tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post2639052359559601349..comments2024-03-27T18:24:19.683-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: Sapolsky: Nature and Nurture are obsoleteUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-33320374077316958972014-01-20T07:56:29.429-08:002014-01-20T07:56:29.429-08:00"A recent book from the University of Chicago...<em>"A recent book from the University of Chicago Press, Academically Adrift: Limited Learning On College Campuses, by Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa, found that 36% of college students "did not demonstrate any significant improvement in learning" over a full four years in college. The reason for this is lack of rigor: Arum and Roksa found that most students study only about 12-14 hours a week, most of it in groups."</em><br /><br />Wow, that's impressively bad. Does 12-14 hours/week of study, in addition to class time, really qualify as "lack of rigor"? How many hours would you have to spend in study to be called rigorous?<br /><br />You'd think if you spent 2000 hours (13 hours/week, 9 months a year for four years) working on something, you'd make progress <em>on accident</em>, even if you weren't trying particularly hard. If you spent that many hours shooting free throws, you'd certainly expect to get better. College must actually have a <em>negative</em> effect on learning to get results like these.Cail Corishevhttp://cailcorishev.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-90908383437530531612014-01-19T10:51:32.185-08:002014-01-19T10:51:32.185-08:00Coincidentally enough, did you know that Sapolsky ...<i>Coincidentally enough, did you know that Sapolsky and Lewontin are both of exclusively Finnish decent? What are the odds??</i><br /><br />Funny, they don't <i>look</i> "Scots-Irish"...Svigornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-89878682561443492542014-01-18T22:34:13.262-08:002014-01-18T22:34:13.262-08:00Did anyone read Nina Jablonski's CV? She's...Did anyone read Nina Jablonski's CV? She's in "active collaboration with Henry Louis Gates, Jr." working on new "genetics and genealogy curricula for K-12 and undergrad university students".<br />+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<br /><br />A dirty shame. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-91312914948577944082014-01-18T22:02:02.308-08:002014-01-18T22:02:02.308-08:00I think that where Steve's post goes off track...I think that where Steve's post goes off track is when he starts with Sapolsky's example, and then riffs on universal pre-K. I mean this hypothetical example of why the term should be retired:<br /><br /><i>"You can often say that Gene A causes Effect X, although sometimes it is more correct to say that Gene A causes Effect X, 'but only if' it is in Environment Z. In that case, you have something called a gene-environment interaction."</i><br /><br />I haven't seen Sailer or anyone else defend that actual formulation. On the pre-K example (Sailer's, not Sapolsky's), Sailer may or may not be right that the future environment being proposed would be pretty similar to familiar environments. But that's an argument that could be made much more clearly without talk of "gene-environment interaction." Sailer's argument could be expressed more clearly as, "the proposed environment is very close to environments that have already been studied, and given the relatively flat response over the range we've studied, we're not likely to see a big response from such a change."<br /><br />I don't think Sapolsky would object to formulating the argument that way. You get to make your argument; it's paranoid to think that Sapolsky's trying to shut you down. But you make your argument without obfuscating it with words like "gene-environment interaction."Aaron Grosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07105500964362053569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-52927398303423247202014-01-18T21:43:57.880-08:002014-01-18T21:43:57.880-08:00@nooffensebut, you seem to be agreeing with Sapols...@nooffensebut, you seem to be agreeing with Sapolsky (and me). I'm not familiar with the people you mentioned, but Sapolsky is saying that he doesn't want the term used in ways other than what you call "the definition," as a term in statistical models.<br /><br />Maybe I'm wrong, but I still don't see what you're disagreeing with.Aaron Grosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07105500964362053569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-37097259032672515722014-01-18T20:12:09.942-08:002014-01-18T20:12:09.942-08:00"I think Sapolsky is attempting here to do th..."I think Sapolsky is attempting here to do the same think Lewontin did in his day: obfuscate the issues."<br /><br />"I wonder if it's a conscious attempt to obfuscate or his biases are so strong he's convinced himself he's right."<br /><br />Coincidentally enough, did you know that Sapolsky and Lewontin are both of exclusively Finnish decent? What are the odds??Gert Frobe Body Doublenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-21522441159838540222014-01-18T17:18:28.311-08:002014-01-18T17:18:28.311-08:00The proposed policies of Barack Obama and Bill de ...<i> The proposed policies of Barack Obama and Bill de Blasio are based on two assumptions:</i> - yada yada yada lies lies lies.<br /><br />This is about two things – money and power. All this discussion about what is best for children is eye wash.<br /><br />This is about a transfer of responsibility for paying babysitting fees from mothers to the leftist power seeking state. It is political power hungry feminism on the march – nothing more. <br /><br />p.s. What is best for 90% of all children at the age of four is to be at home with their mother.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-55121006200305301302014-01-18T16:44:13.551-08:002014-01-18T16:44:13.551-08:00Worst, the notion that lurking out there is someth...<i>Worst, the notion that lurking out there is something akin to a Platonic ideal as to every gene's actions</i><br /><br />Except that is how science works; you create a Platonic ideal as a model, and then try to add adjustments in order to increasingly reflect reality.<br /><br />For example, Einstein's theory of relativity refined Newton's laws of motion rather than simply eliminating them. You couldn't have relativity without starting from a Newtonian framework. <br /><br />Other examples of Platonism would be the ideal gas law, and reaction equilibrium equations (which are taught as ratios of chemicals in basic chemistry, and then if you take analytical/quantitative chemistry, you discover a whole bunch of variable coefficients that alter the calculations).<br />Glaivesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16867323638154972101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-67531891792258201552014-01-18T15:06:53.955-08:002014-01-18T15:06:53.955-08:00I knew an older lady who had been on Trump's s...I knew an older lady who had been on Trump's staff of personal assistants (he has or had a number of pa's simultaneously).<br /><br />She said he had no will at all. They scripted his every move and utterance. They told him where to go, what to say, and what to do. From moment to moment, he never knew what he was doing or going to do; they just pushed him around, she said.Davidhttp://david-passingparade3.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-70149672021724729612014-01-18T13:41:29.345-08:002014-01-18T13:41:29.345-08:00Will universal pre-K allow slow learners to catch ...Will universal pre-K allow slow learners to catch up with fast learners, allow the fast movers to get further ahead, or is it a Harrison Bergeron ploy to keep the fast learners down?<br /><br />goatweedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-86245300071581000252014-01-18T12:37:40.409-08:002014-01-18T12:37:40.409-08:00"You can't nurture a nature that isn'..."You can't nurture a nature that isn't there."<br /><br />It depends on what you mean by 'nature'. <br /><br />Do you mean 'nature' as physiological or mental attribute? <br /><br />Or<br /><br />Do you mean 'nature' as a natural tendency or likelihood? <br /><br />Clearly, we can't teach dogs how to talk since dogs don't have the brains or mouths to use language like we do. <br /><br />And no matter how much we flap our limbs, we cannot fly like birds. <br /><br />But the human mind is fluid and flexible enough to be molded against its natural tendencies. <br /><br />Suppose Bob is naturally inclined to be a lazy drunk while Nancy is naturally inclined to be a sober workaholic. <br /><br />But suppose Bob is sent to boarding school and he is disciplined day in and day out to be sober and hardworking. <br />And suppose Nancy hangs around stupid bitches whose peer pressure pushes her to act likewise. <br /><br />Or suppose James is naturally lame whereas Zeke is naturally badass. But suppose James hangs around homeys all day long and picks up their lingo and style, whereas Zeke hangs around geeks who read STAR TREK novels in a community where most people are lame. <br />James will take on some badass mofo characteristics whereas Zeke will likely be more square than he is naturally inclined. <br /><br />Blacks are naturally more inclined to be funky, but white kids who grew up on black music can also come up with a song like 'play that funky music, white boy'. bloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06607033974434672862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-39260158913397176272014-01-18T12:30:57.708-08:002014-01-18T12:30:57.708-08:00Trump was all nature...the nature of the $400 mill...Trump was all nature...the nature of the $400 million in daddy Fred's estate.<br /><br />Did anyone read Nina Jablonski's CV? She's in "active collaboration with Henry Louis Gates, Jr." working on new "genetics and genealogy curricula for K-12 and undergrad university students".<br /><br />After Michael Mann and Jerry Sandusky, how much more noxious vapor can Penn State release into the world?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-66991809216017550222014-01-18T11:58:27.179-08:002014-01-18T11:58:27.179-08:00"I think Sapolsky is attempting here to do th..."I think Sapolsky is attempting here to do the same think Lewontin did in his day: obfuscate the issues."<br /><br />I wonder if it's a conscious attempt to obfuscate or his biases are so strong he's convinced himself he's right.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-76208538135769745202014-01-18T11:56:25.305-08:002014-01-18T11:56:25.305-08:00Svigor says it best:
"You can't nurture...Svigor says it best:<br /><br /><br />"You can't nurture a nature that isn't there."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-14022767226896185332014-01-18T11:54:54.496-08:002014-01-18T11:54:54.496-08:00"As for Trump, he had a rich daddy. Which is ...<br />"As for Trump, he had a rich daddy. Which is nurture, technically."<br /><br />Daddy passed along genetically his aggressiveness,(ie, his "will,") and his smarts in business--all nature, to be sure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-71220735445548484532014-01-18T11:08:37.197-08:002014-01-18T11:08:37.197-08:00All I know, is that whenever the Nature/Nurture qu...<i>All I know, is that whenever the Nature/Nurture question was tackled by The Three Stooges, Nature won out. Of course, in Trading Places, Nurture was the winner.</i><br /><br />I suppose the most salient thing about TP in this context is that nobody's stupid enough to believe that someone as sharp as Murray's character would be living in rags on the street in real life. Then again, I guess leftists' assumptions <i>are</i> kind of predicated on exactly that...<br /><br /><i>“I went to a lot of basketball games in the Dean Dome, but Roy never came and sat with me while I tutored his guys.”</i><br /><br />Haha.<br /><br /><i>"A devil, a born devil, on whose nature / Nurture can never stick."</i><br /><br />Funny, that was more or less my first thought at anon's "bar" thing:<br /><br />You can't nurture a nature that isn't there.Svigornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1510644956104702502014-01-18T11:07:43.167-08:002014-01-18T11:07:43.167-08:00"I think Sapolsky's exactly right. More ..."I think Sapolsky's exactly right. More than that, I think he was anticipated by HBD-er Michael Levin two decades ago. If I remember right, in Why Race Matters Levin actually defined the concept of "gene" in terms of its norm of reaction."<br /><br />I think Sapolsky is attempting here to do the same think Lewontin did in his day: obfuscate the issues.<br /><br />Insofar as one attempts to split off all scientific inference about the effects of genes into distinct "norms of reaction", discussion and thought becomes so balkanized that effectively no useful inferences can be drawn.<br /><br />That is, of course, the entire point of such insistence: to guarantee that no inferences are drawn, that no patterns are noticed.<br /><br />Of course, the entire science of population genetics is based on abstracting away from balkanized "norms of reaction" and generalizing across a fairly broad set of environments for a broad population. Of course such an approach doesn't truly capture each individual in all his uniqueness, or his environment in all its uniqueness. But there's no way of going forward with the science without first coming to grips with the generalities by noticing and measuring them.<br /><br />If science isn't allowed to do this, then it's stopped dead in its tracks. <br /><br />Which is, of course, the point.<br /><br />candid_observernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-21426330160767934472014-01-18T09:55:42.071-08:002014-01-18T09:55:42.071-08:00Austin - West: slackers
NY - East: hipsters
FRAN...Austin - West: slackers<br /><br />NY - East: hipsters<br /><br />FRANCES HA...<br /><br />Slipsters? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-53573084522237323292014-01-18T09:50:50.648-08:002014-01-18T09:50:50.648-08:00Sapolsky employs a typical tactic of leftists: Ten...Sapolsky employs a typical tactic of leftists: Tenaciously deny that X is true for years, and then - when that position becomes untenable - all of a sudden switch your position to "Of course X is true, everybody has always known that. But it's irrelevant. We've moved on.".<br /><br />For most of human history nature was considered to be the most important determinant of human nature; nurture was secondary. It was only in the last hundred years, with the advent of marxism and its offshoots into the "social sciences" - the Frankfurt School and the like - that nature was denied entirely and nurture put to the fore. Now that social "scientists" are being spectacularly proved wrong, they wish to change the subject.Mr. Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-84562748402191493002014-01-18T07:54:02.496-08:002014-01-18T07:54:02.496-08:00Her essay is the second in this link: http://www.e...<i>Her essay is the second in this link: http://www.edge.org/</i><br /><br />No, it is not. It is the second at this link: <br /><br />http://www.edge.org/responses/what-scientific-idea-is-ready-for-retirementben tillmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-36726873366421621052014-01-18T06:19:27.036-08:002014-01-18T06:19:27.036-08:00"Diane Ravitch's latest book recommends t..."Diane Ravitch's latest book recommends two years of pre-kindergarten taught by teachers with a masters degree at ratio of 6 pupils per teacher."<br /><br />Why not Ph.D?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1845112617997238492014-01-18T06:12:14.080-08:002014-01-18T06:12:14.080-08:00http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/...http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/18/ncaa-athletes-grades-college-experience<br /><br />dumbjckophobiaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-53385694031669194202014-01-18T05:52:11.009-08:002014-01-18T05:52:11.009-08:00http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2541612/Ge...http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2541612/German-doctor-killed-British-patient-drug-overdose-sues-dead-mans-sons-miss-dinner.html<br /><br />'German' doctorAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-31375741256412272222014-01-18T05:37:01.023-08:002014-01-18T05:37:01.023-08:00Addendum: I don't rule out a Jewish conspiracy...Addendum: I don't rule out a Jewish conspiracy theory, particularly in New York, but that would still fall under 'nurture'. There's nothing magical about WILL--it's conscientiousness, plus low agreeableness, high neuroticism, and high extroversion if applied in the business sense. All of which are part nurture and part nature.SFGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-43600238004727362582014-01-18T05:35:29.792-08:002014-01-18T05:35:29.792-08:00"I don't mean to sound Nietzschean, but a..."I don't mean to sound Nietzschean, but aren't we leaving out the little matter of WILL?<br /><br />To continue with the real estate metaphor, sheer bloodyminded will explains more about Donald Trump than nature and nurture combined. <br /><br />I know, I know… "Trump was born with that will!" vs. "No, that will was instilled into him!"<br /><br />Well, I say he chose it!"<br /><br />Will is real. Conscientiousness is part nature and nurture.<br /><br />As for Trump, he had a rich daddy. Which is nurture, technically.SFGnoreply@blogger.com