Quoting Wonderment: I wouldn't worry much about whether political leaders are too "lawyer-like" and not sufficiently trained in science. There are plenty of scientific experts to consult with and rely upon.

Quoting JonIrenicus: That is the point. An absolute shift of aptitude would be a net gain to us all, even if there was no relative aptitude gain.

Quoting tickknob: UN demographers project a peak of world population in about 40 years followed by long term decline. In 250 years we could have a population of 2 billion, the majority of whom will be over 65 and a significant percentage over 100. That anybody concerned about the future of the species doesn't find that interesting is very strange.

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: Razib Kahn is no fool and doesn't tolerate racists on his website, GeneExpression. He is interested in human cultural and biological diversity and the ways they interact, both historically and in the contemporary world. Granted, that is a cultural minefield, but he explores it with unusual care, learning, and intelligence.

His Bangaldeshi background is a disinhibiting factor, no doubt. It allows him to walk sure-footedly where others fear to tread. Personally I find that refreshing.

Quoting bjkeefe: This was a delightful conversation to listen to, loaded though the topics obviously are. Very deftly handled by both, I thought, and I would love to hear more from this pairing.

"I'm really awfully glad I'm a Beta ..."

Quoting claymisher: Jesus Keefe, I'd have never thought you'd give a bigot like Razib Khan a pass.

Quoting JonIrenicus: This important documentary footage was missing from the links, so here it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T59G76NE6KY

Quoting bjkeefe: I only know Razib from his appearances on Bh.tv. Judging from them, I haven't heard anything to suggest that he's a bigot.

IIRC, you know more about his work elsewhere. If you would like to point me somewhere, I'd be happy to have a look.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Huh?

Quoting JonIrenicus: I think there is a far greater societal benefit from having an iq bump of say 90 to 120 than from 140 to 170.

Quoting claymisher: The whole gnxp deal is dedicated to the premise that blacks are teh dumb, jews are AWESOME!! and everybody else is above average.

They use cute code words like "human biodiversity" and "race realist" but it's completely obvious what their score is. Just look at the blogroll: Steve Sailer and Charles Murray.

I bet Bob Wright is another "race realist" but is too chicken to say so. Why else would he keep bringing racists like Razib on?

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I have never read Brave New World

Quoting claymisher: If Razib thinks that black folks have the same innate mental capabilities as everybody else all he has to do is say so. Don't hold your breath.

Quoting Peter Twieg: It's somewhat alarming that you seem to care more about Razib possibly having un-PC beliefs than having false beliefs. If he were actually correct in his assertions, would you still be attacking him? If not, why not just attack the assertions rather than just attempting to label his beliefs as being innately contemptible?

Quoting claymisher: And the racists come out.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I have noticed that the view that we would be better off with a more intelligent population is usually stated as a given, but I am not so sure the evidence points that way.

Quoting Peter Twieg: How was anything I wrote remotely racist?

Quoting wreaver: What is and what isn't to societies benefit depends on what goals you have chosen for society. I.e., it's subjective.

Also, I don't think people are (in general) motivated, with this, to make decisions to societies benefit.

Quoting Peter Twieg: How was anything I wrote remotely racist?

Quoting claymisher: Razib Khan is Steve Sailer light, and that ain't great.

If Razib is too chicken to say where he stands either way than fuck him. Either he's going to piss off his racist pals or he's going to get booted from decent society.

Quoting claymisher: You didn't. You played the "have the courage to admit blacks are inferior!" card, which is total fucking bullshit.

Quoting Peter Twieg: No, I didn't.

I was just pointing out that you seem more intent on labeling people as racist than proving that they're wrong. So of course there's more than a hint of irony in labeling someone as racist for mentioning this.

Do I need to explain why this is a terrible (albeit often effective) rhetoric practice?

Quoting Peter Twieg: It's somewhat alarming that you seem to care more about Razib possibly having un-PC beliefs than having false beliefs. If he were actually correct in his assertions, would you still be attacking him? If not, why not just attack the assertions rather than just attempting to label his beliefs as being innately contemptible?

I would say that there is at least something to this worry. One can imagine a political leader so insufficiently familiar with science and scientific thinking that he or she is overly swayed by emotional, rhetorical, religious, etc. appeals on topics that ought to be much more rationally considered.

Also, one has to have some basic appreciation for a given field even to be able to decide in the first place who should be picked as advisors, who should be trusted as experts, etc. See, for example, Stalin and Lysenko.

Quoting claymisher: Look, this is easy. If Razib Khan, unlike his cobloggers, doesn't think that black folks aren't genetically inferior he should just say so. If it pisses off his pals even better.

Just for the record: I think we already have an overpopulation problem, though I do not care to launch that particular debate again.

Quoting Wonderment: Agreed. On the other hand, there's a lot to be said for emotions as assets. We value compassion in leaders (a high E-for-empathy Quotient).

Some of us suspect, in fact, that -- everything else being equal -- women may make better political leaders because they generally tend to be more empathic and less aggressive.

On the other hand, a tendency toward sociopathy, for example, which I believe

Quoting Wonderment: Yes, I would agree with that. But whether one does or not, we certainly have a hunger, poverty and disease problem (the bottom billion).

Does Eliezar care about that? I'm inclined to think not. That indifference is a problem in transhumanist philosophy (at least insofar as the culture has expressed itself so far). [...]

Quoting bjkeefe: I would also point to, for example, Katherine Harris, Michele Bachmann, and Sarah Palin, who seem quite aggressive and not empathic, except possibly to their own kind.

Quoting Wonderment: .... is that Eliezar* doesn't have the faintest idea who Charles Barkley, Jessica de Alba and Snoop are.

*Perhaps to his credit.

Quoting Ocean: This is like saying that AGW isn't true because we have a lot of snow in New Jersey today, and brrrrr.... it's very cold!

Get over those women, Brendan. They are not all there is to Heaven and Earth.

Quoting bjkeefe: No, I don't think so. If the claim is "women may make better political leaders" and one of the reasons given is "because they're less aggressive and more empathic," even if the claim is made in the spirit of "on average," I do not think listing three obvious counterexamples, who are among the most prominent female political figures this country has had recently, is at all the same as picking out random points from an enormously larger and much more noisy data set.

Some of us suspect, in fact, that -- everything else being equal -- women may make better political leaders because they generally tend to be more empathic and less aggressive.

Quoting Ocean: Look at Wonderment's original comment:

You objected to "everything else being equal" because it isn't literally possible, however, I think it was written to mean "all other relevant attributes being equal". Of course you can argue what those are, but that is a different topic.

The rest of the comment states that women "generally tend to be more empathic and less aggressive". Do you disagree with that?

Quoting Wonderment: Agreed. On the other hand, there's a lot to be said for emotions as assets. We value compassion in leaders (a high E-for-empathy Quotient). Some of us suspect, in fact, that -- everything else being equal -- women may make better political leaders because they generally tend to be more empathic and less aggressive.

Quoting bjkeefe: As I said in response to Wonderment when he originally made that statement, I am unsure. I would say further that as our culture continues to change, so that women continue to approach equality in competing for jobs like elected office, I am inclined to believe that this will not be true, at least for the women who pursue those jobs.

I probably do tend to think, following what you go on to mention, that if we could draw distribution curves for things like empathy and aggressiveness, the ones drawn for men and women would not completely overlap. However, if we were to draw those curves for men and women inclined to pursue a career in politics, I think the overlap would be quite close, at least for US society and politics as they now stand.

No, I don't think of the three counterexamples I offered as representative of women in general. However, I don't think "typical examples

Quoting harkin: ...

Quoting harkin: The key here is the applied term "everything else being equal". If women can be more emphatic than men then you can't stop there, you have to say men are less emphatic and more aggressive. And if you are willing to accept that about genders you can't prohibit someone else to applying the same logic in regards to race. If you do you are saying that only certain facts are permissable and that is the opposite of science.

Larry Summers once said that according to statistics and standard deviations he and others had worked out, women were not represented as much as they should be in science and engineering tenured positions at top universities and research institutions because of three reasons, discrimination and socialization issues, lack of time due to parenting and (here we go) a more concentrated set of IQ scores for women as opposed to men, who seemed to have more representation at the high and low ends. He didn't even argue that men (at the high end in general) were smarter than women, he invited people to look at his data

Quoting Ocean: If I understand what you are saying here, it's similar to my comment about current political rules shaped to be for men.

So, women who enter that race have to become more men-like.

It is wishful thinking in the same way that anything for which we don't have data, but seems to be desirable, is. He was projecting how it could be in a future when the rules have changed and

Quoting Ocean: Snowmaggedon!!!

However, to be picky (as unusual as that is for me), I would say the political rules are shaped for men as men have traditionally been socialized to be.

Quoting bjkeefe: Practically speaking, I agree.

However, to be picky (as unusual as that is for me), I would say the political rules are shaped for men as men have traditionally been socialized to be. I think this is a distinction with a difference, and I think it is one worth making, repeatedly. Even leaving aside the women for the moment, there is already a problem in this country with attitudes about how politicians are supposed to be. Recall "John Kerry, metrosexual" and "Obambi," just to pick two recent example bits of CW found, among other places, on the op-ed pages of eventheliberal NY Times. Think of the non-stop drumbeat about Democrats being "weak" and "wanting to offer terrorists therapy," to name another.

Yes, this is sadly true. And even worse, when they do, the labels immediately come out: "cold," "shrill," "emasculating," "bitch," etc.

I'm not saying it's not an

Quoting bjkeefe: LOL!

On a related note, did you see this?

Obama calls capital's blizzard `Snowmageddon'

"Snowmageddon" - that's what President Barack Obama calls the storm that's shut down Washington.

His motorcade made it a few blocks through deserted streets so he could speak at the Democratic National Committee's winter meeting on Saturday.

In his opening remarks, Obama thanked activists for being willing to brave the blizzard. The streets around the hotel where the meeting was held were blocked by snow and police ahead of Obama's arrival.

California Rep. Mike Honda was delayed on the slow-running subway. Other officials who stumbled into the hotel were caked in snow and ice. Obama said he saw a sign that said "Californians for Obama" - and he joked that "you guys aren't used to this."

The party chairman, Tim Kaine, said "it's like an April day in Chicago" - that's Obama's hometown.

© Copyright 2010 CSC Holdings, Inc.

Quoting Wonderment: [...]

Quoting Ocean: [...]

Quoting harkin: And tomorrow I'm going to be be watching a game where history seems to show that certain positions (e.g. rb, cb, wr, safety, linebacker) are just not as well-suited to caucasians as to blacks.

Quoting harkin: I agree

You are forgetting that this is the standard MO for the clique when they can't argue anything of substance and instead just attack ad hominem blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

And tomorrow I'm going to be be watching a game where history seems to show that certain positions (e.g. rb, cb, wr, safety, linebacker) are just not as well-suited to caucasians as to blacks.

Quoting T.G.G.P:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher
it is truly lefties that are the superior breed

I'm a left-hander, but ...

Quoting bjkeefe: One: you are hypersensitive to "the clique." You should try to wrap your mind around the idea that more than one person can disagree with your outlook without it being a mindless conspiracy.

Quoting bjkeefe: Two: you continue to be mistaken in thinking that retyping the only two Latin words you know somehow wins you a point..

The key here is the applied term "everything else being equal". If women can be more emphatic than men then you can't stop there, you have to say men are less emphatic and more aggressive. And if you are willing to accept that about genders you can't prohibit someone else to applying the same logic in regards to race. If you do you are saying that only certain facts are permissable and that is the opposite of science.

Quoting harkin: ...

There you go again on your superiority lollapalluza, claiming to speak for me and to inform people what I know and where I get my facts. Though I'm no John Charity Spring, I do have a couple years of latin under my belt.

Here are a few more words:

Corruptisima re publica plurimae leges

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

and a few I'd directly apply to you:

Cacoethes scribendi

Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus

and a few I live by:

Semper ubi sub ubi

I recommend Bonfire Of The Humanities and Who Killed Homer? by John Heath and Victor Davis Hanson

...

Quoting harkin: The clique tag only applies to the support you seem to feel each other needs.

Quoting harkin: I recommend ... Victor Davis Hanson

Quoting bjkeefe: Imagine my surprise.

Quoting bjkeefe: Even leaving aside the women for the moment, there is already a problem in this country with attitudes about how politicians are supposed to be. Recall "John Kerry, metrosexual" and "Obambi," just to pick two recent example bits of CW found, among other places, on the op-ed pages of eventheliberal NY Times. Think of the non-stop drumbeat about Democrats being "weak" and "wanting to offer terrorists therapy," to name another.

9:18: "We need a commander in chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern."

Quoting claymisher: The whole gnxp deal is dedicated to the premise that blacks are teh dumb, jews are AWESOME!! and everybody else is above average. They use cute code words like "human biodiversity" and "race realist" but it's completely obvious what their score is. Just look at the blogroll: Steve Sailer and Charles Murray.

Quoting Wonderment: I wouldn't worry much about whether political leaders are too "lawyer-like" and not sufficiently trained in science. There are plenty of scientific experts to consult with and rely upon.

Quoting dieter: Scientists, Engineers and many other professions on the other hand have to test their hypothesis and realize their own limitations and that reality imposes limitations on us.

Quoting dieter: What are you talking about? It seems like you are projecting your own obsessions into Razib's blog.

My impression doesn't match yours at all. I catch up on GNXP from time to time because it features a great variety of information on diverse subjects like sociology, anthropology, evolution, heritability of particular traits from musicality to extraversion, ancient migration patterns, modern society, popular culture and ponderings about how these things may or may not be related to each other.

I sure hope that nobody is discouraged from reading GNXP because of claymisher's weird interpretation.

Quoting SkepticDoc: http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/herskovits/

I think you misunderstood Razib's objection to lawyer-politicians. The issue is not expertise, but about the way lawyers approach things.

They [lawyers] are about making stuff up and bamboozling you into believing something. Much like theologians actually.

Scientists, Engineers and many other professions on the other hand have to test their hypothesis and realize their own limitations and that reality imposes limitations on us.

Quoting T.G.G.P: I'm no fan of VDH either, but I've heard from a number of people who also detest his political writings that he's actually decent when it comes to the classics.

Quoting Wonderment: I thought Eliezar's theory of why computer programmers would make excellent political leaders and/or are better thinkers was hilarious. I'm amazed he said it with a straight face.

Quoting Florian: Yes, I had the same reaction. Naivety or professional deformation? I think it has something to do with the belief that computers and human minds are similar, a belief Eliezar has defended.

Singular.

Quoting claymisher: Are we talking about good programmer or a crap programmer here? Because it makes a difference.

Eliezer was specifically talking about good programmers. His point was that programmers are accustomed to seeing their hypotheses fail on testing - something that he asserts happens with a greater frequency for programmers than for "scientists" (he wasn't too specific as I recall.)

Quoting AemJeff: Eliezer was specifically talking about good programmers. His point was that programmers are accustomed to seeing their hypotheses fail on testing - something that he asserts happens with a greater frequency for programmers than for "scientists" (he wasn't too specific as I recall.) I guess he's generally right about that, in the sense that testing hypotheses is probably cheaper for programmers in some circumstances. Still, that depends on a lot of things, and I don't really think that programmers' life experiences, or the lessons available from their professional experiences are particularly exotic, especially as compared to unspecified "scientists."

Quoting SkepticDoc: I am far from being an Anthropology student, my limited genomic knowledge tells me that all the known H. sapiens originated in Africa...

Quoting SkepticDoc: ...with some minor changes in genes and huge cultural and environmental differences.

Quoting wreaver: There looks like there was some introgression going on of human populations outside of Africa.

How do you define "minor"?

(For example) you think lactase persistence is minor? That seems like a non-minor genetic change to me.

Quoting SkepticDoc:

Quoting wreaver:

Quoting SkepticDoc: I am far from being an Anthropology student, my limited genomic knowledge tells me that all the known H. sapiens originated in Africa...

There looks like there was some introgression going on of human populations outside of Africa.

Quoting SkepticDoc: ...with some minor changes in genes and huge cultural and environmental differences.

How do you define "minor"?

(For example) you think lactase persistence is minor? That seems like a non-minor genetic change to me.

Why do you think that lactase is a significant issue in the bigger picture?

Almost all the persistent mutations confer some protection from some illness or condition, others are the result of intentional inbreeding.

Sickle cell anemia provided a benefit for heterozygotes: some degree of resistance to malaria. That provided a little edge, that made the carriers "fitter" in their environment.

Quoting wreaver: My definition of what is and isn't "minor" is subjective of course. (Just like yours.) That's why I asked you how YOU define "minor". (I'm not trying to get you to change your mind on what is "minor" and what isn't "minor".) I'm trying to understand what is the type of thing YOU would consider non-minor.

To me, I subjectively think lactase persistence is a non-minor genetic change. Sure it's an exaggeration of already existing "genetic wiring". But it was part of a non-minor behavioral and cultural change in humans. (Without that genetic change, I do not see how that culture could have existed.)

Quoting SkepticDoc:

Quoting wreaver: My definition of what is and isn't "minor" is subjective of course. (Just like yours.) That's why I asked you how YOU define "minor". (I'm not trying to get you to change your mind on what is "minor" and what isn't "minor".) I'm trying to understand what is the type of thing YOU would consider non-minor.

To me, I subjectively think lactase persistence is a non-minor genetic change. Sure it's an exaggeration of already existing "genetic wiring". But it was part of a non-minor behavioral and cultural change in humans. (Without that genetic change, I do not see how that culture could have existed.)

The major mutations for humans happened in the pre-history, whatever differentiated us from the Neanderthals: speech?, ability to plan for the future?, introspection?, compassion? tool and weapon manufacture?

Quoting SkepticDoc: You are asking to quantify the unquantifiable. Most ideas are relative, only in arithmetic, math and physics you have absolute concepts/quantities.

I consider that whatever differentiated us from the Neanderthals was a major change since it gave H. sapiens an evolutionary advantage that smothered/eradicated the other hominid that may may have even commingled or exchanged genetic material with present day Humans.

Quoting wreaver: (I'll have to do a little digging to come up with a comprehensive list. I think I saw the 5% to 10% figure in The 10,000 Year Explosion:.)

Our great sin, godless’ and mine, and those who in the shadows may agree, and those who have come before us, is to think that races do differ, and that it is more than skin deep. Yes, the earth does move, and black men are faster and Asian men more intellectually prepared to handle advanced topology. We dare to say what one does not say. Oh, you whisper, you think, but never, never clarify your opinions lest you be heard by those would accuse you of being a reprobate.

Quoting Raghav: Here's a choice quote from Razib:

Quoting SkepticDoc: http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wor...erthal-origin/

Wreaver, you have an interesting blog page,

Quoting SkepticDoc: I am not sure what is your true position, a racial supremacist? Intellectual supremacist?

Quoting SkepticDoc: I fear the slippery slope of some of these positions.

Quoting SkepticDoc: Would you share with the forum your "day job"?

Quoting SkepticDoc: I have an esoteric genetic question: if the HeLa cells have 82 chromosomes and were the product of HPV infection, can they be considered human?

Quoting SkepticDoc: I was amused at the Harrison Bergeron video clip, do you feel smothered by the others that are different from you?

Quoting SkepticDoc: In the USA, people associate supremacists with descendants of white Europeans; people with a little education appreciate that there can be Arab supremacists that captured Negroes and sold them into slavery not too long ago, and in present times, practice genocide in Darfur. Japanese abused the Chinese during WWII, in the Indian subcontinent there is plenty of racism/discrimination, Hindus or Pakistanis, take your pick.

Quoting wreaver: Nope.

Again, though, this seems like a Red Herring.

I'm not any kind of racial supremacist. Let me put this in a way that a geneticist would appreciate: I think hybrid vigor can be a wonderful thing.

Again, though, this seems like Ad Hominem and a Red Herring.

Quoting wreaver: Again, though, this seems like Ad Hominem ...

Quoting wreaver: Again, though, this seems like Ad Hominem

Quoting popcorn_karate: that is because it is.

Jeff explains why he thinks this tactic appropriate - i.e. because you are really bad bad bad!!1!! . so discussing your actual points would be beneath him, and would probably sully his impeccable moral character as well.

and i though it was the conservative mindset that was supposed to be obsessed with purity, oh well.

Quoting AemJeff: A simple course in rhetoric and logic will suffice, thank you.

Quoting SkepticDoc: No "red herrings".

Current topic: http://rebeccaskloot.com/the-immortal-life/

I suggested to BhTv to try to get her and Carl Zimmer, it would be a fantastic diavlog, I have listened to her on "Fresh Air", "The Bob Edwards Show", she has a compelling story. The present cell biology research has been founded on HeLa cell cultures.

Quoting SkepticDoc: The major mutations for humans happened in the pre-history, whatever differentiated us from the Neanderthals: speech?, ability to plan for the future?, introspection?, compassion? tool and weapon manufacture?

We will never know what made us really different from the Neanderthals because we cannot compare a living specimen.

Quoting SkepticDoc: Even if they complete the Neanderthal genome, the comparison will be a fruitless intellectual exercise, as I linked earlier, Steven Pinker should be bald on account of his genes, but he isn't.

If we don't fully understand human genes in living subjects, can we really make any inferences on an extinct hominid animal?

Quoting SkepticDoc: Even if they complete the Neanderthal genome, the comparison will be a fruitless intellectual exercise, as I linked earlier, Steven Pinker should be bald on account of his genes, but he isn't.

If we don't fully understand human genes in living subjects, can we really make any inferences on an extinct hominid animal?

Another gene suggests that he would have had dry earwax, as do Asians and Native Americans, not the wet earwax of other ethnic groups.

Quoting Wonderment: Mr. Saqqaq's premature death (before he went bald)

Quoting Wonderment: That's a pretty over-the-top caricature. Sounds like one of those lawyers-are-evil-scumbag jokes.

Quoting Wonderment: Also true of the rest of humanity.

I thought Eliezar's theory of why computer programmers would make excellent political leaders and/or are better thinkers was hilarious. I'm amazed he said it with a straight face.

Quoting claymisher: Tell me, do you think black people have inferior mental capabilities? Don't be cute. Just answer the question.

Quoting claymisher: They've toned down the black inferiority angle since the Godless Capitalist days, but they're still full of shit.

Quoting claymisher: I see everybody's favorite amateur racist pseudoscientist is back. Yay!

Quoting JonIrenicus: This important documentary footage was missing from the links, so here it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T59G76NE6KY

Quoting dieter: ...

I disagree with Eliezars hypotheses. It seems to me that lawyers and computer programmers actually have more in common than not. A programm crashes, if it is not internally consistant and coherent, much like a law, a contract or a case needs to be coherent and logically sound.

But a bug free program can be completely useless and cumbersome to use.

Semper ubi sub ubi

Quoting Wonderment: Yes, it was failure feedback that supposedly made them especially bright or more rational than "mere" scientists who only had sporadic failure rates. Quite a conclusion to leap to!

"In the dime stores and bus stations,
People talk of situations,
Read books, repeat quotations,
Draw conclusions on the wall.
Some speak of the future,
My love she speaks softly,
She knows there's no success like failure
And that failure's no success at all."

-B. Dylan

Quoting claymisher: I keep telling you guys that Razib is a creepy fucker. I should have just linked to that.

Our great sin, godless’ and mine, and those who in the shadows may agree, and those who have come before us,
is to think that races do differ, and that it is more than skin deep.
Yes, the earth does move, and black men are faster and Asian men more
intellectually prepared to handle advanced topology. We dare to say
what one does not say. Oh, you whisper, you think, but never, never
clarify your opinions lest you be heard by those would accuse you of
being a reprobate.

I’m going to stand up and say what I
believe. And I am not a Nazi. I have many liberal friends, yes, those
who voted for Gore and Nader. [7] And yet perhaps the contagion has
passed to them, for they will admit in the privacy of their own homes,
that perhaps biology does have a role in our behavior, that perhaps
differences do exist between races. Not that they would say this aloud,
but the voiceless are out there, from Left to Right, they see and
think, and they draw their conclusions, right or wrong. Perhaps someone
should hunt me down and shoot me in the head, for

Quoting dieter: I don't think so.

Who is "they"? The anti-black bangladeshi zionist front?
I am not cute, but you certainly have a weird obsession. Freud would have a field day with you.

Quoting claymisher: I don't think my hostility to scientific racism is weird at all. It has a pretty bad track record.

Quoting dieter: Charles Murray emphasizes the importance of heritable indivdiual differences ...

Quoting dieter: The track record of Mao's, Pol Pot's and Stalin's blank slatism isn't good either.

Quoting claymisher: There's a huge fucking gap between the blank slate and advocating black inferiority.

Quoting popcorn_karate: and there is a huge gap between noticing that some avg differences exist between racial groups and advocating "black inferiority"

your over the top rhetoric has made me (and probably others) think you have no credibility on this issue ...

Quoting bjkeefe: There is? Sounds like the same thing to me

Quoting bjkeefe: although I will grant you didn't explicitly mention a skin color in the first case.

Quoting bjkeefe: Not this other.

Quoting popcorn_karate: sounds like you have some latent racism for you to interpret that comment as you did - considering you think noticing an average difference in say the prevalence of tay-sachs disease between jewish populations and east asians is inherently the exact same thing as saying "blacks are inferior" to other groups.

Quoting bjkeefe: But sadly, he does not emphasize honesty in data analysis, methodology, etc.

That clown has been exposed for more than a decade now. Suggest you update your list of "authorities."

Quoting popcorn_karate: and there is a huge gap between noticing that some avg differences exist between racial groups and advocating "black inferiority"

your over the top rhetoric has made me (and probably others) think you have no credibility on this issue, although in general you have a great track record for valuable comments.

Quoting dieter: Did you notice that my posting was critical of Charles Murray's motivation and argumentation?

Quoting dieter: Did you notice that my posting was critical of Charles Murray's motivation and argumentation?

(Did you also read this section of the Wikipedia Article that you linked?: American Psychological Association task force report)

But the facts of the matter are besides the point. What puzzles me is that Charles Murray thinks that "substantial heritability of IQ" + "IQ predicts income" undermines income redistribution efforts.

Quoting bjkeefe: Yes, I am sure that prevalence is exactly what all our resident Charles Murray and Steve Sailer fans are talking about.

Quoting popcorn_karate: and there is a huge gap between noticing that some avg differences exist between racial groups and advocating "black inferiority"

your over the top rhetoric has made me (and probably others) think you have no credibility on this issue, although in general you have a great track record for valuable comments.

Quoting popcorn_karate: sounds like you have some latent racism for you to interpret that comment as you did - considering you think noticing an average difference in say the prevalence of tay-sachs disease between jewish populations and east asians is inherently the exact same thing as saying "blacks are inferior" to other groups.

Quoting claymisher: Thanks for the compliment.

Yeah, I've been running hot on this.

Quoting TwinSwords: If that what you think this conversation is about, if you think that's what Charles Murray and JonI and that creepy motherfucker from GNXP are talking about, you've completely missed the entire thrust of the discussion.

Quoting TwinSwords: To some extent this can be forgiven, because JonI and his ilk tend to be coy. He only skirts around the suggestion that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites at a genetic level. He doesn't have the balls to come out and say it -- only strongly suggest it in outraged comment after outraged comment directed at "politcally correct liberals" who fail by not believing that blacks are a subspecies.

Quoting popcorn_karate: Razib Khan is the subject, not steve sailor or charles murray.

are you confident in asserting that Razib is a racist? I'm not.

Quoting popcorn_karate: Razib Khan is the subject, not steve sailor or charles murray.

are you confident in asserting that Razib is a racist? I'm not.

Quoting TwinSwords: All in all, it's pretty damn easy to figure out which side of this debate you should be on. And yet you seem to be struggling.

Quoting dieter: But the facts of the matter are besides the point. What puzzles me is that Charles Murray thinks that "substantial heritability of IQ" + "IQ predicts income" undermines income redistribution efforts.

Quoting popcorn_karate: if the debate is "are blacks inferior", its easy to decide I'm on the same side as you - no struggles there. not even a fraction of a second of doubt.

but i think that is a disingenuous framing to suit your rhetorical purposes.

Quoting TwinSwords: Did you read this post? It leaves no reasonable doubt about Razib's perfectly innocent belief that blacks suffer genetic intellectual inferiority as a race.

There are at least two types of people:

(1) People who don't think blacks are genetically inferior or are unwilling to assert it because it hasn't been proven. These people tend to find assertions of black genetic inferiority to be prima facie evidence of racism.

(2) People who do think blacks are genetically inferior or at least consider it a strong possibility. These people simply believe they are Brave and Courageous Truth Tellers Standing Up Against the Libtard Thought Police!!1! These people can't be racist, they will tell you, because they are just reporting What's True. A lot of these people give themselves extra points for cleverness when they go the extra step and conclude that it's actually the people who think blacks are equal who are racists, because they patronizingly refuse to acknowledge the sad state blacks are really in.

Quoting TwinSwords: But that's what this whole conversation has been about. It's not about sickle cell anemia. It's about heritibility of IQ and the alleged genetic basis for lower IQ scores among blacks. Are you aware that there are people in this forum promoting these beliefs?

Quoting TwinSwords: If that is what you think this conversation is about, if you think that's what Charles Murray and JonI and that creepy motherfucker from GNXP are talking about, you've completely missed the entire thrust of the discussion.

To some extent this can be forgiven, because JonI and his ilk tend to be coy. He only skirts around the suggestion that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites at a genetic level. He doesn't have the balls to come out and say it -- only strongly suggest it in outraged comment after outraged comment directed at "politically correct liberals" who fail by not believing that blacks are a subspecies.

Quoting JonIrenicus: [...] If any segment of a population has a higher aptitude, guess what kids, other segments can have a lower aptitude. You cannot believe in one without the other.

Quoting bjkeefe: To quote your hero: So?

You still don't get why it's so irritating to some of us to hear you and others go on and on and on and on about this, do you?

I think you should watch the Chuck and Snoop video a few more times.

Quoting JonIrenicus: Point taken on the irritation and the topic, not exactly sunny material. I've made my case as strongly as I can against the type of over the top reactions of clay/twin so it can stand for what it is. But yes, at some point it is sort of like discussing why an ugly person has a harder time attracting people. Even if true, still feels unclean to discuss, a sort of why even go there reaction.

And in the end it is only a small part of who people are, and individuals are all over the map. It changes little in that sense. But I do resent the charge of some malevolent intent or motive or clumping anyone who does not go along the lines clay

Quoting JonIrenicus: Point taken on the irritation and the topic, not exactly sunny material. I've made my case as strongly as I can against the type of over the top reactions of clay/twin so it can stand for what it is. But yes, at some point it is sort of like discussing why an ugly person has a harder time attracting people. Even if true, still feels unclean to discuss, a sort of why even go there reaction. And in the end it is only a small part of who people are, and individuals are all over the map. It changes little in that sense. But I do resent the charge of some malevolent intent or motive or clumping anyone who does not go along the lines clay thinks correct as some sort of racist. I'm still willing to get dirtied in an unclean feeling argument to make that case.

Quoting look: Yes, trying to claim no differences is a kind of prejudice, also. Let us all fit into the same square.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Well, what is your point?

Lets just say for the sake of argument that blacks/hispanics mean IQ is less then then caucasion mean IQ. How should this affect public policy?

Quoting popcorn_karate: your over the top rhetoric has made me (and probably others) think you have no credibility on this issue, although in general you have a great track record for valuable comments.

Quoting bjkeefe: This might be a better analogy if there were centuries of history featuring, among other things, laws ensuring that ugly people were to be bought, sold, and treated worse than livestock,

Quoting JoeK: I am curious if you are familiar with Murray's speech The Happiness of the People and if you think it answers your question at all?

What's happening? Call it the Europe syndrome. Last April I had occasion to speak in Zurich, where I made some of these same points. After the speech, a few of the twenty-something members of the audience approached and said plainly that the phrase "a life well-lived" did not have meaning for them. They were having a great time with their current sex partner and new BMW and the vacation home in Majorca, and saw no voids in their

Quoting dieter: Judging by the abstract, I've read a similar article of his, which was linked by Brad Delong or Matt Yglesias.

Charles Murray, who doesn't know any foreign languages, visits Europe merely to confirm his preconceived bias and the tired and ancient notion of American Exceptionalism.

I can easily make a compelling case that european societies are more individualistic, freedom loving and anarchist than american society. (Maybe a well endowed think tank could sponsor me to do the job)..

Quoting dieter: I've

Quoting dieter: Slavery existed all over the place. Europeans were enslaved by arab pirates and invaders (sanctioned by islamic doctrines and in accordance with Mohammed's example). Greeks and Romans enslaved their neighbours who lived outside of their cities and the peoples they subjugated. The Isrealites where both enslaved at some times and did enslave others at other times.

The motivation behind slavery is simply to have people work for you and have sex with them for free. The slaveholders didn't even bother to come up with a justification because the didn't need to. It seemed perfectly obvious to the ancients that those who prevail in war gets to enslave the other side.

It is only when slavery or feudalism is challenged that the slaveholders bother to come up with rationalizations for why these forms of oppression are not only just but even good for the slaves or

Quoting bjkeefe: ...As to the veracity of your claim that you find all of this trivial, I'll be interested to see how long you continue talking about it.

Quoting bjkeefe: That is decidedly not what clay, Twin, or I are claiming.

Quoting look: Just to get it fixed in my head, what is it you are refuting and what are you claiming? In two sentences, please.

Quoting Ocean: I think the argument is that yes, there may be differences between the groups being compared, but the problem is that the vast majority of the time those differences are being brought up by people who have an interest in making a particular group look "bad", inferior, or the like. They are arguing that it's a dangerous path to take, and the purpose of bringing up the topic isn't always clear or a commendable one.

There are people who may bring up the issue arguing for scientific objectivity, without realizing that by doing so they are supporting a racist agenda.

More than two sentences, but that's the way I understood the discussion.

Quoting Ocean: I think the argument is that yes, there may be differences between the groups being compared, but the problem is that the vast majority of the time those differences are being brought up by people who have an interest in making a particular group look "bad", inferior, or the like. They are arguing that it's a dangerous path to take, and the purpose of bringing up the topic isn't always clear or a commendable one.

There are people who may bring up the issue arguing for scientific objectivity, without realizing that by doing so they are supporting a racist agenda.

More than two sentences, but that's the way I understood the discussion.

Quoting look: Thank you, Ocean, and of course you are gladly granted more than two sentences, being a chick, and all.

Quoting Ocean: You're welcome, but not a chick...

Quoting Ocean: I think the argument is that yes, there may be differences between the groups being compared, but the problem is that the vast majority of the time those differences are being brought up by people who have an interest in making a particular group look "bad", inferior, or the like. They are arguing that it's a dangerous path to take, and the purpose of bringing up the topic isn't always clear or a commendable one.

There are people who may bring up the issue arguing for scientific objectivity, without realizing that by doing so they are supporting a racist agenda.

More than two sentences, but that's the way I understood the discussion.

Quoting claymisher: I'm sure the devil will give them an A+ for making people comfortable with bigotry.

Quoting piscivorous: the facts are that there are genetic differences between the various ethnic groups and should be paid attention to in some instances, sickle cell etc., and decried as racist in other cases.

Quoting popcorn_karate: this sub-thread started with:

1) bj saying he enjoyed the DV

2) Clay jumping on him for giving "a racist like Razib a pass"

and on it went from there, so I reject your characterization of the discussion.

Quoting JonIrenicus: Question for you. Do you think aptitude is absolutely equal between all individuals on this earth?

Quoting JonIrenicus: Do you think average aptitude is equal between all populations on this earth?

Quoting JonIrenicus: Break populations down however you like (race, occupation, region, whatever). If the answer is no to the second, then you reject any level of genetic variation and influence on aptitude. By definition, there is no other way out of that, this is not complicated logic, it is very, very, basic.

Quoting look: Yes, trying to claim no differences is a kind of prejudice, also. Let us all fit into the same square.

If you're not a racist, you're a racist.

Quoting look: Yes, trying to claim no differences is a kind of prejudice, also. Let us all fit into the same square.

[If you] claim no differences* [then you are guilty of] a kind of prejudice**, also.

Quoting TwinSwords: These people can't be racist, they will tell you, because they are just reporting What's True. A lot of these people give themselves extra points for cleverness when they go the extra step and conclude that it's actually the people who think blacks are equal who are racists, because they patronizingly refuse to acknowledge the sad state blacks are really in.

Quoting look: Yes, trying to claim no differences is a kind of prejudice, also. Let us all fit into the same square.

Quoting claymisher: Just look at the blogroll: Steve Sailer and Charles Murray.

Quoting bjkeefe: On the other hand, not everyone endorses all views of everyone he or she blogrolls.

Quoting Florian: Innately contemptible? Do you even know what "innate" means? It comes from the French (or Latin) and it means "inborn," inné, innatus

I listened to this diavlog and I heard nothing about the innate (correct use) inferiority of blacks. So I am mystified by this exchange between you and claymisher. Razib says neither that blacks are "innately" inferior nor that other races are "innately" superior.

Quoting dieter: Slavery existed all over the place. Europeans were enslaved by arab pirates and invaders (sanctioned by islamic doctrines and in accordance with Mohammed's example). Greeks and Romans enslaved their neighbours who lived outside of their cities and the peoples they subjugated. The Isrealites where both enslaved at some times and did enslave others at other times.

Quoting dieter: I for example don't live in the US. I am not emotionally invested black/white IQ issue. This question is trivia stuff for me at best. It is about as important as height differences between Tibetians and Han Chinese from my perspective.

Quoting dieter: It seems to me that the anti-racist witchhunt crowd

Quoting dieter: It also disturbes me that the witchunt crowd just naturally assumes that one must hate, despise or look down upon those who are on

Quoting TwinSwords: Obviously not. That's such a stupid question that it should cause you to reflect, and ask yourself how you could possibly have failed so completely to understand what I am saying that you would even think to ask such a question. This is an inauspicious start to your reply.

Your problem, Jon, is that you can only see your opponents as the most cartoonish caricature. Also, it's not helpful in a conversation like this to use vague, poorly defined terms like "aptitude." Aptitude in this context could refer to a thousand things, and your lack of specificity suggests you don't have a clear idea of what you're talking about.

Quoting Ocean: I think the argument is that yes, there may be differences between the groups being compared, but the problem is that the vast majority of the time those differences are being brought up by people who have an interest in making a particular group look "bad", inferior, or the like. They are arguing that it's a dangerous path to take, and the purpose of bringing up the topic isn't always clear or a commendable one.

There are people who may bring up the issue arguing for scientific objectivity, without realizing that by doing so they are supporting a racist agenda.

More than two sentences, but that's the way I understood the discussion.

Quoting TwinSwords:

Quoting dieter: I for example don't live in the US. I am not emotionally invested black/white IQ issue. This question is trivia stuff for me at best. It is about as important as height differences between Tibetians and Han Chinese from my perspective.Thanks for that important confession.

I've known European people as friends and close associates for most of my life. And I've talked about this with a lot of them. Virtually to the last man or woman among them, they are completely unable to comprehend the centrality of race in American life -- in our history, in our politics, in our culture, in the very shape of our civilization. It's important for people to understand how little most non-Americans really understand this important component of our culture when considering, for example, your remarks.

Quoting TwinSwords: This is correct, as far as it goes, but I'm afraid it leaves out the most important part of the argument I would make.

For me, and I think for clay, too, if I've been reading him correctly, the focus is on the genetic, heritable component of IQ. No person on this board that I'm aware of has ever suggested that there are no differences of any kind between racial groups; the scientific evidence makes clear that there are. The focus of the debate with Irenicus, Razib and Murray is entirely on a single narrow dimension of this discussion: the genetic component of intelligence, and whether it is distributed differently by racial / ethnic group. That is, are blacks, as a group, inherently less intelligent than whites.

IQ tests have shown at various times since they were devised that there are measurable differences in IQ between some groups, e.g., men and women, northern whites and southern whites, northern blacks and southern whites, or, as we are discussing here, all American blacks and all American whites.

What we have not nailed down is what accounts for these differences.

It could be partly genetic and partly environmental, or it could be entirely environmental.* We know that certain

Shorter dieter:

Blacks are like janitors; whites are like lawyers. Don't call me racist; I love the lower classes.

Quoting TwinSwords: You've just made up a ridiculous caricature. You do this in every debate. You should make a big effort to fix this defect in your thought processes; try to focus on what the other guy is actually saying, and deal with his actual argument. It's the right thing to do.

Quoting JonIrenicus: And too many people who know better just let him rave and foam instead of having him muzzled and put down.

Quoting SkepticDoc: I wonder how all the participants would do on these tests:

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/

The term 'meritocracy' was first used in Michael Young's 1958 satirical book Rise of the Meritocracy.[2][3][4][5][6] The term was intended to be pejorative, and his book was set in a dystopian future in which one's social place is determined by IQ plus effort. In the book, this social system ultimately leads to a social revolution in which the masses overthrow the elite, who have become arrogant and disconnected from public sentiment.

Your data imply: middle automatic preference of blacks over whites

Quoting bjkeefe: Thinking over the long history of cries of CENSORSHIP!!!1!, I am having fun imagining what the reaction would be from this board's wingnuts if a liberal commenter had advocated the murder of someone he or she did not agree with.

Quoting JonIrenicus: Yeah, those word choices are too open to your type of interpretation.

Quoting SkepticDoc: There have been no responses...

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/Study?tid=-1

These tests interpret subconscious attitudes...

Just like rationality, being objective and non-prejudicial requires commitment and diligence.

Your data suggest a moderate automatic preference for European American compared to African American.

Quoting SkepticDoc: My result:

Your data suggest a moderate automatic preference for African American compared to European American.

Quoting Ocean: Why does my result tell me that I could be a lawyer, or a doctor and less likely an engineer to publisher...?

Am I avoiding the topic or what?

Quoting dieter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy

I have always had an issue with the implied assumption of contemporary politics across the political spectrum that the purpose in life for the individual is to move up and that market incomes (to the extent that there is a free market) reflect merit. Will Wilkinson pointed out that F.A. Hayek apparently rejected this notion.

The problem with this kind of thinking is that all we ever talk about, is, how we can make sure that people move "up", or what causes the fact that not everybody is "up".

Traditional social democrats cared about working class interests in a hands on fashion. Today's social democrats don't care about hairdressers. They only talk about how to make sure that young girls don't become hairdressers.

American bloggers frequently mention high school drop-outs, but only to blame somebody for the high school drop-out rate. It is either teacher's unions, lack of funding, social injustice, individual lazyness, central planning.... take your pick. But nobody seems to be concerned about the drop-outs themselves and what might be good for them. They are only seen as a lost cause.

Austria has like many other continental european countries still

Quoting SkepticDoc: In the USA, even Blacks show a preference towards Whites; Cultural/Media brainwashing?

Jörg Haider on Marcuse Omofuma, who died in being deported from Austria by the police, and who was not a drug dealer: “And I am really asking myself: What counts more for thosw, who have shed crocodile tears on the dead detainee…The risk at deportation or the annihilation of young people, whose life is destroyed by drug consumption that comes from those who make their dirty business illegally here in Austria…The murderers of our children have no right to be in Austria…”.

“I have said that it was a tragic incident, but one must on the contrary also see the side – and that is my point -, that one also once sees the side of the victims. That one does not permanently shed crocodile tears for a deported drug dealer, while at the

Quoting SkepticDoc: "The Wire" did not get a good reception in the US, but apparently is a "hit" in Germany and the UK, would you have any opinion?

Quoting SkepticDoc: BTW, do you live in Europe?

Quoting SkepticDoc: I wonder how racism, anti-semitism could be objectively measured in Germany. Were most Germans victims of manipulation by the minority Nazis that directed the country into disaster and disgrace?

Quoting policy wank: A high bar to becoming a parent:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/258...8:53&out=59:15

Quoting TwinSwords: Why reject it? Why not just say that we're focusing on different dimensions of the conversation? That's possible, you know.

Quoting TwinSwords: It sounds like you're unaware of it, but your summary in two steps above misses the critical piece: There is a long-running subtext to this discussion as it pops up here.

Quoting TwinSwords: That's what clay's talking about. That's what I'm talking about. But, sure, you might be talking about something else. A lot of people, not just you, seem to have missed the fact that we're not talking about any and all genetic differences. We're talking about genetic differences in intelligence. Period.

Quoting popcorn_karate: yes, but you focused on this ongoing meta-discussion as a way to paint my comments as somehow racist or friendly towards racism, which i am not - so i felt a need to reject that i was participating in an ongoing meta-discussion, rather than responding to a series of comments.

we see this differently. what you identify as the "critical piece" seems like extraneous, superfluous, nonsense to me.

the only ones bringing up intelligence differences between blacks and whites are you and clay - in this thread anyway.

except that any discussion of differences in populations and genes brings out you and clay yelling "racist", whether any one else brings up this particular aspect or not - which then leads to rehashing all the same shite again because people feel they are being being unfairly lumped in with people they vehemently disagree with.

thats my opinion. I doubt we'll resolve it. I generally respect where y'all are coming from - i just think you're a little too quick to become p.c. enforcers on this subject.