tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post3143859690100991916..comments2024-03-29T05:14:33.223-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: Taleb v. Pinker on the chances of warUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger103125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-13243361832653959802012-11-28T23:21:03.696-08:002012-11-28T23:21:03.696-08:00You're confused about the definition of "...You're confused about the definition of "peruse." From Google's definition: 1.Read thoroughly or carefully. 2. Examine carefully or at length.<br /><br /> Chris said...<br />Nice. Taleb is a perfect example of what I wrote in my own review of the book: The available critical reviews seem to have been written by journalistic types who have perused the book rather than giving it a close reading or by math-science types who have become fixated on questions of statistical interpretation or brain science without seeing the big picture.JASnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-30859325493283077172012-11-13T07:00:10.276-08:002012-11-13T07:00:10.276-08:00With regard to British views of the American milit...With regard to British views of the American military; yes, there's a long history of this, primarily stemming from the Brit superiority complex. In both WWI and WWII, those who fought against the U.S. military had a much greater regard for it than did the British (read Rommel's writings, or Ludendorff's). Of course, this attitude led to such British military triumphs as Bunker Hill, New Orleans, and Lundy's Lane, but it was not confined to Americans (see Isandlewana, Chilianwallah, Balaklava, etc.) Of course, this arrogance is also what built the Empire, so...Toddy Catnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-60770220795572733792012-11-12T14:58:46.556-08:002012-11-12T14:58:46.556-08:00Now he seems to have expanded his obsession to mal...<i>Now he seems to have expanded his obsession to male height.</i><br /><br />Male (and to some extent female) height is really a WASP obsession. Because WASPs have so much of it, they can afford to obsess over it. The "gold chain gang" is much shorter, and much more tolerant of shortness.<br /><br />The height obsession could be a crudely subconscious attempt at Eugenics. But it is Barbie-and-Ken eugenics rather than the real IQ-based thing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-23071383512226215172012-11-12T11:56:22.563-08:002012-11-12T11:56:22.563-08:00MMMM I rather thought that one would need a ruthle...<i>MMMM I rather thought that one would need a ruthless, slave-owning oligarchy, whose leading pastime was rape; a complete disregard for human rights (cf the aforementioned slaves); a willingness to kill hundreds of thousands in order to sustain the aforesaid slaveocracy; a political elite that viewed slavery as the highest possible good (cf John C. Calhoun, Fitzhugh, Alexander H. Stephens, etc); etc<br /></i><br /><br />There weren't enough black or Indian slave owners in the Confederacy in relation black or Indian slaves.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-54986478055390859762012-11-12T10:24:19.096-08:002012-11-12T10:24:19.096-08:00I'm a little confused. I've lost the threa...I'm a little confused. I've lost the thread - literally. then I read from Whiskey:<br /><br /><i>That works if you're say, six feet four inches or taller. Height gives you male dominance just existing at that height. Try that being five ten or smaller. You get an entirely different perspective believe me.</i><br /><br />Whiskey, who often has a unique and illuminating perspective on a myriad of issues, also has a weakness for seeing problems in the light of the lessons learned in a pick up bar. I have usually dismissed these as just manifestations of his lack of success in the dating market.<br /><br />Now he seems to have expanded his obsession to male height. <br /><br />I'm not sure what he means. I became six four myself late. I was only six three and a half as a teen. Two years ago I pulled my Achilles tendon and my doctor prescribed lifts. Sudenly I was six five at the lowest setting. The highest setting hurt my back but I must admit I really like being six seven.<br /><br />I did indeed feel more Dominant. Maybe Whiskey's on to something here.<br /><br />AlbertosaurusPat Boylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13477950851915567863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-38394315631978570692012-11-12T10:10:46.809-08:002012-11-12T10:10:46.809-08:00I agree with Udolpho. I'm no big fan of Taleb,...I agree with Udolpho. I'm no big fan of Taleb, but there's no doubt that he got the better of this exchange.Toddy Catnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-54554570691116586822012-11-12T08:16:17.900-08:002012-11-12T08:16:17.900-08:00"OK, this will now be boring other readers of..."OK, this will now be boring other readers of iSteve, so this is my last post."<br />On the contrary, old chap, I for one find your remarks interesting, so please don't sound the Last Post if you've got any more to say.<br />Another aspect of American militarism: am I right in thinking that before the Civil War it was common for young men to belong to militia/volunteer units and wear their uniforms in public whenever possible?<br /><br />Miserable Old Britnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-58201692603293379402012-11-12T02:26:14.298-08:002012-11-12T02:26:14.298-08:00High casualties were not foreseen for the Civil Wa...High casualties were not foreseen for the Civil War because no one had yet fought a war with what was then the new capacity of science and industry to produce weapons of unprecedented power, range, and accuracy, weapons that confounded the generals on both sides who insisted on Napoleonic mass formation tactics unsuited to the new weapons' capabilities - until quite late in the war when both sides took to siege-trench warfare that foreshadowed that of the Russo-Japanese War and WWI. The other Civil War killer, the one that took considerably more lives than combat took, was also unforeseen and unforeseeable: disease. The high combat death toll was also due to the primitive state of medicine - thousands died of wounds which in later wars, in which armies fielded more advanced medical services, were far less often fatal.<br /><br />Two non-weapon technologies also promoted the mass-slaughter of the Civil War: railways, which allowed for speedy distant strategic movement and massing of supplies and troops (indeed, Sherman's 1863-65 campaigns were primarily aimed at depriving the rebels of their rail-logistics net); and the telegraph, which greatly enhanced commanders' ability to plan and coordinate far flung campaigns.<br /><br />WWI's slaughter was only partly due to the capacity of its weapons for industrial scale slaughter. The real killer in WWI was the lack of dependable battlefield communications: once mass frontal attacks were launched commanders above company level were unable to communicate to direct their forces to exploit gains, to reinforce success, or to order tactical withdrawals; and company officers were unable to contact their superiors at battalion (and battalion commanders were likewise unable to report to division level command), or even to consolidate taken ground. Even the late war German introduction of Stosstrupp tactics (shock troops - infiltrating & bypassing centers of resistance instead of massed frontal assault) fell victim to the lack of real-time communications. <br /><br />Real-time communications made the Second World War one of greater mobility than the Great War had been - though not by all that much. In fact, the Wehrmacht's two opening Blitzkrieg campaigns were the first in history to rely on the mobility and combat power multiplying factor of integrated, well-rehearsed real-time battlefield communications, and those campaigns succeeded as brilliantly as they did because the Wehrmacht's opponents lacked communications commensurate with those of their attacker (even on the Eastern Front, Soviet armored forces suffered huge losses primarly because most of their tanks lacked wireless contact with the formation leader's tank and with HQ - shortcoming made good only later in the war, and even then many Red Army armored units still lacked wireless, except in commanders' tanks, and relied often on sheer mass for success in assault).Auntie Analoguenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-59029103961347413762012-11-12T01:13:14.178-08:002012-11-12T01:13:14.178-08:00A friend of mine from Malaysia noticed much the sa...<i>A friend of mine from Malaysia noticed much the same thing from the most militant Muslims there being "more Arab than Malaysian".</i><br /><br /><br />If there is one thing that the Arabs did right is that they made Islam heavily Arab-centric... Mohammed was a qite smart desert bandit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-55553699040217598682012-11-12T00:05:33.971-08:002012-11-12T00:05:33.971-08:00Erdogan just wants to be an Arab. He hates Turkey ...<i>Erdogan just wants to be an Arab. He hates Turkey and his own Turkishness.</i><br /><br />A friend of mine from Malaysia noticed much the same thing from the most militant Muslims there being "more Arab than Malaysian".<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-90859353177220863002012-11-11T23:42:12.653-08:002012-11-11T23:42:12.653-08:00No, I think population pressure was real, back in ...<i>No, I think population pressure was real, back in the day, when resources were severely limited and there was no free market system to create win/win situations. There was a Malthusian Trap.</i><br /><br />And also, no reliable birth control other than abstinence, and churches that would rather see mass starvation and bloody war than the "sin" of contraception.<br /><br />Malthus himself was of that view.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-65842362729552903782012-11-11T19:42:50.411-08:002012-11-11T19:42:50.411-08:00"Somebody was going to grab Mexico's thin...<i>"Somebody was going to grab Mexico's thinly settled Northern provinces (France, Britain, the USA); the USA just made the grab first."</i><br /><br />Yeah, a big problem was that Mexico didn't control Mexico's "thinly settled Northern provinces":<br /><br /> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche-Mexico_War" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche-Mexico_War<br /><br /> "... By the time the American army invaded northern Mexico in 1846 during the Mexican-American War the region was devastated."<br /><br /> “... <i>`... the whole country from New Mexico to the borders of Durango is almost entirely depopulated. The haciendas and ranchos have been mostly abandoned,...</i>' ..."<br /><br /> "When American troops invaded northern Mexico in 1846 they found a devastated landscape and a demoralized people. There was little resistance..."</a><br /><br /> "The Comanches had turned northern Mexico into a “semicolonized landscape of extraction from which they could mine resources with little cost.”"<br /><br />Ironically, at least initially:<br /><br /> "The United States pledged in the treaty that it would police the border to prevent Indian invasions of Mexico. The US had little more success in curtailing Comanche and Apache raids than Mexico."`<br /><br />The Comanche were raiding in force as far down as within a 150 miles of Mexico City.<br /><br />This ended after revolvers and repeating rifles were invented and became widely available. Previously, a Comanche horseback charge and the ability to rapidly fire arrows would overwhelm defenders before they could reload.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-19550361242111045992012-11-11T19:26:40.367-08:002012-11-11T19:26:40.367-08:00"My point about the American Civil War is not...<i>"My point about the American Civil War is not that people didn't see more violent trouble coming, but that they didn't see 750,000 dead."</i><br /><br />The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Bull_Run" rel="nofollow">First Battle of Bull Run (First Manassas)</a> was the first real battle of the Civil War. Apparently it was a bizarre affair, with many fine ladies and all driving out from Washington in their carriages to see the battle. It seems some 40,000 actually engaged. Apparently it was expected to be a police action, but it turned into a rout, as at the end the Union army broke and ran:<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Bull_Run" rel="nofollow">"The Northern public was shocked at the unexpected defeat of their army when an easy victory had been widely anticipated. Both sides quickly came to realize the war would be longer and more brutal than they had imagined."</a><br /><br />A trivia fact about this battle is the Marines involved performed poorly, after which they were not much used during most of the rest of the war. (Many of the officers had left to join the Confederacy).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-24594409914193231252012-11-11T18:27:20.386-08:002012-11-11T18:27:20.386-08:00Re: Dear boy, how can I take your claims seriously...Re: Dear boy, how can I take your claims seriously, when you somehow believe that the British were uninterested in French activity in Mexico?<br /><br />OK, this will now be boring other readers of iSteve, so this is my last post. <br /><br />I started out by saying that the British and Canadians absolutely viewed the Americans as militaristic. I gave examples. You've given none. In fact, you shifted the goal posts to claim that the British would have annexed Mexico if the Americans didn't. I replied that was nonsense. You've now shifted your goalposts again by saying I believe the British were uninterested in French activity in Mexico. I never made this claim, nor does it rebut my point that the British had no intention of annexing Mexico or that they (and their Canadian colonists) viewed America as militaristic.<br /><br />It is simply undeniable that the British (and by extension the Canadians) and the Americans were involved in an imperial rivalry on the North American continent. By definition, that implies a militaristic aspect. <br /><br />Actually I do have (peer-reviewed) articles; I even have a (peer-reviewed) book. I do not, however, have tenure so damned if I'm going to broadcast the fact I read a website that has the gall to believe unrestricted immigration from Mexico into the US might not be a good thing or that IQ and race may have some relation. Not in the present academic climate. Sorry.<br /><br />Here's four starting points for you, however, who has denied that the British viewed the US as militaristic.<br /><br />Bourne, Britain and the Struggle for Power in North America<br />Campbell, From Revolution to Rapprochement <br />Black, The Struggle for Mastery in North America <br />Andrew Lambert, "Winning without fighting: British Grand Strategy and its Application to the US"<br /><br />You might also want to try reading Francis Trollope's views of the US, or Frederick Marryat's. Try Sir John A. Macdonald's on the Canadian front. <br /><br />Thanks for showing up. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-7603938651174215192012-11-11T18:10:53.031-08:002012-11-11T18:10:53.031-08:00I'm not certain why one would expect that the ...I'm not certain why one would expect that the Civil War would not be bloody, unless they assumed that the North would let the South secede at the first sign of trouble.<br /><br />Perhaps some people were unaware of how determined the North would be to preserve the union. (I doubt that very many people would have been uncertain of how determined the South would be to secede - once secession is declared, you're pretty much all in - being taken back by people who will quite likely view you as traitors is not a pleasant prospect).<br /><br />In any case, the South almost certainly would never surrender unless it was completely out of options. The North either had to get brutal or lose. So the only way to think it would not be bloody would be to think that the North would not put up a fight and let the South win.Glaivesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16867323638154972101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-78099906261067343322012-11-11T18:01:18.917-08:002012-11-11T18:01:18.917-08:00So much for Erdogan's "No Problems with N...<i>So much for Erdogan's "No Problems with Neighbors" policy. If Assad is going down he's going to take his neighbors with him.</i><br /><br /><i>It think Assad wants to be left alone and Erdogan wants to invade Syria to build up a new Ottoman empire.</i><br /><br />Erdogan just wants to be an Arab. He hates Turkey and his own Turkishness.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-29574996577381207242012-11-11T17:58:07.730-08:002012-11-11T17:58:07.730-08:00Population pressure was never the issue, only the ...<i>Population pressure was never the issue, only the excuse.</i><br /><br />No, I think population pressure was real, back in the day, when resources were severely limited and there was no free market system to create win/win situations. <br /><br />There was a Malthusian TrapAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-11830460818382954562012-11-11T17:43:31.417-08:002012-11-11T17:43:31.417-08:00I'm struck by how poor and just plain hysteric...I'm struck by how poor and just plain hysterical Pinker's reply to Taleb is.Udolpho.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12976984423336975944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-7236761529424745732012-11-11T17:32:34.420-08:002012-11-11T17:32:34.420-08:00Re: Dear boy, how can I take your claims seriously...Re: Dear boy, how can I take your claims seriously, when you somehow believe that the British were uninterested in French activity in Mexico?<br /><br />OK, this will now be boring other readers of iSteve, so this is my last post. <br /><br />I started out by saying that the British and Canadians absolutely viewed the Americans as militaristic. I gave examples. You've given none. In fact, you shifted the goal posts to claim that the British would have annexed Mexico if the Americans didn't. I replied that was nonsense. You've now shifted your goalposts again by saying I believe the British were uninterested in French activity in Mexico. I never made this claim, nor does it rebut my point that the British had no intention of annexing Mexico or that they (and their Canadian colonists) viewed America as militaristic.<br /><br />It is simply undeniable that the British (and by extension the Canadians) and the Americans were involved in an imperial rivalry on the North American continent. By definition, that implies a militaristic aspect. <br /><br />Actually I do have (peer-reviewed) articles; I even have a (peer-reviewed)book. I do not, however, have tenure so damned if I'm going to broadcast the fact I read a website that has the gall to believe unrestricted immigration from Mexico into the US might not be a good thing or that IQ and race may have some relation. Not in the present academic climate. Sorry.<br /><br />Here's four starting points for you, however, who has denied that the British viewed the US as militaristic.<br /><br />Bourne, Britain and the Struggle for Power in North America<br />Campbell, From Revolution to Rapprochement <br />Black, The Struggle for Mastery in North America <br />Andrew Lambert, "Winning without fighting: British Grand Strategy and its Application to the US"<br /><br />You might also want to try reading Francis Trollope's views of the US, or Frederick Marryat's. Try Sir John A. Macdonald's on the Canadian front. <br /><br />Thanks for showing up. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-52475140257349877362012-11-11T16:12:58.052-08:002012-11-11T16:12:58.052-08:00That's the reason why in Germany football stat...<i>That's the reason why in Germany football state so massively supports football, and why no major football club wil ever go broke. The young men go crazy for their clubs instead of salivating for war against France and England.</i><br /><br />Except for hooligans. Luckily they are not armed (most of the time).<br /><br /><i>Assad is seeking to avoid Khadaffi's fate, thus sensing Obama weakness he wants a wider war involving Turkey and Israel. So much for Erdogan's "No Problems with Neighbors" policy. If Assad is going down he's going to take his neighbors with him.</i><br /><br />It think Assad wants to be left alone and Erdogan wants to invade Syria to build up a new Ottoman empire. Here's why:<br />1.) Wearing the veil is allowed again. His wife wears the veil in public. (Atatürk forbade it. He changed it).<br />2.) He came twice to Germany to tell the Turkish population not to learn German and not to integrate ("be assimilated").<br />3.) In a recent speech he explained how such-and-such event is going to be the battle of Manzikert of the 21st century.<br />4.) The first Turkish-Syrian border incident was an airplane that was shot <b>in</b> Syrian airspace. Why did it fly there?<br />5.) They charged several Isreali officers because of the gaza flottila events.<br /><br />- from GermanyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-65855319887593526832012-11-11T15:38:17.007-08:002012-11-11T15:38:17.007-08:00Anonymous:"Actually, I am familiar with the F...Anonymous:"Actually, I am familiar with the F.O. archives (as well as Lord Aberdeen's papers) and have taken more than a peek (as the word is spelled). The British had no interest in Mexican territory. That was a claim American nationalists like Andrew Jackson made to justify the admission of Texas into the Union."<br /><br />Dear boy, how can I take your claims seriously, when you somehow believe that the British were uninterested in French activity in Mexico?Some things go beyond ignorance.One must also be aware that British policy assumed that the USA would do the heavy-lifting vis-a-vis keeping powers like France out. Hence, the rather sanguine attitudes of men like Aberdeen.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymous:"Also, the British and their Canadian colonists did see the US as a threat during the nineteenth century -- not on the same scale as France or Russia, but a threat nonetheless."<br /><br />Nations are surrounded by threats, dear boy; saying that the USA was viewed as a threat is an airy nothing. If the British were actually worried, we would have seen the proof in the form of divisions of troops on the US-Canadian border.<br /><br />"Sorry, but you've wandered into my field of research and frankly, you don't know what you're talking about."<br /><br />"Field of research?" Any publications in reputable journals that I might peruse?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-28089746097420229552012-11-11T15:27:54.724-08:002012-11-11T15:27:54.724-08:00'So how come crime has been declining for a co...'So how come crime has been declining for a couple of decades?'<br /><br />Gym lockers to prison lockers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-17317027766614887962012-11-11T15:24:10.682-08:002012-11-11T15:24:10.682-08:00Everyone is missing the obvious - longer life expe...Everyone is missing the obvious - longer life expectancies/greater average age of populations.<br /><br />Older folks don't fight as much.Ex Submarine Officernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-60429529413228168042012-11-11T15:09:38.769-08:002012-11-11T15:09:38.769-08:00Damn sorry, my comment was for the Drum article..
...Damn sorry, my comment was for the Drum article..<br />Dykewardhttp://www.twitter.com/dykewardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-44831558557025222752012-11-11T15:08:10.630-08:002012-11-11T15:08:10.630-08:00How about this for a thoroughly modern conservativ...How about this for a thoroughly modern conservative response, if you can't beat 'em, breed 'em:<br /><br />"The electoral overwhelming of the white majority may not have the effect that simple extrapolation suggests. Most Hispanics are white. Intermarriage is creating mixed and non-racial identities that further confuse ethnic categories. One effect could be an electorate that votes less and less along ethnic lines. <b>I don’t repent of this view. I think it is possible and I hope it is the path we take.</b>"<br /><br />Care of John O'Sullivan over at National Review. <br /><br />This is a path the Bush family are already on.<br /><br />http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/332977/whites-minority-john-o-sullivanDykewardhttp://www.twitter.com/dykewardnoreply@blogger.com