As I mentioned, Tyler Cowen of Marginal Review spent some time recently tap dancing around his reader's impassioned question: "Why is Steve Sailer wrong?"
However, wouldn't the more fundamental question be:
In other words, the reader was asking not for objectivity but for rationalization to quell his Doubts. I suspect Tyler's answer (basically, it's all very complicated, and, besides, Steve Sailer is a bad person) and the pummeling Cowen took in his own Comments section by much better informed people won't serve to drive too many Doubts away.
However, wouldn't the more fundamental question be:
"Is Steve Sailer wrong?"
In other words, the reader was asking not for objectivity but for rationalization to quell his Doubts. I suspect Tyler's answer (basically, it's all very complicated, and, besides, Steve Sailer is a bad person) and the pummeling Cowen took in his own Comments section by much better informed people won't serve to drive too many Doubts away.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
101 comments:
I think you are precisely wrong about this. I suspect the commenter thinks you are right and was asking Tyler to attempt to justify his disagreement. You yourself could say to Tyler, "Tell me why I'm wrong!". You'd just come off as pushy if you did it yourself.
I am sorry, Tyler Cowen is a piece of crap. He closed his comments section! Really, it is sorry that someone like Cowen has wide recognition, because his views are just plain silly. Just because racism exists and is an important sociopolitical motive, does not mean that race lacks biological basis. Really he should worry more about racism against successful minorities more, and worry less about policies that are designed to minimize low-skill immigration.
It's kind of funny to see Steve treated the way he treats certain historical figures.
He's a professor. He can't ruin his book royalties and professorship for some silly piece of truth.
The basic problem is that when right-thinking people first come to the IQ question they superficially skim the arguments, then propose some counter-hereditarian and counter-IQ arguments that were shot down twenty to fifty years ago. "Haven't you read The Mismeasure of Man? It's this really awesome book by Steven Jay Gould..."
Exhibit A in the latest go-around is McWhorter.
I've been gradually losing some of the esteem I've held for some time in Tyler's case. It seems his famous reading rate, like anyone other mortal's, impacts his full understanding of complicated issues. Whenever the reviews touch upon the few subjects I know well his analysis seems rather light and superficial. Remember that book he reviewed that someone accused him of not even receiving the promo version of, within his own comment section? Of course the popularity of his blog generally allows him the deference to be able to get away with that sort of thing now, without question, but he after praised some very iffy text about an evolutionary explanation of gender roles written by someone obviously biased, I've started taking lots of what he's recommended with a grain of salt.
Tyler's post provided the opportunity for people to post evidence in the comments.
There's a lesson here: As soon as a post like Tyler's shows up Jason Malloy and a few other guys with the evidence should get notified and rush over and put in comments that link to the evidence early in the debate. Bring the evidence to people's attention. That type of post is an opportunity. Treat it as such.
People who haven't seen the evidence before will get the opportunity to read it.
"Steve Sailer is a bad person"
Wait. I thought you were "not nice." You mean to say, you're a bad person, TOO?!
;-)
It's been a few years since I caught up on the IQ wars, and as I trolling through Amazon I noticed a few new books. Are any of them worthwhile?
IQ: A Smart History of a Failed Idea, Murdoch
Intelligence, Race, and Genetics: Conversations with Arthur R Jensen
What is Intelligence? Beyond the Flynn Effect, Flynn
BTW, McWhorter would do well to start off with Jensen's "The g Factor", as would Cowen and Saletan. Reading that cover to cover brings you up to speed fairly well and saves you from proposing a lot of hypotheses that have already been tested. As an economist Cowen should certainly have enough of a background in stats to hack it. Dunno enough about McWhorter's or Saletan's backgrounds to say.
It doesn't seem Tylor is as hostile to Steve as Steve thinks. Tylor doesn't seem anywhere near claiming "Sailer is a bad person". Save for his afterthought link to "Saletan", Tylor tries to avoid passing any judgement on Sailer and mainly flails away tossing specious what-ifs to see what sticks with readers.
Taylor's blog is interesting at times, but he was surprisingly ineffectual in holding his ground in an Oxford-styled debate setting at Intelligence Squared. This against some pretty fundamentalist ideologues who shoud've been easy to trap in multiple hypocracies:
Is It Wrong To Pay For SexIt's hard to disentangle Taylor's cause of failure(s) (1)poor real-time verbal cognition, (2)autistic inability to read and react to his opponents' and the audence's interests and evolving perceptions (3)intellectually guilded by PC-constraints and unable to call out logical and factual errors by his feminists opponents (e.g. all paid sex = rape = slavery/worst excesses of sex industry)
BTW, Tylor let a lot of very honest/controvesial HBD posts up at this blog. Even Steve appears to reject some posts on primarily ideological grounds. No blogger is innocent of selective censorship although Steve is more open than most (esp re un-PC topics)
Really, it is sorry that someone like Cowen has wide recognition, because his views are just plain silly.
The man is a self described "big government libertarian". Expecting rational thought from such a person is pointless.
Tyler Cowen wants to have an Eric Holder style "honest dialogue about race", which is to say we can talk about race, in so far as talking about is limited to keeping our mouths shut about facts and instead sticking to blaming whites for the shortcomings of blacks.
Hence his closing the comments after one day, despite what was, as far as race-based internet discussions go, extremely cordial, active and academic conversation.
Time pressure combined with the after-effects of too much cheap beer prevented me from reading all the comments on Cowen's blog post about you, but I did note that that one seemed to garner rather more responses than his other entries typically do.
Of the comments that I somehow managed to read, this one by Tom struck me as being especially on target:
>The right question for Tyler:
Would you say it if you thought that there were group differences? You would probably lose your NYT column. You would probably be protested on campus. You would probably be called a racist by young bloggers and liberal bloggers to whom you frequently link. Publishers of the type that put out your books would recoil.
I am not saying that you are incorrect. I am saying that you could not realistically answer the other way and keep your life the same as it is now.
Can you answer my question? Would you say if you thought Sailer was right?<
Good for you, Tom!
To me there is no way to answer the question "is Steve Sailer wrong?" because, as far as I can tell, you are not making a particular hypothesis which could be empirically tested. What you do instead is imply genetic causes for IQ differences between "races". I suspect that you are clever enough to realise that stating this explicitly would force you to address some very obvious problems, such as the fact that "races" are not appropriate categories for a claim about genetic differences between populations, so you don't. Or put more simply, pseudo-science cannot be tested, so the question of whether you are right or wrong is beside the point.
Steve, I think you mean Marginal Revolution, not Marginal Review. Tyler is obviously a bright guy with wide-ranging interests, but his dilettantism occasionally catches up with him; he ventures into areas where he is not well-versed on the research. It was a big mistake for him to pretend to be competent on race and IQ. And while much of the literature has focused on black-white differences in intelligence, the immigration issue will make it necessary to zero in on Amerindians as well. The differences between Amerindians and whites are not quite as stark as the differences between blacks and whites, but they exist and are detectable in the mestizo population of Mexico, which has lower IQ scores than Mexican whites. The Flynn Effect is already obsolete in several Western countries, including the USA. What we have instead is dysgenics, with mass mestizo immigration portending a fall in the average American IQ.
Of course HBD is real, and Tyler knows it.
What the HBD movement lacks is a PR firm that can explain HBD in a way that doesn't challenge what is important to the powerful in the USA.
Look at it in very simple terms - the meme among almost all the young thought leaders in the USA is that both husbands and wives should help with the housework and both husbands and wives should help with childcare.
I spend almost all my time in the San Francisco Bay Area, the NY area and the Boston area. I don't know for sure what it is like in the Washington DC area but I have to assume that it is the same.
What I find is that overwhelmingly, single men recognize the truth of HBD and want to spare our country from the coming massive low IQ underclass that will come with the immigration of more people from Latin America.
What I find is that the married men tell me they don't or won't consider HBD specifically because if HBD was accepted and immigration from Latin America was cut off, they would lose their nanny, and the impact on their wives and their lifestyle would be huge and detrimental.
Now the HBD "movement" and the people that post on this blog can say that these young men are selfish for sacrificing the future of our country just so that they can have an affordable nanny and an affordable cleaning woman, but there it is.
The people that post on this blog need to spend time talking to affluent married young men and married young women who are in favor of massive immigration from Latin America. Lots of altruistic talk on the surface but if you dig a little deeper it is partially about access to nannies
The public image of the HBD movement is that of either a single man, passionate about HBD, or some traditional evangelical family where the man is loud and assertive and the woman stays home and takes care of a flock of kids herself (with no nanny)
The HBD movement has never loudly stated that young married couples deserve inexpensive highly motivated nannies. And thus young married couples see the HBD movement as working to take away one of the most important pillars of their life and happiness.
Well I think Cowen's strategy was better than the usual one:
"Well he's obviously a racist and now I'm going to blabber on about how he's a racist. I will now ignore all evidence for the hereditarian position and just claim its about socioeconomics."
Almost all HBD deniers go the socio-economic route (as well as the hate whitey route). But are they so glib as to assume intelligence researchers haven't done studies that control for such factors?
But once confronted with these studies, they'll probably return to the "racist" argument and probably make mention of the Pioneer Fund or Lynn's shopping mall blunder. Of course, they'll then ignore the assuredly unbiased data from the SAT, LSAT, GRE, MCAT, and ASVAB, amongst many other sources. For anyone who is involved in a debate or interested, I posted a quick primer for proving HBD on my blog: http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2009/05/quick-easy-to-understand-primer-on.html
What I find is that the married men tell me they don't or won't consider HBD specifically because if HBD was accepted and immigration from Latin America was cut off, they would lose their nanny....You need to tell these idiot scumbags that the nannies are already here, so there is no need for further immigration.
Thanks to anonymous for pointing that out about nannies. We have a Latin house cleaner; she is very nice and my wife depends on her. I hadn't previously figured out why she is relatively sympathetic to illegals.
But Tillman is also correct to point out that we already have enough Latins to supply our low-skilled needs forever; and to, on net, drain wealth from European and Asian-Americans forever.
" Anonymous said...
What you do instead is imply genetic causes for IQ differences between "races". I suspect that you are clever enough to realise that stating this explicitly would force you to address some very obvious problems, such as the fact that "races" are not appropriate categories for a claim about genetic differences between populations, so you don't."
You seem to buy in to this foolish nonsense that race doesn't exist - i.e. that it's "race" (in scare quotes) rather than just plain old race. It is a strange thing that so many people buy into an idea which is so obviously false - they understand the world they live in less well than their own grandfathers did.
such as the fact that "races" are not appropriate categories for a claim about genetic differences between populations, so you don't. Or put more simply, pseudo-science cannot be tested Obviously you haven't kept up with modern genetics.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/298/5602/2381
Genetic Structure of Human Populations
Noah A. Rosenberg,1* Jonathan K. Pritchard,2 James L. Weber,3 Howard M. Cann,4 Kenneth K. Kidd,5 Lev A. Zhivotovsky,6 Marcus W. Feldman7
We studied human population structure using genotypes at 377 autosomal microsatellite loci in 1056 individuals from 52 populations. Within-population differences among individuals account for 93 to 95% of genetic variation; differences among major groups constitute only 3 to 5%. Nevertheless, without using prior information about the origins of individuals, we identified six main genetic clusters, five of which correspond to major geographic regions, and subclusters that often correspond to individual populations. General agreement of genetic and predefined populations suggests that self-reported ancestry can facilitate assessments of epidemiological risks but does not obviate the need to use genetic information in genetic association studies.
The nanny thing is just modern slavery. Really.
Slaves don't stay happy slaves for long. African slaves used to be happy nannies ("mammies") and eventually decided they weren't going to put up with their position in society.
Same thing is happening with Hispanic nannies. I guess next up will be Filipino nannies. Do people never learn from history?
Anonymous: "What I find is that the married men tell me they don't or won't consider HBD specifically because if HBD was accepted and immigration from Latin America was cut off, they would lose their nanny, and the impact on their wives and their lifestyle would be huge and detrimental."
Interesting point, anon. It is both dismaying and amusing to have watched, in the last decade or so, Americans of moderate middle-class prosperity take to playing the hidalgo with this newly affordable servant class. Of course, these same sorts of people, 50 or 60 years ago, would have been excoriating white Southern women for supporting a system that provided them with black maids for crap wages. (It was racist when they did it, but we do it because we're such diversity-loving anti-racists!.)
In reality how many people actually have a nanny?
But Tillman is also correct to point out that we already have enough Latins to supply our low-skilled needs forever; and to, on net, drain wealth from European and Asian-Americans forever.Yeah, the weak spot in the "I want a nanny" armor would seem to be "yeah but due to socialization of costs you're ultimately under water. All you have is the illusion of a good deal."
In reality how many people actually have a nanny?
Bingo! Daycare's good enough for most. Selling subsequent generations down the river for short term gain should be attacked for what it is.
And damnit, if we MUST import foreign nannies, why not eastern European chicks? Definitely not chopped liver folks?
Oh wait, I forgot the wife's perspective...
The problem with relying on immigrants for nannies, etc. is they get 'spoiled' after a number of years (learn the 'system', learn some English, find a better job). Thus they then have to be replaced with new, 'fresh-off-the-boat', immigrants. Southern Cal. is stuffed full of illegal immigrants (and offspring) who have passed their sell-by date, that is, lost their usefulness as quasi-slave labor.
"But Tillman is also correct to point out that we already have enough Latins to supply our low-skilled needs forever"
"In reality how many people actually have a nanny?"
Between these two, they hit on the point. Upper-middle-class whites have their nannies and maids now. But middle class whites want nannies and maids too. And so on down to the welfare class. Even the current generation of illegals will want other illegals to serve as their maids and nannies!
Forget the long-term implications. Our decadent, feel-good, live-for-the-moment society does not consider such trifles. Immigration is just the latest, greatest Ponzi scheme. The enablers will not realize it's a house of cards until it completely collapses.
Our official ideology is meritocracy. Suppose you want to be an accountant. Being white doesn't help you because even those who think that white folk are more intelligent refuse your an exemption and will only let you practise accountancy if you pass the same examination as every-one else.
Meanwhile, being black doesn't harm you, because even those who think that black folk are less intelligent don't bar you. They rely on the examination to do that. You get the same paper as all the other candidates and if you pass you are in.
So why is race and IQ so toxic?
My guess is that we don't live up to our meritocratic ideals. Teachers who cannot teach don't get sacked. Prison guards don't get bonuses if the inmates are reformed instead of brutalised. If we went round saying that race and IQ don't matter because we are a meritocracy, it would shift the spotlight to shine on whether we really are a meritocracy. A lot of people who currently dodge any assessement of their merits wouldn't like that.
In the broadest sense of the word, intelligence refers to a person's inherent ability to understand or learn information, and the pace at which he or she learns it. On the surface, this seems like a workable definition. The problem is that it excludes a wide range of human skills and talents that can't necessarily be measured with iq tests. Autistic savants, for example, are not capable of the type of abstract reasoning required to score high on iq tests, and yet they possess genius-like abilities that even most high IQ people don't possess. This unexplained phenomenon doesn’t render iq tests useless but it does suggests that there’s a limit to what the tests reveal about our mental capacities. Without a concrete definition of intelligence, no rational person can sincerely claim that iq tests are the most effective way to measure it.
In any case, almost all scientists reject the notion that differences in iq scores between populations can be attributed to genetic differences between populations. This is NOT because of political correctness. It’s because the genes that make someone “black” or “white” or “asian” only account for a small portion of a person’s genome (about 6%). It’s highly unlikely that a small group of genes responsible for racial variation can simultaneously code for something like intelligence, or any other trait. One would think that men of such superior intelligence could easily grasp this concept.
In the broadest sense of the word, intelligence refers to a person's inherent ability to understand or learn information, and the pace at which he or she learns it. On the surface, this seems like a workable definition. The problem is that it excludes a wide range of human skills and talents that can't necessarily be measured with iq tests. Autistic savants, for example, are not capable of the type of abstract reasoning required to score high on iq tests, and yet they possess genius-like abilities that even most high IQ people don't possess. This unexplained phenomenon doesn’t render iq tests useless but it does suggests that there’s a limit to what they reveal about our mental capacities. And without a concrete definition of intelligence, no rational person can sincerely claim that iq tests are the most effective way to measure it.
In any case, almost all scientists reject the notion that differences in iq scores between populations can be attributed to genetic differences between populations. This is NOT because of political correctness. It’s because the genes that make someone “black” or “white” or “asian” only account for a small portion of a person’s genome (about 6%). It’s highly unlikely that a small group of genes responsible for racial variation can simultaneously code for something like intelligence, or any other trait. One would think that men of such superior intelligence could easily grasp this concept.
RobertHume: But Tillman is also correct to point out that we already have enough Latins to... on net, drain wealth from European and Asian-Americans forever.
To the tune of $22,449 per household per year from now until the end of time.
William 1066: The problem with relying on immigrants for nannies, etc. is they get 'spoiled' after a number of years (learn the 'system', learn some English, find a better job)...
More like "purchase a fake social security number, go on welfare, kick back, and laugh at El Gringo who is stupid enough to not only encourage but actively subsidize the invasion".
Rohann Swee said: It is both dismaying and amusing to have watched, in the last decade or so, Americans of moderate middle-class prosperity take to playing the hidalgo with this newly affordable servant class. Of course, these same sorts of people, 50 or 60 years ago, would have been excoriating white Southern women for supporting a system that provided them with black maids for crap wages."
There's another example; in New York City most everyone who came before the Irish ~1850-1870, e.g. Anglos, Germans, Dutch and Jews, had Irish maids for many decades. Irish maids were a stereotype as much as Latins.
Nannies: They need to be cheap because of the need to spend on private schools and more distant suburbs in order to get away from the neighborhoods where the nannies come from. So let in more nannies to compensate for the high cost of living caused by the families related to the existing nannies.
Of course eventually we'll all just live in mobile homes and move once every few months further away from the spreading decay.
How many families do have a nanny, not too many really.
We are talking about the upper reaches of the middle classes and the upper classes only.
And lets inject a tone of snobbery into the proceedings. White people with real status would want a nice white nanny anyway. If you can't afford the real thing, why bother at all?
Face it, Latina nannies are for losers (relitively speaking).
Note the models (or real nannies?) pictured show a worrying lack of vibrancy. Note also the lack of Spanish language links on the site, they obviously dont know their business, fancy cutting themselves off from that vast pool of Hispanic talent!
Yeah, the weak spot in the "I want a nanny" armor would seem to be "yeah but due to socialization of costs you're ultimately under water. All you have is the illusion of a good deal."The socialization of costs means that the person who is worst off is the person who pays for other people's nannies without having one of his own. Immigration creates a "race to the bottom".
Or put more simply, pseudo-science cannot be tested, so the question of whether you are right or wrong is beside the point. -- quote.
Races can be logically categorized and objectively identified and they do differ in ability. Differences in ability is one reason why diversity is such a farce and should be undone, but there are many other reasons.
The problem is that Epsilons cannot stay that way forever. It takes both bad genes and a bad environment to make an Epsilon slave. In any case, neo-slavery is simply wrong, for many reasons.
I can come up with better solutions to the childcare/housework problem without any effort whatsoever.
1) guest workers, like every other normal first world country has
2) internal au pair program - household pays about 13k/year to the program and provides room and board. Program pays au pair a stipend and provides supervision, small stipend, and medical insurance. We do this for au pairs from Brazil, who get the chance to live in Manhattan or SF. Give non-elite girls the choice between that and student loans and many of them will pick domestic service.
Those are the EASY solutions. Then there are harder ones, like setting up neighborhoods so people can work at home and simultaneously supervise children, or creating sensible daycare programs.
I was a nanny and I competed just fine with illegals, because people will pay for class and English. People who believe those who say that domestic service needs are what is driving open borders are fools. The real reason white girls don't go into domestic service is 1) they don't want to take the risk of being treated poorly on another woman's turf and 2) insurance. This is an easily solvable problem - the au pair program has already solved it. Those tools you're talking to who managed to snow you into believing that they would come out in favor of HBD if only it didn't risk their domestic bliss are LYING.
"What I find is that the married men tell me they don't or won't consider HBD specifically because if HBD was accepted and immigration from Latin America was cut off, they would lose their nanny, and the impact on their wives and their lifestyle would be huge and detrimental." Just ask them what kind of country they want their kids to grow up in, as these nannies all have more children than their 1.2.
Or don't even bother educating them. Let them be like Lot's wife.
The nanny thing is just modern slavery. Really.
No. There's a huge difference between slavery and low wage work - you can always quit a job when a better position comes along. In other words, the "nanny thing" is just like slavery without the slave part.
I suspect that you are clever enough to realise that stating this explicitly would force you to address some very obvious problems, such as the fact that "races" are not appropriate categories for a claim about genetic differences between populations, so you don't.
I realize ideology can be blinding, but wouldn't you have to be physically blind to arrive at this conclusion? Or are "appropriate categories" so narrowly proscribed you can't consider anything other than hair and skin color?
Hey, Tyler Cowen reads Steve Sailer. He puts up postings and links to things Sailer-esque. He allows people to leave comments about Steve Sailer, pro as well as con. You don't see many other mainstream people doing any of this, do you?
Credit where credit is due, people.
To me there is no way to answer the question "is Steve Sailer wrong?" because, as far as I can tell, you are not making a particular hypothesis which could be empirically tested. What you do instead is imply genetic causes for IQ differences between "races". I suspect that you are clever enough to realise that stating this explicitly would force you to address some very obvious problems, such as the fact that "races" are not appropriate categories for a claim about genetic differences between populations, so you don't. Or put more simply, pseudo-science cannot be tested, so the question of whether you are right or wrong is beside the point.Again, British Anonymous, try reading for a change. Steve has repeatedly defined race as a partially inbred extended family--nothing more, nothing less. If you have scientific objections to that definition, please share them.
Please also keep in mind that definitions that are arbitrary may be functional nonetheless. For example, if you learn a little bit about linguistics you will encounter many cases of what are known as dialect continuums. An example would be the existence of dialects between Gulf Spoken Arabic and Moroccan Spoken Arabic. The Moroccan will find the vernacular of the Kuwaiti almost unintelligible and vice versa. However, you cannot isolate precise boundaries between the dialects ranging from the Gulf to those spoken at the far end of the Maghreb. That doesn't mean that there is no such thing as Gulf Spoken or Moroccan Spoken Arabic or that the two dialects can in no way be differentiated. On occasion, the boundaries between races may be similarly fuzzy, but nobody has any trouble distinguishing someone whose ancestors lived in Senegal centuries ago from someone whose ancestors came from Norway.
All of these comments on nannies are accurate and well-appreciated.
But be realistic. The policy makers in Washington - in both political parties - have nannies working for their family.
This is just as true on the Republican side as on the democratic side - just about every Republican Senator, Congressman, and Supreme court justice has daughters, nieces, or nephews that depend on nannies.
I am a race realist, but I am also a realist. We are in a race against time - our nation is going down the tubes. We have to throw a bone to the thought leaders of America who use nannies. And the business leaders who use nannies. Even the people that work at the conservative think tanks use nannies.
I don't know what will work, but I know that the current path will not work.
If you get out in to big cities all over our country and talk to the successful people in America - the people that are at the top of their professions and the people that are making incomes in the top 10% you will find that the desire for a nanny is pretty strong.
Now the argument has frequently been made that somehow the people not in the top 10%, the broad middle of America that doesn't use nannies will rise up against the elite - but I just don't think that is going to happen. Never has happened in American history. If the HBD and race realist meme wants to win, it has to convert a chunk of the American elite over to the HBD point of view.
The only way to do that is to solve the nanny problem
"Tyler Cowen of Marginal Review"...
Don't you mean Marginal Revolution?
"have a Latin house cleaner; she is very nice and my wife depends on her."
I am a fulltime employed woman, and I clean my own house. (Sometimes my husband helps.) Tell your wife, and you too, to "man-up" and do your own housework.
From a policy perspective, what about the view that it is morally illegitimate to consider only the well-being of U.S. citizens in assessing the costs/benefits of U.S. immigration policy?
My understanding of the evidence is that it is clear that immigrants generally get a huge boost to well-being from immigration. Presumably this is a highly relevant factor for public policy decision-making, yes?
Relatedly, do "racial realists" believe that (A) the aggregate GDP of the world increases due to the economic exchanges facilitated by migration; (B) the aggregate GDP of the world decreases due to migration, (C) the aggregate GDP stays the same; (D) there is not enough information available to make an informed guess?
Regardless of any race/IQ questions, my sense is that (A) is supported by the evidence, and thus the most morally justified policy stance includes some form of liberalized immigration (far, far more liberalized than today's policy).
Without a concrete definition of intelligence, no rational person can sincerely claim that iq tests are the most effective way to measure it.
That which BEST meets two criteria:
1) correlates with success
2) is easily ascertained.
Find something that works better than IQ and we'll switch to it.
Then the usual suspects can go to war with that instead.
almost all scientists reject the notion that differences in iq scores between populations can be attributed to genetic differences between populations..
Do they?
Anonymous: From a policy perspective, what about the view that it is morally illegitimate to consider only the well-being of U.S. citizens in assessing the costs/benefits of U.S. immigration policy?
I'd give it significantly less weight than the view that it is morally illegitimate for those who benefit from immigration, and do not suffer from its downsides, to bully and smear as "immoral" those who do not benefit, and who are seriously disadvantaged by it. Suddenly discovering a "moral obligation" for hoi polloi to bear the social costs of immigration unloaded upon them by their betters, is 100% correlated with belonging to the former class, and not with any demonstrated superiority in moral reasoning or compassion.
All human being everywhere rightly and properly put securing the welfare of their own families and polities foremost, and no human beings, with the exception, of non-elite Westerners, are ever subjected to bullying propaganda that it is wrong for them to do so.
To argue that non-elite Westerners, and only non-elite Westerners, are obligated to sacrifice their own welfare and culture "for the good of mankind" is grotesquely immoral. I mean, aside from being so totally lame and transparently self-serving that it's hilarious that anybody would be shameless enough to make it, let alone stupid and gullible enough to buy it.
Relatedly, do "racial realists" believe that (A) the aggregate GDP of the world increases due to the economic exchanges facilitated by migration [...etc]
Regardless of any race/IQ questions, my sense is that (A) is supported by the evidence, and thus the most morally justified policy stance includes some form of liberalized immigration (far, far more liberalized than today's policy).
"Most morally justified", sez who? Sorry, but you just can't make that flying leap from "increases the aggregate GDP of the world" to "most morally justified". I know it may come as a surprise to the sorts of autistic-leaning theorizers who predominate in policy circles and certain areas of the net, but nobody has yet succeeded in imposing Utilitarianism as the One True Global Religion, and enforcing its tenets. And I've noticed a bit of crankiness about liberalized immigration policies among many citizens of Western nations lately. But if you're convinced it's such a great idea, surely you won't have any trouble persuading the Japanese, or the Chinese, or Indians, or Indonesians, etc., etc., etc, well, anybody who's better off relative to someone else, to open their borders.
Regardless of any race/IQ questions, my sense is that (A) is supported by the evidence, and thus the most morally justified policy stance includes some form of liberalized immigration (far, far more liberalized than today's policy).
If open immigration is so evidently moral, why aren't non-western countries and Israel expected to comply? How can we be sure that all would-be immigrants share this morality of yours? Maybe this doesn't matter because the "free market will sort things out" or some such blather.
From a policy perspective, what about the view that it is morally illegitimate to consider only the well-being of U.S. citizens in assessing the costs/benefits of U.S. immigration policy?
You're kidding, right?
Even if I should care about Mexicans (I don't, and wouldn't even if I believed I "should"), where's the greater good in letting the Mexican oligarchs export their problems here? Sounds too much like signing off on Mexican corruption to me. How are corrupt, incompetent, immoral and unethical third world regimes to be taken to task if all the people they victimize can hop the border into America?
Perhaps more to the point, if you weren't joking, why not think these things through to their conclusions?
E.g:
A) We have no right to keep out Mexicans.
Consequence: Mexico can conquer us without firing a shot.
B) X are the victims of history.
Consequence: you're a sucker for every x playing the world's smallest violin.
C) Ethnocentrism is immoral; radical individualism is moral; it's okay if only whites believe this.
Consequence: whites lose to every group that laughs at C, thus incentivizing laughing at C.
I see this all the time, people who won't think through their positions, not even to the first degree, so you'll forgive me if you were kidding and I jumped the gun.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled reality, where it is absolutely not the obligation of every white person to give a damn about every other person on Earth.
(P.S., the quickest way to the greater good might be for white folks to conquer the Earth and force its inhabitants to act morally and ethically. It's at least worth discussing if we're going to talk about this greater good silliness)
Regardless of any race/IQ questions, my sense is that (A) is supported by the evidence, and thus the most morally justified policy stance includes some form of liberalized immigration (far, far more liberalized than today's policy).
The way for you to be the most moral (according to your criteria) is to send every extra penny you make to the third world.
I disagree, so I'll be keeping my shekels.
"Anonymous said...
In any case, almost all scientists reject the notion that differences in iq scores between populations can be attributed to genetic differences between populations. This is NOT because of political correctness. It’s because the genes that make someone “black” or “white” or “asian” only account for a small portion of a person’s genome (about 6%). It’s highly unlikely that a small group of genes responsible for racial variation can simultaneously code for something like intelligence, or any other trait."
If it can't account for "any other trait", as you say, how does it account for making some people black, some white, and some oriental?
If you think you've crafted some kind of clever and unrefutable argument in support of there being no racial differentiation in intelligence, think again. All you've done is baldly asserted a few things (some patently false) that you've made up.
"Anonymous said...
Relatedly, do "racial realists" believe that (A) the aggregate GDP of the world increases due to the economic exchanges facilitated by migration; (B) the aggregate GDP of the world decreases due to migration, (C) the aggregate GDP stays the same; (D) there is not enough information available to make an informed guess?"
The answer is: (E) I don't give a sh*t. It is not my job, nor the job of my government to better the lot of foreigners. It IS the job of my government to preserve the sovereignty of my country. The U.S. is a nation with a people, a culture, and a common history. It is not some kind of economic improvement zone for the benefit of all of humanity.
"My understanding of the evidence is that it is clear that immigrants generally get a huge boost to well-being from immigration. Presumably this is a highly relevant factor for public policy decision-making, yes?"
Where to start?!
"immigrants generally get a huge boost"
Uh, if they come in dirt poor with no skills, non-English speaking and go directly to a first class US hospital and have a baby and get on welfare, yes, that is a huge boost to them in relation to what they could earn in the home country.
"Presumably this is a highly relevant factor for public policy decision-making, yes?"
Yes, the amount this cost US citzens is highly relevant to their choosing not to allow expensive non-producers to consume from the public coffers.
My understanding of the evidence is that it is clear that immigrants generally get a huge boost to well-being from immigration. Presumably this is a highly relevant factor for public policy decision-making, yes?
Uh, no. It is not. Our government is supposed to represent us and our interests, not those of anybody else.
Relatedly, do "racial realists" believe that (A) the aggregate GDP of the world increases due to the economic exchanges facilitated by migration; (B) the aggregate GDP of the world decreases due to migration, (C) the aggregate GDP stays the same; (D) there is not enough information available to make an informed guess?
The aggregate GDP in the world has almost nothing to do with migraton. It is a function of the number of people in the world and their productivity.
The aggregate GDP of the world is also none of our governments business.
Regardless of any race/IQ questions, my sense is that (A) is supported by the evidence
Your sense is wrong. There is virtually no evidence for such a proposition. And it is logically implausible that your theory woud be correct.
and thus the most morally justified policy stance includes some form of liberalized immigration
Let's pretend that you are correct in your assmption. How is it "morally justified" for the US to allow in one hundred million poor Africans, even assuming that doing so is in their interests?
I'm afraid that your moral reasoning is on the ame level as your understanding of economics. And it's not a very high one.
If you get out in to big cities all over our country and talk to the successful people in America - the people that are at the top of their professions and the people that are making incomes in the top 10% you will find that the desire for a nanny is pretty strong.
This is true. Our "elite" is stupid and corrupt. That's why this country is dying before our eyes.
The problem is not their desire for a nanny. It is their desire for a nanny at the price they wish to pay, and not the price the market would set.
I wish I could hire a lawyer for ten bucks an hour. But I'm not in a position to make this a reality by breaking the law.
What I find is that the married men tell me they don't or won't consider HBD specifically because if HBD was accepted and immigration from Latin America was cut off, they would lose their nanny, and the impact on their wives and their lifestyle would be huge and detrimental.
Then America will die because it's "men", for lack of a better term, are wimps. So it always was, so it always must be.
My understanding of the evidence is that it is clear that immigrants generally get a huge boost to well-being from immigration. Presumably this is a highly relevant factor for public policy decision-making, yes?
My understanding is that the homeless guy you passed today in the street would get a huge boost to his well being if he could come and live with you in your house. Presumably this is a highly relevant factor for public policy decision-making also.
You commie clown.
"Regardless of any race/IQ questions, my sense is that (A) is supported by the evidence, and thus the most morally justified policy stance includes some form of liberalized immigration (far, far more liberalized than today's policy)."
Yeah, all this immigration has been great for the loan market!
Here in Boston, Anon, the Eastern European au pair is WAY more common than the Latin nanny. As has been mentioned, the latin nanny is for nouveau riche poseurs.
And to Moonbat Anon, don't you think the prosecution of a race war by La Raza gangs in California on the local blacks has a detrimental effect on THEIR well-being?
Brutus
From a policy perspective, what about the view that it is morally illegitimate to consider only the well-being of U.S. citizens in assessing the costs/benefits of U.S. immigration policy?What about it? It's wrong.
If you'd read David Sloan Wilson's works, you'd know that the purpose of morality is to serve self-interest.
Specifically, morality furthers the self-interest of tribal, national, political, or religious communities by mediating conflicts of interest among the members of such communities. The members' pursuit of their personal self-interest is restrained by rules designed to foster the welfare of the group as a whole.
Humanity -- in its entirety -- has never acted as a cooperative whole with a universal moral system of the sort you postulate. That's just an empirical fact.
"(P.S., the quickest way to the greater good might be for white folks to conquer the Earth and force its inhabitants to act morally and ethically."
"CONQUER the earth and FORCE it's inhabitants to act MORALLY and ETHICALLY."
Does anyone else get the irony here? Let's translate:
"We should use our stockpiles of chemical, physical, nuclear and biological weapons, to maim, murder, rape, pillage and plunder the other 90% of the world...THAT'LL TEACH THOSE DARKIES TO STOP RAPE, PILLAGE, MURDER AND PLUNDER AND TO ACT CIVILIZED!"
Thanks for all the reponses. There was a lot of vitriol, but there were some substantive disagreements too. Brief point by point:
1) Re: "The US government rightly considers only the welfare of its own citizens." I simply disagree. You might say it should put the welfare of its citizens first (should weight it more highly). This is more reasonable. This is roughly akin to saying that an individual should look out for their own interests but should also work to promote the greater good (even though to do so will sometimes conflict with their own interests). Then it's a matter of haggling over how big of a weight to give the well-being of foreigners vs. US citizens.
2) Re: "Non-elite whites would get shat on with more immigration."
(a) What about non-elite Bulgarians or Russians? They are (largely) white, and would benefit from liberalized immigration. So if your metric is "maximize the well-being of poor white people," I don't think the picture is as clear as you think.
(b) I also think that "maximize the well-being of poor white people" is a poor metric. We should look at the full picture and assess whether the full picture is getting better or worse. The effect of a policy on a select group of people is relevant but not decisive.
(c) I do think that the enlarged labor markets allowed by immigration result in hardship and displacement -- and by the way, there will be plenty of displacement among the middle and upper classes as well, even if that is mostly yet to come. However, hardship and displacement are relevant but not decisive factors. Consider that liberalized trade policy also causes hardship and displacement. A perfectly sealed-off US car market would allow GM and Ford to continue making cars indefinitely. But such a sealed-off car market would mean less competition and thus crappier, more expensive cars. So there are significant trade-offs either way.
3) Re: "Why don't you just give your house to a homeless person/why don't you just pay all your money to a third world country / why don't we just let Mexico invade us/why don't we just let in 100 million Africans." These points aren't addressing the argument. I am not proposing to assign our own well-being (or the well-being of US citizens) zero importance in our decision making. Rather, we should also consider the well-being of people who are not US citizens. The more we consider the well-being of non-US citizens, the more we will be inclined to allow immigration.
4) Re: "All other countries won't hold themselves to this standard and thus the US is disadvantaging itself to no end by allowing such immigration." First, it is not to no end because the overall prosperity of the world is increasing. Second, this moral standard applies to all other nations as well. But even if other nations disallow immigration, we should allow it, because it's the right thing to do. I don't buy the argument about "international competition" because I don't believe that is a relevant benchmark. The relevant benchmark is whether people's lives are improving.
As for whether immigration is economically beneficial, if it were the choice still remains about which people we want to allow in. Since the US has a big, complex, highly productive economy with lots of capital, the greatest marginal benefit to the world would be to pick the highest IQ, most productive people at the head of the line to match them up with all that capital and productivity.
It's better for the world economy and us to have an engineer from India or China matched up with the capital and economy of the US than it is for that engineer to be carrying hod in a Chinese village. Allowing in the hod carrier over the engineer would have not nearly as much benefit.
I'm unimpressed by this Will Wilkinson wannabe, just as I am by Will Wilkinson himself.
This is "libertarianism" as communism. It is not the role of the United States to lift the standard of living of the worlds poor. And, though you refuse to discuss the economics - probably because you do not understand them - the United States cannot do so.
I am not proposing to assign our own well-being (or the well-being of US citizens) zero importance in our decision making. Rather, we should also consider the well-being of people who are not US citizens.
Why?
As I said earlier, your moral reasoning is of a piece with your understanding of economics. Neither is quite as wonderful as you imagine. Free trade can improve the lot of the worlds people. It is not plausible to think that mass migration of people can do likewise.And so far you have failed to even attempt to construct an argument to say otherwise, preferring to argue by assertion and by appeal to what you imagine to be your own superior morality.
You are not an economist, you are a wannabe moral phiosopher who thinks he is an economist. Just like Wilkinson, who is every bit as left-wing as you are.
Re: "Why don't you just give your house to a homeless person/why don't you just pay all your money to a third world country / why don't we just let Mexico invade us/why don't we just let in 100 million Africans." These points aren't addressing the argument.
You are not making a argument. You are describing for us your own set of moral beliefs. Here is your argument, stated clearly.
"IMO, the average person in the world would be better off materially if we could just get rid of those pesky borders and those "restrictive" immgration procedures which currently allow ony a million people per year to enter the US legally."
This is not an argument, in the logical sense of the term. It is a description of the world the way you think it ought to be. It makes no effort to examine whether your own stated ends might be accomplished by the means you propose, let alone attempt to justify your stated ends. It's just one long stream of emoting, virtually devoid of anything resembling rational thought.
I guess thats the result when you spend your time in college doing social studies and ethics rather than economics and science.
It's better for the world economy and us to have an engineer from India or China matched up with the capital and economy of the US
Much more of curent trends and the US won't have the capital and economy you speak of. And it's better for india and China, not for the US or the world economy.
Anonymous: I am not proposing to assign our own well-being (or the well-being of US citizens) zero importance in our decision making. Rather, we should also consider the well-being of people who are not US citizens. The more we consider the well-being of non-US citizens, the more we will be inclined to allow immigration.Maybe, maybe not - but you've left out a few steps in your "argument" here. I'm always puzzled by why so many people seem to have a problem recognizing that people are not always disagreeing with their arguments, or their conclusions, but with their premises. You claim American citizens are responsible for raising the living standards of the world's poor. Others reply that they recognize no such obligation. At that point in the game it is irrelevant to quibble about what value we should assign to citizens relative to foreigners, because we are not in agreement about the correctness of the premise. Does B's reply in the following exchange constitute a good argument?
A) I disagree with your premise.
B) But my premise is correct, so you must agree with my conclusions.
No, it does not. It is analogous to this argument:
A) I don't believe in God or the moral authority of the Bible.
B) But the Bible says X, therefore you must agree that Y.
...which is this same as this "argument":
A) Citizens of country X have no moral obligation to lower their living standards to improve those of the people in country Y.
B) But it's the right thing to do, so you should agree that we should increase immigration.
Understand? (On the other hand, I can fault some of your interlocutors for conceding your premise in order to address your arguments, when they don't actually agree with your premise.)
anonymous said...
A perfectly sealed-off US car market would allow GM and Ford to continue making cars indefinitely.
No it wouldn't. In a world where there were no Asian and European automakers other companies would make trucks at least. International made a SUV for many years in the 60's and 70's. If the market was so restricted as to prevent foreigners from competing here then other American companies would jump in, starting with the truck market. However, since dedicated automakers from other countries are competing here it is more efficient to stay out right now.
Rather, we should also consider the well-being of people who are not US citizens.
Even if we do consider the welfare of aliens and foreigners that doesn't mean we have to reach the same conclusion that you do.
But even if other nations disallow immigration, we should allow it, because it's the right thing to do.
By what measure? Who says it is the right thing to do?
The relevant benchmark is whether people's lives are improving.
How will the lives of these people improve if the US implodes from immigration and world trade declines drastically? Second, how do you measure the quality of these people's lives?
Really, how can you even make these arguments?
Mr. Anon wrote...
"If it can't account for "any other trait", as you say, how does it account for making some people black, some white, and some oriental?"
I said that it's unlikely, not impossible. To understand why this is so, you'd need at least a basic understanding of elementary genetics. I don't care to explain the concept in detail, as you would just dismiss it as "teh politco corecknezz!!"
"If you think you've crafted some kind of clever and unrefutable argument in support of there being no racial differentiation in intelligence, think again. All you've done is baldly asserted a few things (some patently false) that you've made up."
I don't recall ever making that claim. Most people are well aware of the black/white/asian iq gap. Whether there's a genetic basis for it is another topic all together. What part of my earlier post was patently false? Every thing I wrote is supported by scientific facts. You can accept it or deny it but facts remain facts either way.
For the record, I don't think Steve Sailer is a racist, although there's nothing wrong with being racist. I just wish that more people would man up and state their beliefs overtly. Attempting to sound "scientific" only makes you look silly.
A bigger problem with endless low-wage immigration, IMO, is that we stop having any need whatsoever for the poor who are already here.
Need some moderate-skill factory work done so you can have a nice car or radio or toy for your kid or a new coat? We employ foreigners overseas to do most of that stuff, because it's cheaper, there are fewer regulations, and we get better work, since a factory job in China *isn't* what you do when you were too dumb to make it into the English program at Mediocre State University.
Need low-skill work like construction or food service done? We employ foreigners here in the US for that kind of work, both because they're cheaper, and because when a Salvadoran with a fifth grade education is interested in a job as a fry cook, she's probably passably bright and functional; an American in similar circumstances is probably dumber than a stick along with being a drunk.
So, the citizens at the bottom just kind of stay there. Who needs them? Who minds if they just cash welfare checks, or work off the books to avoid losing their whole salary to child support judgements? It's not really our problem. Who cares if their schools are disasters that take people without much potential and grind up whatever potential they did have, or if the cops in their neighborhoods are in the pay of (or at least scared of) the drug dealers? How does that affect me, again?
To see the effect of this, consider two news items: One about political instability in China, another about political instability in inner-city Baltimore. Which one is more likely to affect your life?
Anonymous:
ISTM that the US benefitted enormously in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries from massive immigration. I'm thinking of the waves of Irish and Eastern European Jewish and Italian and German and Scandinavian and Chinese and Japanese immigrants, whose descendants had a huge effect on the country. I think this experience makes the argument against open immigration much harder to make, because it pretty plainly did help us out a lot.
I don't see how you make the argument that mass immigration can't make people better off, given that. It's not clear that the mass immigration we have coming in now will help us out, but the argument needs to focus on why--stuff like the fact that we no longer have an open frontier to absorb people, or that we have welfare states now that change the equation and make it riskier to let just anyone come in and survive or starve as they are able, or that there's some inherent reason why these folks won't be able to contribute as the others did.
I don't think it makes much sense to judge Cowan harshly for closing his comment thread, since we don't seem to know why he did it. Perhaps that was because he was worried it was going to burst into flames, but at least the comments there looked mostly polite and decent. Did the discussion fall apart and then get cleaned up (deleting trolls or whatever) after he closed the thread?
The alternative is some kind of external pressure to stop hosting that discussion. I don't know what that would look like, given that he clearly isn't at any risk for his job, and his policy preferences make a job in the next couple (almost certainly Democratic) administrations vanishingly unlikely.
Does anyone have any evidence for alternative explanations? Speculation isn't so helpful (for all I know, George Soros offered him a briefcase full of cash, and after consulting his inner economist, he accepted), but evidence or some comment from him would be nice.
"Anonymous said...
Thanks for all the reponses. There was a lot of vitriol,...."
The vitriol was engendered by your smug tone, and the fact that we all assumed (I did at least) that you are the same guy who challenged us to prove to you that we all aren't just a bunch of stump-toothed, un-washed klansmen.
1) Re: "The US government rightly considers only the welfare of its own citizens." I simply disagree."
And I simply disagree with you. Where does that leave us? If you are not a U.S. citizen, well then to hell with you - who cares what you think. If you are a U.S. citizen, then you are a millstone around our necks.
"(b) I also think that "maximize the well-being of poor white people" is a poor metric."
You must have gone through some kind of management training (use of the word "metric" is a dead giveaway). What's wrong with being interested in the well-being of poor white people. I am white. They are my people - the people with whom I share a common heritage. If you don't understand that, you should go back to the libertarian fantasy island you call home.
"Consider that liberalized trade policy also causes hardship and displacement."
Yeah, And I ain't for that either. At least I'm not for it unreservedly.
"3) Re: "Why don't you just give your house to a homeless person/why don't you just pay all your money to a third world country / why don't we just let Mexico invade us/why don't we just let in 100 million Africans." These points aren't addressing the argument."
Sure they are. They were just pointing out to you that you don't conduct your own affairs using this kind of disinterested, Bentham-like moral calculus, so why should any of us? Why should we want our nation - which to a large extent is the guarantor of our future - to do it either?
What you propose is to allow foreigners and their interests to help set our immigration policy. They already do - it's called chain migration. And we don't like it. It is tantamount to negotiating with a rapist which specific acts of rape are to be performed. That's the wrong discussion to have.
"In any case, almost all scientists reject the notion that differences in iq scores between populations can be attributed to genetic differences between populations.:
No. Most scientists accept that intelligence is mostly genetically determined. A race may be explained (isteve style)as an extended family whose gene pool shares more similarities than they do with the gene pool of another race. Behavioral traits obviously can be inherited. We all know people whose mannerisms and mentalities remind us of relatives they never even met.
It is an irony that most "social scientists" cling to the belief that all races are equal in ability and intellect and other non-physical traits--except of course when they want to pay tribute to the innate musical talent of the black race, for example.
Quite a few scientists signed a document in the public domain, in support of the Bell Curve, during the 1990s. Most accept the overwhelming evidence for HBD. Once you accept that, it does bring the rest of the genetic baggage with it.
I'm thinking of the waves of Irish and Eastern European Jewish and Italian and German and Scandinavian and Chinese and Japanese immigrants, whose descendants had a huge effect on the country. I think this experience makes the argument against open immigration much harder to make, because it pretty plainly did help us out a lot.
I don't think it "pretty plainly did help us out a lot", and I challenge you to back that up with facts.
BTW, many people from these groups were already in the country prior to the late 19th century.
It's not clear that the mass immigration we have coming in now will help us out, but the argument needs to focus on why--
Sorry, but you're another Benthamite. This mindless obsession with economics as the sole legitimate rationale for any decision is stupid and counter-productive. We can give any "why" which suits us. We are not required to dance to your discordant tune.
dc watcher wrote...
"No. Most scientists accept that intelligence is mostly genetically determined."
Perhaps, but they vehemently deny that population specific DNA markers can explain the iq gap between POPULATIONS.
"A race may be explained (isteve style)as an extended family whose gene pool shares more similarities than they do with the gene pool of another race."
And in what ways would researchers in biological sciences benefit from explaining race "isteve style"? Those shared similarities you speak of only account for 5-6 percent of an individual's genome, as was stated earlier. Other than to research medical conditions, what purpose would it serve in science?
"Behavioral traits obviously can be inherited. We all know people whose mannerisms and mentalities remind us of relatives they never even met."
Indeed, but the question is to what extent (if any) do population specific DNA markers explain iq or behavioral differences between human races.
"It is an irony that most "social scientists" cling to the belief that all races are equal in ability and intellect and other non-physical traits--except of course when they want to pay tribute to the innate musical talent of the black race, for example."
Ehhh, most social scientists and biological scientists hold the belief that races don't exist in the first place, not that all of them are equal. Even Steve Sailer redundantly admits that about 20% of blacks score the same or higher than whites on iq tests. The proof that the iq gap isn't due to genes lies is this fact. Of course, you can say "but they're merely exceptions to the rule!", and that's absolutely right. But you'd have admit that 20% is a lot of exceptions for something that's supposedly gentically fixed. If population specific DNA markers were the cause of the iq gap, there would be very few, if any, exceptions at all.
"Quite a few scientists signed a document in the public domain, in support of the Bell Curve, during the 1990s. Most accept the overwhelming evidence for HBD. Once you accept that, it does bring the rest of the genetic baggage with it."
That H.Sapiens are a biologically diverse species is no big mystery, sir. In fact, much of biology and physical anthropology deals with that very subject! Most everyone can see that people differ from each other with respect to looks, personality, physical prowess and intelligence (however you choose to define it). And yes there is scientific evidence to support that some people are naturally smarter or dumber than others, and that some people are naturally better athletes or musicians. But to suggest that population specific DNA markers have blessed each race with a unique set of natural abilities and disabilities is beyond ridiculous, it's just plain stupid. And accordingly, such claims are not taken seriously in most academic circles.
I think this experience makes the argument against open immigration much harder to make, because it pretty plainly did help us out a lot.
Yeah paving the way for multi-racialism with multi-culturalism was all roses.
This is probably the biggest vector of multi-isms; they leave the victims with pockets stuffed full of cash.
Does anyone else get the irony here? Let's translate:
The irony was pretty obvious; you might be the only one needing a translation (and a translation for your translation, of course).
P.S., Truth, that bit of projection was a really interesting peek into your psyche. Thanks, in a "I need a shower" kind of way.
How is it "morally justified" for the US to allow in one hundred million poor Africans, even assuming that doing so is in their interests?
And given "systemic, subtle racism" that is APPARENTLY as persistent and obdurate as the "black failure" it causes, how is allowing entry to black Africans not a monstrous evil?
This goes for all non-whites, obviously. I want to know why open borders aren't a crime against humanity, given that whites are such evil imperialists.
dc watcher: "No. Most scientists accept that intelligence is mostly genetically determined... Most accept the overwhelming evidence for HBD. Once you accept that, it does bring the rest of the genetic baggage with it."
NO NO NO! You are just making a simple logical error here.
Studies show that IQ scores are around 50% heritable.
Studies show that different self-identified "racial" groups have different average IQ scores.
BUT from these two facts alone you simply cannot conclude that the difference between the groups is because of genes. It might be genetic, it might not (there are several reasons why it is unlikely).
Steve and others are smart enough to realise this. So when this is pointed out to them they usually switch to the "well it doesn't matter where the IQ differences come from" line. OK, but that is a different argument.
And I think that everyone from whichever side of the argument understands that the implications are very different if the difference is down to genes or environment.
I wrote another comment but it never got posted...I can only hope that an error occured and that isteve isn't engaging in censorship.
Dc watcher wrote...
"No. Most scientists accept that intelligence is mostly genetically determined. A race may be explained (isteve style)as an extended family whose gene pool shares more similarities than they do with the gene pool of another race."
Perhaps, but the similarities you speak of only account for about 5-6 percent of an individual's genome, as was stated earlier. In what ways would researchers in biological sciences benefit from defining race "isteve style"? Other than to conduct medical research, it would serve no purpose in science.
"Behavioral traits obviously can be inherited. We all know people whose mannerisms and mentalities remind us of relatives they never even met."
Indeed, but the question is to what extent (if any) do population specific DNA markers effect behavior and intelligence within human populations.
"It is an irony that most "social scientists" cling to the belief that all races are equal in ability and intellect and other non-physical traits--except of course when they want to pay tribute to the innate musical talent of the black race, for example."
Ehhh, most biological scientists deny the existance of "race" all together, not that races are inherently unequal in ability. Steve Sailer has written that about 20 percent of blacks score at the same level or above whites on iq tests. You can argue that these people are exceptions to the rule, and that's absolutely right. But you'd have to admit that 20 percent is a lot of exceptions for something that's supposedly genetically "fixed". If the iq gap was due to genetic differences, there would be very few, if any exceptions at all.
"Quite a few scientists signed a document in the public domain, in support of the Bell Curve, during the 1990s. Most accept the overwhelming evidence for HBD. Once you accept that, it does bring the rest of the genetic baggage with it."
That homo sapiens are a biologically diverse species is no big mystery, sir. In fact, a large body of scientific research focuses on this very subject! It's not unreasonable to state that some people are naturally smarter, more athletic or more musically gifted than others. But the claim that population specific DNA markers have blessed each race with a unique set of abilities (and deprived them of others) is beyond ridiculous, it’s just plain stupid. And accordingly, such claims are not taken seriously in most academic circles.
Studies show that IQ scores are around 50% heritable.
Studies show that different self-identified "racial" groups have different average IQ scores.
BUT from these two facts alone you simply cannot conclude that the difference between the groups is because of genes.
Yes, yes you can conclude that. What are you, an English major? You continue to state with feverent conviction things which you do not and cannot know. A typical liberal in other words.
the claim that population specific DNA markers have blessed each race with a unique set of abilities
Nobody is making any such claim, you illiterate little twit. The claim is that different populations have different average IQ's. That claim is backed up by masses of data. A futher claim is that this difference is due to genetic factors. That claim is also backed up by masses of data.
Why do you imagine that sprinting and long distance running are dominated by black Africans and people of African extraction? Do you think it is due to "socio-economic factors"?
such claims are not taken seriously in most academic circles.
"Most academic circles" are to open inquiry into matters of race what Nazi Germany was to Zionism.
Anonymous said...
"Nobody is making any such claim, you illiterate little twit. The claim is that different populations have different average IQ's. That claim is backed up by masses of data. A futher claim is that this difference is due to genetic factors. That claim is also backed up by masses of data."
If you're not making this claim then what exactly do you mean by genetic factors? Can you name any genes, exclusive to Jewish, White and Asian populations, that account for the difference in average iqs?
"Why do you imagine that sprinting and long distance running are dominated by black Africans and people of African extraction? Do you think it is due to "socio-economic factors"?
I have to agree with the guy above me that this is irrelevant to the discussion and it fails to answer the question that was asked: How do we explain the exceptional 20 percent?
"Most academic circles" are to open inquiry into matters of race what Nazi Germany was to Zionism"
That's your personal opinion. But I think it would be more accurate to say that inquiries into matters of race are most useful in social sciences. You wouldn't expect to learn about intelligent design in a physics or astronomy course would you? Why do you expect biologists and anthropologists to deligitimize their respective disciplines by endorsing 19th century eugenics theories?
NOT TRUE
SEZ WHO?
IRRELEVANT
WHY? Because it undermines your idiotic "Everything comes down to socio-economic factors" theory?
Why do you expect biologists and anthropologists to deligitimize their respective disciplines by endorsing 19th century eugenics theories?
Who knew that genetics was a "19th century eugenics theory"? Even flex has conceded that genetics makes up at least 50% of intelligence, but to you this is all some long discredited theory.
Given the treatment of James Watson, how can anybody claim that the scientific community is open to the notion of racial differences in intelligence? And if that can happen to somebody of Watsons immense stature, are lesser scientists really going to risk their careers by saying anything "incorrect"? It would be professional suicide and they all know it.
I have to agree with the guy above me that this is irrelevant to the discussion and it fails to answer the question that was asked: How do we explain the exceptional 20 percent?
I don't really understand this argument. Just because one distribution curve overlaps another doesn't discredit the idea that intelligence is largely genetically determined.
If you're not making this claim then what exactly do you mean by genetic factors? Can you name any genes, exclusive to Jewish, White and Asian populations, that account for the difference in average iqs?
Can you name any genes, exclusive to chimpanzee and human populations, that account for the difference in average iqs?
flex05, please read this, carefully and completely. Then get back to me as to where exactly you disagree.
Thanks for my homework (whoever you are).
I hope you will understand that I cannot reply with a 50 page academic paper of my own.
But looking at the paper, there seems to be a problem on the first page. The paper is looking at whether the culture-only (0% genetic-100% environmental) or hereditarian (50%genetic-50% environmental) model best explains observed mean ethnic group differences in intelligence test scores. But why do this when nobody, including Nisbett, espouses a 100% environmental view? Straw man?
2, 3 (Flynn) and 4 ("X" factor) seem to me to be the most salient "topics of contention". Would you honestly say that this paper settles any of these issues?
The Flynn effect (2 and 3) is obviously difficult to understand but I see that the catching-up of blacks on IQ tests is not denied but countered by suggesting that measuring "g" (another very contested concept) is more important. Similarly the fact that they happily admit that they may or may not be missing 7 points as an average for black Americans doesn't increase confidence (2.1) in this whole approach.
I also didn't find section 4 very convincing. How does establishing similar correlations within groups rule out additional factors that might be affecting a particular group?
But why do this when nobody, including Nisbett, espouses a 100% environmental view? Straw man?
You did not read Nisbett or te article if you can say that. The paper linked even quotes Nisbett.
2, 3 (Flynn) and 4 ("X" factor) seem to me to be the most salient "topics of contention". Would you honestly say that this paper settles any of these issues?
As you might have gleaned from readng it, it was not the purpose of this mere fifty page paper to "settle" such issues. It was a rebuttal of arguments made in Nisbetts book.
I get the distinct impression that you skimmed it quickly rather then reading it carefully. Of course, you knew what your reaction was going to be before reading the first word. So why waste time reading?
Similarly the fact that they happily admit that they may or may not be missing 7 points as an average for black Americans doesn't increase confidence (2.1) in this whole approach.
As has been noted before, you are remarkably dishonest. That you need to twist facts ("lie" would not be an overstatement) in this fashion to try to bolster your case does not increase confidence in your approach.
"You did not read Nisbett or te article if you can say that. The paper linked even quotes Nisbett."
Yes and here is a quote from the paper from Nisbett (page 15): "Many scientists today consider the heritability of IQ to be much lower than some previous estimates of 75 to 85 percent. I agree and suggest the heritability is lower than 50 percent."
"I get the distinct impression that you skimmed it quickly rather then reading it carefully. Of course, you knew what your reaction was going to be before reading the first word. So why waste time reading?"
Well it's true that I don't have to read this stuff. But I did. It was a useful paper because it brought all the evidence for this point of view together. (For those familiar with some of the counter-intuitive findings of genetics there was one very powerful piece of evidence for your view that was presented in this paper as evidence for the environmental point of view!) Why do you think I came on to this blog?
"As has been noted before, you are remarkably dishonest."
I really don't know (or care) where this comes from, but at least I am not criticising someone under cover of anonymity.
"Anonymous said...
I have to agree with the guy above me that this is irrelevant to the discussion and it fails to answer the question that was asked: How do we explain the exceptional 20 percent?"
There is no need to explain the "exceptional" 20%. It is exceptional relative to the mean. The distribution of IQ is a gaussian distribution. Gaussian - not a delta-function. That means that some portion of a given population will be above the mean - and even that some portion of a given population will have IQs above the mean of another populations' IQ distribution, even if its mean value is lower.
What is so damned difficult about that? Apparently, neither you nor Flex05 understand what a gaussian distribution function even is.
Mr. Anon said...
"There is no need to explain the "exceptional" 20%. It is exceptional relative to the mean. The distribution of IQ is a gaussian distribution. Gaussian - not a delta-function. That means that some portion of a given population will be above the mean - and even that some portion of a given population will have IQs above the mean of another populations' IQ distribution, even if its mean value is lower."
Correct, it is exceptional relative to the mean. I said that. I also said that some portion of the black population has IQs above the mean of the white population. The question was how is it possible for any black to score above the mean of the white population if average IQs between the races are due to their genetic differences?
You can't answer this question. You can't cite any peer reviewed documents from a scientific journal to support this claim. So instead of making an effort to answer the question, you deviated from the topic all together. I didn't ask you to explain a statistical concept.
Again, the question was not whether or not races differ in terms of their average IQs, or whether or not there's a genetic basis for intelligence.
The question is: "Are there population specific genes that account for differences in average IQ between populations"
A scientific theory is formed only after a number of hypotheses are evaluated and retested again and again. So far, you've identified a pattern (that there are IQ differences between populations)but you haven't presented a theory which states that the IQ gap is due to population specific genes. Hence, you have no evidence, much less "proof", that the black/white IQ gap is genetic(a very broad term, by the way)in its origin.
When you make an attempt to answer this question, in the form of a falsifiable theory, I'll be back to engage in a scientific discussion with you all :) But I'm not going to argue any more.
Post a Comment