tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post5990956178265746940..comments2024-03-15T20:52:26.967-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on "Race"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger98125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-34737290974046314872010-07-29T15:40:14.115-07:002010-07-29T15:40:14.115-07:00Well, it looks like Isabel has gone back to wherev...Well, it looks like Isabel has gone back to wherever leftists go when they find unapologetic rightists. If anyone is still curious, <a href="http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> is the article showing (Table 1) that humans are more genetically diverse (heterozygous) than coyotes, dogs, wolverines, and several types of bear.<br /><br />Also, <a href="http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/004046.html" rel="nofollow">there are larger genetic differences between a West African, a Northwest European, and an Northeast Asian, then there is between two separate species, a wolf and a coyote, or between a Shih Tzu and a German Shepherd.</a><br /><br />I urge nonleftists to bookmark these links.B322https://www.blogger.com/profile/18257802768718375656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-18305674723709894312010-07-26T15:45:08.565-07:002010-07-26T15:45:08.565-07:00IQ tests were not designed to be compared across t...<i>IQ tests were not designed to be compared across the populations that take them<br /><br />An admission that groups vary so much that a simple test can't accomodate those differences."</i><br /><br />It doesn't really matter what they were designed for. What matters is their predictive value. They slightly underpredict black dropout rates in the US, for example, indicating that they are slightly biased in favor of blacks (mainly by including a few culture-loaded questions). <br /><br /><i>Right. The test cannot possibly accommodate the vast cultural and environmental differences. It is only valid for comparing individuals in a specific time and place. This makes sense; you want to keep as much as possible the same so only the individuals themselves vary.</i> - Isabel<br /><br />How can you be sure that the <i>vast</i> cultural and environmental differences don't have an underlying genetic basis? Are you sure that humanity's great genetic diversity (greater than buffalo, bonobos, leopards, etc.) has no impact on culture or, say, nutrition? <br /><br />Wouldn't it be best to find a nice test, completely lacking in words, with great predictive value over future success in staying out of crime and drugs, keeping a job, finishing school ... and looking at those results? If the results of said wordless test varying from group to group, are you sure culture is the cause?<br /><br />And what if it is? What if black culture causes blacks to perform lower on tests <b>and in jobs</b>? Should they still be hired in equal numbers?B322https://www.blogger.com/profile/18257802768718375656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-76626823862744392752010-07-26T15:33:54.013-07:002010-07-26T15:33:54.013-07:00Believe it or not, your "opinion" is not...Believe it or not, your "opinion" is not unusual on the internet. I surfed a bit for a few days after that happened, and I would estimate that I read no less than 10-15 posts willing to normalize this woman's murder of innocent people because "duh man be holdin' her down."Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-71386533050944639442010-07-26T15:30:52.928-07:002010-07-26T15:30:52.928-07:00"Was she embittered because she was passed ov..."Was she embittered because she was passed over for tenure thanks to the ethnocentrism of colleagues?<br /><br />Or was she a nut case from the beginning?"<br /><br />Why would these to statements possibly be mutually exclusive?<br /><br />Yes she was possibly unhappy about her situation at work, so are many people, but sane ones do not gun down their co-workers. <br /><br />Call me crazy, but I'd be willing to hazard a guess, ex post facto, that she was a poor candidate for promotion. People who murder their siblings usually are.Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-57450050613267857562010-07-26T14:36:30.821-07:002010-07-26T14:36:30.821-07:00I didn't say anything about athletics - Isabel...<i>I didn't say anything about athletics</i> - Isabel<br /><br />I wasn't accusing you of having mentioned athletics. I was pointing out that you didn't mention athletics. The huge variations in a given athletic ability between ethnoracial groups are a big topic of conversation around here. iSteve readers are into sports and you seemed to omit that.<br /><br /><i>I said I don't hear about that 'as much'</i><br /><br />"Why aren't you discussing other human qualities <b>nearly</b> as much?"<br /><br />All the Tiger Woods, Olympic medals, American football posts constitute "not nearly as much"?<br /><br /><i>And yeah, I'm sticking with 'obsession'</i><br /><br />An interest in psychometrics, exceeding yours, is mental ilness?<br /><br /><i>and 'creepy proxy for superiority'</i><br /><br />A belief in the importance of cognitive ability reminds you of a Bela Lugosi character?<br /><br /><i>What about my first two (i.e. my main) points?<br /><br />1. blacks are way more variable than whites or asians - it is not illuminating to compare them to much less variable groups.</i><br /><br />You really weren't clear about that point the first time. I had assumed you meant Asians were the most genetically variable, i.e. that there is more genetic variation between Israelis, Malays, and Mongols than there is between Berbers, Bantus, and Bushmen. <br /><br />I wouldn't know myself, but now that you have asserted that blacks are way more variable than Asians, can you back that up? By more variable, I assume you're talking about greater variations in DNA, but you haven't said if you're including junk DNA or not. I assume that you are. Why?<br /><br /><i>2. Totally different color morphs (not the same as 'markings') and variable shapes are very common in many other organisms even within populations and are rarely valid criteria for separating them into 'races' or 'subspecies'. </i><br /><br />Okay, so don't separate taxons by color. <i>Sciurus vulgaris</i> is still a different animal than <i>Sciurus carolinensis</i>.<br /><br /><i>Humans as a group have relatively little variation.</i><br /><br />Do you believe there is more variation between races of humans than there is between red wolves and coyotes?B322https://www.blogger.com/profile/18257802768718375656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-85288010884743842502010-07-25T22:17:06.682-07:002010-07-25T22:17:06.682-07:00Race is but a social construct?
That's a riot...Race is but a social construct?<br /><br />That's a riot.<br /><br />I can't wait to read the transcripts of the trial involving the professor in Alabama who gunned down her colleagues. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-6209793-504083.html<br /><br />She's a goddamn geneticist, yet a leftist, too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_University_of_Alabama_in_Huntsville_shooting<br /><br />In genetics you must necessarily deal with race.<br /><br />Otherwise how do you classify things?<br /><br />Was she embittered because she was passed over for tenure thanks to the ethnocentrism of colleagues?<br /><br />Or was she a nut case from the beginning?<br /><br />In which case the stress of being denied tenure triggered her attack? Didn't legitimize it, just lead to it happening.Roger Chailletnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-21178927180675736862010-07-25T20:58:43.020-07:002010-07-25T20:58:43.020-07:00"IQ tests were not designed to be compared ac..."IQ tests were not designed to be compared across the populations that take them<br /><br />An admission that groups vary so much that a simple test can't accomodate those differences."<br /><br />Right. The test cannot possibly accommodate the vast cultural and environmental differences. It is only valid for comparing individuals in a specific time and place. This makes sense; you want to keep as much as possible the same so only the individuals themselves vary.<br /><br />You know, I've been called a racist too, for pointing out that if blacks want to catch up, their kids better do their homework. I'm not blaming anyone. But I've worked in 'at risk' communities a lot bringing science education to kids in the early grades and it is incredibly frustrating to watch super-smart black kids fall behind because they are not coming to school rested and prepared. The asian kids nearly always do, and they pull ahead early on. <br /><br />But I've worked with the kids, and I don't think the asian kids are brighter. Not at all.<br /><br />So even in the same school, tests aren't comparable. Otherwise you might as well say rich kids are smarter (and I suspect you do).<br /><br />You are wasting your time. Especially because the groups are simply not genetically comparable. That is, unless you want to compare whites and asians to the specific population of blacks they are most closely related to, then you might find out some things that are interesting. But intelligence? No.<br /><br />And yeah I've read the site, but not in a while. And most of the background reading. I think most of this EP bullshit is silly. Why do you all care so much? (And btw what kind of pervert goes around measuring penises?) It really isn't about differences, it always seems to be about putting the 'races' in some kind of hierarchical order.Isabelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-36618836413127742882010-07-25T20:43:14.296-07:002010-07-25T20:43:14.296-07:00Humans as a group have relatively little variation...<i>Humans as a group have relatively little variation. You are making a big deal about nothing. Again, what is your point? It's pretty silly, really.</i><br /><br />What?!<br /><br />Basically you trying the old "nothing to see here, move on" gambit.<br /><br />If there is little variation in humans, but groups exhibit differences enough for them to be characteristic of those very groups. Then those variations, however small, must be worth looking at.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-14321616430345527012010-07-25T15:51:57.129-07:002010-07-25T15:51:57.129-07:00IQ tests were not designed to be compared across t...<i> IQ tests were not designed to be compared across the populations that take them</i><br /><br />An admission that groups vary so much that a simple test can't accomodate those differences.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-8016701569787786882010-07-25T15:39:32.291-07:002010-07-25T15:39:32.291-07:00Also, the obsession with race and IQ is pretty cre...<i>Also, the obsession with race and IQ is pretty creepy and it always will be.</i><br /><br />Weak, <i>pathetically</i> weak.<br /><br /><i> Why aren't you discussing other human qualities nearly as much?</i><br /><br />What? Have you seen this site before today?<br /><br /><i>And the IQ tests were not designed to be compared across the populations that take them (or across time) anyway so it's invalid</i><br /><br />And you do comedy as well!<br /><br /><i>'intelligence' as a proxy for 'superiority' as far as I can see.</i><br /><br />Yes, as far as <i>you</i> can see. I think the modern world has gone far too far down the road of lauding the somewhat intangible benefits and deferring to (or pretending to) the supposed worldy wisdom of those not blessed with what might be termed 'intelligence'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-37737147964189878342010-07-25T14:41:50.889-07:002010-07-25T14:41:50.889-07:00"Or do you mean something else?"
I didn..."Or do you mean something else?"<br /><br />I didn't say anything about athletics - I said I don't hear about that 'as much' (and I've been reading this blog ad other EP crap for years so I don't need any links, thanks anyway) which is what I said. And yeah, I'm sticking with 'obsession' and 'creepy proxy for superiority' and 'invalid comparisons'. The supposed reasons for doing this are pretty pointless as well.<br /><br />What about my first two (i.e. my main) points?<br /><br />1. blacks are way more variable than whites or asians - it is not illuminating to compare them to much less variable groups.<br /><br />2. Totally different color morphs (not the same as 'markings') and variable shapes are very common in many other organisms even within populations and are rarely valid criteria for separating them into 'races' or 'subspecies'. Humans as a group have relatively little variation. You are making a big deal about nothing. Again, what is your point? It's pretty silly, really.Isabelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-85432006787472806132010-07-25T14:03:47.653-07:002010-07-25T14:03:47.653-07:00And the IQ tests were not designed to be compared ...<i>And the IQ tests were not designed to be compared across the populations that take them (or across time) </i><br /><br />Yet I'm kind of doubting that you would make the same argument say high East Asian SAT scores are invalid here though, even though the reasoning would be identical. You'd probably say that at the least it would be more parsimonious to view them as identical without a particularly pressing argument otherwise. You'd also probably say that the fact that they were reasonably equally predictive across groups counts for something.<br /><br />...<br /><br />Frankly, with all this, the population structure and the structure of means of traits that correlates with this population structure is what it is and whatever you want to call it won't change any of this. The grounds for calling it race and saying that "race is real!" are that the observed structure of the level maps pretty well onto the old race models. There isn't really any other reason for it and not really anything that can be cross applied systematically across biology. There also isn't any reason why this level of structure is "special" or deserves a particular name, but it does explain a larger degree of between group difference than any other level of population structure.Mattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-74427351702283456802010-07-25T14:03:39.605-07:002010-07-25T14:03:39.605-07:00Also, a big problem with calling 'white' o...<i>Also, a big problem with calling 'white' or 'asian' and 'black' roughly equivalent races is that two of those groups are much, much less genetically variable than the other. A biologist working on another species wouldn't do this. They would probably study the 'blacks' more closely than we study them in humans, and divide them into many more groups in order to compare them with asians or whites.</i><br /><br />There may well be more population substructure in Africa than there is in Eurasia, for sure, and probably of larger magnitude. But unless we're actually talking about Khoe-San and Pygmies and some other different African groups (particularly the Central-North Eastern ones), for the purposes of discussion there probably isn't any particuarly significant population substructure in the groups people are talking about as "black" that prevents direct comparison with the 'white' and 'yellow' groups. Check out Tishkoff's studies if you're interested. As to population internal diversity, it's not certain that African populations are more internally diverse on things that aren't selectively neutral, certainly they aren't as diverse as their neutral genes would suggest.<br /><br /><i>Also, the obsession with race and IQ is pretty creepy and it always will be. Why aren't you discussing other human qualities nearly as much?</i><br /><br />There's much discussion of such things, but it often tends to be quite speculative, as there isn't actually that much data and we don't have things like the transracial adoption studies to cite. IQ is also a very well established psychometric, while other psychometrics are a bit more shady. There's still tons of discussion about it even here though.Mattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-77637729667785759452010-07-25T13:00:13.775-07:002010-07-25T13:00:13.775-07:00Also, the obsession with race and IQ is pretty cre...<i>Also, the obsession with race and IQ is pretty creepy and it always will be.</i><br /><br />"Creepy" is the most modern put-downs I've ever heard. Surely you can't mean that students of race and psychometrics remind you of Vincent Price characters...?<br /><br /> <i>Why aren't you discussing other human qualities nearly as much?</i><br /><br />You mean, why aren't iSteve fans into sports enough to talk about differences in athletic ability? Or why aren't paleoconservatives into culture enough to talk about differences in mate selection, the arts, ways ethnic groups view themselves, etc.? Or do you mean something else?<br /><br /><i>And the IQ tests were not designed to be compared across the populations that take them (or across time) anyway so it's invalid - it's an obsession with 'intelligence' as a proxy for 'superiority' as far as I can see.</i><br /><br />Again the implication that Steve Sailer fans aren't concerned enough with athletics. (You've got the wrong blog. It's Dennis Mangan fans who eschew sports.)<br /><br />IQ tests weren't designed with cross-cultural comparisons in mind, but they began to be tested for reliability doing that as early as 1917 (in the infamous Goddard study that Gould loved to misrepresent). They're not too bad. Likewise Flynn began studying the effects of time many decades ago.<br /><br />What demonstrates the validity of IQ tests is their correlation with real-world outcomes - dropout rates, violence, on-the-job accidents, drug addiction, teen-preg. Comparing across cultures is more difficult, because of the dramatically different conditions. <a href="http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/12/smart-fraction-theory.html" rel="nofollow">Smart fraction theory</a> is still pretty interesting.B322https://www.blogger.com/profile/18257802768718375656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-68529755099700685982010-07-25T11:36:06.476-07:002010-07-25T11:36:06.476-07:00"I am sympathetic to the argument that race i..."I am sympathetic to the argument that race is hard to model accurately, and perhaps we need a better way to think of human variance, but to take that to mean that human differences don't exist,"<br /><br />The article did not claim that differences do not exist.<br /><br />Also, a big problem with calling 'white' or 'asian' and 'black' roughly equivalent races is that two of those groups are much, much less genetically variable than the other. A biologist working on another species wouldn't do this. They would probably study the 'blacks' more closely than we study them in humans, and divide them into many more groups in order to compare them with asians or whites.<br /><br />Also color and leaf shape do not figure into definitions of species, let alone subspecies and races, nearly as much as people seem to think. There are often different 'color morphs' even in local populations of plants and animals, and leaf shape is extremely plastic and is rarely used taxonomically. Most of those 'insignificant differences' that taxonomists supposedly see are pretty big if you are actually studying the group.<br /><br />Also, the obsession with race and IQ is pretty creepy and it always will be. Why aren't you discussing other human qualities nearly as much? And the IQ tests were not designed to be compared across the populations that take them (or across time) anyway so it's invalid - it's an obsession with 'intelligence' as a proxy for 'superiority' as far as I can see.Isabelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-33830802742869675732010-07-25T10:23:18.678-07:002010-07-25T10:23:18.678-07:00When everyone's the same race, but intragroup ...<i>When everyone's the same race, but intragroup status is being determined by an intelligence / coordination screen, that happens to be race. For example, almost all of us in the USA are smart enough to know we're safer making fun of Australian Aborigines than Native Americans when talking to strangers, even though we're unlikely to run into Native Americans, because the taboo on trashing Native Americans is part of the informal American coordination.</i><br /><br />There is no such taboo. we can identify full-bloods by sight, but those with concealed Indian ancestry are routinely subjected to joking from their friends. And neither they nor bystanders ever act as if a taboo (or even a milder social norm) is being violated. <br /><br />The fact that there is no taboo can be demonstrated simply by pointing to the <i>Seinfeld</i> episode in which an Indian is portrayed as an unrepentant Indian-giver.<br /><br />The reason for the lack of PC protection for Indians, moreover, is no mystery. Either White Americans gained good title to North America, or title is held by the Indians. Clearly, Jews -- who are largely responsible for the construction of our culture and are entirely responsible for the construction of <i>Seinfeld</i> -- do not fall into either category and cannot recognize the claims of Whites or Indians to the land that American Jews now inhabit and seek to rule. Consequently, both claims must be rejected, and it is open season on both groups of claimants. <br /><br />Indians are just above Whites on the totem pole of victimhood.<br /><br />The Indian narrative can be used as a cudgel against Whites, but ultimately the interests of Indians cannot be granted legitimacy, and they are not.ben tillmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-86400820775934497502010-07-25T09:54:13.543-07:002010-07-25T09:54:13.543-07:00Races get confused because of different types with...<i>Races get confused because of different types within every race. <br />For example, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny Devito look very different. In body type, Arnold has more in common with Lee Haney and Devito has more in common with Gary Coleman. </i><br /><br />Don't overlook the fact that Arnold appears to have significant Neanderthal ancestry.ben tillmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-70136845241044435142010-07-24T15:50:39.852-07:002010-07-24T15:50:39.852-07:00John Carr, I'll give it a shot.
RACE -
Regi...John Carr, I'll give it a shot.<br /><br />RACE - <br /><br />Region, Ancestry, Culturally-influenced Evolution<br /><br />Regional Ancestry as Commonly [some word for "perceived" or "recognized" that starts with an E]<br /><br />Reification of Ancestry, Culture, and [some word for "biology" that starts with an E]<br /><br />So, yeah, I guess I am as lost as you are. Maybe that will get someone's creative juices flowing.B322https://www.blogger.com/profile/18257802768718375656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-43156887519364783042010-07-24T14:54:29.084-07:002010-07-24T14:54:29.084-07:00"Why is it people tend to identify more with ..."Why is it people tend to identify more with race than body type and other traits? Why don't tall whites and blacks primarily consider themselves as 'the tall race'? Or why don't good looking people identify themselves as 'good looking race'? Why don't smart people consider themselves as 'smart race'?" <br /><br />Race means common ancestry -- even if that's a UR-myth. So smart people wouldn't consider themselves a smart race, but a smart group, or a group based on something other than common ancestry. And the smart group often does do this -- as the case with many sneering-at-the-red-neck liberals. <br /><br />So the question is: why do people care about ancestry?<br /><br />If we go back to the race as family equation: why do people tend to identify with their blood relatives. Why do so many adopted<br />kids go on a quest for their biological parents? <br /><br />That's a good question and worth consideration. Talking about a tall race just confuses the issue. But I guess that's the point.Chucknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-87236194720841301092010-07-24T13:59:21.485-07:002010-07-24T13:59:21.485-07:00Why is it people tend to identify more with race t...Why is it people tend to identify more with race than body type and other traits? Why don't tall whites and blacks primarily consider themselves as 'the tall race'? Or why don't good looking people identify themselves as 'good looking race'? Why don't smart people consider themselves as 'smart race'? <br /><br />Maybe there is something about facial racial characteristics which determine how we identify and relate to other people. So, a tall person of short parents identify more with the face of his race than with body types shared amongst different races. He may play ball with other tall people of different races but he may feel most comfortable with people with similar faces, voices, and moods.adsfasdfasdfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-3593249533661620742010-07-24T13:54:40.287-07:002010-07-24T13:54:40.287-07:00Races get confused because of different types with...Races get confused because of different types within every race. <br />For example, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny Devito look very different. In body type, Arnold has more in common with Lee Haney and Devito has more in common with Gary Coleman. <br /><br />And one could say Bill Walton looked more like Kareem Abdul Jabbar--at least physically--than like Dom Delouise. <br /><br />Of course, some races tend to have more of certain body types than other races. <br />So, I think the faces of races matter quite a lot.asdfasdfsfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-50015708824788780682010-07-24T13:06:46.753-07:002010-07-24T13:06:46.753-07:00I was taught that there are five races: Caucasoid...I was taught that there are five races: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Congoid, Capoid, and Australoid. I haven't seen any good arguments against those categories.Baloohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08245765878554696634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-43770379482300332122010-07-24T10:33:41.051-07:002010-07-24T10:33:41.051-07:00o'er, it's /not/ the Washington Examiner, ...o'er, it's /not/ the Washington Examiner, see comments in here:<br /><br />http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/017000.html<br /><br />My bad, & too bad.no easy way outnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-81988879721205030652010-07-24T10:28:37.000-07:002010-07-24T10:28:37.000-07:00Heh, Steve, your idea is catching on. Jared Taylor...Heh, Steve, your idea is catching on. Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, explains race as family, here (in a Washington Examiner piece, no less!): <br /><br />> One's race is one's extended family. Putting the interests of family before the interests of strangers is not hostility to strangers. One can become good friends with strangers but family comes first.<br /><br />http://www.examiner.com/x-43084-DC-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2010m7d20-Interview-Race-realist-Jared-Taylor-declares-the-civil-rights-struggle-was-won-long-ago<br /><br />I think it's a great 'meme'; instantly understandable, matches reality well, acceptable, and you can work with it.no easy way outnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-9563393985988507532010-07-24T08:57:38.252-07:002010-07-24T08:57:38.252-07:00Clark Glymour and I don't like each other.Clark Glymour and I don't like each other.xenopushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11144615583080131307noreply@blogger.com