|
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.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland26462 Posts
On November 11 2022 04:01 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I don’t agree with some of your broader claims here.
But, if we’re talking specifically racial IQ differentials, yes. People outside of the absolute fringes probably aren’t touching that with a fifty foot pole.
|
Norway28779 Posts
On November 11 2022 04:01 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I actually agree that such a study would have a very hard time seeing the day of light. I don't work in academia, but I have many friends (and a wife) who do, and indeed, I have the impression that conformity is an issue. At the same time, however, much like Kwark, I don't think examples like this do much to invalidate all of humanities.
But you must read my post as a reply to the claim, from someone who essentially states that 'black people have 'inferior genes'' (even if I charitably read it as 'to succeed in western society today based on the prerequisites western society demands for someone to achieve success as defined by me', and not as an absolute statement), and that he 'would go grab 15-20 papers, people would generally skim 2 or 3, then they would go and grab some papers saying the opposite', followed by 'I offered to share a variety of studies if people were interested. But, usually people don't actually want to read them.', and that he does not want to spend 1-2 hours doing this for no real response.
I'm saying that the guy doesn't have to supply 15-20 papers, but that there's no reason why I, or anyone else really, should take him at his word when he doesn't supply anything. The absence of such studies do not prove the theory incorrect - but it certainly doesn't prove that it's on point. I mean, it's been a while since I read up on this stuff, but I don't think the way falsification works is you make the statement 'black people have inferior genes, disprove it' and then it holds true until someone does. So far, I'm seeing some very grand claims backed up by anecdotes.
|
On November 11 2022 05:20 Sermokala wrote:
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.
Which, after the general horror of what Hitler did, is the second most regrettable thing about the Nazi's.
Creating an environment where it's virtually impossible, even 80 years later, to even have such discussions. To where truly honest science in those areas is hard to do, because it's often or always career suicide.
It's one of the costlier setbacks of all time.
|
On November 11 2022 06:05 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2022 05:20 Sermokala wrote:
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. Which, after the general horror of what Hitler did, is the second most regrettable thing about the Nazi's. Creating an environment where it's virtually impossible, even 80 years later, to even have such discussions. To where truly honest science in those areas is hard to do, because it's often or always career suicide. It's one of the costlier setbacks of all time.
its not like they were the only ones? or the frist ones even. what kind of revisionistic (reductionistic if we're charitable) rethoric is this?
|
Northern Ireland26462 Posts
On November 11 2022 05:20 Sermokala wrote:
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.
It’s a "I don't think you're a nazi but you're saying nazi things" type reaction you're going to get.
They’re half right, to a degree. But completely reject the other half entirely.
Well, to my mind.
Certain genetic factors do have a huge impact, but that’s as much down to environment and culture as it is an insight into our true collective nature.
That say, narcissists and psychopaths of a certain intellect do bloody well is proof of some innate genetic superiority, and has everything to do with how society is constructed.
|
Northern Ireland26462 Posts
On November 11 2022 06:05 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2022 05:20 Sermokala wrote:
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. Which, after the general horror of what Hitler did, is the second most regrettable thing about the Nazi's. Creating an environment where it's virtually impossible, even 80 years later, to even have such discussions. To where truly honest science in those areas is hard to do, because it's often or always career suicide. It's one of the costlier setbacks of all time.
What’s so costly about it?
I can’t recall off-hand, I believe it was Sam Harris when Charles Murray was on his podcast who asked the question ‘Even if you’re correct, what do we do with that information?’
Which I think is a pretty pertinent line of enquiry. Be it education, prisons, addiction, mental health problems where we have a fair chunk of relatively non-controversial information it hasn’t informed sensible policy prescriptions.
Aside from truth for truth’s sake, assuming there’s actually something to be found in such delving, what do you do with it?
|
Probably justify a hereditary elite of genetically "better" and richer people. Because we really need nobility again in the 21st century.
|
On November 11 2022 06:50 Simberto wrote:
Probably justify a hereditary elite of genetically "better" and richer people. Because we really need nobility again in the 21st century.
That's unnecessary. And "factually" foolish, because of individual differences being large. Of anything, leadership is probably the least relevant to any of those factors. Exceptional individuals can and do arise from all backgrounds, albeit at different frequencies, and it would be against everyone's interests to exclude them and their potential.
Aside from truth for truth’s sake, assuming there’s actually something to be found in such delving, what do you do with it?
Like, let's accept for a second that's how the world is.
(none of what follows are serious suggestions on individual merit, but ideas that suggest the directionality of things that have plausibility of working)
Basically, abandonment of any swath of policy that acts as if we can seriously make changes to things like cognitive ability or personality.
In that world, we would probably want to offer different opportunities to people, similar to how Germany and other such places tract. You'd have a more aristocratic, critical thinking academic based curriculum for your top minds (sorely lacking in American education)
For those further down the distribution, you'd encourage (but not force) education centered around developing useful "mental software": elimination of most or all of the largely unnecessary school curriculum (most stuff past elementary/middle school) training for things like agency/mindfulness to the extent possible, how to cooperate effectively, basic heuristics for navigating common challenges and situations (budget, relationships, increasing individual value for competitiveness in markets, etc.)
Then the big thing would be acknowledging: lots of people draw really, really, awful hands at life. That's a pretty harsh consequence in and of itself. We really ought not make that any worse, and ought to try and alleviate that in so much as possible.
What sets bounds on possible in such a world? Costs and incentives. Regardless of the world you live in, genetic or not, your civilization will crumble if the underclass (non-productive on net) grows too large for the middle and upper classes (net productive to support).
So, it has to be an iron principle that you must keep the expansion of the size of your underclass in check. This, I think clearly, is by miles the most ethically challenging thing, because by and large unchecked the underclass tends to reproduce much faster than any other. In a genetic world, that's a result of many of the things that we would agree contribute from a social perspective today, but underlying it are group differences in responsibility/impulse control, reciprocity/cooperativity, and probably cognitive ability.
Which means, there is probably going to be some degree of resistance. Perhaps something like offering to every citizen a 100k per year UBI for life if they agree not have children would avoid that, but I'm not confident.
There are many things you can do that wouldn't be outright sinister stuff like forced sterilizations, but would apply to the entire population, being equitable in that sense (e.g. your level of care late in life is based on your money + the extent to which your kids take care if you. Aligns your own incentives with the incentive to be as competent of a parent as possible, as well as make responsible parenting choices).
All of these require some degree of responsibility, which inevitably places a higher burden on the less responsible (increasing costs as you decrease in class) that is likely to be resisted on some level. Rare is the person who willingly accepts the shackles of responsibility.
So the crux of it is basically:
- Provide as much support and aid to the lower classes as possible within the scope of prosperity
- While having incentives in places that holds irreciprocal behavior accountable
- and while aligning incentives such that you increase the rate of reproduction in the middle and upper classes (something not happening now) and decrease the rate of reproduction in the lower classes.
And it really does kinda come down to: What is the difference between oppression and domestication?
Same difference between why locking your kid in the basement in darkness with water for 24 hours is bad (child learns nothing + accumulates damage, worse shape than found) but enforcing a clear consequence that was stated ahead of time, followed with a gentle explanation and discussion of what happened is good parenting.
One creates an irreciprocity, the other creates a reciprocity.
And what's a key tenant of reciprocity? Warrantied.
So, if you advocate for something that is an oppression under the guise of it being domestication (reciprocal), what happens?
You owe restitution at a minimum (if from ignorance) or restitution + punishment (if with knowledge).
|
I usually do not bother with sharing dumb things conservatives say, but when somebody is openly calling for dictatorship, even when it's a known bad actor, I think it's worth bringing attention to it.
Conservatives do not disavow people like this or try to push him out of right wing social circles. Some right wing politicians are pretty close with this guy. He is part of the right wing media ecosystem. His call for dictatorship will almost certainly go unremarked on by anyone on the right unless they are specifically asked about it.
|
|
|
United States24761 Posts
IQ tests have been pretty ineffective since the beginning. They do serve some small, limited purpose, but it's probably better to move away from them entirely in this discussion.
|
Apropos of nothing, can I ask where the screen name “L_Master” came from? Just curious.
|
On November 11 2022 08:32 Kyadytim wrote:I usually do not bother with sharing dumb things conservatives say, but when somebody is openly calling for dictatorship, even when it's a known bad actor, I think it's worth bringing attention to it. https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1590771129681342464Conservatives do not disavow people like this or try to push him out of right wing social circles. Some right wing politicians are pretty close with this guy. He is part of the right wing media ecosystem. His call for dictatorship will almost certainly go unremarked on by anyone on the right unless they are specifically asked about it.
Wow.
Yea that's a wierd conclusion to draw. Like, if you take power that way you're going to get Civil War 2.0.
And, likely a problematic tyrant. Like, theoretically, maybe you can get a benevolent philosopher king, but for how long? 1 generation.
Plus, people angry enough to go revolution seem likely to be angry enough to cause real harm to anyone they don't like. And that's blatantly not reciprocity.
|
Apropos of nothing, can I ask where the screen name “L_Master” came from? Just curious.
When I was in third grade I learned about lucid dreaming and wanted to be able to master it. Then I just grew used to using it's
On November 11 2022 06:27 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2022 06:05 L_Master wrote:On November 11 2022 05:20 Sermokala wrote:
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. Which, after the general horror of what Hitler did, is the second most regrettable thing about the Nazi's. Creating an environment where it's virtually impossible, even 80 years later, to even have such discussions. To where truly honest science in those areas is hard to do, because it's often or always career suicide. It's one of the costlier setbacks of all time. its not like they were the only ones? or the frist ones even. what kind of revisionistic (reductionistic if we're charitable) rethoric is this?
Because they were the ones that created a memetic horror so strong it's a visceral repellant 80 years later.
Sure, other places did it, but this was a forefront, European nation doing it on massive scale.
|
On November 11 2022 01:43 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2022 01:08 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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.
I believe the answer to a lot of nature vs nurture debates ends up being both. To me what's interesting is how people will decide whether they want to lean into nature or nurture not based on research findings but simply based on what suits their interests. For example, people will lean into intelligence being entirely nurture because then we can insist that any disparities are entirely the result of nurture, e.g. discrimination, lack of opportunities, etc. and then we can legislate around that. Conversely, I suspect the pushback and demand for evidence would be far less if someone made the claim that being LGBT was genetic and decided at birth because then we get to dismiss people that are worried about what their kids are exposed to as simple-minded bigots because their kids sexual identity and preferences have already been decided when they were a fetus.
|
|
|
Kinda tame issue with scientists being too scared thing. That smacks of that book by Wade where he basically said everyone was too scared of what the Nazis did so they agreed to control research. There has been plenty of debate over this topic and its constantly evolving because a fair bit of research looks at it. Hell the whole field of bio anthro is dedicated to studying human diversity from a multidisciplinary angle. Plus with the egos in academia people just love to be the outlier guy going against the grain. There is no doubt published papers that are suggestive of what L_Master is saying (hell several right wing think tanks fund a lot of them) but he confidently ignores the body of literature that contradicts his points and acts like the issue is settled in his favor.
I feel like this thread has had this same argument over this issue multiple times lol.
|
On November 11 2022 05:46 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2022 04:01 Elroi wrote: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. But you must read my post as a reply to the claim, from someone who essentially states that 'black people have 'inferior genes'' (even if I charitably read it as 'to succeed in western society today based on the prerequisites western society demands for someone to achieve success as defined by me', and not as an absolute statement), and that he 'would go grab 15-20 papers, people would generally skim 2 or 3, then they would go and grab some papers saying the opposite', followed by 'I offered to share a variety of studies if people were interested. But, usually people don't actually want to read them.', and that he does not want to spend 1-2 hours doing this for no real response. I'm saying that the guy doesn't have to supply 15-20 papers, but that there's no reason why I, or anyone else really, should take him at his word when he doesn't supply anything. The absence of such studies do not prove the theory incorrect - but it certainly doesn't prove that it's on point. I mean, it's been a while since I read up on this stuff, but I don't think the way falsification works is you make the statement 'black people have inferior genes, disprove it' and then it holds true until someone does. So far, I'm seeing some very grand claims backed up by anecdotes.
Older ones, but some of the key ones that setup the general figures of heritability (which are usually not especially challenged)
i don't really know what specifically would be most relevant, so I grabbed a variety of general stuff, and some very important more recent specific studies.
Twins
Twins #2
Heritability Foundations
Cognitive Ability has poor response to training
"g" - The thing IQ tests try to measure
More About g
Intro to Neuroscience of Cognitive Ability
IVF Study (Parents Barely Matter) - Absolutely brilliant study design, completely soul crushing for optimistic conservative obsessed with the idea that father's make a tremendous difference.
I read up on this stuff, but I don't think the way falsification works is you make the statement 'black people have inferior genes, disprove it' and then it holds true until someone does. So far, I'm seeing some very grand claims backed up by anecdotes.
To be fair, this is how it works. It's why the bullshit asymmetry principle is so relevant, if the responsibility was on the person making the claim, it would hardly be relevant.
But, falsification is all about making a claim or proposing a theory and having it withstand constant adversarial competition over time. The only thing missing is restitution being required for deliberately making callous or wanton claims.
(that said, I do agree that it feels charitable if you're a good faith actor to provide evidence, reasoning, and easy access to your claims. It's quite obnoxious, even if technically correct, to discuss with people who make powerful claims and then demand you do all the research)
I actually agree that such a study would have a very hard time seeing the day of light. I don't work in academia, but I have many friends (and a wife) who do, and indeed, I have the impression that conformity is an issue. At the same time, however, much like Kwark, I don't think examples like this do much to invalidate all of humanities.
Invalidate is too strong.
But it causes the evidence for/against to look very tilted, and in some cases, encourages sloppy study designs or "mathiness" (elaborate use of math to obscure or justify conclusions that don't warrant it) to avoid blowback or curry favor.
For every one study supporting a claim about cognitive ability being hereditary, there are probably 5-10 being published that say the opposite as a result, and of course in the most prestigious journals that ratio skews much further. This creates something of a warped, manufactured "consensus".
In my opinion it weakens the entire counterargument to my position, because the full slate of possible research hasn't been done. There is insufficient adversarial competition, and at least some motivated/dishonest studies mixed in. Whereas if the question had been fully researched in an open way since the 50s, I'm confident we'd have a much more unified, clear picture.
|
On November 11 2022 13:51 Slaughter wrote:
Kinda tame issue with scientists being too scared thing. That smacks of that book by Wade where he basically said everyone was too scared of what the Nazis did so they agreed to control research. There has been plenty of debate over this topic and its constantly evolving because a fair bit of research looks at it. Hell the whole field of bio anthro is dedicated to studying human diversity from a multidisciplinary angle. Plus with the egos in academia people just love to be the outlier guy going against the grain. There is no doubt published papers that are suggestive of what L_Master is saying (hell several right wing think tanks fund a lot of them) but he confidently ignores the body of literature that contradicts his points and acts like the issue is settled in his favor.
How confident are you in this?
Not unbelievable, but I would be surprised if this was a strong norm. Most people are not willing to risk complete cancellation, job loss, and permanent inability to be involved in their chosen field.
My hunch is that the ones likely to do this are very bold, brash risk takers who just have that kind of personality and devil may care attitude; or it's the heavily successful ones that feel confident enough to take a risk. But, I think less so here. By and large, it's understood as career suicide.
The ones that dare, usually do so under different proxies. They don't study cognitive ability directly, but study strong proxies for it.
I feel like this thread has had this same argument over this issue multiple times lol.
Would not be surprising. It's the issue at the heart of everything. Almost nothing anybody wants to do works in the world of strong genetic influences.
And it's far from settled. So much so that I'm willing to bet at 90% odds (9:1) that it will be among THE major issues over the next 2-3 decades.
|
With the amount of universities around those who do go against the grain tend to gather together in the same departments. You get very heavily skewed departments, but the variation between those departments can be pretty large. Professors are typically not afraid to rock the boat with tenure and generally, (at least in Anthropology) they specifically don't like to train students for all of their grad school experience (IE they like people doing their Masters and Doctorate at different institutions). There was definitely an awareness of how departments lean, especially the ones who had the big names of the field in them and a lot of people will leave departments for others if they feel they can't express themselves. Hell a distinguished archaeologist left Harvard for a much less prestigious institution where I did my doctoratal work at simply for more freedom (not of opinion but just less heavy handed oversight in his case).
But at the end of the day? If you pull in money and publish a lot you will have no trouble finding jobs, unless your literally advocating for horrendous stuff. Even disciplines that most would find of questionable merit (either because they are outdated or new and still raw in their methods so hard to say if they will work out or not) will find their places at some universities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
