tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post5638131892478508804..comments2024-03-22T15:55:34.030-04:00Comments on Evo and Proud: Greece at the crossroadsPeter Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04303172060029254340noreply@blogger.comBlogger73125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-26155507823539068702012-07-09T05:01:39.829-04:002012-07-09T05:01:39.829-04:00Anon wrote:
Chris is smarter than both JayMan and...Anon wrote:<br /><br /><i>Chris is smarter than both JayMan and Razib Khan.</i><br /><br />Let's assume he is. But Aristotle, Archimedes and Newton were smarter than he is. St Augustine and Thomas Aquinas probably were too. Spot the flaws in your wonderful new method of settling scientific disputes? Science is about how well opposing theories fit the data, not how smart the opposing theoreticians are.<br /><br /><i>He's also probably smarter than Greg Cochran. There's nothing exceptionally intelligent about Cochran. None of the views associated with him and that he's taken credit for are original. HBD dorks kiss his ass because they think an academic lends them gravitas and because he argues aggressively and makes snappy remarks in internet debates.</i><br /><br />Let's assume he's smarter than G.C. Smarter than any HBDer, dork or non-dork, on the planet. It doesn't alter the situation in the slightest. In this area of science, he doesn't know what he's talking about. HBDers like G.C., JayMan and R.K. do know what they're talking about. You're someone else who doesn't understand the difference between science and theology.<br /><br />Jprezy87 wrote:<br /><br /><i>Chris -- Congratulations! You're the most right-wing guy in this whole debate!! You're the only person among these HBD blowhards who recognizes the benefits of free trade, globalization, and the spread of capitalism to the third world!</i><br /><br />Thanks for that. I gives me a chance to go green and recycle a previous comment to C.C.:<br /><br />I take this back: "a half-wit drunk on the sound of his own rhetoric." You are a half-wit, but it's not your own rhetoric you're drunk on. You reek of neo-cognac or bRandy or some other crypto-Marxist / libertarian rot-gut. Memetic cirrhosis must be another example of what you mean by "very healthy".<br />===<br /><br />Back to drooling over ATLAS SHRUGGED, Prezy. Come back and discuss HBD when you're a grown up.Vradixnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-64404951666860832912012-07-07T10:57:11.039-04:002012-07-07T10:57:11.039-04:00Chris,
Congratulations! You're the most rig...Chris, <br /><br /> Congratulations! You're the most right-wing guy in this whole debate!! You're the only person among these HBD blowhards who recognizes the benefits of free trade, globalization, and the spread of capitalism to the third world!<br /><br /> Sean, <br /> Europe adopting the Euro was a horrible move and not just because it benefits the "elites" (which many Socialist policies ironically end up doing) but because putting a WHOLE CONTINENT under one currency is never a good idea, there's too much that can go wrong..Jprezy87https://www.blogger.com/profile/14933381781687442194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-6350793388392194032012-07-06T15:13:25.697-04:002012-07-06T15:13:25.697-04:00Nice article on Mundell anon.
"The idea that...Nice <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/26/robert-mundell-evil-genius-euro" rel="nofollow">article on Mundell</a> anon.<br /> <b>"The idea that the euro has "failed" is dangerously naive. The euro is doing exactly what its progenitor – and the wealthy 1%-ers who adopted it – predicted and planned for it to do. [...] And when crises arise, economically disarmed nations have little to do but wipe away government regulations wholesale, privatize state industries en masse, slash taxes and send the European welfare state down the drain."</b> Bankers ramp.Seannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-11137260845944918882012-07-06T13:09:56.167-04:002012-07-06T13:09:56.167-04:00Robert Mundell, evil genius of the euro
http://www...Robert Mundell, evil genius of the euro<br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/26/robert-mundell-evil-genius-euroAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-73077081994925603442012-07-06T06:00:17.845-04:002012-07-06T06:00:17.845-04:00If you were wiser you'd have recognized the li...<i>If you were wiser you'd have recognized the lion's claw when you first read JayMan. You are a rabbit, at best. But JayMan appears not to be hungry, i.e. he suffers fools gladly. If you'd tried theologizing at WestHunt or the Discover mag blog, you might have discovered what it feels like to be a rabbit in a hungry lion's jaws.</i><br /><br />Chris is smarter than both JayMan and Razib Khan. I believe JayMan is non-white.<br /><br />He's also probably smarter than Greg Cochran. There's nothing exceptionally intelligent about Cochran. None of the views associated with him and that he's taken credit for are original. HBD dorks kiss his ass because they think an academic lends them gravitas and because he argues aggressively and makes snappy remarks in internet debates.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-55442204241461951362012-07-06T05:06:55.230-04:002012-07-06T05:06:55.230-04:00JayMan wrote:
Every now and then on HBD blogs, we...JayMan wrote:<br /><br /><i>Every now and then on HBD blogs, we get someone like you. That is, someone who questions the validity of HBD, who is usually ignorant of the evidence for human biodiversity (sometimes innocently, as it apparently is the case with you—but other times, wantonly), and who repeats the same tired old arguments against it. While such skepticism is proper, and indeed to some degree necessary, if done without a reasonable grasp of the evidence, it leads to tiring discussion and re-discussion.</i><br /><br />Do you know the story of Newton and Bernoulli, Chris? "I recognize the lion from his claw"? If you were wiser you'd have recognized the lion's claw when you first read JayMan. You are a rabbit, at best. But JayMan appears not to be hungry, i.e. he suffers fools gladly. If you'd tried theologizing at WestHunt or the Discover mag blog, you might have discovered what it feels like to be a rabbit in a hungry lion's jaws. Or a smoking spot of grease on the floor.<br /><br /><i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations" rel="nofollow"><br />IQ and the Wealth of Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</a> (catch it now while it's in its current, uncensored form)<br /></i><br /><br />The School-o'-Gould still hard at work. When theology meets reality, the only option, for the devout, is suppress reality.Vradixnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-8193560625047997872012-07-06T05:02:15.143-04:002012-07-06T05:02:15.143-04:00Chris Crawford wrote:
To summarize: genetics is n...Chris Crawford wrote:<br /><br /><i>To summarize: genetics is nowhere near the only thing affecting intelligence, and may not even be the primary thing affecting intelligence.</i><br /><br />To summarize: you're confusing science with theology and yourself with the Pope. These questions have been studied for a long, long time, but what does that matter? Chris C is here to set psychometrics straight with some <i>a priori</i> reasoning spun from the bottomless resources of his own ignorance, arrogance, and misunderstanding. The frightening thing is that the west has been run for decades by people who are, at best, as ignorant and arrogant as you are. I can't say what our masters are at worst, coz of those imported thought-crime-law memes you refuse to address.<br /><br />Anyway, here's a book recommendation for you, Chris: <i>The g-Factor</i>, by Chris Brand. It's not long and it's available on-line. It won't increase your knowledge of psychometrics and intelligence: it will give you some. N.B. It is v. "controversial" and cost Chris Brand his post at Edinburgh university. Another example of memetic "butt-kicking" in over-achievement-enriched Britain. I won't ask whether you think that was "very healthy", coz I know you don't engage with ungentlemanly folk who ask inconvenient questions.<br /><br /><i>My central point here is that I think you place too much weight on IQ. Human cognitive performance is immensely complex and most assuredly multi-dimensional; any attempt to reduce it to a single number necessarily oversimplifies.</i><br /><br />Astonishing. You produce it like Moses unveiling the Ten Commandments, as tho' you expect people to fall to their knees in awestruck worship of your intellect and insight! Rather than yawning at something heard from the School-o'-Gould countless times over many decades. To repeat: science is not theology and you are not the Pope. Or Moses.<br /><br /><i>It offers some mildly unconventional suggestions. And it pays no heed to concepts akin to IQ. I see cognitive performance as primarily a matter of good mental habits, not innate mental superiority.</i><br /><br />Science is not theology. You cannot conduct science by <i>a priori</i> reasoning and <i>ex cathedra</i> pronouncement. If you do, reality sooner or later gives you a thorough butt-kicking. As immigration-boosters like you will learn.<br /><br /><i>The only difference between cheering for your football team and cheering for your country is that football teams don't kill people.</i><br /><br />Yes. The only difference between non-murderers and murderers is that non-murderers don't kill people. And the only difference between you and JayMan is that you don't know what you're talking about. <br /><br />cont.Vradixnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-74695023950050519912012-07-05T16:34:03.088-04:002012-07-05T16:34:03.088-04:00The IQ discussion is getting nowhere and off topic...The IQ discussion is getting nowhere and off topic. Give it a rest please.<br /><br />The path Greece takes depends on whether the country still sees itself as a national community. So far the political class have been bought out by global capitalism, all the while claiming their actions are motivated by a modern ethic of inclusion and acceptance.Seannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-72857913794699175062012-07-05T14:13:28.970-04:002012-07-05T14:13:28.970-04:00(continued from above):
This suggests once again ...(continued from above):<br /><br />This suggests once again that our differences are minor. I have long and loudly asserted the importance of genetics in human cognitive performance; your continuing argumentation with me suggests that you see genetics as determining a very high percentage of human cognitive performance. Perhaps an explicit statement from you on this question would dissolve our disagreement.<br /><br />However, there does remain a fundamental objection that I have raised that you have not responded to: the huge difference between "intelligence" as you use the term and "cognitive performance". Your concern is narrower than mine: you concern yourself with only three things: 1) a score on a test; 2) scientific achievement; and 3) gross lifetime income. These are good first approximations of cognitive performance, but they ignore a great deal. For example, consider Jesus Christ, Gautama Buddha, Confucius, Vincent Van Gogh, Socrates, and suchlike. Not one of these persons did well on the second and third items, and from what we do know about them I think it likely that their scores on IQ tests would not be high. Their titanic achievements did not arise from talents in spatial reasoning or verbal intelligence; they represent cognitive talents unmeasured by IQ tests. <br /><br />In particualar, IQ tests are quite blind to social reasoning skills, and such cognitive skills are of immense importance in human evolution. One of the simplest manifestations of such talent is the ability to detect deception in others -- a talent beyond the ken of IQ tests.<br /><br />This brings me to the core objection I have to the misuse of IQ: it is a narrow and culturally blinkered assessment of cognitive talent. Sure, it's good for predicting who will be good scientists and who will likely get rich -- but it doesn't tell us who will lead a happy life, who will be a good spouse, who will raise children who are contributing members of society, who will become a great artist, a good citizen, a virtuous person, or a criminal. It's a one-dimensional measurement of a multi-dimensional function.<br /><br />You haven't yet responded to my point regarding mental modules. I consider this concept to be of profound imporantance in evaluating the signficance of IQ. I would very much like to hear your reactions to the comment as well as to the "History of Thinking" hyperdocument to which I linked earlier.Chris Crawfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14926445098765433310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-54033048129187960412012-07-05T14:12:46.554-04:002012-07-05T14:12:46.554-04:00JayMan, here are my comments on the first readings...JayMan, here are my comments on the first readings to which you link:<br /><br />1. Steve Hsu, Horsepower matters; psychomtrics works.<br />Content: Demonstrates that high IQ scores correlate with future scientific success<br />Reaction: well, duh! No suprise in this; a test of spatial and verbal reasoning should do a pretty good job of detecting future scientific success. But is future scientific success the only measure of human mental talent, or even the primary measure of human mental talent?<br /><br />2. Steve Hsu. Do advanced education and a challenging career make you smarter?<br />Content: Contradicts the hypothesis that high IQ predicts future professional success. Two test groups with similar IQs have very different career results.<br />Reaction: Odd that such a study would be used to support claims of the importance of IQ. Perhaps there is still correlation, and this piece serves only to highlight the fact that the correlation coefficient is well below 1.0.<br /><br />3. Charles Murray: IQ and economic success<br />Content: demonstrates correlation between IQ and economic success. Explores many other factors affecting economic success, especially environmental factors using data on siblings.<br />Reaction: There are many methodological oddities about this report, oddities that raise my suspicions. For example, why did the author divided IQ into five classes when he could more reliably have calculated the correlation coefficient? Why does he use median income rather than mean income? Why does he not present sample standard deviations for the data? It is impossible to assess the significance of his results when he doesn't present the statistical significance of his data. I don't trust an author who presents lots of numbers but leaves out some of the most important numbers.<br /><br />4. Bryan Caplan: Is Greed in the Genes?<br />Content: IQ heritability explains only one-third of income heritability. Suggests that greed heritability might explain the other two-thirds of income heritability.<br />Reaction: While the hypothesis seems promising, let's not overlook the well-established fact that high-income families can provide their children with educations that promote future income, as well as social connections that promote high income. George W. Bush provides us with an excellent example of a low-IQ individual who enjoyed high income due almost entirely to family social factors.<br /><br />5. Rushton and Jensen, Race and IQ: A Theory-Based Review of the Research in Richard Nisbett’s<br />Intelligence and How to Get It<br />Content: this is an excellent refutation of Nisbett's clains that heritability plays no role in intelligence. The authors provide detailed, point-by-point analysis of the Nesbitt's major claims, demonstrating in each case that his presentation is flawed.<br />Reaction: I was much impressed with the thoroughness of the material, and above all by the statistically sound presentation of evidence. The paper disabused me of a few minor misconceptions. However, I found nothing in it that challenged my overall impressions about the role of IQ and its heritability. Rushton and Jensen explicitly declare that their hypothesis sees genetics and environment having roughly equal importance in determining IQ. ("The defining difference between the two explanations—an approximately 50% genetic-50% environmental etiology for the nature + nurture hereditarian view versus an effectively 0% genetic-100% environmental etiology for culture-only theory—is whether any significant part of the group differences is genetic."). This is entirely consistent with my own views; I had previously mentioned a rule of thumb putting the weightings at two-thirds for environment and one-third for genetics. I cannot recall you ever explicitly declaring your own opinion of the weighting factors. I assume that we are not in disagreement here.Chris Crawfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14926445098765433310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-41300798584172254072012-07-05T13:48:46.524-04:002012-07-05T13:48:46.524-04:00Chris,that's the prejudice of nounism you comp...Chris,that's the prejudice of nounism you complained about in <a href="http://www.erasmatazz.com/TheLibrary/TheMind/HowToThink/OperationalApproach/OperationalApproach.html" rel="nofollow">Operational Approach to Reality</a>) No ethical system says it's wrong to kill. The laws are against killing 'murderously'. (Oakshotte).<br /><br />Anyway, Obama opposed the Iraq war.Seannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-47848904760965986972012-07-05T09:01:39.867-04:002012-07-05T09:01:39.867-04:00(cont'd from part 1):
For this one, I can onl...(cont'd from part 1):<br /><br />For this one, I can only recommend reading the book. Environment-only theories of the origin of racial differences in IQ have a hard time explaining their <i>global</i> consistency:<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Global_Bell_Curve" rel="nofollow"> The Global Bell Curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia </a><br /><br />And after you've read that, look at these:<br /><br /><a href="http://lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm" rel="nofollow"> The Smart Fraction Theory of IQ and the Wealth of Nations</a><br /><a href="http://lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft2.htm" rel="nofollow"> Smart Fraction Theory II: Why Asians Lag</a><br /><br />And then check this out:<br /><br /><a href="http://personal.lse.ac.uk/Kanazawa/pdfs/PAID2008.pdf" rel="nofollow"> How to explain high Jewish achievement:The role of intelligence and values</a><br /><br />There's one more I'd give you, but I don't have a free link. See here if you have access to a university library: <br /><br /><a href="http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ895172&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ895172" rel="nofollow">IQ Differences between the North and South of Italy: A Reply to Beraldo and Cornoldi, Belacchi, Giofre, Martini, and Tressoldi</a><br /><br />(cont'd part 3)JayManhttp://jayman.blog.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-75046248606775332412012-07-04T23:51:22.768-04:002012-07-04T23:51:22.768-04:00Peter,
OK despite three attempts part 2 of my com...Peter,<br /><br />OK despite three attempts part 2 of my comment is not showing up? Is there something wrong?JayManhttp://jayman.blog.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-19801001436859303762012-07-04T23:24:27.380-04:002012-07-04T23:24:27.380-04:00A July 4th thought re post-nationalism:
The only ...A July 4th thought re post-nationalism:<br /><br />The only difference between cheering for your football team and cheering for your country is that football teams don't kill people.Chris Crawfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14926445098765433310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-57550400876939806292012-07-04T18:05:47.254-04:002012-07-04T18:05:47.254-04:00Chris,
I think current technological trends will ...Chris,<br /><br />I think current technological trends will result in the complete automation of certain tasks that will greatly reduce the number of people employed in many field. Martin Ford's book 'The Lights in the Tunnel' was instructive in this regard. Even if the jobs can be done by people with a lower IQ, only those with a high IQ will succeed in getting them. There is simply no requirement for immigration into developed countries, as the pool of jobs is shrinking. New jobs created in the future will not be preformed by humans first and ten gradually automated. They will be automated immediately. <br /><br />I agree with you that good mental habits may be even more important than IQ in explaining the scientific and engineering advances in the west in the past 500 years. However these are just as heritable as IQ, in my opinion. Therefore, they are subject to the laws of evolution. Everybody knows certain mental habits are conducive to being successful in life and this has been the case for along time. If these skills could be so easily taught everybody would have them. But only a small fraction does because they are genetic to a certain extent.S. Bradynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-45920646424333848472012-07-04T16:38:55.128-04:002012-07-04T16:38:55.128-04:00Shakespeare?
I have noticed that successful and o...Shakespeare?<br /><br />I have noticed that successful and obviously intelligent people tend to object to the idea their mental efficiency is not the result of free self directing action and personal responsibility. <br /><br />I suppose <i>believing</i> that concepts akin to IQ are unimportant in the differences between themselves and most other people is indeed the earmark of a intellectually gifted person in our culture. I don't know if that is a just a side effect of selection for agreeableness (<a href="http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/03/taming-wild-animals/ratliff-text/2" rel="nofollow">'They didn't select for a smarter fox but for a nice fox, says Hare. But they ended up getting a smart fox'</a>.) or if it is an example of freeing up mental resources by abandoning self deception through integrity, as you claim in 'How to Think'. <br /><br />Reading your sincere and well meant critique about Israel's strategy reinforces me in a belief that smart people do indeed tend to be temperamentally 'nice', and recoil at the harsh cardinal principle of strategy: concentrate force against weakness.<br /><br />Yes Israel faces a problem, but they are implementing a long term solution, see <a href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_isrorgs.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a>. <b>"Oded Yinon's "A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s," which appeared in the World Zionist Organization's periodical Kivunim (Directions) in February 1982. Yinon had been attached to the Foreign Ministry, and his article undoubtedly reflected high-level thinking in the Israeli military and intelligence establishment. [...] militant destabilization of Israel's neighbors and Palestinian expulsion. [...] Yinon called for Israel to bring about the dissolution of regional Arab states and their fragmentation into a mosaic of ethnic and sectarian groupings. He believed that this would not be a difficult undertaking because nearly all the Arab states were afflicted with internal ethnic and religious divisions. In essence, the end result would be a Middle East of powerless mini-states that could in no way confront Israeli power."</b><br /><br />The US will smash Iran just like Iraq. The Palestinians will be expelled a couple of decades hence.Seannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-71916590665298836992012-07-04T13:56:20.453-04:002012-07-04T13:56:20.453-04:00Sean, I'm not saying the England lacked world-...Sean, I'm not saying the England lacked world-shaking thinkers, I'm saying that its per-capita fraction of such thinkers was not significantly greater than that of other Northern European countries. This is a judgement call of such complexity that I'll grant that it is not readily argued.<br /><br />I don't believe that IQ means much about cognitive performance. I attribute my successes to many factors: hard work, intense intellectual integrity, luck, a good education, parents who urged me to take chances, lots and lots of reading, and broad curiosity. IQ doesn't address any of these things. I do, however, attribute my many failures to cognitive lapses, but few of THOSE can be attributed to the kinds of things that IQ measures, either.<br /><br />I have assembled a number of essays in a section of my website called <a href="http://www.erasmatazz.com/TheLibrary/TheMind/HowToThink/HowToThink.html" rel="nofollow">How To Think</a>. It offers some mildly unconventional suggestions. And it pays no heed to concepts akin to IQ. I see cognitive performance as primarily a matter of good mental habits, not innate mental superiority.Chris Crawfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14926445098765433310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-29393344649926028852012-07-04T13:17:32.880-04:002012-07-04T13:17:32.880-04:00Chris, Aristotle's philosophy was contemplativ...Chris, Aristotle's philosophy was contemplative. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method#Francis_Bacon.27s_eliminative_induction" rel="nofollow">Francis Bacon</a> made the first (and still one of the best) statements of the scientific method. He was another sign that England lacked world shaking thinkers in this period, and that what happened in England over the next 200 years was a coincidence eh?<br /><br />Given your M.S. in physics and impressive achievements you must have an IQ of at least 140.Seannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-8618893277020646342012-07-04T11:48:24.594-04:002012-07-04T11:48:24.594-04:00I'd also like to make some general comments ab...I'd also like to make some general comments about the heavy reliance on IQ in your statements here, in your blog, and in the other HBD stuff I've seen. <br /><br />First off, I must correct my earlier misuse of the term "heritability", which is the magnitude of the genetic contribution to variance within a population and in a specific environment. That last phrase "in a specific environment" is the kicker. My original claim was that the genetic component of intelligence was, very roughly only about one-third, with family and play environment each contributing another third. There is nothing in this rule of thumb that is contradicted by the claim that heritability of IQ is 0.8 or 0.9. We also know that fetal environment and childhood nutrition exert big effects on intelligence. To summarize: genetics is nowhere near the only thing affecting intelligence, and may not even be the primary thing affecting intelligence.<br /><br />My central point here is that I think you place too much weight on IQ. Human cognitive performance is immensely complex and most assuredly multi-dimensional; any attempt to reduce it to a single number necessarily oversimplifies. <br /><br />In particular, I refer you to the concept of "mental modules" from evolutionary psychology. This concept denies the very notion of "general intelligence" that underlies IQ. Instead, it sees the brain as a collection of mental modules, each of which addresses a particular environmental problem faced by our hunter-gatherer ancestors. There is no reason why ability in one mental module should be correlated with ability in any other mental module, and in fact there is plenty of evidence of differences here.<br /><br />My impression is that IQ tests do a great job of testing one of the mental modules, spatial reasoning, and a pretty good job on logical inference (a subset of another module), and middling job on the linguistic module. But they completely miss the social reasoning module. This is why I have little faith in the value of IQ as a measure of general intelligence. <br /><br />Lastly, you've many times urged me to consult your blog, and I've spent some time over the last few days complying. Now it's my turn: I suggest that you have a look at a hyper document I wrote about ten years ago entitled <a href="http://www.erasmatazz.com/TheLibrary/TheMind/HistoryofThinking/HistoryThinking.html" rel="nofollow">A History of Thinking</a>. It offers a radically different explanation of how the West made its sudden jump in the early modern period. The branching structure is rather tangled and much of the material cannot be accessed from the top down -- you have to follow links inside each page. I'm still working on cleaning up the structure. But I think you'll find the argument interesting. I zero in on pre-Classical Greece as the focal point of the radical shift that led to the Industrial Revolution.Chris Crawfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14926445098765433310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-5101005582701553042012-07-04T11:19:52.632-04:002012-07-04T11:19:52.632-04:00Wow! The freshet of comments provides far too much...Wow! The freshet of comments provides far too much good stuff for me to address properly, so I'll confine myself to a few pecks at points, and a general observation.<br /><br />JayMan, I have spent some time looking over your blog, but it would take far too much time to read everything. You suggest that I read it, but a random sampling wasn't very informative. Perhaps you could suggest particular pieces?<br /><br />Additionally, while your blog contains a great many interesting speculations, its sourcing seems weak to me. That is, there aren't many citations of peer-rviewed papers, and some of the strongest citations are of uncontroversial points. I'm not claiming that your blog posting are all wrong; rather, my point is that your blog does not provide compelling evidence; I would instead characterize it as "well-informed speculation".<br /><br />This brings me to one of my general points: the lack of diversity of the HBD stuff I've read. It's ironic that most of the HBD stuff examines tiny differences in IQ while giving short shrift to the vast cultural, economic, and historical differences at work. Yes, such factors are considered, but usually the focus is on using such factors as explanations for differences in IQ. Why invoke an intermediate variable (IQ) when instead the many other factors provide better explanations of behavior. <br /><br />Back to some specifics:<br /><br /><i>That their claims are "controversial" is irrelevant. All that is relevant is whether they have the facts on their side.</i><br /><br />The chain we were arguing concerned my statement that the claims were controversial, a statement you denied. Let us consider the matter of controversiality resolved and move on. You claim that "they have the facts on their side" but there are plenty of reputable scientists who disagree with your claim. That's my point.<br /><br />The piece you recommended regarding historical shifts in IQ struck me as most unreliable. After all, IQ is formally defined to be a score from a test. Since the test wasn't devised until the early 20th century, any claims regarding IQ prior to that time must rely on proxies, none of which are mentioned in the abstract. It seems to me that the reliability of such proxies is a question of overwhelming importance. <br /><br /><i> If you follow the chain of references linked in my blog post, you'll see that the heritability of IQ approaches .8 or .9,</i><br /><br />I pored over the post you cited (" which I discuss as part of my own hypothesis about political attitudes and fertility") and found no such chain. There were a ton of links, but I couldn't find anything that supported your statement. Have you sent me on a wild goose chase?<br /><br /><i>Please see my blog. The evidence is there.</i><br /><br />"Please see the Internet. The evidence refuting your blog is there." ;-) Perhaps a little more specificity would be of utility? <br /><br />You state the inner-city blacks are not poorly nourished. I think you mistake weight for nourishment. Must I really find references for the well-known fact that the inner city has few sources of fresh fruit and vegetables? Or the many discussions of poor nutrition among inner-city children, or the school food programs meant to provide them with proper food, or the amount of fat in the inner-city diet?<br /><br />In regard to a hypothetical genetic preference for Beethoven over Bach, you rightly point out that I have no evidence to disprove the existence of such a preference. You got me. So, please show me the evidence FOR that gene. If you can't provide such evidence, perhaps we should let Mr. Occam arbitrate the matter -- which he'll surely do in my favor.Chris Crawfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14926445098765433310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-81922101971561410592012-07-04T09:49:23.478-04:002012-07-04T09:49:23.478-04:00I second Chris' observation that the US is ben...I second Chris' observation that the US is bent on destroying Europe and pushing mulitculturalism on it! America is a Masonic creation. It is the seat of world revolution. What controls America is the Progressive Northeast. Didn't America start and preserve and act in the Serbian Airwar. It bombed Serbia back into the Stone Age because no nation can be homogenous. The Serbian Airwar could not have occured or won without American superior airpower. This is an historical proof of what Chris pointed out. America is the seat of world revolution.<br /><br />Here is an article <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/greece-present-debt-inspectors-alarming-data-095944151--finance.html" rel="nofollow">Greece presents debt inspectors alarming data</a>.<br /><br />It is about Greece can not handle the austerity package and that the demands have to be watered down. After knowing that the Greeks fudged the data to get in the EU, why would anyone trust the Greeks anymore. The Greeks would just continue as usual. <br /><br />Right now the unemployment rate in Greece is 22%. Why is there 3 million immigrants in Greece? Kick them out! Wouldn't the unemployment rate be reduced? Our would America bomb Greece back into the Stone Age as it did Serbia?W.LindsayWheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06236577164127792348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-58472999836574837472012-07-04T09:02:24.757-04:002012-07-04T09:02:24.757-04:00From a LA Times review of Murray's book:
http:...From a LA Times review of Murray's book:<br />http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/12/entertainment/la-ca-charles-murray-20120212<br />(...)<br /><i>The primary problem with "Coming Apart" is that Murray's focus on a cultural divide among whites obscures something else: The destruction of values, economic sectors and entire occupational classes by automation and outsourcing. And don't forget the massive movements of cheap legal and illegal immigrant labor: This factor sets up a classic conflict, the ethnically split labor market, in which you find unionized working-class whites pitted against minority newcomers who are willing to work for less (sometimes "off the books" and under abysmal conditions).<br /><br />For Murray, immigration is evidence that "America had jobs for everyone who wanted to work." He's rightly depressed by Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam's research findings of an inverse relationship between ethnic diversity and strong civic culture, but Murray can't — or won't — credit as a causal factor the race-to-the-bottom wage spiral propelled by cheap immigrant labor.</i><br />(...)icrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11379038875116266168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-68058514682701987892012-07-04T08:39:15.401-04:002012-07-04T08:39:15.401-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.icrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11379038875116266168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-71812426092482736072012-07-04T08:29:32.934-04:002012-07-04T08:29:32.934-04:00I seem to have sent the comments off on a tangent....I seem to have sent the comments off on a tangent. Chris is unimpressed by Clark or the heterozygous advantage hypothesis of Tay Sachs so lets all drop the genetics stuff and get back on track about Greece in the EU.<br /><br />Chris, the activities of the US's Paris embassy in ensuring subservience to Big Other are not taking place in cloud cuckoo land, but in a democratic west European nation. The aim is to overcome nationalism and ensure that France conforms with America's conceptions of what is in its best interest. I don't see how the apparent intentions of the US toward France are at all compatible with it remaining in existence as a nation. <br /><br />As someone who designs strategy games you may be interested to know that the EC is the political counterpart of an American alliance known as NATO. In the 80's Spanish premier Calvo-Sotelo made it clear Spain would not stay in NATO if it was refused admission to the EEC (as the EC was then called). Spain and Greece were only admitted to the EEC after they joined NATO. Papandreou became leader of Greece and suddenly switched to being anti to pro NATO. Felipe González Márquez in Spain did the same when Chancellor Kohl openly told González that EC membership was linked to NATO membership. Wilson's dropped the anti EEC stance of the Labour within a month of becoming British premier.<br /><br />Obviously the politicians are subject to huge pressure by civil servants who are totally committed to the European union policy which the US has pushed since the 50's. British Foreign Office mandarin Sir Anthony Parsons said in the 80's (when the opposition Labour party's policy was withdrawal from NATO and the EC that many civil servants would walk out before they implemented such a policy.<br /><br />Italy is being run by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Monti" rel="nofollow">Mario Monti</a> who is an EU technocrat not a elected politician. Another civil servant Panagiotis Pikrammenos was considered suitable to be prime minister of Greece in May–June 2012. He and the rest of the Greece's technocrats would scream that the country was heading for catastrophe if any government was began to toy with the idea of leaving the EU.. <br /><br />The US sees other counties as pawns in its real life power game. It would be asking a lot of a small country like Greece to be the one to tell the US and its satalites (the rest of the West) to get lost.<br /><br />Turkey is in NATO so it is going to get into close association with the EU. Greece's reaction to 'Macedonia' suggests that Turkey's semi membership of the EU might lead to serious disillusionment with the EU in Greece. In my opinion a combination of chronic severe economic crisis and Turkish accession would be required before Greece even considered leaving the EU.Seannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-83204085533714964302012-07-04T08:04:26.936-04:002012-07-04T08:04:26.936-04:00Sean, you quoted Enoch Powell. 'Nuff said.
I...<i>Sean, you quoted Enoch Powell. 'Nuff said.</i><br /><br /><br />I don't think Enoch Powell can be so easily dismissed:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_Powell#Early_years_and_education<br />(...)<br /><i>Powell was a pupil at King's Norton Boys' School before moving to King Edward's School, Birmingham, where he studied classics (which would later influence his 'Rivers of Blood' speech), and was one of the few pupils in the school's history to attain 100% in an end-of-year English examination. He studied at Trinity College, Cambridge, from 1930 to 1933...</i><br /><br /><i>While at University, in one Greek prose examination lasting three hours, he was asked to translate a passage into Greek. Powell walked out after one and a half hours, having produced translations in the styles of Plato and Thucydides. For his efforts, he was awarded a double starred first in Latin and Greek, this grade being the best possible and extremely rare. As well as his education at Cambridge, Powell took a course in Urdu at the School of Oriental Studies, now the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, because he felt that his long-cherished ambition of becoming Viceroy of India would be unattainable without knowledge of an Indian language.[5]<br />[edit]Pre-War career<br /><br />After graduating from Cambridge, Powell stayed on at Trinity College as a Fellow, spending much of his time studying ancient manuscripts in Latin and producing academic works in Greek and Welsh.[6]:18–20[9] In 1937, he was appointed Professor of Greek at the University of Sydney aged 25 (failing in his aim of beating Friedrich Nietzsche's record of becoming a professor at 24). Among his pupils was future Prime Minister of Australia Gough Whitlam. He revised Stuart-Jones's edition of Thucydides' Historiae for the Oxford University Press in 1938, and his most lasting contribution to classical scholarship was his Lexicon to Herodotus, published the same year.</i><br /> (...)<br /><i>Having begun the war as the youngest professor in the Commonwealth, Powell ended it as a brigadier. He was given the promotion to serve on a committee of generals and brigadiers to plan the postwar defence of India: the resulting 470-page report was almost entirely written by Powell. For a few weeks he was the youngest brigadier in the British Army,[5]:93 and he was one of only two men in the entire war to rise from private to brigadier (the other being Fitzroy Maclean). He was offered a regular commission as a brigadier in the Indian Army, and the post of Assistant Commandant of an Indian Officers' Training Academy, which he declined.</i><br />(...)icrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11379038875116266168noreply@blogger.com