inferior Welshmen dragging down the species. That doesn’t mean these things are not worth considering in some contexts.
Assuming that a German is superior to an Albanian.
Assuming that the Japanese is superior to the Chinese.
Etc., etc. etc.
No, there are specific criteria involved. The company emerged victorious in the legal process, as the federal government failed to meet the standard of proof required to show there was a disparate impact. Furthermore, the court was not in a position to analyze the company's policy since they were only focusing on the merit of the claim made by the federal government. The decision made clear this analysis does not get to the “job-related” inquiry unless there is first reliable evidence of a disparate impact.
There were no criteria given Corvinus.
Yes, I had discussed this part earlier when I stated "Now, there are specific standards in place when it comes to litigation on this particular matter. You don’t sue willy nilly. It falls upon the plaintiff to make the case who must “draw an explicit, causal connection between a policy or practice and the disparate impact or statistical disparity…[with the] defendant having the opportunity to prove the policy is necessary to achieve a valid interest…[with the] plaintiff then show[ing] there is ‘an available alternative practice that has less disparate impact and serves the [entity’s] legitimate needs’. If a plaintiff cannot do so, then their disparate impact claim must fail.”
Inevitable, of course.
Europeans, for example, are said to have 1% to 4% DNA from another species of the genus Homo.
Yet the claim is that our "race" is pure somehow, allowing a "your are in, you are out" classification.
As I said, "race" is a puerile fable that ends in a tragic fiasco.
You’ve already posted ten times at Unz Review, and there is still no evidence you have a brain.
“There were no criteria given Corvinus.”
Yes, I had discussed this part earlier when I stated “Now, there are specific standards in place when it comes to litigation on this particular matter. You don’t sue willy nilly. It falls upon the plaintiff to make the case who must “draw an explicit, causal connection between a policy or practice and the disparate impact or statistical disparity…[with the] defendant having the opportunity to prove the policy is necessary to achieve a valid interest…[with the] plaintiff then show[ing] there is ‘an available alternative practice that has less disparate impact and serves the [entity’s] legitimate needs’. If a plaintiff cannot do so, then their disparate impact claim must fail.”
-----------------------------
legitimate needs is an open ended statement. Disparate Impact theory has been used to throw out literacy tests, IQ tests, criminal background checks. The only legitimate needs the courts accept is hiring unproductive black people that they wouldnt want to hire if not for government coercion.
I hold that ethnic/genetic/race factors as commonly understood are a component that is useful in organizing our affairs. When organizing an enterprise, I have found that it is useful to consider if the workforce consists of Swedes; or Welshmen; or Haitians; or Armenians; etc. It makes a difference worth considering, and everyone does it implicitly.
And, yes, it has been misused, and it is quaint now to read about Englishmen fretting about the inferior Welshmen dragging down the species. That doesn't mean these things are not worth considering in some contexts.
“Your responses are trending off into the weeds.”
That’s a standard SJW line when he/she/it does not want to directly respond to a cogent rebuttal.
“I hold that ethnic/genetic/race factors as commonly understood are a component that is useful in organizing our affairs.”
Useful, but not necessarily the “end all and be all”. There are several other factors to take into account.
“When organizing an enterprise, I have found that it is useful to consider if the workforce consists of Swedes; or Welshmen; or Haitians; or Armenians; etc.
And there are hordes of people who consider the individual regardless of race or ethnicity who refer to his/her skills, work ethic, and resolve when that enterprise is being created.
“It makes a difference worth considering, and everyone does it implicitly.”
Not everyone. Not even necessarily most people.
“And, yes, it has been misused, and it is quaint now to read about Englishmen fretting about the inferior Welshmen dragging down the species. That doesn’t mean these things are not worth considering in some contexts.”
Assuming that the English is superior to a Welshmen.
Assuming that a German is superior to an Albanian.
Assuming that the Japanese is superior to the Chinese.
Etc., etc. etc.
Those who follow your suggestions of ethnic/race blindness are weaker in their dealings with the larger world.
Your handlers have programmed you to come on message boards and spout this party line, but no normal person believes this.The inferior/superior dichotomy causes problems in these debates. We should start saying "different" instead. For example, SJWs claim "superiority" for their lack of ethnic/racial consciousness, and go on to force those inspired policies on everyone else when they have political power, thus damaging the society and culture that survived by unabashedly taking ethnic/race factors into account.
Inevitable, of course.
Europeans, for example, are said to have 1% to 4% DNA from another species of the genus Homo.
Yet the claim is that our "race" is pure somehow, allowing a "your are in, you are out" classification.
As I said, "race" is a puerile fable that ends in a tragic fiasco.
If “race” is just a “social construct”, why are organ transplant donors so difficult to find for those who are considered “multi-racial”?
In addition, there are drugs that work more effectively in one race than another…This is documented in medical journals.
Race is not only “real” but is necessary for the human species to survive…
Assuming that a German is superior to an Albanian.
Assuming that the Japanese is superior to the Chinese.
Etc., etc. etc.
Apparently, not the Jews, Indians, Chinese etc. etc.
How many Germans immigrating to Albania looking for work and to attend its great universities?
I was referring to the "hordes of people" in the United States who hold a different mindset compared to bomag.
"How many Germans immigrating to Albania looking for work and to attend its great universities?"
Apparently, Germany and Albania have close ties.
http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/Aussenpolitik/Laender/Laenderinfos/01-Nodes/Albanien_node.html
"As part of the Schools: Partners for the Future initiative (PASCH), Germany supports 11 Albanian schools at which German is taught. There is a bilingual section at Sami Frasheri Grammar School in Tirana, where – besides German as a foreign language – mathematics and geography are also taught in German, in some cases by teachers seconded from Germany. Graduates in possession of the bilingual Albanian school-leaving certificate are directly entitled to study at a German university. It is hoped to draw up a new memorandum as the 2009 agreement is outdated.
Germany promotes scientific and academic exchange and supports the establishment of sound academic structures. A number of universities in Albania maintain contacts with German universities, which in some cases have led to student and faculty exchanges. Albanian students and academics also regularly participate in exchange programmes organised by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. In addition, the DAAD academic teacher at the DAAD Liaison Office in Tirana offers regular student counselling on questions relating to studies and grants. Information events on studying in Germany are also held regularly in Tirana."
“Apparently, not the Jews, Indians, Chinese etc. etc.”
I was referring to the “hordes of people” in the United States who hold a different mindset compared to bomag.
“How many Germans immigrating to Albania looking for work and to attend its great universities?”
Apparently, Germany and Albania have close ties.
http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/Aussenpolitik/Laender/Laenderinfos/01-Nodes/Albanien_node.html
“As part of the Schools: Partners for the Future initiative (PASCH), Germany supports 11 Albanian schools at which German is taught. There is a bilingual section at Sami Frasheri Grammar School in Tirana, where – besides German as a foreign language – mathematics and geography are also taught in German, in some cases by teachers seconded from Germany. Graduates in possession of the bilingual Albanian school-leaving certificate are directly entitled to study at a German university. It is hoped to draw up a new memorandum as the 2009 agreement is outdated.
Germany promotes scientific and academic exchange and supports the establishment of sound academic structures. A number of universities in Albania maintain contacts with German universities, which in some cases have led to student and faculty exchanges. Albanian students and academics also regularly participate in exchange programmes organised by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. In addition, the DAAD academic teacher at the DAAD Liaison Office in Tirana offers regular student counselling on questions relating to studies and grants. Information events on studying in Germany are also held regularly in Tirana.”
Yes, I had discussed this part earlier when I stated "Now, there are specific standards in place when it comes to litigation on this particular matter. You don’t sue willy nilly. It falls upon the plaintiff to make the case who must “draw an explicit, causal connection between a policy or practice and the disparate impact or statistical disparity…[with the] defendant having the opportunity to prove the policy is necessary to achieve a valid interest…[with the] plaintiff then show[ing] there is ‘an available alternative practice that has less disparate impact and serves the [entity’s] legitimate needs’. If a plaintiff cannot do so, then their disparate impact claim must fail.”
‘an available alternative practice that has less disparate impact and serves the [entity’s] legitimate needs’
—————————–
legitimate needs is an open ended statement. Disparate Impact theory has been used to throw out literacy tests, IQ tests, criminal background checks. The only legitimate needs the courts accept is hiring unproductive black people that they wouldnt want to hire if not for government coercion.
Throughout the course of human history, there have been laws created to enable officials to have flexibility. Indeed, there may be legislation that are "open ended statements". It's always been that way. Again, laws are complex and must take into account competing interests.
"Disparate Impact theory has been used to throw out literacy tests, IQ tests, criminal background checks."
Employment testing is legal as long as a professionally-developed employment test is administered according to the test developer’s intended use. It is legal to give accounting applicants comprehensive tests in reading and math. It is not the test that is “legal” or “illegal”-- it is the application of the test that makes the difference.
Regarding the use of background checks, they are legal. Companies must adhere to specific policies. Remember, applicants have fewer privacy rights than employees. In the case of Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education (1986), Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., Warren E. Burger, William Rehnquist, and Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that “denial of a future employment opportunity is not as intrusive as loss of an existing job’’. There is an observable difference between losing what one has and getting what one wants.
"The only legitimate needs the courts accept is hiring unproductive black people that they wouldnt want to hire if not for government coercion."
Corrected for accuracy --> Companies use a wide range of tools to seek employees who will be productive. These businesses understand they must adhere to federal and state laws. They have the liberty to go to court to challenge that legislation.
Government coercion? No. Citizen compulsion by way of legislation based on past business dealings that were clear violations of the Constitution.
Assuming that a German is superior to an Albanian.
Assuming that the Japanese is superior to the Chinese.
Etc., etc. etc.
Charming that you feel compelled to self describe your efforts here as “cogent rebuttal”. And SJWs appear to be the good guys in your book.
Then what are we disagreeing about, except for the amount?
EVERYONE notices these things. Don’t kid yourself.
Everyone. Unless they have some kind of mental derangement.
Those who follow your suggestions of ethnic/race blindness are weaker in their dealings with the larger world.
Your handlers have programmed you to come on message boards and spout this party line, but no normal person believes this.
The inferior/superior dichotomy causes problems in these debates. We should start saying “different” instead. For example, SJWs claim “superiority” for their lack of ethnic/racial consciousness, and go on to force those inspired policies on everyone else when they have political power, thus damaging the society and culture that survived by unabashedly taking ethnic/race factors into account.
Annoying that you refused to acknowledge something that was clearly evident.
"And SJWs appear to be the good guys in your book."
They, like your side, are the BAD guys.
"Your handlers have programmed you to come on message boards and spout this party line, but no normal person believes this."
Another SJW tactic employed here by unilaterally declaring people are other than normal if they believe in something contrary.
"The inferior/superior dichotomy causes problems in these debates. We should start saying “different” instead."
When one says "different" and adds qualifiers to those differences, there is a clear indication that one group is "superior" and the other group is "inferior".
I was referring to the "hordes of people" in the United States who hold a different mindset compared to bomag.
"How many Germans immigrating to Albania looking for work and to attend its great universities?"
Apparently, Germany and Albania have close ties.
http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/Aussenpolitik/Laender/Laenderinfos/01-Nodes/Albanien_node.html
"As part of the Schools: Partners for the Future initiative (PASCH), Germany supports 11 Albanian schools at which German is taught. There is a bilingual section at Sami Frasheri Grammar School in Tirana, where – besides German as a foreign language – mathematics and geography are also taught in German, in some cases by teachers seconded from Germany. Graduates in possession of the bilingual Albanian school-leaving certificate are directly entitled to study at a German university. It is hoped to draw up a new memorandum as the 2009 agreement is outdated.
Germany promotes scientific and academic exchange and supports the establishment of sound academic structures. A number of universities in Albania maintain contacts with German universities, which in some cases have led to student and faculty exchanges. Albanian students and academics also regularly participate in exchange programmes organised by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. In addition, the DAAD academic teacher at the DAAD Liaison Office in Tirana offers regular student counselling on questions relating to studies and grants. Information events on studying in Germany are also held regularly in Tirana."
I expected you to denounce this as colonialism.
And I expected you to know something about human interactions.
Now, are Germans superior to Albanians? Is there an ethnic hierarchy in Europe? Where did your ancestors fit?
-----------------------------
legitimate needs is an open ended statement. Disparate Impact theory has been used to throw out literacy tests, IQ tests, criminal background checks. The only legitimate needs the courts accept is hiring unproductive black people that they wouldnt want to hire if not for government coercion.
“legitimate needs is an open ended statement.”
Throughout the course of human history, there have been laws created to enable officials to have flexibility. Indeed, there may be legislation that are “open ended statements”. It’s always been that way. Again, laws are complex and must take into account competing interests.
“Disparate Impact theory has been used to throw out literacy tests, IQ tests, criminal background checks.”
Employment testing is legal as long as a professionally-developed employment test is administered according to the test developer’s intended use. It is legal to give accounting applicants comprehensive tests in reading and math. It is not the test that is “legal” or “illegal”– it is the application of the test that makes the difference.
Regarding the use of background checks, they are legal. Companies must adhere to specific policies. Remember, applicants have fewer privacy rights than employees. In the case of Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education (1986), Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., Warren E. Burger, William Rehnquist, and Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that “denial of a future employment opportunity is not as intrusive as loss of an existing job’’. There is an observable difference between losing what one has and getting what one wants.
“The only legitimate needs the courts accept is hiring unproductive black people that they wouldnt want to hire if not for government coercion.”
Corrected for accuracy –> Companies use a wide range of tools to seek employees who will be productive. These businesses understand they must adhere to federal and state laws. They have the liberty to go to court to challenge that legislation.
Government coercion? No. Citizen compulsion by way of legislation based on past business dealings that were clear violations of the Constitution.
-----------------------------------
Actually the concept of disparate impact liability was developed by the EEOC and the courts, and was not in the original text of the 1964 act. Several historians have noted that an honest appraisal of the 1964 concluded that congress did not intend to prohibit disparate impact at all. The 1991 amendments which overturned Wards Cove do not describe the degree of the disparity nor how "necessary" an employment practice could be. From
http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1526&context=articles
...
“legitimate needs is an open ended statement.”
Throughout the course of human history, there have been laws created to enable officials to have flexibility. Indeed, there may be legislation that are “open ended statements”. It’s always been that way. Again, laws are complex and must take into account competing interests.
———————————–
Throughout the course of human history there has always been bad policy. Officials have been given flexibility but flexibility towards what end? What is the purpose of this flexibility?
So that if there are bad policies, officials are able to make remedies when there is flexibility.
Flexibility also enables officials to create policies in light of problems that arise.
Throughout the course of human history, there have been laws created to enable officials to have flexibility. Indeed, there may be legislation that are "open ended statements". It's always been that way. Again, laws are complex and must take into account competing interests.
"Disparate Impact theory has been used to throw out literacy tests, IQ tests, criminal background checks."
Employment testing is legal as long as a professionally-developed employment test is administered according to the test developer’s intended use. It is legal to give accounting applicants comprehensive tests in reading and math. It is not the test that is “legal” or “illegal”-- it is the application of the test that makes the difference.
Regarding the use of background checks, they are legal. Companies must adhere to specific policies. Remember, applicants have fewer privacy rights than employees. In the case of Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education (1986), Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., Warren E. Burger, William Rehnquist, and Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that “denial of a future employment opportunity is not as intrusive as loss of an existing job’’. There is an observable difference between losing what one has and getting what one wants.
"The only legitimate needs the courts accept is hiring unproductive black people that they wouldnt want to hire if not for government coercion."
Corrected for accuracy --> Companies use a wide range of tools to seek employees who will be productive. These businesses understand they must adhere to federal and state laws. They have the liberty to go to court to challenge that legislation.
Government coercion? No. Citizen compulsion by way of legislation based on past business dealings that were clear violations of the Constitution.
Government coercion? No. Citizen compulsion by way of legislation based on past business dealings that were clear violations of the Constitution.
———————————–
Actually the concept of disparate impact liability was developed by the EEOC and the courts, and was not in the original text of the 1964 act. Several historians have noted that an honest appraisal of the 1964 concluded that congress did not intend to prohibit disparate impact at all. The 1991 amendments which overturned Wards Cove do not describe the degree of the disparity nor how “necessary” an employment practice could be. From
http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1526&context=articles
…
“I expected you to denounce this as colonialism.”
And I expected you to know something about human interactions.
Now, are Germans superior to Albanians? Is there an ethnic hierarchy in Europe? Where did your ancestors fit?
Utu,
Again, I’m grateful for your bringing a mathematicians perspective and ability to the discussion. I’m also following your contributions on regression to the mean, so I’ll be commenting on that as well.
I agree completely with you on the vague nature of ‘g’, although as Phil pointed out http://www.unz.com/isteve/vox-charles-murray-is-once-again-peddling-junk-science-about/#comment-1880870
it has some significant correlations with other measures which are probably more physiologically related than a psychometric score.
But we can’t forget that factor analysis in personality analysis is done on correlations or covariance, and thus, does not imply any causality and might very well reflect a coincidence of development.
In my opinion, the only way to really make an argument for a physical grounding of g is to use replication. The replication should use not only the factor loadings from previous studies, but the raw weightings of the scores. After all, we’re arguing physical reality of a coherent population. Correlations actually provide a normalization on the variance and covariance: but, if we’re arguing that we’re reflecting a physical reality, I think using a normalization for the replication is biasing the analysis towards our hypothesis. For example, if the correlations remained the same, but the variance changed widely from sample to sample, have we really shown an underlying physical quality?
I think your discussion on the regression to the mean actually adds to the discussion of g. What you did was to find a mathematical formulation of heritability which reflects both the observed regression to the mean and the invariance of variance (didn’t really mean to make a pun) across generations.
It seems to be accepted that intelligence is a polygenetic trait (begging the question of whether we can speak of “trait” in the singular). Let me construct a model where there are 100 genes affecting intelligence, each gene with two alleles, a dumb allele and a smart allele. Suppose intelligence is determined by the raw number of genes where there are two smart alleles. You could have a smart father and smart mother, but smart because of different genes. The offspring would have a higher chance of having more than average genes with smart alleles, but their expected intelligence would still be lower than their parent outliers, who were really lucky in the number of matched genes.
The question is, is there any necessary connection of the smart genes to each other, or is it an artifact of population development within a stressful environment? It’s pretty accepted that gene alleles have a constant rate of mutation, so in the absence of environmental stresses selecting for a particular allele, it will eventually get replaced in the population. I will assume this holds true for correlations between alleles on different genes. My conclusion is that in the high-technology, low stress environment we are now in, the g construct will become weaker, and mean intelligence test scores (whatever they mean) will decrease. This will take place even without dysgenic immigration.
I have a very difficult time thinking that all human groupings geographically separated for millenia must have the same capacity for logical reasoning and abstract thought.
This subject has always seemed obvious to me. How could there not be genetic differences between the races in terms of cognitive functioning?
Such an assertion would require denial of the theory of natural selection.
Gould was comfortable with such denial.
I find such denial as tenable as belief in a flat Earth.
Those who follow your suggestions of ethnic/race blindness are weaker in their dealings with the larger world.
Your handlers have programmed you to come on message boards and spout this party line, but no normal person believes this.The inferior/superior dichotomy causes problems in these debates. We should start saying "different" instead. For example, SJWs claim "superiority" for their lack of ethnic/racial consciousness, and go on to force those inspired policies on everyone else when they have political power, thus damaging the society and culture that survived by unabashedly taking ethnic/race factors into account.
“Charming that you feel compelled to self describe your efforts here as “cogent rebuttal”.”
Annoying that you refused to acknowledge something that was clearly evident.
“And SJWs appear to be the good guys in your book.”
They, like your side, are the BAD guys.
“Your handlers have programmed you to come on message boards and spout this party line, but no normal person believes this.”
Another SJW tactic employed here by unilaterally declaring people are other than normal if they believe in something contrary.
“The inferior/superior dichotomy causes problems in these debates. We should start saying “different” instead.”
When one says “different” and adds qualifiers to those differences, there is a clear indication that one group is “superior” and the other group is “inferior”.
Which group have I clearly indicated is superior?
P.S. On a similar note, which is superior, rock, paper, or scissors?
P.P.S. Notice the iSteve references at that link. ; )
Load the migrants just debarked at port into a transport plane and tell them "We're taking you to the promised land!" When the plane lands at it's destination, open the door and announce "Welcome to Calcutta!" They have no reason to be dissapointed they didn't go to London, because neither is superior or inferior, just different, right?
-----------------------------------
Actually the concept of disparate impact liability was developed by the EEOC and the courts, and was not in the original text of the 1964 act. Several historians have noted that an honest appraisal of the 1964 concluded that congress did not intend to prohibit disparate impact at all. The 1991 amendments which overturned Wards Cove do not describe the degree of the disparity nor how "necessary" an employment practice could be. From
http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1526&context=articles
...
“Actually the concept of disparate impact liability was developed by the EEOC and the courts, and was not in the original text of the 1964 act.”
No, Title VII of the 1964 Act as well as the 1967 Discrimination in Employment Act specified this concept and the manner by which to proceed in court–as I had outlined previously. The author stated that “Title VII’s disparate impact doctrine can be understood in several different ways, some of which are easier than others to reconcile with modern equal protection jurisprudence”. In other words, he is acknowledging the complexity of the law in its application, that each case is unique, and thus flexibility and discretion is paramount.
Moreover, the author also says that “as a practical matter, disparate impact litigation now plays a MUCH SMALLER ROLE than it once did in increasing employment opportunities for large numbers of nonwhite workers”.
Annoying that you refused to acknowledge something that was clearly evident.
"And SJWs appear to be the good guys in your book."
They, like your side, are the BAD guys.
"Your handlers have programmed you to come on message boards and spout this party line, but no normal person believes this."
Another SJW tactic employed here by unilaterally declaring people are other than normal if they believe in something contrary.
"The inferior/superior dichotomy causes problems in these debates. We should start saying “different” instead."
When one says "different" and adds qualifiers to those differences, there is a clear indication that one group is "superior" and the other group is "inferior".
Like when I observe that East Africans are better at long distance running while West Africans are better at sprinting (on average, as shown by top performers, yadda yadda; only an idiot believes every individual in one group is superior to every individual in another group for situations like this): https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/08/14/kenyans-sweep-distance-races-jamaicans-sprints-evolution-shaped-elite-sports/
Which group have I clearly indicated is superior?
P.S. On a similar note, which is superior, rock, paper, or scissors?
P.P.S. Notice the iSteve references at that link. ; )
Throughout the course of human history, there have been laws created to enable officials to have flexibility. Indeed, there may be legislation that are “open ended statements”. It’s always been that way. Again, laws are complex and must take into account competing interests.
-----------------------------------
Throughout the course of human history there has always been bad policy. Officials have been given flexibility but flexibility towards what end? What is the purpose of this flexibility?
“Throughout the course of human history there has always been bad policy. Officials have been given flexibility but flexibility towards what end? What is the purpose of this flexibility?”
So that if there are bad policies, officials are able to make remedies when there is flexibility.
Flexibility also enables officials to create policies in light of problems that arise.
Flexibility also enables officials to create policies in light of problems that arise.
----------------------------------
the law itself is a bad policy because people cannot know ahead of time if they are following it. No one can mount a defense of government directives because there is no way of knowing ahead of time if people agree with the official interpretations of what constitutes a problem.
So that if there are bad policies, officials are able to make remedies when there is flexibility.
Flexibility also enables officials to create policies in light of problems that arise.
So that if there are bad policies, officials are able to make remedies when there is flexibility.
Flexibility also enables officials to create policies in light of problems that arise.
———————————-
the law itself is a bad policy because people cannot know ahead of time if they are following it. No one can mount a defense of government directives because there is no way of knowing ahead of time if people agree with the official interpretations of what constitutes a problem.
Corrected for accuracy --> Companies know about these laws and they are able to defend themselves from potential government overreach. Courts are the proper venue if there are discrepancies in interpretations.
Annoying that you refused to acknowledge something that was clearly evident.
"And SJWs appear to be the good guys in your book."
They, like your side, are the BAD guys.
"Your handlers have programmed you to come on message boards and spout this party line, but no normal person believes this."
Another SJW tactic employed here by unilaterally declaring people are other than normal if they believe in something contrary.
"The inferior/superior dichotomy causes problems in these debates. We should start saying “different” instead."
When one says "different" and adds qualifiers to those differences, there is a clear indication that one group is "superior" and the other group is "inferior".
Thought experiment:
Load the migrants just debarked at port into a transport plane and tell them “We’re taking you to the promised land!” When the plane lands at it’s destination, open the door and announce “Welcome to Calcutta!” They have no reason to be dissapointed they didn’t go to London, because neither is superior or inferior, just different, right?
http://popgen.uchicago.edu/ggv/?data=%221000genomes%22&chr=6&pos=108895386
Gosh, vastly different allele frequencies between Africa and the rest of the world. I am shocked. Feel free to repeat the exercise for other alleles.
Before anyone comes back gleefully pointing out the results for populations ASW or ACB in the Americas, please see the FAQ at http://www.internationalgenome.org/faq/which-populations-are-part-your-study/
and notice that ASW is African Americans in the Southwest and ACB is African Caribbeans in Barbados.
By Okbay I assume you mean: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v533/n7604/full/nature17671.html
I searched for frequency (1 hit) and Africa (0 hits) and saw nothing like what you assert.
You are definitely going to be in the disappointed camp since you think intelligence all boils down to one or a few SNPs.
I hope you are better at making assessments of reality in real life than you are here.
P.S. Not disappointed at all. It is a fascinating time to be alive for those who think it likely that many individual and group differences can be explained to a large degree (e.g. ~0.70 heritability for IQ) by genetic information. I imagine it is much more disappointing to believe race is solely a social construct or that SNP frequencies are all identical between the continental races.
The GCTA technique they used (which is still somewhat a mathematical mystery to me) cannot really attribute heritability to individual SNP's. Rather they use a linear model that includes lots of SNP's. For example to get 45% of heigh variance explained (this still leaves large (35%) heritability gap unexplained) they used 294,831 SNP's:To show that heritability of IQ increases with age (Wilson effect) 1.7million SNP's were used. Human genome have approx. 10 million SNP's in total.There were some doubts raised about GCTA technique and whether it can explain the heritability gapbut they were strongly criticized and attacked by the purveyors of GCTA, i.e., Visscher and his associates. I hope more criticism will come when more people get familiar with the GCTA.
Which group have I clearly indicated is superior?
P.S. On a similar note, which is superior, rock, paper, or scissors?
P.P.S. Notice the iSteve references at that link. ; )
If you win a raffle and the prize is your choice of a rock, a sheet of paper, or scissors, which do you choose? Are all objects equal?
I’m curious where you got that idea. You couldn’t be more wrong. At this point I’d guess we are talking around ten thousand SNPs for intelligence. Latest GWAS for educational attainment found over 600, unclear how many of those will apply to intelligence and we won’t know until we get a large enough study population.
I hope you are better at making assessments of reality in real life than you are here.
P.S. Not disappointed at all. It is a fascinating time to be alive for those who think it likely that many individual and group differences can be explained to a large degree (e.g. ~0.70 heritability for IQ) by genetic information. I imagine it is much more disappointing to believe race is solely a social construct or that SNP frequencies are all identical between the continental races.
Flexibility also enables officials to create policies in light of problems that arise.
----------------------------------
the law itself is a bad policy because people cannot know ahead of time if they are following it. No one can mount a defense of government directives because there is no way of knowing ahead of time if people agree with the official interpretations of what constitutes a problem.
the law itself is a bad policy because people cannot know ahead of time if they are following it. No one can mount a defense of government directives because there is no way of knowing ahead of time if people agree with the official interpretations of what constitutes a problem.
Corrected for accuracy –> Companies know about these laws and they are able to defend themselves from potential government overreach. Courts are the proper venue if there are discrepancies in interpretations.
----------------------
Amy Wax has written about how the laws work in practice. They are inconsistently enforced and open to interpretation depending on the judge and jurisdiction. Since no one has ever identified what the purpose of the law is in the first place then it is impossible for the government to overreach. In the below video one of the women law professors spoke about how no one can know what the business necessity is then everything is prima facie illegal. She claimed that the best advice for those seeking to avoid disparate impact liablity was to keep your head down and never make clear what your policies are to the public.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTTFFRsdQoE&t=3261sShe also claims in addition to the reference I already cited that disparate impact liability came out of the EEOC and the court and was never originally intended by congress.
Again, I'm grateful for your bringing a mathematicians perspective and ability to the discussion. I'm also following your contributions on regression to the mean, so I'll be commenting on that as well.
I agree completely with you on the vague nature of 'g', although as Phil pointed out http://www.unz.com/isteve/vox-charles-murray-is-once-again-peddling-junk-science-about/#comment-1880870
it has some significant correlations with other measures which are probably more physiologically related than a psychometric score.
But we can't forget that factor analysis in personality analysis is done on correlations or covariance, and thus, does not imply any causality and might very well reflect a coincidence of development.
In my opinion, the only way to really make an argument for a physical grounding of g is to use replication. The replication should use not only the factor loadings from previous studies, but the raw weightings of the scores. After all, we're arguing physical reality of a coherent population. Correlations actually provide a normalization on the variance and covariance: but, if we're arguing that we're reflecting a physical reality, I think using a normalization for the replication is biasing the analysis towards our hypothesis. For example, if the correlations remained the same, but the variance changed widely from sample to sample, have we really shown an underlying physical quality?
I think your discussion on the regression to the mean actually adds to the discussion of g. What you did was to find a mathematical formulation of heritability which reflects both the observed regression to the mean and the invariance of variance (didn't really mean to make a pun) across generations.
It seems to be accepted that intelligence is a polygenetic trait (begging the question of whether we can speak of "trait" in the singular). Let me construct a model where there are 100 genes affecting intelligence, each gene with two alleles, a dumb allele and a smart allele. Suppose intelligence is determined by the raw number of genes where there are two smart alleles. You could have a smart father and smart mother, but smart because of different genes. The offspring would have a higher chance of having more than average genes with smart alleles, but their expected intelligence would still be lower than their parent outliers, who were really lucky in the number of matched genes.
The question is, is there any necessary connection of the smart genes to each other, or is it an artifact of population development within a stressful environment? It's pretty accepted that gene alleles have a constant rate of mutation, so in the absence of environmental stresses selecting for a particular allele, it will eventually get replaced in the population. I will assume this holds true for correlations between alleles on different genes. My conclusion is that in the high-technology, low stress environment we are now in, the g construct will become weaker, and mean intelligence test scores (whatever they mean) will decrease. This will take place even without dysgenic immigration.
Sorry, I can’t respond to points you tried to make. Nothing sound right or not right in what you said.
Corrected for accuracy --> Companies know about these laws and they are able to defend themselves from potential government overreach. Courts are the proper venue if there are discrepancies in interpretations.
Corrected for accuracy –> Companies know about these laws and they are able to defend themselves from potential government overreach. Courts are the proper venue if there are discrepancies in interpretations.
———————-
Amy Wax has written about how the laws work in practice. They are inconsistently enforced and open to interpretation depending on the judge and jurisdiction. Since no one has ever identified what the purpose of the law is in the first place then it is impossible for the government to overreach. In the below video one of the women law professors spoke about how no one can know what the business necessity is then everything is prima facie illegal. She claimed that the best advice for those seeking to avoid disparate impact liablity was to keep your head down and never make clear what your policies are to the public.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTTFFRsdQoE&t=3261s
She also claims in addition to the reference I already cited that disparate impact liability came out of the EEOC and the court and was never originally intended by congress.
“They are inconsistently enforced and open to interpretation depending on the judge and jurisdiction.”
In some cases, absolutely.
“Since no one has ever identified what the purpose of the law is in the first place then it is impossible for the government to overreach.”
You keep repeating something that is patently false. The purpose of the law has been identified along with its criteria.
“In the below video one of the women law professors spoke about how no one can know what the business necessity is then everything is prima facie illegal.”
And others disputed her claim.
“She also claims in addition to the reference I already cited that disparate impact liability came out of the EEOC and the court and was never originally intended by congress.”
And others disputed her claim.
Your response is incredibly empty given that it neither references the words of those others or presents an argument in your own words. (I know, it's part of your shtick, carry on)
In some cases, absolutely.
"Since no one has ever identified what the purpose of the law is in the first place then it is impossible for the government to overreach."
You keep repeating something that is patently false. The purpose of the law has been identified along with its criteria.
"In the below video one of the women law professors spoke about how no one can know what the business necessity is then everything is prima facie illegal."
And others disputed her claim.
"She also claims in addition to the reference I already cited that disparate impact liability came out of the EEOC and the court and was never originally intended by congress."
And others disputed her claim.
Who do you think was more correct? You make claims every day (I think that’s literally correct, but maybe there is a day off here or there) which are disputed here. Does that make those claims of yours incorrect?
Your response is incredibly empty given that it neither references the words of those others or presents an argument in your own words. (I know, it’s part of your shtick, carry on)
Actually no one disputed her claim that the doctrine of disparate impact came out of the EEOC and the courts and was not part of the original 1964 act. They simply didnt discuss that point. The proponent of disparate impact argued for its necessity not its compatibility with the rule of law.
Actually, how many SNP’s it takes is not really clear. But recent publications that tried to get heritability estimates for (1) height and (2) IQ used 100′s of 1000′s SNP’s. Which seems crazy.
The GCTA technique they used (which is still somewhat a mathematical mystery to me) cannot really attribute heritability to individual SNP’s. Rather they use a linear model that includes lots of SNP’s. For example to get 45% of heigh variance explained (this still leaves large (35%) heritability gap unexplained) they used 294,831 SNP’s:
To show that heritability of IQ increases with age (Wilson effect) 1.7million SNP’s were used. Human genome have approx. 10 million SNP’s in total.
There were some doubts raised about GCTA technique and whether it can explain the heritability gap
but they were strongly criticized and attacked by the purveyors of GCTA, i.e., Visscher and his associates. I hope more criticism will come when more people get familiar with the GCTA.
[…] on Harris’ Waking Up podcast. It produced a predictable outcry, with replies published here and here and here. We are working on a response to our critics that will be published soon. I am not […]
This has become all too common in the social sciences. And even the “hard” sciences are bending over backwards to deny racial differences in intelligence. Witness what happened to James Watson. Being fashionable is more important to the modern scholar than pursuing the truth.
The recent death of UK psychologist Chris Brand intersects this comment re “the increasingly
hysterical conventional wisdom”. By now, perhaps it is more basic to look at the social-mental repressive dynamics surrounding this science than to persist in trying to focus on the facts and findings themselves. Brand’s keen general survey in his briefly published and then almost immediately “de-published” 1995 book re “general mental ability” and nature/nurture–this keen general survey was one of a strand of such “semi burned” books. It is conceivable (but don’t bet on it ) that the Freedom of Information Act might now be used to excavate more information relevant to the details of “de-publishing” Brand’s book??
An emphatic “insert” is in order at this point. Before noting some of the facts due some retrospective re this 1995 “de-publishing”, the really significant current reality is that Brand
managed, with obvious assistance from others, to get the full and faithful text of his “totally
burned” book all online a few years later—a real samizdat victory and a real samizdat manifestation.
The ( is it by now still? ) neologism of “de-published” is betokened by the fact that the UK publisher did not merely lock their warehouse door on the sale of the book (after about six
weeks of access to book sellers in the UK) but they sent out vans to pick up advanced copies from booksellers. Wow!
But this is not “a” story. It is the culmination of “semi-book burning” reaching back most saliently in our historical period to the 1950′s withdrawal of Audrey Shuey’s book on the testing of Black intelligence. This book, fully endorsed by former American Psychological Association President, Prof. Henry Garrett (Columbia U. ), was rescued by Garrett with assistance from the Pioneer Fund founder and was ushered back into access via an ad hoc
publishing effort devoted to just such book rescue. With Garrett’s advancing age, this ad hoc
rescue publishing arrangement was passed on to Prof. R. Travis Osborne (U. of Georgia ) who
not only got a second expanded edition of the Shuey book out, but also rescued Oxford University Professor John R. Baker’s book, RACE, from the dustbin of publishing abandonment. This remarkable classic was submitted in 1972 to the UK publisher but
somehow publisher nail-biting delayed its publication until 1974. For a work of its genre,
it sold very well….but after the first run was gone…delay after delay set in and this book,
after enormous efforts by the author and his contacts, was rescued by Osborne and his
Pioneer Fund supported ad hoc effort so that it was re-published fully and faithfully in 1981
in the U.S. In the mid-90′s, Chris Brand at the University of Edinburgh, himself out of the graduate program at Oxford University had never come by a copy of Baker’s RACE until one was sent to him from the U.S. out of the 1981 American re-issue of the exact book published
(briefly) in the U.K. in 1974. Ironies compound in this samizdat area of life. Then, maybe
six weeks or so after a few books stores in the U.K. were stocking his book on the “g” factor,
this book of his got the full axe of “de-publishing” and the withdrawal vans, etc. BTW, after
the vans carried back to the publisher warehouse all the advanced copies that could be found and reclaimed, the publisher reportedly pulped them all.
However, in reality Chris Brand’s corpse has been properly disposed of,
a really artfully arranged means would have been to slowly and carefully burn the corpse over
a large assembly of used books within this samizdat domain of human evolution, human variations, genes, and IQ. Metaphorically that was what was done to him in the “de-publishing” and in the large context of history what has been done to our culture over several
successive decades now.