Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
One peer reviewed article with its credibility intact (so yes, no Herrnstein/Murray) confidently stating that 'observed differences in IQ between ethnic groups are caused by biological differences' would go a long way.
Not that I agree with L_master. But the goal You set seems impossible. I mean, how exactly something like that can be proven in general and in today's day and age in particular? Any differences in IQ results are already being discarded as being caused by culture or experimental bias. Any and all differences in IQ measurements can be (theoretically) explained by culture, and this is currently leading trend of explanations in social studies. If You propose otherwise, You are labeled racist. The discussion in and around IQ is inherently politicized, and all scientist with a little bit of social smarts avoid the topic entirely (especially if they work in the West).
This discussion is episode million+1 of nature vs nurture.
And BTW: This discussion is already settled (to some degree), and the answer (after discovery of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics ) can only be BOTH. The only question that remains to what degree genetics determine things. But here again, the answer is unsatisfactory, IT DEPENDS.
One peer reviewed article with its credibility intact (so yes, no Herrnstein/Murray) confidently stating that 'observed differences in IQ between ethnic groups are caused by biological differences' would go a long way.
Not that I agree with L_master. But the goal You set seems impossible. I mean, how exactly something like that can be proven in general and in today's day and age in particular? Any differences in IQ results are already being discarded as being caused by culture or experimental bias. Any and all differences in IQ measurements can be (theoretically) explained by culture, and this is currently leading trend of explanations in social studies. If You propose otherwise, You are labeled racist. The discussion in and around IQ is inherently politicized, and all scientist with a little bit of social smarts avoid the topic entirely (especially if they work in the West).
This discussion is episode million+1 of nature vs nurture.
And BTW: This discussion is already settled (to some degree), and the answer (after discovery of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics ) can only be BOTH. The only question that remains to what degree genetics determine things. But here again, the answer is unsatisfactory, IT DEPENDS.
Which is actually largely my point. He seems to state, with very high confidence, belief in something that can't be proven.
So it looks like the Republicans are going to take the House by 4 or 5 seats. If the Democrats manage to win every race they're currently winning, that puts them at 215. I think CA13 goes blue but that's the only race Republicans are currently winning that I think can realistically flip. Everything else looks like a long shot at best. So 216 seats best for the Democrats which is still far better than I think anyone predicted going into the midterms.
EDIT: And as I say that Boebert takes the lead in her race lmao. But it looks like that's pretty much the last of the votes from the red districts on the map with the remaining votes being in Garfield County (90% counted, +14 Frisch) and Pitkin County (80% counted, +58 Frisch).
On November 11 2022 02:33 StasisField wrote: So it looks like the Republicans are going to take the House by 4 or 5 seats. If the Democrats manage to win every race they're currently winning, that puts them at 215. I think CA13 goes blue but that's the only race Republicans are currently winning that I think can realistically flip. Everything else looks like a long shot at best. So 216 seats best for the Democrats which is still far better than I think anyone predicted going into the midterms.
For sure, I don't think this election is going at all how Republicans have wanted, by basically any measure. Democrats didn't do the impossible and avoid losing the House, the statistics on doing that were insane, but it isn't shaping up to be a blowout at all. And the Senate balance might stay the same, or Democrats even gain one seat since Fetterman's win. If Abrams hits the ground with Warnock and they pull out yet another runoff together, then R's have lost ground in the Senate. That's huge for the midterms, considering the party in power and the whole climate surrounding 2022.
On November 11 2022 02:56 JimmiC wrote: With it this close are the most left leaning Reps in the house are going to have a lot of power the same way a guy like Manchin has in the senate?
A thin margin empowers all who dwell at the margin, so expect both the far right and the most moderate Republicans to try and throw their weight around. Similarly, Manchin and Sinema are crossing their fingers that Dems end up with 50 Senate seats and not 51.
It's an interesting point about the Senate. It depends on what the actual interests and motivations are for Manchin and Sinema, because as it stands they both have to say yay to something for it to pass. If their agendas are both to be mostly an obstruction in favor of their personal interests, then one or the other can still vote in favor of most legislation, and appear reasonable.
However, if there's a 51st Democrat in the Senate, that cuts into it like a knife's edge. In that case, both Manchin and Sinema have to say nay to legislation in order to keep up their personal agendas, and they have to grapple with how that looks, or they convert to Republican because it's more expedient for them at that point.
Or, there's the possibility that either of them is actually still interested in caucusing with the remaining Senate D's on enough issues, then everything is fine and we still have a functioning government. But that 51st seat is perhaps a bigger deal than it appears.
The question you should be asking is what legislation is a Republican controlled house going to pass that the senate and Biden will also pass. Republicans will make congress a graveyard for two years and use their favorable senate map in 2024 to take control again.
On November 11 2022 01:08 Liquid`Drone wrote: L_Master, you really don't have to cite us a whole gish gallop of studies to showcase your point.
One peer reviewed article with its credibility intact (so yes, no Herrnstein/Murray) confidently stating that 'observed differences in IQ between ethnic groups are caused by biological differences' would go a long way.
You must have a lot of faith in our academic freedom if you think that such a study would ever see the light of day in a reputable journal, whether it's conclusions would be true or not. It would never happen, but if it did happen, the journal would simply stop being reputable.
It's always extremely hard if not impossible to prove anything in the social sciences that is not seen as acceptable within the current paradigm - and that certainly isn't. However, if you're hypothesis is more in line with the reigning paradigm, more or less anything will pass. Just replace the word "Jew" with "man" in a passage from Mein Kampf and you have a publication.
Take it from someone who works in a humanities department: many of us are extremely afraid of saying anything that would be perceived as ideologically suspicious. This is a very difficult line of work with very few opportunities for stable employment, so it is not so hard to understand why the ideological conformity is so mind-numbingly total.
On November 11 2022 04:00 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: The question you should be asking is what legislation is a Republican controlled house going to pass that the senate and Biden will also pass. Republicans will make congress a graveyard for two years and use their favorable senate map in 2024 to take control again.
I think we have seen that even if you don’t control both houses and therefore are unable to pass any legislation, it is still important to control the Senate so that you can approve judicial nominees. With a Republican House of representatives, democratic legislation goes out the window, but with a Republican Senate, Biden’s nominees go out the window also.
On November 11 2022 00:18 L_Master wrote: A smart person can demonstrate their intelligence, people will draw their own conclusions from my reasoning, and the way I discuss matters.
Yeah, that statement is incredibly ironic.
It's an observational truth. Not a claim about myself.
Either:
I demonstrate I'm intelligent, and you put more weight into what I say.
OR
I demonstrate I'm not (or careless in my thinking), in which case you downgrade or elect to ignore what I say.
On November 11 2022 01:08 Liquid`Drone wrote: L_Master, you really don't have to cite us a whole gish gallop of studies to showcase your point.
One peer reviewed article with its credibility intact (so yes, no Herrnstein/Murray) confidently stating that 'observed differences in IQ between ethnic groups are caused by biological differences' would go a long way.
You must have a lot of faith in our academic freedom if you think that such a study would ever see the light of day in a reputable journal, whether it's conclusions would be true or not. It would never happen, but if it did happen, the journal would simply stop being reputable.
It's always extremely hard if not impossible to prove anything in the social sciences that is not seen as acceptable within the current paradigm - and that certainly isn't. However, if you're hypothesis is more in line with the reigning paradigm, more or less anything will pass. Just replace the word "Jew" with "man" in a passage from Mein Kampf and you have a publication.
From someone who works in a humanities department: many of us are extremely afraid of saying anything that would be perceived as ideologically suspicious. This is a very difficult line of work with very few opportunities for stable employment, so it is not so hard to understand why the ideological conformity is so mind-numbingly total.
Like just about everything else in this depressing national moment, Sokal Squared is already being used as ammunition in the great American culture war. Many conservatives who are deeply hostile to the science of climate change, and who dismiss out of hand the studies that attest to deep injustices in our society, are using Sokol Squared to smear all academics as biased culture warriors. The Federalist, a right-wing news and commentary site, went so far as to spread the apparent ideological bias of a few journals in one particular corner of academia to most professors, the mainstream media, and Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
These attacks are empirically incorrect and intellectually dishonest. There are many fields of academia that have absolutely no patience for nonsense. While the hoaxers did manage to place articles in some of the most influential academic journals in the cluster of fields that focus on dealing with issues of race, gender, and identity, they have not penetrated the leading journals of more traditional disciplines. As a number of academics pointed out on Twitter, for example, all of the papers submitted to sociology journals were rejected. For now, it remains unlikely that the American Sociological Review or the American Political Science Review would have fallen for anything resembling “Our Struggle Is My Struggle,” a paper modeled on the infamous book with a similar title.
I’m also not convinced that the argument that if you said the same about group A as group B it would be wrong therefore hypocrisy follows. The relevant factors are whether there was research done than supports it and whether that was done in good faith. If Hitler says that the Jews run the world then that’s wrong, but it’s not wrong because Hitler says it, it’s wrong because they don’t. If Hitler said (in 1925) that Aryans ran the world then I think that would be fine, not because I hate Aryans and love Jews but because it’s true.
Saying “you can take Hitler’s words about Jews and replace them with whites and everyone agrees” is asinine, the implication is that the people hate whites the way Hitler hated Jews but the conclusion simply does not follow.
On November 11 2022 02:14 KwarK wrote: He went way beyond biological IQ, he went straight to social class = wealth = IQ = genetics.
Genetics* -> IQ + Personality -> Class/Wealth (class is basically wealth ranking as most people define it).
And indeed, this is all but expected if there is reasonable heritability. Why?
Because men who exhibit traits such as intelligence, assertiveness, reciprocity, are noticeably more desirable in dating markets. These traits also, all else equal, lead to more successful men. So, they get picks of higher quality personality and beauty (which is an evolved mechanism for selecting high genetic fitness partners) -> offspring are more likely to have traits favorable to success
Inverse for less successful, less intelligent, more impulsive, lower reciprocity, low conscientiousness men. They do not have qualities as attractive for securing partners, and thus have a tendency to secure lower quality partners.
* approximately 80% or so is "genetics", possibly lower if indeterminate environmental factors play a role)
On November 11 2022 04:00 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: The question you should be asking is what legislation is a Republican controlled house going to pass that the senate and Biden will also pass. Republicans will make congress a graveyard for two years and use their favorable senate map in 2024 to take control again.
I think we have seen that even if you don’t control both houses and therefore are unable to pass any legislation, it is still important to control the Senate so that you can approve judicial nominees. With a Republican House of representatives, democratic legislation goes out the window, but with a Republican Senate, Biden’s nominees go out the window also.
But the question was if left leaning Republicans in the house would gain any useful power and the answer to that is no because no legislation is going to be passed.
I agree that Democrats need to keep 50+ in the senate for judicial appointments, but that doesn't relate to power of house members.
On November 11 2022 04:00 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: The question you should be asking is what legislation is a Republican controlled house going to pass that the senate and Biden will also pass. Republicans will make congress a graveyard for two years and use their favorable senate map in 2024 to take control again.
I think we have seen that even if you don’t control both houses and therefore are unable to pass any legislation, it is still important to control the Senate so that you can approve judicial nominees. With a Republican House of representatives, democratic legislation goes out the window, but with a Republican Senate, Biden’s nominees go out the window also.
But the question was if left leaning Republicans in the house would gain any useful power and then answer to that is no because no legislation is going to be passed.
A handful of things will pass, they will just be Republican bills signed (rather than vetoed) by Biden. At minimum there's the debt ceiling and budgets. It does mean the reconciliation workaround in the senate is over (for Democrats) though.
Yeah, genetics do actually matter when it comes to determining how wealthy someone is going to be, but probably not for the reasons L_Master is trying to suggest.
On November 11 2022 04:00 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: The question you should be asking is what legislation is a Republican controlled house going to pass that the senate and Biden will also pass. Republicans will make congress a graveyard for two years and use their favorable senate map in 2024 to take control again.
I think we have seen that even if you don’t control both houses and therefore are unable to pass any legislation, it is still important to control the Senate so that you can approve judicial nominees. With a Republican House of representatives, democratic legislation goes out the window, but with a Republican Senate, Biden’s nominees go out the window also.
But the question was if left leaning Republicans in the house would gain any useful power and then answer to that is no because no legislation is going to be passed.
A handful of things will pass, they will just be Republican bills signed (rather than vetoed) by Biden. At minimum there's the debt ceiling and budgets. It does mean the reconciliation workaround in the senate is over (for Democrats) though.
When I say no legislation will be passed I don't mean literally nothing. I would use something bipartisan like reupping the patriot act as your example before the debt ceiling after Obama though.
Your zip code has a better chance of determining your success than anything else from birth. To say Genetics isn't itself a bad thing, just wrong, but it does lead a lot of people to believe that you're advocating for some seriously evil theories about the world.
Its a "I don't think you're a nazi but you're saying nazi things" type reaction you're going to get.
EPT
