My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Second: You can make a tax deductible contribution via VDARE by clicking here. (Paypal and credit cards accepted, including recurring "subscription" donations.) UPDATE: Don't try this at the moment.
Third: send money via the Paypal-like Google Wallet to my Gmail address (that's isteveslrATgmail.com -- replace the AT with a @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.
You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.
Or you can send money via credit card (Visa, MasterCard, AmEx, Discover) with the industry-standard 2.9% fee. (You don't need to put money into your Google Wallet Balance to do this.)
Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).
Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here's how to do it.
(Non-tax deductible.)
Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)
Posts
63 comments:
How does that explain, Nader, Andy Rooney, William F. Buckley, Camile Paglia, Christopher Langhan, John McCain, Michael Bloomberg, Dick Cheney...
And yet it's the smarties who got fooled into believing that race is an illusion, that gender is a social construct, that their own nationalism is evil, that abstract art is art, etc., etc. In some ways, the smarter you are, the EASIER you are to fool.
Our subconscious instincts are mostly healthy and hard to alter. Conscious ideas are easy to change and to manipulate. Those who spend a lot of time thinking consciously about ideas, reading about them, arguing about them, are at greater risk of catching bad ideas from people who hate them than are the idiots who are moved solely by their instincts.
i would think that at a certain point, jealousy of the market dominant minorities would disrupt community building.
anyone know how well community building is going in canada and australia in this recession?
Truth, you do know about exceptions to rules, right? ;)
Seriously, I bet this crowd can see one huge counterargument, involving certain groups with high average IQs that tend to shift the country to the left... ;)
Reminds me of Tom Lehrer's song "National Brotherhood Week":
...be kind to people who -
are inferior to you ...
"low IQ people tend to be surlier and more distrustful": how very wise of them.
Fait accompli - An accomplished fact; an action which is completed before those affected by it are in a position to query or reverse it.
In Idiocracy cop-speak is only slightly more obtuse than the phony officialese they speak now.
Good questions, Troof.
Steve,
Underwater mortgages by state.
Did anyone see "House of Cards" on CNBC the other night. Steve's thesis was finally validated on the MSM.
It has always seemed obvious to me that diversity of any sort increases the crime rate, probably by activating the anxiety of everyone. Given that context, it shows how remarkable the American experiment is. With this level of diversity, on a scale never before attempted by a nation, that we do not have higher crime by a factor of ten suggests that something else in the system is damping down the anxiety and crime rate. I suggest it is the anglospheric values of individual rights, widespread liberties, and self-determination.
It may be that, much as we would hope otherwise, a certain minimum IQ is necessary to make such values work.
presumably because they are easier to fool
Huh? Stupid people are surly because:
1) they're more impulsive
2) the emotional part of their brain is a bigger percentage of the total
3) they have short time horizons
4) they're less able to project the consequences of their actions
5) they're less able to step beyond their own short term self-interest and see "the other fellow's point of view" and how it's in their own long-term self-interest to keep everyone happy
Bwahahaha...
My experience of working with super high IQ engineer-types from MIT/Cal Tech/etc. is that they tend to be moody introverts and on the bitter side because they weren't popular/good looking/getting laid as much as 'regular' people.
As for the article's assertion that high IQ immigrants are altruistic and will give back to their communities like middle/upper class whites is either laughably naive or deliberately fallacious. The author must not have gone to college, worked, or lived with many non-western immigrants. In my upper middle class Orange County, CA neighborhood with lots of professional asians, persians, and mexicans, the whites are the overwhelming majority of the volunteers (and donors) in our PTA & little league/sports organizations.
“social capital,” which Putnam defines in simple terms—“social networks and the associated norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness.”
--------------------------
Putnam says that racial diversity diminishes social capital, but maybe the truth is even more politically incorrect. All the racially homogenous communities he studied were white. Maybe the reason for the high social capital in these societies is because they are white. Are there any examples of homogenous communites of non-whites that have high social capital? Probably not in Europe, North America, Australia or New Zealand because probably no non-white homogenous communites exist in these places. Probably not else where, because the rest of the world is such a mess and mostly very corrupt--no mutual trust.
He suggests that people with higher IQ's are more altuistic. However, in Vancouver, which has a large Chinese-Canadian population, it is well known that Chinese-Canadians tend not to give to charity or donate blood or register for bone marrow donation. Just saying.
Many low IQ people are simply too stupid to be polite. As far as their lack of trust is concerned it's likely related to the fact that they are un-trustworthy/criminally inclined types themselves. "I don't trust nobody". "He woulda done the same thing if he were me". Is transference the correct word? Either way I hope you get the idea.
"With this level of diversity, on a scale never before attempted by a nation, that we do not have higher crime by a factor of ten suggests that something else in the system is damping down the anxiety and crime rate. I suggest it is the anglospheric values of individual rights, widespread liberties, and self-determination."
Doubtful. Probably has more to do with the fact that groups self segregate. So operationally the effect of diversity is somewhat dampened.
I think another dimension must be considered: smart people tend towards idealism and as such absorb supposedly more high-minded ideals than 'normal' people.
As such, they're probably as easy to fool as stupid people..
A purely IQ-test based immigration system would mean immigration dominated by north-east Asians, with a sliver of Europeans and a few brahmins.
Advantages: Low crime rates. Low fertility rates, so the natives would not be replaced. High GDP.
Disadvantages: Do whites want to be ruled by a dominant east-Asian elite? There are worse fates; Hawaii is not so bad - but most people prefer their rulers to be of their own kind. Anglo-Americans may be ok with a dominant Ashkenazi elite, but east-Asians look a lot more different, and in some ways are culturally more different too.
Secondly, as noted above, high-IQ east-Asians as a group do not generally display the kind of social capital & civic-mindedness Putnam talks about. Neither do southern and eastern Europeans (or Catholic Irish), for that matter, though again they have been largely assimilated to Anglo-American norms in most areas.
It may be that the article writer actually wants more white European immigration, and less non-white, and broaches it as an IQ issue. He may not even be aware that we Europeans are not the highest IQ race.
Overall, the answer is - if you want civic-mindedness, you import people from civic-minded cultures, which mostly means central European and northwestern European.
Look at Huntington's 'Clash of Civilisations' and note the map with the line splitting the West (Protestant & Catholic) from the Orthodox worlds, that is roughly the eastern border of civic-mindedness. Then draw an east-west line through Italy, splitting the civic north from the un-civic south.
Pretty well everything to the north and west meets the civic minded test - if being harsh you may wish to leave out Croatia in the SE corner, but I think we can give the modern Republic of Ireland in the NW a pass.
Sorted.
My civic-mindedness test is not necessarily irrelevant. West and central Europe is already seeing an upsurge in white emigration, under pressure from the Third World (and gypsy) influx. And these are productive middle class people, often youngish couples and families. Currently the US excludes most of these people, but she could be well placed to take advantage.
Here are some more recent papers that suggest that Robert Putnam's argument does not hold in other contexts:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119395639/abstract
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121392375/abstract
The second link is a paper that apparently refutes Putnam's hypothesis in a sample of 28 European countries.
Has anyone looked at all this follow-up to Putnam's controversial findings on multicultural communities?
I've noticed that UK polling (by MORI) has repeatedly found that the proportion of Pakistanis in a community is linked to poor social capital - but a large Indian contingent is linked to high social capital!
Why's that...?
"I've noticed that UK polling (by MORI) has repeatedly found that the proportion of Pakistanis in a community is linked to poor social capital - but a large Indian contingent is linked to high social capital!
Why's that...?"
IME middle class Indian Hindus (not lower class Tamils, as a rule) tend to display the civic virtues of Raj-era Britons. Hindu Indian doctors will give up their time to sit on the local 'Safer Neighbourhoods Panel', for instance.
It's not exactly assimilation - they're not assimilating the mostly scuzzy characteristics of white Londoners in 2009 (criminal underclass and atomised, anomied overclass), they're maintaining the virtues of the British Raj!
I have a suspicion that part of this is a determination to maintain distance and distinction from the Pakistanis. You never see such neat, well maintained gardens as those of Ulster Protestants on the boders with Catholic Ireland, because the Catholics generally don't do gardening. It's because the two populations are rather similar that the Protestants make such a display of superior virtue (in gardening, here). I suspect something similar occurs with Hindu vs Muslim Indians. When England was doing well in the last soccer World Cup, it seemed like every Tamil Hindu in my neighbourhood was out waving the England flag, the Cross of St George. A very effective way to distinguish themselves from the Pakistanis up the road.
Anon. said
"refutes Putnam's hypothesis in a sample of 28 European countries."
Well, they're European countries.
Anon,
Pakistanis are.,wait for it, Muslims, and Indians are Hindus.
Richard.london
In terms of trust and general benevolence, moving from Nashville TN to Jacksonville FL (years ago) was like moving from prison to Disney World. I remember walking around Jacksonville angry at first, thinking: "These people are goofballs - childishly naive and open!"
Subsequently moving from Jacksonville to Knoxville TN forcefully reacquainted me with the surliness, pissiness, reduced ability to cooperate, and slow-minded malice and resentment that I had known. Though Knoxville is better than Nashville.
(I'm talking about differences among white folks exclusively.)
HOWEVER. Jacksonville was going lefty-multiculty insane when I left it, while Knoxville has far less of this problem. K-town ain't much different than it was 25 years ago. The usual suspects keep a comparatively low profile, advisedly. A little surliness and mistrust can be good.
I heard some white alternative musician from California today gloating about the fact that California was the first state where whites ("ya know - blondes!" as she put it) were a minority. Seemingly a bright articulate girl in many ways. But these people never stop to think - I can show you many countries where whites are a minority, but for some reason liberals tend to celebrate countries like Canada, Sweden, New Zealand and Denmark. Or cities like Portland, OR or Burlington, VT. Hmm. What do those places have in common again? I can actually understand why many liberals would hate corporate America, hate Wal-mart, hate their fathers, hate golf, whatever - but at some point don't you have to stop cutting off your nose to spite your face?
And yet it's the smarties who got fooled into believing that race is an illusion, that gender is a social construct, that their own nationalism is evil, that abstract art is art, etc., etc.
And yet, it's the dumbies who are BEHAVING according to these beliefs, more than the smarties.
It's easier to indoctrinate stupid people, but there's less incentive. And yes, it's probably harder to update the firmware after they leave the factory.
In some ways, the smarter you are, the EASIER you are to fool.
This is true, in some ways. E.g., I had an uncle with Down's. You couldn't get a dollar from him no matter what you tried - including making a sincere offer to pay him two tomorrow.
Smart people can change their minds again, and quickly go back to healthy behavior. It's going to be hard to get dumb people back on track.
With this level of diversity, on a scale never before attempted by a nation, that we do not have higher crime by a factor of ten suggests that something else in the system is damping down the anxiety and crime rate. I suggest it is the anglospheric values of individual rights, widespread liberties, and self-determination.
I think population density is a huge factor. I.e., our advantage in this area is probably not a renewable resource.
My experience of working with super high IQ engineer-types
Yeah, thanks for the anecdote. Now come back to Earth and deal with the real question. I'll make it simple for you:
Dumb means 80 IQ. Smart means 120 IQ.
Now, you can't possibly fuck that up, can you?
The author is making many valid points. Canada's immigration, for all its faults, is far preferable to America's. Canada's multiculturalism and real diversity are much more pleasant than America's tricultural black-white-Hispanic caste system. The author does not seem to consider whether the vast number of Hispanics in the United States has already so compromised the fabric of the country that any change in policy will not be able to rectify the situation.
"I've noticed that UK polling (by MORI) has repeatedly found that the proportion of Pakistanis in a community is linked to poor social capital - but a large Indian contingent is linked to high social capital!
Why's that...?"
Because Pakistanis are Muslims? Just a wild guess.
Many low IQ people are simply too stupid to be polite.
That was my essential point above, and may have gotten lost in my numbered list; my intuition is that people fail to be polite because they don't have a clue, not because of anything deliberate.
Stupid people have much, much lower standards of civility.
Old southern definition: a gentleman is someone who only offends you when he means to.
Another pithy saying might be instructive:
An armed society is a polite society.
Well, sure; when everyone's carrying, even a dumbass can see the point of being polite.
Many low IQ people are simply too stupid to be polite.
Check numerous comment threads on youtube for confirmation.
People who appear to agree on almost every fundamental point still manage to end up in obscenity laden flame wars with each other over trivial details.
Worse still, I assume that the minimal requirements to register with youtube act as a basic IQ filter. The really low-wattage types are not even taking part.
And yet it's the smarties who got fooled into believing that race is an illusion, that gender is a social construct, that their own nationalism is evil, that abstract art is art, etc., etc. In some ways, the smarter you are, the EASIER you are to fool.
Our subconscious instincts are mostly healthy and hard to alter. Conscious ideas are easy to change and to manipulate. Those who spend a lot of time thinking consciously about ideas, reading about them, arguing about them, are at greater risk of catching bad ideas from people who hate them than are the idiots who are moved solely by their instincts.
There's something rather profound at work here.
And paradoxically anti-Kantian.
But in general, though, I think that people choose to believe in bad ideas because they desire to believe in bad ideas.
That's the nature of nihilism.
"He woulda done the same thing if he were me".
He be me, he do the same thing.
FTFY.
[Low IQ people don't speak (and very likely can't even think) in the subjunctive mood.]
smart people tend towards idealism and as such absorb supposedly more high-minded ideals than 'normal' people
In the last century or two, smart people have tended towards nihilism and as such have absorbed more nihilistic ideals than normal people.
I've noticed that UK polling (by MORI) has repeatedly found that the proportion of Pakistanis in a community is linked to poor social capital - but a large Indian contingent is linked to high social capital!
Why's that...?
--------------------------
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that it is maybe because the Indians usually are not Muslim. Islam (the fundamentalist variety being practiced) is such a backwards religion it really seems to drag down a society.
For the AEI, the home of neo-connism, that counts as a radical breakthrough on the topic of immigration.
Disadvantages: Do whites want to be ruled by a dominant east-Asian elite?
The supposition here is that high IQ people would be and should be the rulers. Both seem very dubious propositions. Are Obama and Waxman really at the pinnicle of IQ? Do we really want to be ruled by those whose IQ's are over 140?
In any case the proper way to approach the quesiton of immigration is start with the number zero and ask for very good reasons why anybody should be allowed to enter.
i would think that at a certain point, jealousy of the market dominant minorities would disrupt community building.
Can we dispense with the 'jealousy' BS -- a lot of time the market dominant minority is that way because it consistently screws the majority over via its ethnic networks, and has no qualms about doing it.
I'm seeing a fair number of Asian volunteers (Indian, Chinese, Korean) in my mostly white suburb.
My organization has a roughly proportional number of Asian volunteers. One or two blacks, no Hispanics - but NAMs are so few here you can't really draw conclusions.
It depends on the organization - PTA and rescue squad, yes, youth sports, fewer, fire dept, no.
So arguing by anecdote - it can happen.
Islam (the fundamentalist variety being practiced) is such a backwards religion it really seems to drag down a society.
What's the cart, and what's the horse? Baptist fundies and Episcopalians are both Christianity, but...
Do people choose their religion, or is it the other way around? Would smart people whose nature was contrary to fundie Islam just sit back and chafe? Or would they slowly change their religion to suit their nature?
People make religions, so I say, in the long run, people are the horse, and religion is the cart. Religion can change a people along the way, but then, the cart changes the horse, too.
in terms of trust and surliness vis-a-vis IQ I think the environmental explanation has quite a bit of merit. Perhaps the environment of today's society is just fundamentally more hostile/difficult to the low IQ (especially when we are talking below 90), so these people are generally not that happy with life. Social contract has been wearing thin for everybody lately, but for the low IQ it was most serious and for the longest. In such a situation, why be cheerful?
Are Obama and Waxman really at the pinnicle of IQ?
And they really ruling?
As for the contrast with ultra-high IQ's and merely HI-Q, Carolyn has a point. Terman noted increased social adaptability up to about IQ 140, at which point it started tapering off. I was president of Prometheus 20 years ago, and there were indeed an abundance of difficult people. I likened it to them being strong enough intellectually to screw something in by force even if it was cross-threaded.
There were pleasant well-adjusted people as well and I enjoyed interacting with them. But I came away with the idea that perhaps it would be better if people with SAT 1200-1400 ran things rather than 1400-1600. The latter should be steered into research, advisory, and consulting roles.
From Svigor:
"Stupid people have much, much lower standards of civility."
Also from Svigor
"Dumb means 80 IQ. Smart means 120 IQ.
Now, you can't possibly fuck that up, can you?"
"Dumb means 80 IQ. Smart means 120 IQ.
Now, you can't possibly fuck that up, can you?"
Truth, here's a one question IQ test.
What does BFD mean when spelled out?
Get a grip already.
Moving from engineers to lawyers ...
I nearly always find it pleasant talking to competent lawyers. Marginally competent ones tend to be arrogant. And the incompetent are downright unpleasant.
Perhaps the less competent someone is, and the lower the IQ, the more they sense that they're not the top of the pecking order and they feel a corresponding impulse to assert your status?
"The supposition here is that high IQ people would be and should be the rulers. Both seem very dubious propositions. Are Obama and Waxman really at the pinnicle of IQ? Do we really want to be ruled by those whose IQ's are over 140?"
I was talking about the people who actually do rule us; as per The Bell Curve they're pretty well all top-quartile IQ. Politicians seem to mostly come in around 115-135. I wasn't talking about top 1%. We 1%ers tend to end up doing PhDs and other non-rulership activities.
My point is that in a society that is heavily east-Asian, that top quartile from which the rulers are drawn will be mostly east-Asian, even without any discrimination effects.
I had a nice post about middle class Hindu Indians in the UK and how they display Raj-style high social capital to distinguish themselves from Pakistani Muslims, although lower class Tamil Hindus mostly don't; but it doesn't seem to have made it through.
"The second link is a paper that apparently refutes Putnam's hypothesis in a sample of 28 European countries."
No, it doesn't. The study demonstrates that differences in ethnic diversity do not explain differences in social capital accumulation between EU countries. This is not surprising considering that 13 of the EU's 28 member states were under communist rule still two decades ago, and are accordingly poor and underdeveloped in comparison to the 15 old member states that were saved from the Soviet onslaught.
However, if you studied neigborhoods within the EU countries, I'm pretty sure you'd find the same patterns Putnam found in the US: "diversity" destroys communities.
Truth, you're back! I've been waiting for you.
You probably missed where I asked you a direct question in another thread, so I'll re-post it here:
Your ideology (forced integration of the races) creates your problem (whites complaining about blacks); why do you never address this point?
That's just the finale, the whole conversation's here:
Tangled Up in Blue
And here:
I, for one, welcome our new blue-eyed overlords
You're a hard guy to get 'hold of, Truth!
Truth is making the point that either Nader, Andy Rooney, William F. Buckley, Camile Paglia, Christopher Langhan, John McCain, Michael Bloomberg, and Dick Cheney are dumb and polite, or smart and rude. This is a good point or a bad point, depending on...?
Actually, the only point is that Truth has opinions on certain famous people. Who would have thought?
But anyway, he deserves to be complimented for having gone a whole post without calling a white person "Sport".
"Looking at his list of the most trusting places, Putnam found whole states such as New Hampshire and Montana, rural areas in West Virginia and East Tennessee."
Rural East TN, NOT urban West TN. I appreciate his very accurate specificity.
Notice how the SWPL faction does just the opposite, moving into usually gentrified (typically first by gay males and artsy types) urban areas that are "diverse" while patting themselves on the back for going against the natural inclination to congregate amongst people like themselves in suburbs or exurbs.
"And yet it's the smarties who got fooled into believing that race is an illusion, that gender is a social construct, that their own nationalism is evil, that abstract art is art, etc., etc. In some ways, the smarter you are, the EASIER you are to fool."
I've wondered this myself, and the only conclusion that makes sense is that their inclination (and their ability to delve into) toward abstract thought and ideological devotion to being "one of the good ones" trumps all. Even the their most basic survival instincts.
Svigor; you know that I love a good argument, and would be happy to respond to any questions you might have, but I wrote to long and comprehensive responses to you and neither was deemed worthy.
If you'd like to continue the dialog, click my link and ask me whatever you want.
By the way, that was a thoughtful and measured response you made at the end of the Dylan thread.
Do whites want to be ruled by a dominant east-Asian elite?
Are they really that much smarter than us to make a difference?
Even ashkenazi Jews are only a point or two ahead of white Europeans on the average-IQ scale. And Asians are well within standard deviation.
Simon, you make some great points. Here in South Africa there is a discernable difference between Muslim Asians and Hindu Indians.
Islam turns everything it touches into a desert.
but I wrote to long and comprehensive responses to you and neither was deemed worthy.
Fair enough, I'll be along shortly. Wouldn't hurt for you to just go ahead and post your responses there, if experience has taught you, the way it has taught me, to save your thoughts before submitting them for review.
By the way, that was a thoughtful and measured response you made at the end of the Dylan thread.
Thanks. The further I get from thoughtful and measured, the redder the hackles on Komment Kontrol. :)
Even ashkenazi Jews are only a point or two ahead of white Europeans on the average-IQ scale. And Asians are well within standard deviation.
East Asians are less than 5 ahead, much closer to your "point or two" characterization. Ashkenazi Jews are between 5 and ten points higher, depending on which figures you use.
Re: NE Asian geniuses and all that...
There is almost certainly a significant difference in NE Asian and white mean IQ. It has to be more than a few points -- (.3-.5) SD is probably right, and the difference in variance (if there is any) must be small.
Just take a look at the Math/Physics/CS Olympiad teams of countries like the US, Canada, Australia. NE Asians are over-represented by 5-10x or so in this group, which is comprised of 1 in 10,000-level talents or better.
(It's also amazing that a small city state like HK regularly outperforms countries like France or the UK in the math Olympiad!)
Also note that the US SMPY (Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth) population is 20% Asian. There is also Asian over-representation in the *verbal* group -- the gifted population with high SAT verbal scores (e.g., 600-700 by age 13 or so).
Why don't you utilize your obsession with the normal distribution to try and concoct a relative mean and variance that can explain this data? That is, if you can do the math...
Uhm yeah, except I don't want to sign up for a Google account, T. Your blog settings are too restrictive.
Just answer the question here, no reason Steve won't let it through if you behave yourself. No need to be long-winded, either, brevity is the soul of wit.
Reminds me of the guy who was sitting next to me at the bar at the Silver Diner this morning who said in response to a question from his wife, "Well first of all I don't believe anything I read in 'The Washington Post'". I'm thinking, really, and I guess you believe everything you hear on Beck or Limbaugh? He never made it past the sports section, so I'm not sure how he would know.
Post a Comment