« Gaianism and Gaianists | Main | Last post was deleted »

June 03, 2009

Comments

It is important to draw distinctions between collectivistic cultures versus non-collectivistic cultures (i.e. Japan VS. the USA).

I think that different evolutionary pressures favored a stronger degree of inter-societal emmeshment in many Asian countries, and this is the primary reason why countries like Japan are more collectivistic.

"How do you fight against smart people groupthink? You have to create an information cascade going in the other direction. The reason people in the HBD community were excited about the James Watson incident is that we hoped it would lead to other prominent smart people agreeing with him, creating an HBD information cascade. But that never happened."

I encourage all HBDers here to read about "preference falsification":

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/287941.php

----

Kuran theorizes that people evaluate their choices based on three utilitarian factors. There is a reputational utility, an expressive utility, and an intrinsic utility. The reputational utility is the amount a certain answer will raise or lower the listener's standing in the community. Expressive utility is the value in letting others know how one truly feels. The intrinsic utility is the degree to which an option fulfills the individual's greatest good.

----

There are serious social effects of preference falsification also. Kuran uses communism as an example of a time when the majority believed differently than their public personas led others to believe. The result was that social change was stifled for decades. When a trigger finally made people feel comfortable in publicizing their beliefs, communism quickly fell. Affirmative action is another issue, according to Kuran, where public personas are often different than private. Anonymous polls routinely show that most Americans are against affirmative action. Yet, the practice persists because few people are willing to endure the horrendous social attacks from the minority who demands the programs. People like Jesse Jackson quickly label as racist those who oppose affirmative action. Recently, the new president of Harvard University found himself in a heated public relations battle. One of the chief complaints against the president was that upon entering office, he did not immediately release a statement praising affirmative action policies. Suddenly, even silence was enough to be branded racist. Kuran notes that the tremendous amount of resources spent defending against claims of racism leads many reasonable people to simply support affirmative action in public.

Because so many people are unwilling to take positions seen as unpopular, there is a role for activism. Kuran states that activists are people who are willing to go against the prevailing norms. Their expressive or intrinsic utilities are enough to allow them to endure social stigma, loss of jobs, and other attacks. Activists make people aware of alternative views. Sometimes, activists create an environment where being honest becomes safer. And activists can actually lead people to change their minds on issues, possibly leading to social change.

----

Much of the science of the last 50 years is riddled with information cascades and groupthink. You mention HBD, global warming, and human nutrition (the problems there go beyond the lipid hypothesis).

String theory may be another one. A few years ago I had a friend who was a PhD physicist outside of academia. He said of string theory, "It's nothing more than pretty math, and it's not testable. But it's so ingrained now that every physicist spends their career climbing down the same rat-hole".

Likewise it took a couple of generations for scientists to believe that ulcers were caused by H. Pylori, but they were vicious to the early proponents. And we've known about the Warburg effect for 70+ years but research on glucose metabolism in cancer has only really been taken seriously recently.

I think someday we will look at much of the "science" that exists now in the same way we look at the snake oil peddled a century ago.

I really think it will be genetics research that will push HBD over the top. Once a gene for intelligence can be found and understood it will be undeniable. I just hope this country isn't damaged beyond repair before this happens?

"IQ is positively correlated with following social norms."

Where is the proof? It has always been my experience that high IQ people are less likely to rely upon social validation than information to substantiate a choice.

Groupthink is a crippling infliction endemic to the world of academia, but that is likely more so because of the peer-review system influencing pecuniary awards, and subsequently, standing in the academic community. I am sure if research funding were not a matter of one's political beliefs, more prominent scientists would stand out for issues like HBD, global warming, etc etc

Very few scientists are unafraid of community censure.

The real question is not how to create a new information cascade but how to teach people not to rely upon others in their decision-making process.

"Their expressive or intrinsic utilities are enough to allow them to endure social stigma, loss of jobs, and other attacks."

I'm currently reading 'Conversations with Arthur Jensen' by Skeptic editor Frank Miele. Jensen seems certainly seems to have a contrarian streak that I guess researchers in unpopular fields must have. He was kicked out of Sunday School class for disagreeing with the teacher. Another London School psychologist, Hans Eysenck had the same tendency to challenge dogma. Growing up in Germany Hans Eysenck confronted a school teacher who claimed Jews were cowards with evidence of the number of medals they won during WWI.

Interestingly Jensen is a huge admirer of Ghandi & his commitment to his ideals (he wrote a book length manuscript about Ghandi as a teenager).

In terms of how he's continued his research despite the hatred directed at him, Jensen notes he probably does have an unusually high threshold for accepting disaproval.

RP-in-TX: In fact, the doctor that discovered H. pylori's link to ulcers was not able to convince the community of the fact until he infected himself by drinking an active culture! This was before a cure was ever produced for the bacteria. Tough guts..

Another example of a scientist not listening to the academia groupthink crap was Dr. Carl Woese, who I singlehandedly credit for the recognition of the domain Archaea.. despite the persecution from all other researchers.

Sadly, both of these examples are from a time before academic funding became inextricably linked to the research world.

Perhaps your best post yet!

Is Barack Obama at heart a rhetorical fluffer?

A fluffer is a hired member of the crew of a pornographic movie whose role on the set is to sexually arouse the male participants prior to the filming of scenes requiring erections.[1] Today, many adult film stars[who?] maintain that fluffers are a thing of the past, needed in the 1970s and 1980s when the crew, shooting on celluloid, needed much more time to prepare a shot. Erectile dysfunction drugs such as Viagra have also played a part in replacing fluffers.

A fluffer also has the duty of keeping adult film stars "cleaned up" in between takes or during photo shoot set-ups, so that the actors or models do not have to move from their positions. These duties are considered part of the makeup department. After setting up the desired angle, the director asks the actors to hold position and calls for the fluffer to "fluff" the actors for the shot.

Here's a sort of related Tyler Cowen post with links to several studies on cognitive bias and IQ:

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/02/papers-i-need-to-read.html

Money quote of quote:

"In 7 different studies, the authors observed that a large number of thinking biases are uncorrelated with cognitive ability"

"IQ is positively correlated with following social norms."

Where did this come from? Sounds unlikely, especially in intellectually rigourous fields like the hard sciences and for individuals beyond 2-3SDs.

Perhaps you meant to say years of education in anti-intellectual fields like soc, anthro, angry studies positively correlates with following social norms. This is especially true for the sad lot of EdDs. "Education" probably has the lowest GRE scores of any graduate program and their programs appear run like the NKVD.

[HS: No, it's very easy to observe that higher IQ people, on average, follow social norms better.]

"Human biodiversity" is racism. Most advocates of "human biodiversity" are not interested that much in the field of human genetics, but are merely interested in political agendas. I am not saying that blacks are not "intellectual inferior" due to genetics. They probably are, but not to the extent that "race realists" say (such as one standard deviation difference due to genetics). I think most people actually believe that, but are not willing to state it to others, or even to themselves, but deep down inside they believe it.

Here is a good policy for HBD, shut up about trying to convince people that certain groups are "inferior." Just try to engage in practical programs where those type of people would not do harm. For example, encourage them to play WoW instead of actually working (giving them a small stipend for shelter, and free health care). This would give them the illusion of gaining status by playing WoW. (Also, WoW is more fulfilling than real work, because by playing it for a long time, you at least have something to show for it such as acquiring more experience points nd better items. A dead end job does not even provide that except more misery.). Deal with the "evil NAMs" with panem et circenses. Keep them away from society and put them in positions where they would not reproduce such as the Japanese "hikikomori."

[HS: This sounds like something David Alexander would write.]

Another example of smart-people group think surrounds AIDS, and the prevalence of HIV/Aids in Africa, and how it really is a gay/IVDU disease.

Here, we see how extremely difficult it is for heterosexual men to get it:

http://depts.washington.edu/hivaids/images/post/post_c5_d01.gif

5/10,000 contacts with an infected partner, for vaginal sex, for the man. And those 5/10k are likely infections involving other STI's. If your penis has an open sore, then your risk level is real. Otherwise, it just isn't.

And here, how the UK/WHO/WB seriously overstate HIV in Africa:

http://www.aliveandwell.org/html/africa/related_aids_africa_truth.html
http://www.pharmharm.com/AfricaIsntDyingofAIDS.html

Sadly, our pathetic silly little species has created an AIDS industry/lobby that overstates the infection rates in the poorest area of the world for reasons of job security.

Other group think involves foreign aid (strongly correlated with making the recipient nation un-develop), "organic" food etc etc. Very annoying stuff.

>"They probably are, but not to the extent >that "race realists" say (such as one standard >deviation difference due to genetics)."

Can you name any who say this is purely due to genetics? Rushton & Jensen suggest group differences may be at least 50% hereditary.

>"Here is a good policy for HBD, shut up about >trying to convince people that certain groups >are "inferior."

Most HBD books like the Bell Curve & academics like Rushton & Jensen suggest people should be treated as individuals. I think if government agencies abandoned the idea of group rights and stopped focussing on different outcomes by ethnicity then there would be less need to look at differences in intelligence or other traits.

I think that was the point of Saletan's recent pieces on Slate about analysing test scores by race.

Posted by: Aki_Izayoi | June 03, 2009 at 11:36 PM

Get a new argument, "Hell Kaiser Ryo." You spout the same nonsense over at Randall Parker's website and you still have no idea how things work with NAMs in the US. "Practical Programs?" That's a fucking joke if I ever heard one...

Posted by: Svendthrift | June 03, 2009 at 11:37 PM


I keep waiting for the heterosexual AIDS epidemic I've heard about for years. Right around the corner...Meanwhile, gays throw a hissy fit if anyone suggest they modify their extremely dangerous behavior. AIDS is the easiest disease in the world to not get.

The WHO said:


"Threat of world Aids pandemic among heterosexuals is over, report admits"
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/threat-of-world-aids-pandemic-among-heterosexuals-is-over-report-admits-842478.html


Now, the title of that article says the risk if "over". But in the article we see something else:


"Dr De Cock, an epidemiologist who has spent much of his career leading the battle against the disease, said understanding of the threat posed by the virus had changed."


So, yeah. Their understanding changed. All those hetros didn't get it. But they sure tried as hard as they could to convince me to not screw while I was in high school/undergrad. Public health types had us convinced that my small town in Canada was overflowing with HIV infected teens and even a BJ without a glove would be the end of us. How stupid.


More on Africa here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/08/aids.health?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews


Posted by: Svendthrift | June 04, 2009 at 12:08 AM


Yeah, even thought they lied and made shit up, they RAISED AWARENESS!

The AIDS scam will be replaced with something soon. AGW is starting to loose steam, Thank God, but it ain't done yet. Too much invested in that lie to let it go easily...

Have you ever asked yourself if you derive any benefit from your "HBD" obsession? Have you ever considered the possibility that most people understand that blacks, are, on average, less intelligent than whites, but have good reasons for not broadcasting this unremarkable insight?

Ask yourself also: if the headline on the NY Times front page tomorrow was "Conclusive Evidence: Blacks One SD Less Intelligent than Whites" how would that make your life change for the better? Think about it.

Steve Sailer once wrote that Democrats exuded the "faint whiff of personal failure". That sounds like a more apt description of HBD obsessives, most of whom seem to be single and, by their own estimation, underemployed. Maybe if you channeled some of the energies you waste harping on your intellectual superiority into more constructive fields of endeavor you'd be better off socially and financially and you'd be more fulfilled.

"Ask yourself also: if the headline on the NY Times front page tomorrow was "Conclusive Evidence: Blacks One SD Less Intelligent than Whites" how would that make your life change for the better? Think about it."

Not really an apt hypothetical because that isn't the HBD position as I understand it. I think the position is that genes & the environment interact to influence abilities. Some of these genes vary in frequency between ethnic groups. So regardless of environmental factors there will be some average differences between groups. Group differences are statistical in nature and do not imply anything about particular individuals.

Possible benefits from acknowledging this?

Educational and economic inequality are huge issues that policy makers seek to understand. Political ideologies and policies should not be based on possibly mistaken empirical claims. For instance, that populations are interchangeable as the EU seems to believe.

Also, if everything is attributed to environmental factors then inequality must be due to some societal unfairness. This obviously causes resentment and people or institutions may get unfairly blamed. Also, to counteract the inequality you get discriminatory policies which are justified on the basis that inequality is purely due to societal unfairness. This erodes individual rights and meritocratic systems.

Also if a genetic basis is acknowledged, it might help increase funding which could lead to gene therapies to help those people who genuinely are disadvantaged.

Professor Flynn wrote in Nature recently:

As Mill points out, when you assert that a topic is not to be debated, you are foreclosing not some narrow statement of opinion on that topic, but the whole spiraling universe of discourse that it may inspire throughout the rest of human intellectual history. Mill thought that only someone so self-deluded as to think his judgment was infallible could wish to circumscribe an unpredictable future in this way.

"String theory may be another one."

String theory isn't necessarily a good example of this. String theory is a sensible idea that doesn't really work and may never work. That doesn't mean it was a waste of time or that it was "wrong". Nobody knew where it was going to go once they started working on it and the theorists themselves would admit as much. Its not like the other methods of resolving quantum field theory and general relativity have been any better. Also, the money spent on string theory is a drop in the bucket to the total DOE/university budget. There are much bigger wastes of money in physics academia than string theory.

"Have you ever asked yourself if you derive any benefit from your "HBD" obsession? Have you ever considered the possibility that most people understand that blacks, are, on average, less intelligent than whites, but have good reasons for not broadcasting this unremarkable insight?

Ask yourself also: if the headline on the NY Times front page tomorrow was "Conclusive Evidence: Blacks One SD Less Intelligent than Whites" how would that make your life change for the better? Think about it."

I agree with this. I think most people already acknowledged that blacks have a lower IQs than whites and this is predominantly caused by genetic differences. Why not just accept it (deep down inside and not broadcast it) and just move on? Why become engrossed in HBD much like a person with Aspergers syndrome is obsessed with a given topic?

Besides, what good would HBD do? Maybe in the future, eugenic embryo selection would be subsidized by governments. Maybe governments would actually engage in policies to shrink the unskilled labor force by telling them to play WoW instead of working? (If you have better ideas (besides protectionism and immigration restriction) to deal with unskilled labor, tell me.)

BTW, I actually respect Richard Lynn as he is contrarian and goes against the heard. That guy is just fearless, and I admire his intrepid hypotheses and his ability not to get intimidated by PC. However, he does not try to broadcast what he says to a wide audience. Instead, people listen to him and call him a "racist." He does not want to broadcast his views to the public, but rather in magazines such as "Occidental Quarterly" and in Psychometrics journals. I just do not respect the political agendas and sentiments that most people who are armed with his research have.

"Smart people groupthink"

Doesn't that mean "smart people peer pressure"? That is, you do stuff you don't really want to do but your hope that others will like more if you do counterbalances common sense?

Hmm. This sounds an awful lot like Kuhn's discussions of paradigms in science. If so, eventually data and experiment will overtake the current position, most likely in a way none of us can anticipate.

My bet is that the IQ part will fade away as people study the other parts of HBD that will matter as they can save lives, like things to cure diseases that tend to be linked to some races/groups of people because of similarity of their genetics. Perhaps a cure for lactose intolerance, favism, hemachromatosis, or any one of a number of genetic disorders. Eventually, to not acknowledge that we're all a little different inside would cause more problems than it's worth. I'd imagine morality would follow suit by simply remembering that it benefits everyone to operate in a way that respects other people.

The other thing that might happen is if some realization comes along to show that there's an optimal level of intelligence, below it or above it causing an assortment of troubles for the individual and or society.

"Have you ever asked yourself if you derive any benefit from your 'HBD' obsession?"

There's essentially no benefit at all, which goes to the heart of the problem. In terms of personal benefit and cost, one is much better off going along with the party line. But society as a whole then suffers.

"if the headline on the NY Times front page tomorrow was 'Conclusive Evidence: Blacks One SD Less Intelligent than Whites' how would that make your life change for the better?"

If HBD were accepted, my life would change significantly for the better. For one thing, I've lost count of the number of extremely incompetent affirmative action black professors, judges, etc. I've had to deal with over the years.

"The reason I don’t put my name on my blog is because of symptoms four and five:

4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, disfigured, impotent, or stupid."

I agree 100%. And typically, people who write the truth about HBD anonymously are labeled "cowards," as if they are somehow being unreasonable. Moreover, if they soft-pedal their claims they are frequently castigated for using "code words."

"Hopefully, bloggers who write about HBD can set the stage for an information cascade that will ultimately work and displace the erroneous HBD-denial groupthink. "

I'm not sure your confidence is justified. Look at evolution. There's been a "cascade" of information. Yet, due entirely to political and religious opposition, only one third of Americans currently accept evolution.

The Marxists have basically made racial egalitarianism a pseudo-religion, replacing divine blasphemy with racism accusations. I hope HBD will become mainstream but even now we see a resolute ability to ignore all solid evidence for HBD.

"I just do not respect the political agendas and sentiments that most people who are armed with his research have."

Well think about the political agendas of people who ignore HBD. Say they're trying to figure out what to do about a rock bottom birth rate in Italy or Japan. If populations are interchangeable it makes no difference who you bring in to replace the local population. But what if they're not?

We know that low IQ correlates with a boatload of social pathologies. Is it acceptable for politicians to be ignoring or suppressing this information?

"I really think it will be genetics research that will push HBD over the top. Once a gene for intelligence can be found and understood it will be undeniable."

It seems to me that just about anything can be denied. There is already overwhelming evidence for HBD, and yet that is denied. People will still be able to argue that race is meaningless and intelligence is meaningless.

Moreover, it's virtually certain that there is more than one gene that controls intelligence. Perhaps there are 50 to 100. You can bet that the situation will be sufficiently muddy so that the HBD-deniers will have an opening.

Good post.

Social learning theory has largely been eclipsed by social cognitive theory, but the fundamentals are still the same.

Searching for self-efficacy and health brings up some interesting links...

I have plenty of examples of groupthink. My list is guaranteed to contain stuff that will enrage or perplex every single person in any given room. (This is why in real life, I mostly keep my opinions to myself):

1.) Darwinian evolution. Evolution happened, of course, but the evidence that the Darwinian mechanism is primarily or even mostly responsible is slim to nonexistant.

2.) Psychic phenomena. They exist, and there have been many well-conducted, replicated experiements that have attested to them.

3.) Lipid hypothesis. HS has explained this.

4.) Anthropogenic global warming. This one I'm not as sure of, not having taken the time to research eveything (it just bores me), but the partisans of AGW behave just like the Darwinists, Pseudo-"skeptics", and every other groupthinker I've ever encountered, so I don't trust them.

5.) Cold Fusion. Again, well designed, replicated experiments have clearly demonstrated the effect. We just don't know what the mechanism is yet. The scientific community is starting to come around on this one, though.

6.)"Governement surpluses are good, government deficits are bad". Government deficits add to private savings (indeed, they are the only way for there to "net" private savings, since all finacial assets sum to zero), and a sovereign currency issuing government in a floating exchange rate regime faces no financial constraints. Virtually every economist out there, whether left, right, or center, does not understand how the modern monetary system works and acts as if we are still in a gold-standard regime.


I suppose I have others, but those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

It intuitively occurs to me that people of average intelligence do conform more, but at the very high end of intelligence you start seeing more of a departure from groupthink. The most intelligent people I know are often considered weird and have pretty divergent opinions.

This is purely anecdotal, of course.

[HS: I agree that there's a tendency towards weirdness among some with extremely high IQ, but not all. Most of the extremely high-IQ people in BIGLAW or hedge funds are pretty conformist.]

"Well think about the political agendas of people who ignore HBD. Say they're trying to figure out what to do about a rock bottom birth rate in Italy or Japan. If populations are interchangeable it makes no difference who you bring in to replace the local population. But what if they're not?"

The importance of this can't be understated. Here in the United States, we are going to go, in the short space of 100 years (1950 - 2050), from a solidly white country to a white-mestizo country. We see how even today, anyone who argues that this might not be good for the country or our children and grandchildren is ridiculed as racist. Europe, with its low birth rates, is going to be looking for immigrants just to keep its population stable in the next 20 years or so. Meanwhile, sub-Saharan Africa is experiences enormous population growth - at rates far exceeding the continent's economic growth rates. To many people, it's a no-brainer: fill European job opportunities with an African labor force, and everyone benefits. Only, in the long run, everyone doesn't benefit. If Europe goes from a solidly white country to a white-black mix, that will surely erode Europe's development in the long run. Of course, there are a number of reasons why this may not happen. But if people were allowed to publicly admit HBD, the chances of this happening would be far, far less than they are.

"1.) Darwinian evolution. Evolution happened, of course, but the evidence that the Darwinian mechanism is primarily or even mostly responsible is slim to nonexistant."

I personally believe in natural selection being the primary mechanism of evolution, but I have serious doubts about abiogenesis (Yes, yes, I know abiogenesis is technically a different subject than natural selection - but both are related to the idea that pure randomness can lead to higher levels of complexity and order.)

Because so many people are unwilling to take positions seen as unpopular, there is a role for activism. Kuran states that activists are people who are willing to go against the prevailing norms. Their expressive or intrinsic utilities are enough to allow them to endure social stigma, loss of jobs, and other attacks. Activists make people aware of alternative views. Sometimes, activists create an environment where being honest becomes safer. And activists can actually lead people to change their minds on issues, possibly leading to social change.

----

Posted by: The Undiscovered Jew | June 03, 2009 at 09:36 PM

Good writing, Jew

"Good writing, Jew

Posted by: Brutus | June 04, 2009 at 11:56 AM"

Er, that was a quote from an article. That is not my writing.

But thanks anyway.

Posted by: Brutus | June 04, 2009 at 11:56 AM

The "activists" today are just cheerleaders.

good post, HS. i suggest the way to reverse the information cascade so that the truth becomes publicly acknowledged by the elites instead of the Great Lie currently motivating their policy preferences and cheap moral posturing is to parlay the whimsical arts of humor, wit, and style.

people will embrace an asshole as long as he's a charming asshole.

I think most people, in their heart of hearts, think that there are racial differences in IQ, that run roughly: Jews, Chinese, whites, blacks, American Indian (includes most so-called Hispanics).
But so what? Publicizing this is going to make people feel really bad.
Affirmative action is a horror, becuase you have low IQ people in positions where they can harm others.
Solution: just drop AA. Let people sort themselves out naturally. There's no need to go around making a huge deal out of racial IQ issues, once you get rid of AA. Just let it happen naturally.

[HS: Affirmative action will NEVER go away so long as HBD is denied, because if HBD isn't true, then this mans that there is massive discrimination against blacks (as evidenced by the unequal outcomes) which must be rectified.]

In other words.....it's just "Little Boxes" as the song or the same title states.

Song OF or OR, duh.

Hey, speakin' of the turth, here's a YouTube video that has MUCH!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m6qC6FCiY0

For example, global warming believers, completely sure of their beliefs (despite the vast majority of believers not being physicists, chemists, meteorologists, or any other type of scientist)

I had to LOL when I read that. Obviously the relevant metric is what the vast majority of "physicists, chemists, meteorologists, or any other type of scientist" believe, not the percent of total "believers" who happen to be professional scientists. Why did you reverse that?

Oh right, because you're trying to pretend that people believe in global warming because they don't have the scientific knowledge or experience to know better. But that's blatantly contradicted by the fact that most who DO have the scientific knowledge and experience believe in it.

So I guess you're best with your text as written, which though LOL-worthy and intentionally misleading, is technically correct.

Tell me this, HS. By what method do you conclude that HBD is true AND that AGW is false? Other than prejudice and believing-the-opposite-of-what-those-guys-believe, I mean.

You think you're THAT smart, really? Smarter than a vast majority of scientists, who've been hoodwinked by "groupthink?" Or are you more like the guy who "knows" that the moon landing was faked, despite all the "groupthink" surrounding that issue?

"Have you ever asked yourself if you derive any benefit from your "HBD" obsession? Have you ever considered the possibility that most people understand that blacks, are, on average, less intelligent than whites, but have good reasons for not broadcasting this unremarkable insight?"

Bullcrap. The assumption of equal intelligence plus the reality of unequal outcomes lays the blame on the wrong factors. Under the current thought regime, every white person is a racist and every black one a victim.

One way of combatting groupthink is to simply tell the truth. Check out this quote from Michelle Obama where she is defending Sotomayor. Is Michelle lying? And should HBDers tell her she is lying--to her face?

I vote yes.

"Michelle Obama told students at a high school graduation that Sotomayor is "more than ready" to be a justice and compared the judge's humble beginnings and high achievement[sic] to the paths taken by her husband[sic] and herself[sic]."

[HS: "More than ready to be Justice," that's meaningless, and not something either verifiable or falsifiable. Obama is only going to appoint leftist judges, so it's really stupid to keep complaining about this.]

"[HS: I agree that there's a tendency towards weirdness among some with extremely high IQ, but not all. Most of the extremely high-IQ people in BIGLAW or hedge funds are pretty conformist.]"

You should have included that proviso in your article. I find it annoying when people say "All X are Y" when there are easily falsifiable examples. "The smarter a person is, the more likely he is to endeavor to behave the way his group expects him to behave." is probably true up to a point, but everyone is a familiar with genius type who like to strike off and defy convention almost for the sake of it. People like Chomsky and Wolfram end up establishing their own groupthink sphere rather than subscribing to an existing one.

The biggest groupthink going in IT is "Best Practices". Seven or eight years ago you wouldn't be caught dead "thinking inside the box". Now the box has been rebranded as "Best Practices" and the higher you are up the IQ chain (to a point) the more likely you are to defer to committee architectures.


"People who speak the truth about HBD are called racists, and that has come to mean the most evil thing you can possibly be. There is direct pressure to conform because people who speak the truth about HBD are often punished with loss of jobs. In the case of people who speak out against global warming, they are now being called "cranks." "

Yeah- and you are drawing dead. There are no cards that are going to come up (short of Helter Skelter) that are going to enshrine HBD in public policy. We just went through this- people voted for squaring the circle. HBD has a permanent majority of the voting public against it. Whatever logical argument you think you are going to muster will wither in the face of what Obama trotted out for NPR in the '90's on Charles Murray.
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/09/barack-obama-on-bell-curve.php

You cant beat that. The only things you can do are:
- effect the same public policy goals via different rationales. That was the point in the first place, right?
- create your own HBD groupthink sphere that is isolated and doesnt have any influence on mainstream thought.

Go back and reread Saletan's waterboarding on Slate. There will always be a reason why your data is wrong. If there wasnt a reason, then its flawed because of who funded it. If its not that then its already been discredited by a chorus of experts. Its not that, then you must have been a racist in the first place for even wanting to study the issue when there are some many more important problems in the world.

You can not win.

I have the scientific experience and I know those who have far more than I. You don’t have high level climate scientists in the private sector. (think government research $) Climate change has got almost nothing to do with anthropogenic sources. Don't worry. This will go away soon. You will soon be hearing a lot less about it. (No one is going to admit they were wrong, any more than paul erlich of J-curve- one man/m^2 by 1980 fame did) It will just sort of go away to be replaced by the next fad that lines the pockets and furthers the agenda’s of it’s benefactors. FEAR NOT FIRE BUT ICE!
seriously

[HS: Affirmative action will NEVER go away so long as HBD is denied, because if HBD isn't true, then this mans that there is massive discrimination against blacks (as evidenced by the unequal outcomes) which must be rectified.]

And let's not forget "disparate impact" and dah dipimisity industry.

"By what method do you conclude that HBD is true AND that AGW is false? Other than prejudice and believing-the-opposite-of-what-those-guys-believe, I mean."

Al Gore dodges debates and nobody shows up to debate Jared Taylor. President Obama burned 9000 gallons of fuel on Earth Day. Windmills still haven't been built off of Cape Cod. HBD deniers live in "nice" areas and send their kids to "nice" schools along. If AGW is true and HBD is false, why don't those that are proponents of those beliefs live like it?

How funny is this? It perfectly describes Sigma's belef that AA will live on forever.

Much Needed Diversity Efforts at the MIT Physics Department

There are more than 90 faculty members in the physics department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Not one is black.

About 16 percent of all undergraduate physics majors at MIT are members of underrepresented minorities. But minorities make up only 3 percent of all graduate students.

The physics department is reaching out in an effort to increase racial diversity. This past February the department sent representatives to the conference of the National Society of Black Physicists in an effort to recruit more black graduate students and faculty. The department has allocated funds to invite black physicists to lecture on campus so they can build relationships with current MIT physics faculty. A program is being considered that will bring black students who have graduated from college with a degree in physics to MIT for a year of post-baccalaureate study and research before they apply to graduate school.

[HS: "More than ready to be Justice," that's meaningless, and not something either verifiable or falsifiable. Obama is only going to appoint leftist judges, so it's really stupid to keep complaining about this.]--HS

Sigma, I would not be complaining about Diane Wood, who's probably 2-3 SD above Sotomayor.

---[HS: "More than ready to be Justice," that's meaningless, and not something either verifiable or falsifiable. Obama is only going to appoint leftist judges, so it's really stupid to keep complaining about this.]--HS

Sigma, I would not be complaining about Diane Wood, who's probably 2-3 SD above Sotomayor--


The latest on La Leya de Sotomayor:

http://hotair.com/headlines/?p=41934

Regarding elitist group think, there is a way to reverse the elite's "bad" immigration policies, since most HBDers want a restriction of unskilled immigration (i.e. most of the evil NAMs):

I'll post this again:

"If you do want to get rid off those evil "NAMs," it is best to appeal to the proles. Also, you have to give them more political power, or a perception of political power. It appears that the disenfranchisement of poor people in the US backfired (from the perspective of middle class people) because it allows the rich to profit largely from value transfer. The rich, much like George Soros who profits from devaluation of currencies, profit from the devaluation of labor brought forth by the decline of world socialism thus enlarging the global labor force. (Yes, world socialism was actually beneficial to the US and developed countries because it is essential de facto protectionism.) Essentially, all the wealthy did was devalue developed nations labor and profit from wage arbitrage because they are able to maintain pricing power in developed nations so they could keep the profit from wages. Also, they employ illegals and stick the costs to the public.

The proles are complacent because they have no political power. If they had political power, people like Pat Buchanan would be the typical Republican and perhaps we have some serious immigration restriction policies. I do not support Pat Buchanan, but the US would be better off if he was President instead of Dubya.

The last thing I want is an ideology that gives even more reasons for the elite to feel they are superior to other people. "HBD" is one of those ideologies. I rather have common populist hatred of immigrants than a bunch of arrogant elitists talk about IQ. The European proles who are part of populist parties do not talk about the low IQ of Africans and Muslims. They just do not like them because it destroys the beloved welfare state. Too bad the the proles in the US do not have something to defend like a generous welfare state from the NAMs.

I do not care whether the IQ thing is true or not. I rather not hear it, and HBD is just racism. But prole "racism" is better than the elitist HBD racism, so I pick ethnonationalism as my preferred form of "racism" instead of HBD."

Half Sigma says he is a three sigma person. I am not disputing this, and there are good reasons (such as the content of his blog posts) to believe this is correct. As a three sigma person, he has high future time orientation. He is able to appreciate arguments that immigration is harmful for society IN THE LONG RUN because it increases the demand for welfare services by importing people who do not have enough earning power, and it also devalues the labor of unskilled nations, and this reduces the tax base. Furthermore, let's not forget that Homo sapiens base their morality on loyality to the in group (see the work of Jonathan Haidt for more). Because of this trait, it is likely that reducing ethnic homogeneity would cause racial hatred and a depletion of social capital.

Proles, by definition, are not three sigma. They do not have high IQs, and they do not have a high future time orientation. Thus, they would not be able to appreciate the former argument (which is used by intelligent paleocons such as Pat Buchanan who do have a high future time orientation.) But Proles are "smart" enough to realize that immigration harms them IN THE SHORT RUN even though they might not realize the long term harms. They know what the (global) unskilled labor market is largely a zero-sum game (despite economists saying this is an example of the "lump of labor" fallacy,) and a job taken by an immigrant is a job that they cannot have. An unemployed unskilled laborer harms all unskilled labors because it reduces the real wage.

The proles do have an incentive to oppose the immigration of the NAMs, but the elites do not since they benefit from an influx of unskilled labor and they could just live in gated communities. It is better to evade smart people groupthink, and appeal to the proles if one is actually serious about restricting immigration.

The "long-run/short-run" distinction is absurd. To experience the "long run" you have to survive the "short-run." "Long-run" thinkers are able to do so because a) they have survived the short-run, and b) their long-runs are guaranteed to be better than the short-run.

This is not the case for all people.

Funny that John Tierney says "The crusade against global warming is another [example of a information cascade]"

The comments to this entry are closed.