SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Charles Murray, controversial author of The Bell Curve, which promoted links between intelligence and race, was shouted down by protesters at Middlebury College last Thursday. PBS reports:
Murray had been invited by Middlebury's student group affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank at which Murray is a scholar. [...] Prior to the point when Murray was introduced, several Middlebury officials reminded students that they were allowed to protest but not to disrupt the talk. The students ignored those reminders and faced no visible consequences for doing so. [...]
After the students chanted for about 20 minutes, college officials announced that the lecture would not take place but that Murray would go to another location, which the college didn't name, and have a discussion with a Middlebury faculty member — livestreamed back to the original lecture site.
According to Middlebury officials, after Murray and the professor who interviewed him for the livestream attempted to leave the location in a car, some protesters surrounded the car, jumped on it, pounded on it and tried to prevent the car from leaving campus.
Other sources note that political science professor Allison Stanger, who agreed to moderate the discussion, was attacked while accompanying Murray to the car, ultimately requiring treatment at a hospital for neck injuries caused by protesters pushing her and pulling her hair.
Murray himself later gave an account of his experience on the AEI blog. He emphasized that Middlebury's administration and staff displayed in exemplary ways their encouragement of free speech:
Middlebury's stance has been exemplary. The administration agreed to host the event. President Patton did not cancel it even after a major protest became inevitable. She appeared at the event, further signaling Middlebury's commitment to academic freedom. The administration arranged an ingenious Plan B that enabled me to present my ideas and discuss them with Professor Stanger even though the crowd had prevented me from speaking in the lecture hall. I wish that every college in the country had the backbone and determination that Middlebury exhibited.
But Murray notes that the outcome was very different from his previous controversial appearances:
Until last Thursday, all of the ones involving me have been as carefully scripted as kabuki: The college administration meets with the organizers of the protest and ground rules are agreed upon. The protesters have so many minutes to do such and such. It is agreed that after the allotted time, they will leave or desist. These negotiated agreements have always worked. At least a couple of dozen times, I have been able to give my lecture to an attentive (or at least quiet) audience despite an organized protest.
Middlebury tried to negotiate such an agreement with the protesters, but, for the first time in my experience, the protesters would not accept any time limits. [...] In the mid-1990s, I could count on students who had wanted to listen to start yelling at the protesters after a certain point, "Sit down and shut up, we want to hear what he has to say." That kind of pushback had an effect. It reminded the protesters that they were a minority. I am assured by people at Middlebury that their protesters are a minority as well. But they are a minority that has intimidated the majority. The people in the audience who wanted to hear me speak were completely cowed.
The form of the protest has been widely condemned even by those who vehemently disagree with Murray, as in the piece by Peter Beinart in The Atlantic that claims "something has gone badly wrong on the campus left." He argues strongly that "Liberals must defend the right of conservative students to invite speakers of their choice, even if they find their views abhorrent."
Meanwhile, student protesters have responded with their own account, disclaiming the hair-pulling incident as unintentional and "irresponsible" but condemning the Middlebury administration for their "support of a platform for white nationalist speech." They further claimed "peaceful protest was met with escalating levels of violence by the administration and Public Safety, who continually asserted their support of a dangerous racist over the well-being of students."
Personal note: My take on all of this is that the actual subject of Murray's Middlebury talk has been lost in the media coverage, namely his 2012 book Coming Apart, which (ironically) is a detailed discussion of the problems created by a division of the intellectual elite from the white working class. He explicitly dilutes his previous connections of social problems with a black underclass by noting that many of the same issues plague poor white communities. While his argument is still based on problematic assertions about intelligence and IQ, the topic of his book seems very relevant given recent political events and issues of class division. There's some sort of profound irony in a bunch of students at an elite school refusing to allow a debate on the causes and results of division between elite intellectuals and the (white) working class. I personally may think Murray's scholarship is shoddy and his use of statistics frequently misleading (or downright wrong), but I don't see how that justifies the kind of threats and intimidation tactics shown at this protest.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday March 08 2017, @03:02PM (151 children)
Unless I've suddenly turned illiterate, TFS says this guy teaches something to the effect, "Niggers is just dumb, because they have low IQ's."
I'm not one to attend protests, but if I were in the neighborhood when this guy was speaking, I just might attend this protest. Everyone here knows that I'm no SJW, but FFS, you can't get away with that kinda crap in any sane world.* People are people. I certainly can't tell how smart a guy is based on skin color, hair color, length of his legs/arms, his accent - oh wait. The left taught me that you can tell how big a guy's penis is by the size of his hands. Hmmm - sometimes you learn stuff you didn't even want to know.
Alright, I glanced at the Bell Curve. Want my opinion? Class helps to determine your supposed IQ. Tell a kid that he's a dumb pollock for 12 years, then wonder that his apparent education sucks. Tell another kid that he's a genius German for 20 years of schooling, and, WOW, he really does excell. At the low extreme, tell that black kid that he's just a dumb nigger for all of his life, then wonder why he's uneducated, unemployed, imprisoned, impoverished, and selling drugs when he's out of jail.
Again, I'm no SJW, but facts are facts. We've created a class system in this country which is only slightly less rigid that India's old caste system.
How about someone give me a call when they figure out how to measure intelligence, without relying on class and/or race sensitive criteria.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @03:08PM
> Again, I'm no SJW, but facts are facts.
You are now. Welcome to the factside.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @03:09PM (85 children)
Furthermore, there is a huge link between intelligence and productivity in society; the lower the intelligence, the worse the productivity—and at a certain threshold across a population, society starts to break down.
It does nobody any good to deny facts, and just write off discrepancies in outcomes as being "structural" or "social constructs".
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 08 2017, @03:17PM (15 children)
and at a certain threshold across a population, society starts to break down.
Just like there's a huge link between bald assertions and reality?
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:25PM (14 children)
This from the piece of shit that lets Corporate America & avarice determine reality? Try not being a mouthpiece and apologist before you start talking about bald assertions, lies, and what reality is.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:39PM (13 children)
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by edIII on Wednesday March 08 2017, @08:17PM
I don't give a fuck what you find worthy or not. You are a corporate apologist that will deny any reality that doesn't conform with your particular idea of an ideal "society".
When you want to claim authority over reality, I WILL speak up against you, you loathsome piece of shit.
Again, as always, burn in hell mother fucker.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday March 09 2017, @02:41AM (9 children)
Control your anger or you will continue to be someone unworthy of my time.
Wow, khallow has been pushed to threatening behavior!!! Please, khallow, do your worst to me first, before you do it to edIII! Please?
(Of course, it might be more effective to take edIII's advice, and quit being such an apologist for racist rich people. )
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 09 2017, @04:51AM (8 children)
(Score: 3, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 09 2017, @05:00AM (7 children)
Hey, count me in too, Mr. Hallow :D Maybe if you get enough people giving you shit you'll stop and ask yourself why at some point ...or maybe not, but I always was an idealist.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 09 2017, @06:31AM (6 children)
Furthermore, there is a huge link between intelligence and productivity in society; the lower the intelligence, the worse the productivity—and at a certain threshold across a population, society starts to break down.
I then replied to that last comment (which slid in a big assertion more than just "links").
Just like there's a huge link between bald assertions and reality?
How much you want to bet that the original AC's idea of societies that break down due to "lower intelligence" are societies that have come to have a high ratio of poor blacks in them? Such as Detroit transitioning from 1950 to present, Zimbabwe after Rhodesia fell, etc.
Was my supposed corporate leanings at all relevant?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday March 10 2017, @12:37AM
Dogpile on the khallow! Dogpile on the khallow! So sad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2017, @08:33AM (4 children)
You know, it is not so much what Prof. Murray was going to say, as what he did say in the past. That is enough to justifying shutting him down. Likewise, our own khallow says something, and gets hammered, not so much for the content of this particular post, but for what he has said in the past. And he cannot comprehend this? Are all right-wing pretend-intellectuals so utterly clueless? (Don't bother answering, it was meant to be a rhetorical question.)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 10 2017, @03:16PM (3 children)
You know, it is not so much what Prof. Murray was going to say, as what he did say in the past. That is enough to justifying shutting him down.
Let me introduce you to the ad hominem fallacy [wikipedia.org]. What I find particularly weird about this is how much bleating there has been here without a thing being said. The universal lack of content of the criticisms is bizarre. You have as usual given me zero feedback by which I could correct anything, even if there were a legitimate problem.
I think we all realize that I'm not going to change my beliefs and opinions merely at the drop of the hat. But it is remarkable how little effort ever goes into trying to persuade me of anything. I think there's a simple explanation here. You are a fucking idiot who couldn't argue their way out of a wet paper bag. These silly games are the best you can do.
L2P noob.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 11 2017, @08:58AM (2 children)
Khallow, you answered a rhetorical question, and you got it wrong! What else could you be wrong about? I have seen Soylentils expend prodigious effort in trying to educate you, going on for days, and it all had absolutely no effect on you. And now you are amazed that no one tries anymore, except aristarchus, who seems to think you might be corrigible? Game over, man!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 11 2017, @01:00PM (1 child)
I have seen Soylentils expend prodigious effort in trying to educate you, going on for days, and it all had absolutely no effect on you.
Let's see these alleged efforts then. Just link them.
Or will you continue to make empty assertions? I note, for example, that when I complained about certain peoples' dishonesty or abusive behaviors, I linked to their [soylentnews.org] problems [soylentnews.org]. I didn't merely assert something to harass someone in some sort of school yard bullying.
Will we have an actual rational conversation? Or will this be days and days of innuendo and false accusations?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @10:57PM
Will we have an actual rational conversation? Or will this be days and days of innuendo and false accusations?
You reap what you sow, dude. You reap what you sow.
(Score: 1) by AssCork on Thursday March 09 2017, @03:17PM (1 child)
I got next. Lemme know who wins.
/me flexes his namesake
Just popped-out of a tight spot. Came out mostly clean, too.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 09 2017, @05:05PM
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @03:22PM (58 children)
> There is a huge link between DNA and Intelligence
Sure. But what there is not is a huge link between "race" and intelligence.
Race itself is a social construct.
Just ask any geneticist.
For example, Dr Craig Venter (founder of the Human Genome Project) who said in 2000, "Race is a social concept, not a scientific one. We all evolved in the last 100,000 years from the same small number of tribes that migrated out of Africa and colonized the world." [nytimes.com]
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @03:29PM (24 children)
If it were, then you wouldn't be able to get a reading of your genetic heritage, and various groups of people wouldn't be more at risk for certain diseases, etc.
Black people are better at being outside in the son doing manual labor, and white people are better at living in dark climates with very little light. That's the just the superficial stuff; there is zero purpose in lying to people by telling them that they are all the same when they are quite obviously not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @03:38PM (4 children)
You should have attempted only your first point. People with African heritage are at a greater risk for breast cancer and sickle-cell anemia. You'll find credible references on this easy to come by.
It's "sun," btw, if you're referring to the giant fusion reactor in the sky. For that point, allow me to throw out seasonal affective disorder. Here's wikipedia [wikipedia.org], but it doesn't include data that might support your point. Can you demonstrate that people with African heritage are at a greater risk for SAD?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @03:45PM (3 children)
... are not worth engaging.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @03:48PM
Well that was easy.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:30PM (1 child)
SAD isn't a strawman here. You failed to elaborate what you meant by "better at living in caves" so he took a guess.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:39PM
Here [nutrition.org]:
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @03:46PM (15 children)
If it were, then you wouldn't be able to get a reading of your genetic heritage, and various groups of people wouldn't be more at risk for certain diseases, etc.
You are wrong about that too, there is more genetic diversity within commonly defined racial groups than there is between them. An illustration of this fact:
In one example that demonstrated genetic differences were not fixed along racial lines, the full genomes of James Watson and Craig Venter, two famous American scientists of European ancestry, were compared to that of a Korean scientist, Seong-Jin Kim. It turned out that Watson (who, ironically, became ostracized in the scientific community after making racist remarks) and Venter shared fewer variations in their genetic sequences than they each shared with Kim.
Race Is a Social Construct, Scientists Argue [scientificamerican.com]
Another example is sickle cell anemia. [psychologytoday.com] Pop science says it is racial, because its more common in african-americans than in white americans. But in africa there are entire countries where it is no more common than it is among white americans and there are parts of southern europe where it is just as common among the local populations as it is among african-americans.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:13PM (14 children)
Just as there are whole populations of people whose genetic heritage condemn them to a higher risk of sickle cell anemia, there are also whole populations whose genetic heritage condemn them to lower IQs.
I'm not arguing that because some black populations have genetically lower IQs that all black people have lower IQs; I'm arguing that it's WRONG to tell those affected populations that they can be just as good at theoretical particle physics as Ashkenazi Jews, if only they just worked harder in school. It's a horrible lie, and it's creating a great deal of strife for everyone.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:16PM (3 children)
there are also whole populations whose genetic heritage condemn them to lower IQs.
That may or may not be true, but even if it is, that "genetic inheritance" has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH SKIN COLOUR. The genes that govern the brain and intelligence are not the same ones governing melanin production.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:27PM (2 children)
You are not arguing against what is being said.
What is being said is that there ARE differences in populations; the only thing that is a social construct is the notion that all humans are equal and would have the exact same outcomes were it not for some nefarious "structural" conspiracy in the organization of society.
That being said, it may very well be that having black skin in America is a very good proxy for having some genetic trait, such as sickle-cell anemia or difficulty with higher mathematics.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:33PM (1 child)
OK, the word "populations" here is a deceptive one. I suspect you are thinking of "populations" as is "a bunch of similar looking people living in the same geographical area". I'm thinking of "populations" as in "a bunch of people who share some genetic traits but don't necessarily look like or live near one another".
Also, please see elsethread for a debunking of the "sickle cell anemia correlates nicely with skin colour" myth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:47PM
I am the one speaking of populations in terms of genetic heritage, not something superficial like skin color.
Furthermore, people who look similar and live in the same geographical area tend to share the same genetic heritage.
You'll note that I wrote "having black skin in America". In America:
You are not arguing against me; you are arguing against a straw man.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:26PM (9 children)
I'm not arguing that because some black populations have genetically lower IQs that all black people have lower IQs;
What you are doing is begging the question. You simply assert that some "black populations" have genetically lower intelligence. You might just as well say that some "white populations" have genetically lower intelligence.
It is true that if you cherry pick any group of individuals for intelligence and you'll get a group that has lower intelligence. But you can't usefully go in the reverse and say being white is predictive of lower intelligence any more than you can say being african is predictive of having sickle cell anemia.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:30PM (8 children)
You are making things up; you are constructing a straw man.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:40PM (7 children)
What is that now? 3 different accusations of "strawman!"
Its funny how you are reduced to declaring that everybody else is arguing a strawman when in fact all of these "strawmen" are the direct and obviously intentional conclusion of your postulation. Especially when you say things like, "having black skin in America is a very good proxy for having some genetic trait, such as ... difficulty with higher mathematics."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:54PM (6 children)
I said "it may well be the case"
Here, allow me to put back in place those parts you cut out in your attempt to build a straw man:
Indeed, nobody disagrees that having black skin in America is a very good proxy for having sickle-cell anemia. There could well be other traits of note; that is the point.
Equality is a social construct. Real variations should not be ignored.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:29PM (2 children)
> There could well be other traits of note; that is the point.
Yeah and the one "trait of note" you just happened to single out is intelligence.
Its pretty funny watching you try to have your racist cake and eat it too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:38PM (1 child)
What is wrong with you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:03PM
And thus the circular argument that proves itself with no actual proof.
We are talking about racial differences in intelligence so its totally possible there could be actual racial differences in intelligence...
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:52PM (2 children)
Now when you say "real variations should not be ignored," *what* precisely do you mean by this?
It's insulting as fuck that you think we don't know the subtext of what you're saying. You're sure as hell not implying "well we should pay attention to things like Vitamin D deficiency and sickle-cell anaemia in this population." No, you're saying, without outright saying it because you're a goddamn coward, "Some people are worth less than others because they're less intelligent, and this is TOTALLY a dark-skin thing, yew guise."
Fuck you sideways. Human worth is not determined by intelligence, and this is coming from someone with an IQ of 140-145 or so. All our art, all our science, all our medicine, all of it is only to improve human flourishing, or what's the point of it? You've got your priorities entirely backwards.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09 2017, @12:20PM (1 child)
You seem to be the first one in this thread to equate lower IQ with less worth as a person.
Subtexts are subjective, and regularly assumed by those with a strong personal narrative around a particular subject (see also: "if you're against elite bankers, you must be anti-semitic"). People regularly see subtexts which the author did not intend to express, as in just about any literature critique where the author is not available to comment.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 09 2017, @07:42PM
Let me spell it out for you: in no other context does anyone give one flying fuck about the "real variations" between populations, stratified by race, except in medicine. That's it. The only ever time it comes up is when people want to 1) play up the supposed aggregate IQ differences and 2) use 1) to justify making untermenschen out of said population.
It never comes up otherwise. And somehow I doubt every single person posting here about this is a haematologist.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:43PM
and white people are better at living in dark climates with very little light.
Silly racist! Here, let me fix this for you!
white people are better at living in tanning salons with very little intelligence
I am always impressed with how profoundly stupid and incapable of critical reasoning racists truly are. Even Runaway knows this racist stuff is pure bullshit by the lumpen proletariat in an attempt to compensate for the fact that they are so inferior. This is why we cannot have white supremacy! The South (racism, not the actual South of the United States, but Texas always make me wonder) will lose again!!!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:15PM
And all that has nothing to do with intelligence.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:35PM
Black people are better at being outside in the son...
Well crap, you were doing fine with the racism. But, say goodbye to your book deal now!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:51PM
Thank you for your unbiased facts, I was unaware that the human nervous system was created in the womb entirely independent of DNA and epigenetic factors.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:07PM (17 children)
Race itself is a social construct. Just ask any geneticist.
Sounds good. Let's ask Dawkins (at 35:35). [samharris.org]
Race is not simply made up, despite that so many people feel obligated to pretend it is. The fact that you can tell by looking is all you need to know.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:27PM (3 children)
> Sounds good. Let's ask Dawkins (at 35:35).
Give me a link that is useful, that I don't have to turn on javascript. As it is I can't even find a link to whatever media is supposed to be on that page, audio, video? Maybe some text that you actually quote so we evaluate whatever specific claimns you are referring to.
> Race is not simply made up, despite that so many people feel obligated to pretend it is.
> The fact that you can tell by looking is all you need to know.
(1) You can't reliably tell by looking. My indian father in law (dot not feather) runs a convenience store (because of course he does) in a hispanic part of town. Every single day somebody tries to speak spanish to him because they think he's latino. My nephew who is half-indian and half-irish is darker than both his mother and said grandfather, and people often think he's black. And my wife, who is also 100% indian, is so fair skinned that everybody thinks she's european or maybe part japanese. And there is Rachael Dolezal who nobody thought was white until her bitchy parents decided to out her in a ridiculous fit of family drama.
(2) Individually "looks" are barely correlated with any other genetic characteristic.
Race isn't "made up" its both imposed on individuals by society and embraced (or rejected) by individuals too.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday March 09 2017, @09:40AM (2 children)
Give me a link that [lazy whining
Yes, the muppets use JavaScript for no reason, but I think you can can find a way.
You can't reliably tell by looking
This isn't the central argument you seem to think it is. Some people sometimes misjudge dogs' breeds, or people's genders. So what?
Race isn't "made up" its both imposed on individuals by society and embraced (or rejected) by individuals too.
Right... so you're saying it's arbitrary... i.e. made up. Well, no, it's not. It has medical consequences. It has genes-in-common. It's not just an arbitrary fabrication of the far right.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09 2017, @08:39PM (1 child)
This isn't the central argument you seem to think it is. Some people sometimes misjudge dogs' breeds, or people's genders. So what?
If it isn't a reliable predictor than its meaningless.
It doesn't get any more straightforward than that.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 09 2017, @09:41PM
If it isn't a reliable predictor than its meaningless.
Reliability is not a bit flag you set. How unreliable does it have to be in order to be meaningless? It is not unheard of to figure out the ethnicity of a person who has been dead for decades or more from their skeleton.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:02PM (8 children)
First, thanks for the link. Interesting discussion.
Yes, you're correct that "race is not simply made up," but I think it's important to note a few other things Dawkins says in your linked discussion, including:
(1) The genetic variance of the human species seems to be remarkably small compared to most other species.
(2) The variance within races or people with a particular geographic origin for all sorts of characteristics is generally much greater than the variance BETWEEN races. He similarly notes that variance of intelligence within a race is likely much more important than between races.
(3) He doesn't think the differences in racial IQ (or intelligence in general) are an interesting subject for scientific study. He's not exactly clear on why, other than the fact that he thinks such findings could be abused to promote discrimination.
But presumably he's also aware of two other things: (A) Scientists have been claiming racial differences in intelligence for hundreds of years, but such differences have almost always been later shown to be either non-existent or based on supposed "distinguishing features" that turned out to have nothing to do with intelligence. Also, (B) the measured IQ differences have been significantly undermined by many studies that show the bias of IQ tests, its inability to isolate a single "general intelligence" marker for all peoples and cultures (and even for all situations -- what constitutes "intelligence" since many skills not correlated with IQ are also helpful in human success?), and many recent rigorous studies have shown that most of the supposed observed racial differences become a LOT smaller (if not disappear entirely) when you control for things like socioeconomic status, education level, etc.
So yes, race is not entirely made up -- the question is why so many people are so obsessed with it. I completely agree with Dawkins that I find it disturbing when people are obsessed with trying to find links between race and intelligence, because it seems that any such factor (if there is one) is likely at least an order of magnitude smaller -- and thus potentially insignificant -- compared to things like socioeconomic status, educational opportunities (of both the parents and the child), and even stuff like diet and nutrition, exposure to environmental factors (toxins), etc.
I think most geneticists who say "race is a social construct" don't really mean there are NO measurable genetic differences: what they mean is that the variability within racial groups and geographic regions is so much greater so as to make the discussion of genetic differences between races practically irrelevant to many questions. (In fact, that's pretty much what a number of the geneticists say outright in the NY Times article linked by GP.) I suspect that's part of the reason Dawkins seems to be so against the study of race and intelligence, because previous studies have shown that whatever differences may be there are likely irrelevant compared to other much more obvious social issues we should confront first if we want to deal with problems of intelligence.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday March 08 2017, @11:10PM (6 children)
"Race is a social construct" means, essentially, that yes, you can define a group by some shared phenotype, and then attempt to Dan Brown together some meaningful inferences based on their shared genotype, but the point is that the phenotypes chosen are entirely arbitrary. Why are we grouping people of a certain combination of skin colour, hair colour etc and calling them a "race" when we could could just as easily pick the tibia / fibia length ratio (a way to differentiate Vikings from Saxons in the British population, apparently) or some other completely pointless, muddy physical factor. What we call "races" only exist because we have chosen to make them meaningful.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday March 09 2017, @02:47AM
Aunty! You out-do yourself!
and then attempt to Dan Brown together some meaningful inferences
+Amazing mod for "Use of 'Dan Brown' as a verb", +Truth mod for refutation of racism.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday March 09 2017, @10:02AM (4 children)
Why are we grouping people of a certain combination of skin colour, hair colour etc and calling them a "race" when we could could just as easily pick the tibia / fibia length ratio (a way to differentiate Vikings from Saxons in the British population, apparently) or some other completely pointless, muddy physical factor. What we call "races" only exist because we have chosen to make them meaningful.
Common genetic heritage and the ongoing application of local selective pressures, is what gives rise to race.
Should we call Viking and Saxon heritages 'race'? Maybe, maybe not, but it's the continuum fallacy to try to conclude that race doesn't exist just because we seem to have found something akin to a 'sub-race'.
Look at dog breeds (which no-one is trying to pretend is merely a 'social construct'). Some breeds are more similar than others, but we still (arbitrarily, if you like) treat them as separate breeds.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday March 09 2017, @12:10PM (3 children)
Common genetic heritage and the ongoing application of local selective pressures, is what gives rise to race.
Right, but of all the genes I have in common with my neighbours, of all the thousands of physical traits (eye colour, liver function, number of toes, size of earlobes, speed of fingernail growth...) I may or may not share with them, why are hair-curliness and skin-brownness the magic ones that define how I am treated in society? It's arbitrary.
Look at dog breeds (which no-one is trying to pretend is merely a 'social construct'). Some breeds are more similar than others, but we still (arbitrarily, if you like) treat them as separate breeds.
Dogs are a very special case. The immense variation within that particular species is highly unusual, and the result of thousands of generations of deliberate, guided, selective breeding. We don't treat different breeds of dogs differently arbitrarily, we treat them the way we do because they were designed and built to be treated that way. Retrievers love to fetch things and swim because that's what we made them for. Jack Russells like to attack small squeaky things because they have rat-catching hard-coded into their genes.
People, on the other hand, are all evolved for much the same thing. Life and society throughout the world and throughout 99.9% of human history has been almost exactly the same for everybody, everywhere in the world: Hunting, fishing, gathering and farming in communities of other humans; defending the tribe; singing, dancing, courting & mating; using tools and developing technology; domesticating animals; using language. These are what define ALL humans (just as "running very fast" defines a whippet) whether our roots are in India, Africa, Italy or Peru. Sure, you get some small regional specialisations (some mountain folk with thin-air adaptations for example, or cold-weather folk with pale skin) but these are tiny, superficial variations that tell you as much about a human's general abilities and personality as phrenology would.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that there is as much difference between, say, a white Scandinavian and a San bushman as there is between a chihuahua and a St Bernard?
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday March 09 2017, @02:21PM (2 children)
that define how I am treated in society
We weren't talking about how indefensible racism is, we were talking about the existence of race as a meaningful non-arbitrary concept. Of course racism is bad. Let's not waste time.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that there is as much difference between, say, a white Scandinavian and a San bushman as there is between a chihuahua and a St Bernard?
No, of course I'm not. That's why I never said it. You should find that rather telling.
I'll restate my point. You put:
What we call "races" only exist because we have chosen to make them meaningful.
and that is false.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday March 09 2017, @03:37PM (1 child)
>We weren't talking about how indefensible racism is, we were talking about the existence of race as a meaningful non-arbitrary concept.
Never said we were. Replace the quoted part of the sentence with "that define what race I am" and you get the same meaning.
>>What we call "races" only exist because we have chosen to make them meaningful.
> and that is false.
Really not getting your point. As stated more eloquently by another poster somewhere in this thread, the crude pigeon-holing of "race" breaks down completely at the genetic level. You either end up with tens of thousands of "races" because there is so much genetic variety in what superficially appears to be a homogenous group, or you have to invent countless byzantine exceptions that make the whole exercise completely pointless for any purpose other than stuffing people into a conveniently small number of asian / black / caucasian boxes.
Race means something socially. It means nothing genetically.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday March 09 2017, @05:44PM
Replace the quoted part of the sentence with "that define what race I am" and you get the same meaning.
No, of course you don't. Stop being obtuse.
Race means something socially. It means nothing genetically.
False. Did you not bother to listen to Dawkins?
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday March 09 2017, @09:56AM
Thanks for the solid reply.
I think most geneticists who say "race is a social construct" don't really mean there are NO measurable genetic differences: what they mean is that the variability within racial groups and geographic regions is so much greater so as to make the discussion of genetic differences between races practically irrelevant to many questions.
But that's not what a clueless bleeding-heart liberal means when they say it. Generally, it's a social construct is just a fancy way of saying it's a totally arbitrary category/distinction. They feel the need to pretend that race simply doesn't exist, and that's simply not true.
You're right of course that when it comes to intelligence/fitness/etc, individual variation obviously way outweighs between-race variation (if there even is any), but race still exists - it's sometimes even significant medically.
He doesn't think the differences in racial IQ (or intelligence in general) are an interesting subject for scientific study. He's not exactly clear on why, other than the fact that he thinks such findings could be abused to promote discrimination.
I'm inclined to agree with Dawkins' reservations here, but I think science has too strong a taboo on this sort of thing. We see that right here with this politically convenient fiction that race doesn't even really exist.
It's not something I'd want to research, but it wouldn't make you a racist to do it.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday March 08 2017, @11:46PM (3 children)
> Race is not simply made up,
Europeans made up a lot of artificial boundaries, as they went around the world trying to describe new things they could claim for themselves.
Challenge:
Take a map of the world. Draw me the pre-colonial boundaries of the various "races".
Good luck.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday March 09 2017, @09:44AM (2 children)
Well, no. None of that matters. Like I said above, race corresponds to common genes, heritage, and even has medical consequences. It's not just some fiction used to divide people.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday March 09 2017, @05:18PM (1 child)
> race corresponds to common genes, heritage,
So it should be easy to see where each race starts and ends, right?
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday March 09 2017, @05:47PM
I already mentioned the continuum fallacy once in this thread, but here we are again.
Anyway, no. The same is true of species, by the way. The fact that the lines aren't always clear doesn't mean the distinction is arbitrary.
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:52PM (10 children)
Maybe someone should tell this to the marine biologists working on Orcas.
Then again, they might all just be Costanza.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:18PM (9 children)
Since when are there different races of orcas?
You aren't confusing species with race, are you?
Because that would be a pretty stupid thing to do, don't you agree?
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Wednesday March 08 2017, @08:19PM (2 children)
It sure would be stupid, unless of course the variance across Orca species DNA was smaller than it is between races of Homosapien. I wish I had the link, it was an article from the old days of slashdot. Seeing as we are more enlightened now we probably should have just stoned the author to death. Either biologists are wrong and that there should instead be races of orcas (unless this changed since the Slashdot article) or there should be species of humans. This could very well be an issue arrising with many animals, the article only referenced Orcas.
I suppose that it could also be because if a biologist can convice people that the pod they are researching is a separate species distinct from what they were before, and therefor endangered, they would stand to get more research dollars investigating them. I imagine data on the human genome is more accurate than on Orcas as well.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @09:07PM (1 child)
It sure would be stupid, unless of course the variance across Orca species DNA was smaller than it is between races of Homosapien.
And which races of homosapiens would that be?
. Either biologists are wrong and that there should instead be races of orcas (unless this changed since the Slashdot article) or there should be species of humans.
Or... seeing as how you can't actually back up your claim with anything, you fantasized something that confirms your racism because racism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @09:30PM
And which races of homosapiens would that be?
I'm guessing these folk mean "White and Non-White" as well as "Rich and Non-Rich".
(Score: 2) by number6x on Wednesday March 08 2017, @09:50PM (5 children)
Since when are there different races of orcas?
<sarcasm>
There are Orcas that are black and white and there are other Orcas that are white and black. They are both white in the same places and both black in the same places, but somehow they still know the difference.
This, along with other made up facts, are why humans learn to hate other humans for no justifiable reasons.
</sarcasm>
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Sulla on Wednesday March 08 2017, @10:13PM (3 children)
Maybe the world is different, but growing up I was taught that "our differences are what make us stronger" and I have always believed this. This truth becomes evident in the educatioanl and business world in getting new ideas for solving problems as well as avoiding groupthink. I am not interested at all in what the author from the article has to say about it, all I know is that there are verifiable differences. So what? My problem is that the genetic differences between the races of man (whether or not they exist is up to you) are important to know for, at the very least, the development of targeted medicines and monitoring techbiques to catch problems before they arise. Our differences make us stronger and the genes of someone from Africa with someone from Europe will produce a child who is more resistant to skin cancer and less at risk to heart disease.
Yet anymore instead of "our differences make us stronger" there is "no difference and if you see there is one then you are a racist". Yet as we push for the later option for humanity in the animal world they are further subdividing what was one species into multiple. So wither we accept we are different and they are different, or we accept that we are the same and they are the same. Both are fine but there needs to be consistancy. The easiest and most politically correct would probably take the genetic deviation of humans and decide that is the amount deviation acceptable for something to be one species, and we subdivide it no further than that, all of us one species. Then we go reclassify animals as either the same species or separate based on that standard.
Now that we have genetics and all, we need to change our medical books to specify the genes associated with particular tolerances and what drugs interact best. Everyone should know what their genes are (or their doctors do) so that we subdivide only by specific chains with our genes. This way we are all the same and regarded the same with the exception of gene structure known only to ourselves, our doctors, facebook, and the NSA. Regardless of the label we are different, its a good thing, deal with it.
Here they talk about it some, but it doesnt have the DNA variance number I was looking for
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/deleted-scenes/one-ocean-four-or-more-killer-whale-species [sciencenews.org]
Been reading all day about Orca species, seeming more and more a scam for more funding
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @11:45PM (2 children)
Yet anymore instead of "our differences make us stronger" there is "no difference and if you see there is one then you are a racist".
That is some Grade-A willful ignorance.
The "differences that make us stronger" aren't genetic, they are cultural.. And they have always been cultural.
And that's because genetic differences between races do not exist in any meaningful fashion so no one ever meant it the way you are using it.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 09 2017, @12:47AM (1 child)
No bullshit in Sulla's post. Using a simple descriptor to identify a person can get you in hot water in today's world. And, now that Sulla has reminded me, I did hear that mantra, "Our differences make us stronger." Actually, I heard it a lot as a young man. E Pluribus Unum doesn't mean everyone is the same. It means we listen to each other, we value each other, we share ideas and values.
Sulla's post is spot on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @11:01PM
Lol.
That's just a fancier way of saying all y'all libruls are hypocrites cause you won't tolerate my intolerance!
(Score: 3, Funny) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday March 08 2017, @11:13PM
Do the Orcas look like this? [wikia.com]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:56PM (2 children)
There's genetic component of intelligence, for instance: Irish setters, not quite as smart as your average Homo sapiens - there's a strong genetic component at work there. Even within H. sapiens, there are genetic components that play into intelligence/aptitude.
Race also has a strong genetic component, skin color, body type, hair type and coloration, etc. all come together with a few social factors to determine one's race.
Thank God that we are not (yet) a homogenous pool 7 billion identical copies. There will be some correlations among genetic traits (blonde hair is more commonly found with blue eyes than brown), but they are not exclusions. A person of any race can be highly, or lowly, intelligent. Persons of high, low, or average intelligence may be of any race. There are certain correlations that exist - higher percentages of A found with B, but not exclusions between race and intelligence.
What we need to do is focus on the social aspect to ensure that "easy prejudices" like race and sex do not act to perpetuate existing boundaries, anyone can strive to be anything, and many can succeed.
Having said all of that, there are some significant correlations between race/sex and aptitudes for things like mathematics, social empathy, etc. Just because the correlations exist is not a reason to exclude members of the "low odds" pool from pursuing a profession if they want to, but the correlations are real and we shouldn't expect every profession to fill up with 50/50 male/female, or races according to the local population percentages.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:47PM (1 child)
There's genetic component of intelligence, for instance: Irish settlers, not quite as smart as your average Homo sapiens -
You bigot! Irish Settlers were just as intelligent as all the other European exiles that settled in the Americas! What the hell are you? American racist, Bill O'Reilly? Or a bloody Pom?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 09 2017, @09:50PM
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:10PM (7 children)
the lower the intelligence, the worse the productivity—and at a certain threshold across a population, society starts to break down.
Funny you should say that. Just last night I read this article, that says, among other things:
This line of thinking was extended to become a core part of the logic of colonialism. The argument ran like this: non-white peoples were less intelligent; they were therefore unqualified to rule over themselves and their lands. It was therefore perfectly legitimate – even a duty, ‘the white man’s burden’ – to destroy their cultures and take their territory. In addition, because intelligence defined humanity, by virtue of being less intelligent, these peoples were less human. They therefore did not enjoy full moral standing – and so it was perfectly fine to kill or enslave them.
— On the dark history of intelligence as domination [aeon.co]
Looks like you have uncritically incorporated that into your belief system. Which is hella ironic, because by your own logic, that intellectual failing would make you partially responsible for the "break down" of society. There is one simple thing you could personally do to help save society. I think you know what it is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:23PM (5 children)
Firstly, see this comment [soylentnews.org], namely the reply titled "You are AGREEING with me".
Secondly, note that Africans were enslaved by other Africans in their various tribal wars, and then those slaves were sold to Arab slave traders; Europeans and Americans then purchased those people not as slaves, but as indentured servants, who (like white people, too) would serve for some number of years under a master, and then be set free according to a contract.
One of these African slaves who became an indentured servant was Anthony Johnson from Angola; after he was freed as per the indentured servitude, he purchased his own African servants, but he purchased them as slaves, and actually took the matter to court, becoming the first person living in America to be recognized under common law as a slave holder.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:31PM (4 children)
> Secondly, note that Africans were enslaved by other Africans in their various tribal wars,
As if the fact that some africans sold other africans into slavery has anything to do with genetics.
Your decision to trot out a completely unrelated rationalization for racism just revealed that this is all about you justifying white supremacy and nothing to do with science.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:01PM (3 children)
The second point is tackling your warped history of slavery.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:12PM (2 children)
Eh, the lamestream history on this was already fake news even back in 1840 I'm guessing.
Those poor southern
slaveerservant-holderser job creators, their angel-like nature sullied by the degenerate influence of the negro.(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:20PM (1 child)
You're just some triggered fool who is trying to sooth his cognitive dissonance by replacing the actual statements with ones that nobody made.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:32PM
Secondly, note that Africans were enslaved by other Africans in their various tribal wars,
Yes, that's true.
and then those slaves were sold to Arab slave traders;
Yes, that's true.
Europeans and Americans then purchased those people not as slaves, but as indentured servants, who (like white people, too) would serve for some number of years under a master, and then be set free according to a contract.
I'm certain from time to time that yes, that's true.
One of these African slaves who became an indentured servant was Anthony Johnson from Angola... [who became] the first person living in America to be recognized under common law as a slave holder.
I'm assuming that's also true.
Am I supposed to understand that whoever posted that was implying nothing, that it is merely a disinterested recounting of selected historical trivia?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:52PM
There is one simple thing you could personally do to help save society. I think you know what it is.
You don't say! The "one weird trick" that would increase the intelligence of white people? I sense a Netflix TV series in the offing: "The Racist Suicides"!!
JFK: "Ask not what your country can do for you, just kill yourself instead."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:47PM
Furthermore, there is a huge link between intelligence and productivity in society
How do we know that if we don't even have a scientifically provable way of measuring intelligence? IQ hasn't been proven to accurately measure an individual's level of intelligence, and the social 'sciences' don't have anything else to offer either. It's not that I don't think the particular statement I'm quoting makes sense, but that I expect rigorous scientific evidence to prove it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09 2017, @03:29AM
You just butt-fucked yourself dumbass.
"Furthermore, there is a huge link between intelligence and productivity in society; the lower the intelligence, the worse the productivity"
Lets see now. Nothing is made in america anymore. Few good jobs. Most white people I see sell drugs, burglarize homes, and dumpster dive daily.
Low intelligence and poor productivity across the board for white americans.
Looks to me like you white supremacists are the inferior ones. Go fuck yourselves.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @03:46PM (19 children)
So similar to there being measurable differences in breeds of dogs, I wouldn't be surprised if there are measurable differences in human breeds HOWEVER the differences wouldn't be significant enough for many scenarios.
For example, if you're interviewing candidates for most jobs, IQ actually isn't that important in most cases once the candidate has higher than a certain IQ level.
And even if you're selecting candidates for IQ and mental aptitude, the differences in human breeds aren't enough to just exclude particular breeds, you might as well go candidate by candidate based on historical performance or tests.
BUT when you look at the results you may notice a difference in which breeds "rise to the top".
For example, like the 100 metres running event. You may not actually have been selecting by breed of human, just picking the individuals that run fastest. And after a while you notice that most/all of the fastest are black. Similarly you may notice a disproportionate number of Jews winning Nobel Prizes (about 20% of prize winners are Jews despite Jews making up only 0.2% of the world's population, some of the awards might have been bullshit ones - after all they can give Obama a Peace Prize, but plenty of the science ones seem fair enough).
Despite such results there's still no point excluding a particular breed from competing since there might still be anomalies and it's better to pick by actual performance and track records than breed since there are plenty of slow black runners and stupid Jews too.
Last but not least, to me it's unscientific to get so upset that some guy claims there are measurable differences in IQ in the different breeds of humans. Or to assume it can't be true just because "it can't be true" because you and "everyone" don't like it.
If the data backs him up and it's reproducible then too bad that's the reality. Of course it's obvious that few others would try to do similar studies ;).
(Score: 2, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:29PM (4 children)
Some people¹ get bent out of shape about it because they don't want a caste system. There are facts, and then there are what people do with those facts. If species::men were angels, we would have no need for a taboo as concerns discussing the facts. Some people are interested in genomics and quantifying risk factors for various diseases in order to help people, and that's how we discover things.
Many more people than those however are simply looking for an excuse to justify treating other people like shit, because they want a caste system, one where they, conveniently enough, just so happen to be the superior, more authentic caste. The proponents of the various caste systems (race is only one among several) seem to be winning these days.
“Once an $x, always an $x, assigned to the $x caste at birth. We know your mind better than you know your mind.” Response: “Got one mind for who I know is me / Got 'nother for $y to see / He don't know / He don't know my mind.”
Also there was a movie I think called Gattaca that might explain the shortcomings of a caste system, no matter how exacting and precise that caste system has been designed. Of course it is, after all, just a movie. I doubt we'll ever see that sophisticated of a caste system when the familiar and clumsy kind accomplishes the same thing in the end.
¹ One will also note that some people also get so bent out of shape about the original caste system that they believe, not that a caste system was a bad idea in unto itself, but that All We Need To Do Is tweak the castes a bit.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:39PM
Bingo.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:38PM (2 children)
Also there was a movie I think called Gattaca that might explain the shortcomings of a caste system
Well yeah, Gattaca is clearly the primary source you should refer to.
However, if that's not available there was this guy named Ghandi that had a thing or two to say about it.
He was played by Ben Kingsley.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 09 2017, @12:55AM (1 child)
Before you bring Ghandi into a discussion, you should know Ghandi. The man was a racist who believed strongly in the caste system of India. His biggest problem with the English was, that the English looked down on Ghandi just as they looked down on the black man. To an Englishman, there was no difference between African blacks, and Ghandi's caste. Ghandi believed that African blacks were an inferior people, equal to India's lowest castes. But Ghandi's caste was a high caste, deserving of respect from the English.
Get to know the real Ghandi, not the popular myth that progressives like to trot out. That mythical figure loves to jump through hoops, it will even jump through it's own ass if you stroke it correctly. The real Ghandi was no progressive pet.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday March 09 2017, @03:49AM
Actually in S. Africa there was basically 3 castes, white, coloured and black with the coloured being somewhere in between the white and black. Always amazed me how one drop of black blood means that you're that much lower.
As for Gandhi, like everyone, he was a product of his times and may well have changed in his outlook with age.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:31PM (7 children)
"it's unscientific to get so upset that some guy claims there are measurable differences in IQ in the different breeds of humans. Or to assume it can't be true just because "it can't be true" because you and "everyone" don't like it."
I can't really dispute that. But, then again, I have never claimed to be a scientist.
I am, however, an old dude. I've spent a lifetime interacting with people from many different places. I've seen no evidence that whites are more intelligent than blacks. I've met some very smart people, and they have come in all colors. I've met some very dumb people, and again, they come in all colors.
Going back to the claims of this controversial fool: "Intelligence can be linked to DNA and environment." I don't think that anyone can really dispute that naked statement. Just leave it as is, and it is true. You have to be born with a decent mind to have a chance or shining as an intellectual. And, that mind has to be nurtured before it does shine.
As has been pointed out by other commenters here, there are no unique genes that affect intelligence that are found in only one race. The nappiness or the straightness of your hair, the size of your nose, the shape of your ears, not even the size of your skull can be linked to intelligence. How fast you can run a hundred meters, or 10 kilometers has no bearing on your intelligence.
There ARE some differences between your average white American or European, and Asians and black people. But NONE of those differences are related to intelligence.
Take a few thousand of each, and scan their brains with whatever you choose to scan with. Give them all sorts of tests, while measuring their brain activity. If you find drastic differences between the races, I really want to hear about those differences.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:31PM (5 children)
But NONE of those differences are related to intelligence.
Why?
Just curious if that insistence is based on some "intelligent design" criteria where god said so, or ...
I mean, surely, unless you believe intelligence lives in the soul, or you believe in souls, intelligence is strictly a physical thing. I mean, having a brain blood clot shouldn't affect an incorporeal soul but it sure messes up intelligence, for example. Or performance on IQ tests is pretty easily influenced by pills and medications spacing people out chemically. Or just beer, I suppose.
So if everything physical is genetic from liver function to heart disease to diabetic susceptibility, why can't intelligence be equally genetic, and have a narrow little bell curve of measured performance levels?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:52PM (2 children)
Yes intelligence is genetic, on a per individual basis.
But intelligence is not meaningfully correlated by "race" because there is literally no reliable genetic definition of race.
Whenever somebody tries to scientifically define race they end up with so many exceptions that either they have to divide us up into tens of thousands of different "races" or group us into such broad categories that they become useless as a tool to make any predictions about individuals in that race.
And the reason for this is because humans get around. We have wanderlust. We all started from the same place and have continuously wandered the planet, making babies with everybody we meet since then. There has simply not been enough time in isolation for groups to meaningfully diverge on a genetic level.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday March 12 2017, @01:17PM (1 child)
Really? I didn't know sickle cell anemia was the same rate in Iceland and Somalia. Or Lactose tolerance was the same percentage exactly in Switzerland and Japan. Running performance on average is the same in Asia and Africa.
I mean sure, it feels good and sounds nice as long as you don't think about it too deeply.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @11:14PM
> Really? I didn't know sickle cell anemia was the same rate in Iceland and Somalia.
Except that for all practical purposes it IS the same.
Sickle cell rate in Somalia is 3% of what it is in Nigeria.
Sickle cell rate in Iceland is 1% of what it is in Nigeria.
> I mean sure, it feels good and sounds nice as long as you don't think about it too deeply.
The problem here is that what you consider "thinking deeply" isn't. That's on you.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 09 2017, @01:02AM
Because very intelligent people have been observed to possess many of the exact same traits which are often associated with low IQ. There are no physical indicators of intelligence. If there are, I wish you would inform all of us. Of course, you'll have to supply a truckload of citations. Which traits would you like to go for? Exceedingly large (small) feet? Free swinging earlobes, or attached earlobes? Large or small skulls? Go ahead, you make up the rule, and I can find the exceptions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09 2017, @10:56AM
If you can find them (because politically inconvenient information tends to disappear), you should look up some of the results of people doing IQ tests while high on LSD.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:15PM
One reason why humans test higher on IQ scores than dogs is because humans made up the test, for humans.
Same can be said for old-school IQ tests made up by U.S. born WASPs - if you aren't a U.S. born WASP, you've got a disadvantage going into the test.
To an extent, some jobs are tailor made for certain groups, short stature and jockeys/fighter pilots come to mind, but there are many other more nuanced examples. Where this amounts to cultural bias and exclusion of people from professions based on race, it should be rectified where practical.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:39PM (5 children)
That's actually not a bad paraphrase of the conclusion of the book, as I read it originally 20 years ago.
Being ivory tower academics the authors got into other ivory towers, and one specific example was economic models assuming a billion Africans in Africa will generate quite as much economic innovation and growth as a billion asians or whatever are simply doomed to fail.
I have to agree with some of that, after the book was published FOSS goes mainstream and its still to this day basically an asian/white male hobby.
Look at the incredible success (sarcasm) of Zimbabwae's economy once they genocided all the white culture, and now south africa is starting to replicate that. Some day soon Capetown is going to be just another Somali of pain of suffering, but at least they won't have the whites around once they're all killed. Actually its pretty much like Haiti, that beacon of prosperity and human joy.
I seem to recall the conclusion, or a reaction to the book, maybe, also go into policy. "everyone knows" the meme that Libertarianism only works in a population with an IQ over 110, which is why it seems to sensible on college campuses, not so much outside. But there was an argument that democracy maybe requires around IQ 100 and there's genetic IQ based reasons why no amount of imperialism can force some parts of the world to implement western democracy. No matter how many times white men with rifles beat and shoot them, they just won't do democracy right. The book implies they just don't have the mental horsepower and are not going to and punishing them by trying to force it onto them is as inhumane as whipping a chihuahua dog for not pulling an arctic sled like a huskie, or for that matter, whipping a huskie for going into heat exhaustion in the tropics, and no amount of whipping or agonizing about the political injustice of the problem will ever fix the fundamental problem. There were echos of white mans burden such that for genetic reasons if white people don't like watching African babies die of starvation and malaria well we're stuck fixing it because they're not ever going to be capable, either we fix it or we watch it happen into perpetuity. The stone age ended a long time ago, just not evenly distributed across geography or, across races.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:17PM
You cannot fix it. Any attempt to fix it will result in overpopulation, and make the problems 10x worse for next generation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:24PM
No matter how many times white men with rifles beat and shoot them, they just won't do democracy right.
But that's not about IQ.
Take the example of wolves vs dogs. Actually many wolves are smarter than the average dog ( http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/05/whos-socially-smarter-dog-or-wolf [sciencemag.org] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf4C_EMz5Fc [youtube.com] ).
But dogs fit in human society a lot better than wolves. The difference is dogs are _domesticated_. Dogs are less likely to rip your throat out just because they decided it was their time to be the Alpha.
Humans aren't as "domesticated" as dogs but perhaps the whites and certain breeds of Asians may have had more generations of domestication than many Africans (who may have returned to wild after the collapse of their various civilizations, there's more than just Egypt and the Nubians).
Most of the more domesticated people do stuff because they are following OTHER people. Mimicry etc. It's not because they understand how stuff really works, nor have they figured out the long term consequences and decided that "yes democracy is the lesser evil, I shouldn't be trying to convince my village and allies to help make me Warlord". They push buttons on a lift etc not because they fully understand how it works, but because they see other people push those buttons and the results. They go to school, highschool, etc because that's what they are supposed to do. A few might understand a lot more but they're a minority. However because of the domestication the resulting society is less likely to fall apart at first opportunity.
The less domesticated bunch might actually be more intelligent than average but they're more likely to use that intelligence for themselves so they can be the Alpha, or for their Tribe.
But keep in mind domesticated animals can often go back to wild within generations. So domesticate the humans properly. Educate the smart ones and brainwash the dumb ones properly (if you don't others will do the brainwashing anyway).
Or it could be a cultural thing.
But whatever it is, the problem is not because the Africans are too stupid or have low IQs. The Nigerians have been smart enough to scam fair numbers of whites. The issues are elsewhere.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday March 09 2017, @04:37AM
By coincidence, a documentary I happened to watch earlier today... it might well be subtitled "Chinese frustration with Africa"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0C4_88ub_M [youtube.com]
If you don't have time for the whole thing, at least watch the last five minutes.
Another interesting talk, which explains much (note that the speaker started from a position of profound sympathy with Africa):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAoNhacojmM [youtube.com]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 09 2017, @10:42PM (1 child)
"everyone knows" the meme that Libertarianism only works in a population with an IQ over 110, which is why it seems to sensible on college campuses, not so much outside.
I never ran into that. Instead, college campuses seem some of the most hostile places to libertarianism. I think it's for two reasons: because colleges tend to be heavily dependent on government funding and because colleges are chock full of people who know best (a powerful government being the easiest way to implement whatever top-down vision you have for society).
Being ivory tower academics the authors got into other ivory towers, and one specific example was economic models assuming a billion Africans in Africa will generate quite as much economic innovation and growth as a billion asians or whatever are simply doomed to fail.
And the basis for your reasoning is? Let us note that throughout Africa we're seeing the same progress towards a developed world society as everywhere else. It may lag most of the world, but it is going on. My prediction on the matter is that by 2100, the entire world with the possible exception of a few ideological holdouts (like North Korea today) will be developed world. That includes Africa.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 11 2017, @09:09AM
"everyone knows" the meme that Libertarianism only works in a population with an IQ over 110, which is why it seems to sensible on college campuses, not so much outside.
I never ran into that. Instead, college campuses seem some of the most hostile places to libertarianism. I think it's for two reasons: because colleges tend to be heavily dependent on government funding and because colleges are chock full of people who know best (a powerful government being the easiest way to implement whatever top-down vision you have for society).
Or it is the result of the terrible truth: Libertarianism only appeals to persons with an IQ below 90, those who can't get into Collage, let alone papier marche.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:05PM (5 children)
Yes, there's no question about that. They tried to design IQ tests in such a way that it didn't, but so far have not succeeded.
However, there are other factors that Murray carefully ignores that also have nothing to do with genetic superiority or anything like that:
- Geography: Specifically, black people in the US are far more likely to live in the run-down areas of major cities. Guess what else you'll find in run-down areas of major cities? Lead, in paint, in pipes, in the dirt, in schools, and all sorts of other places they're likely to spend time. Guess what the first things to be affected by lead poisoning are? Higher brain function and impulse control. This has also provided evidence for the lead-crime hypothesis [rationalwiki.org].
- Nutrition: People who don't eat regularly and well don't develop their brains as well as people who have access to plentiful and healthy food. Which means poor people, regardless of genetics, have a hard time getting smart in childhood.
I'm not saying these factors can't be overcome, but it isn't easy, and you are much more likely to hear about the rare exceptions than the more common cases.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:24PM
Yes, there's no question about that. They tried to design IQ tests in such a way that it didn't, but so far have not succeeded.
I suspect its impossible because if there's any kind of class mobility at all, on the borders, someone a tiny bit dumber is going to fall and a tiny bit smarter is going to rise.
Unless we go full on Viking and its solely sword arm bicep circumference. Any sort of politics or complicated system, if they're any class mobility at all, dumb ones going to sink, smart ones going to rise....
It would be interesting to see an analysis of noveau riche vs old money where the new people are probably quite a bit more intelligent than the old money who are just coasting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:25PM (2 children)
How come only black people have become stuck there?
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:31PM
Black people moved to the cities between approximately 1910 and 1970 in a period known as the Great Migration, primarily for two reasons: (1) There was industrial work to be had in those cities, and (2) It was much better to be an industrial worker in a city than a sharecropper. White people, in response to both black people moving in and school integration efforts, moved out of the cities to the suburbs in a phenomenon known as "white flight", a process more-or-less completed by the early 1980's. This was all before Clair Patterson had convinced anybody that lead poisoning might be a problem, so the use of lead in homes, cars, and industry was common, and since cities concentrate everything, they also concentrated lead.
They stayed there for several reasons:
* Sundown towns [tougaloo.edu] meant that many rural areas and suburbs were dangerous for black people to be in overnight. Black Americans had to and did develop maps for use when traveling around the country so they could figure out how to get from point A to point B without getting lynched. These maps also had marked on them what hotels and restaurants would be willing to serve black people.
* Rampant housing discrimination. There were homeowner association contracts and other formal arrangements to keep black people from living in certain areas, redlining by banks to prevent black people from taking out loans to buy homes, and landlords refusing to rent to black people in certain areas. Some of these are still going on informally.
* Money. The cost of an apartment in whiter neighborhoods is higher than in blacker neighborhoods. So the well-documented difference between black and white pay for the same job translates into a difference in where black and white people can live, even if the landlords aren't discriminating based on race. Also, moving is expensive.
* Community. If all your friends and family live in an area, so you're likely to want to stay there. That's true of small towns where a lot of things suck, it's also true of urban neighborhoods where a lot of things suck.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by compro01 on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:57PM
Decades of segregation, exclusionary covenants, discriminatory hiring practises, etc.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday March 09 2017, @04:13AM
There's also dysfunctional families. Parenting is a learned thing and in the case of African-Americans, slavery meant generations of families broken apart. Here in Canada the same thing was done to the natives, generations of kids removed from their families and sent to residential schools to be abused by the good Christians.
Which leads to drug abuse, especially alcohol, a steady diet of alcohol fed to a fetus is guaranteed to lower IQ, screw up their impulse control and various other negative things. Other addicting drugs are likely to screw up parenting in various ways such as spending money on smack instead of food.
(Score: 5, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:06PM (4 children)
First, to be absolutely clear, I'm NOT an advocate for Murray. I struggled about whether to submit this story, because I think some of his scholarship borders on irresponsible. But while I completely support the right to protest (and frankly support those who would protest him), I'm disturbed by the form and escalation of the protests. And I thought it was relevant to stories that have been discussed here in previous months.
Anyhow, again, not to come to the defense of Murray, but it should be noted that MOST of The Bell Curve is actually about a lot of the stuff you mention, i.e., class structure and how it contributes to social problems. And they (Herrnstein and Murray) do admit the strong influence of environmental factors in influencing intelligence. On the other hand, they ALSO claim that they can separate out a genetic component for intelligence (including connecting some of that to race) and that such genetic intelligence is also a major factor in social problems. The problem is that this latter argument was frequently based on shoddy scholarship, as well as selective use of studies and selective analysis of stats.
How about someone give me a call when they figure out how to measure intelligence, without relying on class and/or race sensitive criteria.
Well, the main way psychologists attempt to do this is through adoption studies, e.g., they look at what happens when poor black kids are adopted at birth and raised in upper-class white households. Twin studies can also help to try to sort out genetics from environment. Data from studies like these have actually been used to refute some of Murray's arguments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:19PM
I'm disturbed by the form and escalation of the protests.
Inhumanity brings out the worst in people, regardless of which side of an issue people are on.
That's why the millions of people participating in the women's march in support of positive ideals had essentially no problems with violence. While a pro-trump demonstration of at most a couple of hundred people quickly escalated [washingtonpost.com] into a melee and why everybody is talking about the moral dimensions of punching nazis.
(Score: 2) by termigator on Wednesday March 08 2017, @08:19PM (2 children)
> Well, the main way psychologists attempt to do this is through adoption studies, e.g., they look at what happens when poor black kids are adopted at birth and raised in upper-class white households
You still have to be careful with adoption studies since environmental factors start while in the womb, where there is a lack of proper nutrition and prenatal care. The early stages are the most critical for biological development.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @09:32PM
And a black kid growing up with a rich white family in a rich white neighborhood is still black and so still gets the burden of being treated as black by individuals he encounters along the way, like teachers, cops, other kids, etc.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by dry on Thursday March 09 2017, @04:20AM
I have identical twin nieces. Seems that one hogged the placenta, she was first on the cord. At birth she was almost twice as heavy as the other one (they were both small), stayed larger through life, did much better in school, had better impulse control etc.
Even in the same family, with identical genes, there can be a surprising amount of differentiation.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mobydisk on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:31PM (2 children)
Alright, I glanced at the Bell Curve. Want my opinion?
I hope you would not violently protest something you merely "glanced at."
Fight statistics with statistics. Fight intelligent discourse with intelligent discourse. Responding to a statistical analysis & lecture with violence is mindless. This is how we get idiots for presidents. It seems like just as humanity was kinda figuring stuff out, then suddenly statistics and intelligent discourse are being replaced with feelings and violence. This is not a good direction for the human race.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:40PM
A "protest" is being present, and doing stupid but harmless things like waving banners, wearing T-shirts with mottos, chanting, maybe even marching. A "violent protest" is more commonly known as a riot. Protesting is an annoyance, rioting is a danger to society. The only time I have ever taken any part in a riot, was when we quelled a riot.
I could attend one of Murray's lectures, wearing a T-shirt that says "Murray is an ass clown and a racist" as protest against his teachings. I'm not even capable of running berserk, throwing rocks at him, torching his car and/or nearby buildings, and all the other crazy things rioters do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @11:21PM
Fight statistics with statistics. Fight intelligent discourse with intelligent discourse. Responding to a statistical analysis & lecture with violence is mindless.
"We can disagree & still love each other, unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression & denial of my humanity and right to exist."
— Linda Sarsour
For some of us, a debate with Charles Murray is not merely some academic exercise. A nazi making scholarly arguments for nazism is still a nazi.
(Score: 0, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:09PM (23 children)
Protesting's fine, putting him in the hospital because you don't like what he has to say ain't. Ahh the fabled tolerance of the left.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:42PM (22 children)
As if the left is the only group who preaches tolerance and then does the opposite....
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:27PM (20 children)
No, they're just the ones who make half their platform about tolerance then employ violence against anyone who disagrees with them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:48PM (19 children)
How about you just walk it back period. There is an awful lot of self-righteous preaching on both sides by people who couldn't understand the definition of tolerance if their lives depended on it. BOTH SIDES.
You threw a barb at the other side, and one that doesn't stick very well. A very hypocritical one too.
The right is filled with intolerant lying bastards and you know it. That's their whole shtick with their religiously based intolerance towards large groups of people. The left certainly lies as well, and yes, a veneer of tolerance lies over much of the left when tolerance isn't what they are interested in at all. These riots in schools prove as much to me, and some of the SJW crap on the far left is intolerance packaged up social justice.
I see the intolerance and stupidity too. We would probably be more successful at pointing that out without the barbs and attacks, which are really just reminders of how most people choose between two shitty fucking sides that can't stop fucking over their constituents.
This isn't an exclusive problem of the left.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 09 2017, @01:11AM
TMB's "barb" does stick. You don't hear the right chanting that tolerance mantra. The right's mantra is more like, "Act respectable, and you'll be treated respectfully." I'm sick of that diversity bullshit, especially because it has been trotted out to defend some of the vilest people in this country. Focusing on BLM, they went into action for a criminal in Ferguson, but haven't made a sound for the Rice boy shot to death in Ohio.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Thursday March 09 2017, @01:26AM (4 children)
Sorry but I have to hit you with a "Citation Needed" on that one. Show me an example of widescale right violence.
I am NOT saying the right is more tolerant, I am not asserting the Right are 'better' people, I am NOT saying the Right wouldn't use violence if it could, I am not even denying that as things escalate the Right is very likely to begin using violence, in different ways than the left obviously. What I am saying is you are knowingly, with malice in your heart, using a false equivalence to justify the violence of your side. I double dare you to assert that there is anywhere in the U.S. where the Right could stage a riot on the scale of the recent Berkley riots and wreck a large section of a major city safe in the knowledge there would be zero arrests. That is the difference, we on the Right do not have amendable authorities who will pull the police back and permit us to use violence, we do not have a vast media operation to fog the issue and excuse / justify violence we commit. In short we currently abstain from violence because we can't get away with it.
(Score: 3, Touché) by aristarchus on Thursday March 09 2017, @02:59AM (3 children)
"Citation Needed". Show me an example of widescale right violence.
World War Two? Lots of Bell Curvy theories about races floating about then, too.
("jmorris, you really should be more careful! If I were you, I would leave before someone drops a house on you as well!" Glinda, Good Witch of the North)
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday March 09 2017, @03:12AM (2 children)
Ok champ, riddle me this: Who was the "Right" side in WWII?
On the Axis side you had fascists, socialists, national socialists and other assorted leftist misfits along with whatever the hell Japan thought it was doing.
On the Allied side you had FDR's fascist leaning proto socialists, Joe Stalin and the Soviets who I really hope you are stupid enough to say was a "right winger" and a Great Britain who was pretty socialist before the war and went full socialist after and stayed that way until Thatcher. The U.S. kinda snapped back to reality after the war with Ike and has wobbled on the edge of falling into the socialist abyss ever since. Reagan was the closest we came to walking back from the edge and he didn't really do much, it was more a case of we stayed in place long enough to get some stability... before sliding right back left as soon as he left office.
WWII was a war inside the socialist family between the nationalist wing and the internationalists.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday March 09 2017, @06:48AM (1 child)
Fucking Nazis, jmorris, fucking inferior racist trying to prevail by the pure force of will, and when that failed, by mindless storm-troopers. Mousellini even went there, but the Aryan Race stuff is a bit hard to miss. The Japanese had a similar view of all other Asians, if they were so weak as to be colonized by westerners, they should not object to being "liberated" and ruled over by the superior descendants of the Sun Goddess, right?
I am more or less certain that your view of history is completely mind-fucked into the realm of "fake history". Drunk history would be preferable. So, to answer your question, the Axis was the "right" side in WWII, which means they were the "wrong" side as well. It is only the fortune of history, and America, that makes them also the losers. So when ever a racist right-wing authoritarian like you asks this question, my only response is that, yes, it is perfectly alright to punch a Nazi in the face. And this applies to all right-wing racists. (And all racists are right-wing? Did you ever notice that? I mean, it can't just be a coincidence!)
Are you once again going with the low-information conservative faction meme that since Nazis were, after all, National Socialists, that some how leftist movements are fascist? Your ignorance of political science never ceases to amaze me, jmorris! The "nationalist" part means that the "socialist" part is not in fact Socialist. Fascist is named after the Faeces,
The Italian term fascismo is derived from fascio meaning a bundle of rods, ultimately from the Latin word fasces.[14]
Got your Wikipedia citation right there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism [wikipedia.org] . Opps, looks like I misspelled it to mean something like "shit"! No matter! The "fascio" was a bundle of rods bound around the handle of an axe, a war-axe, and when the Roman Senate handed this over to someone, he was the "Dictator", the one whose "dicta" was law, for a period of emergency. What always amazed me about Rome was that the Senate did this several times, and the Imperator gave the fasces back. Usually when you grant someone supreme executive power, that is the last you see of it. It is a credit to Roman Generals, prior to that prick and Petraeus wanna be, Julius Caesar, that they used power only in the interest of the Senātus Populusque Rōmānus (SQPR, on the sheilds of all Roman legions).
But, of course, this is your error, jmorris. You are American, no doubt, which means you are both geographically and historically challenged! The Founding Fathers of you nation, fortunately, were neither. They understood that supreme executive power had to be limited in order for Republic to survive. In other words, America should learn from Rome's mistakes. Handing over absolute power may work when you are attacked by Puns, like Hannibal, but it is not a sustainable model of governance. As a right-wing nut-job, I know that you crave in your heart of hearts to have a supreme leader, or at least an obercommander! to tell you what to do, since you obviously are not capable of working that out for your self and becoming a citizen of a democratic nation. I pity you, you pathetic bastard!
But here is more to the point, and I go on too long an have other things to do right now, but I will make time for you, oh you misguided Soylentil: Leftists do not oppress anyone. It is antithetical to leftist doctrine! The only reason a leftist government would use to power of the state is to prevent some members of the state from oppressing and exploiting others. That is just the way it is. Now you might say the Kulaks were just decent landlords trying to make a ruble. But we all know they were not. So to suggest that there is equivalency between Hitler, a deranged American Republican Party Racist White Supremecist, and Stalin, who was not racist at all, is really a bridge too far. If your mind can cross that, your mind is truly broken. But then, any Soylentil who has been paying attention already knows that.
For your edification, jmorris, let me suggest this way to understand the left/right divide. The left is always trying to achieve something. You may not agree with their goals, but if they use force, in protest, or revolution, or the power of the state, that force is always in the service of some further goal. Violence is alway instrumental to the left, it is never their primary aim.
So, the right: For the right, it seems that power itself is the goal. And this could be the source of your confusion. Fascists in power are notoriously promiscuous in their ideology! Bread and Circuses? Trains running on Time? Keeping the Jews from taking our jobs with the HB-1 visas? Sound familiar? No, the main thing is the fasces , the power, and power with no purpose, well, welcome to the Dark Side, The Dark Enlightenment Side, the Bannon side, the Peter Thiel side, the Sith side. This is why, of course, the dark side always loses. They stand for nothing except standing for something, so that once they win, they have to stand against themselves?
Evil cannot prevail, since it is parasitical on good. Look up Catholic Doctrine on the principle of bonum privatum, and realize that the right actually does not exist. It is only a mindless opposition to the left. But the left has actual plans and policies, so it can exist without the opposition of the right. Just think of what Trump(no)Care is: it is only a rejection of Obamacare, not substance, no real policy, just the resistance of those who have nothing better to suggest. And those who do, suggest a Bell curve.
So my point, jmorris, is that you are a nihilist. Much like the Nazis, you believe in the use of force for no other reason than to destroy. But unfortunately, Nazism, Fascism, and Japanese KoDoism were all defeated in the last world war. Which side are you on, jmorris? Which side are you on?
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday March 10 2017, @09:18PM
Well, I did get a little too busy to deal with Jdumbass, but I doubt I could have dealt with him nearly as masterfully as you did.
Thank you :)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday March 09 2017, @03:27AM (12 children)
Tolerance hypocrisy? Yes, it most certainly is. They're the only ones who preach it with every other breath and then literally beat you bloody for disagreeing with them on anything.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 09 2017, @05:08AM (11 children)
This is going to blow your tiny little mind but bear with me here...tolerance of intolerance is a null set, a contradiction, a category error. It's rather like speaking of married bachelors, square circles, and so on. In logical terms, it's the informal fallacy of the stolen concept, wherein someone uses a concept to argue against that concept's genetic roots. Does this help any?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday March 09 2017, @11:34AM (10 children)
Strawman. Tolerance of any dissent is what you lot have issues with not tolerance of intolerance. That and your incredibly violent natures.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 09 2017, @07:45PM (5 children)
I don't follow the standard (modern) leftists; they've taken entirely too many cues from YOUR kind in the last 20-odd years. I consider myself more of a left-libertarian, in that i want government to handle the stuff that has near-inelastic demand like healthcare and stay the hell out of, e.g., whether someone wants to smoke pot in their own home.
You can quit generalizing now; it fools no one with their eyes open, and simply leaves you open to well-deserved ridicule.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 10 2017, @02:36AM (4 children)
Libertarians are left on social issues and right on fiscal issues. You lean left on social issues and left on fiscal issues. There's already plenty of proper names for that but they all boil down to this: leftist.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday March 10 2017, @06:07AM (2 children)
You know, much of the fiscal policy I'd like to see implemented would SAVE money in the long run. This is something your kind seems not to understand: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Then again, it's YOU I'm talking to here; anything outside of programming or sysadmin stuff may as well be mountaineering (and you're an oyster).
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 10 2017, @04:26PM (1 child)
Yes, I'm quite aware of your fiscal policy. There is absolutely nothing even approaching libertarian about it. It can be summed up as "The Government Knows Better Than You How To Spend Your Money".
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday March 10 2017, @07:50PM
You are not in the least aware of it, Uzzard, and you're making yourself look really bad. I've never much expanded on it, and you are as far as I can tell not an esper, so how would you know the details? Oh wait, you don't, you just don't want to think too hard and it's easier to dismiss me if you think you can just lump me in with the naive leftists. Sorry, but that narrative doesn't hunt :)
To expand a little: things for which there is mostly or entirely inelastic demand, or for which externalities aren't factored in but are massively important -- think basic healthcare, clean water, our environment here -- should have tighter regulation and should be less laissez-faire. The less basic or close to the laws of physics/nature/survival something is, the freer the market for it should be. So, for example, fucking around on the commodity markets and causing crashes shouldn't be allowed, but when it comes to luxury goods like diamond rings or beachfront property, have a ball.
In simpler terms: the more people need it to survive, the less it should be left to the "invisible hand of the free market." It should only take a few seconds of logical thought to see why, and why inelasticity of demand is a proxy for this measurement.
Does that clear anything up?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @11:25PM
Libertarians are left on social issues and right on fiscal issues.
I know you better than that because I've seen others teach you what left libertarianism really is. [wikipedia.org]
Funny how that knowledge seems to have been filtered out from your consciousness.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday March 10 2017, @12:11AM (3 children)
That does not fully describe the Left, nor the Progressives, or anyone other labeled group rising out of this hell hole that is our country at the moment.
There are core concepts that are pretty good, fair, and reasonable on both sides. Then it gets layered with the bullshit, corruption, and intolerance.
My point is that there are some screaming hypocritical snowflakes on the Left that don't represent the progressive values and ideas for Freedom that comprise most of Left. You can just point out how they've fucked up without trying to attack a much larger group.
Most people that I know categorized as Left or Progressive are against banning Milo or anyone from speaking at universities, much less actually rioting or anything. Like Runaway said, you can protest just by being in the audience with a t-shirt. Do you think only people on the Right have problems with the idea of safe-spaces and riots against somebody speaking?
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 10 2017, @02:31AM (1 child)
Nope. But I do think you on the left desperately need to get your house in order before bullshit like that becomes completely mainstream instead of just mainstream in colleges.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday March 10 2017, @09:16PM
I'M NOT ON THE FUCKING LEFT!!!!!!!!!!!!
Heh :)
I don't exactly know what I am, but I can tell you that I have problems with all sides. Maybe I'm more of a centrist. I dunno.
What I want is to kill or permanently marginalize all the MBAs (the true pox upon our houses), reduce government to only that which we NEED, and make sure that people who work for a living get a living wage. Ohhh, and when we find corruption we do something unprecedented! Punish them! Let the billionaires exist even without taxing their money at all (beyond what everyone pays equally). As long as the billionaires pay living wages then we don't have the hellish arguments over "entitlement" programs that are in reality subsidy programs because the billionaires don't want living wages. I'm against the social programs being as large as they are because it means that we have an unaddressed fundamental problem; The billionaires want desperate workers in a desperate workforce because it gives them leverage when making job offers. All of that bullshit about unions and right to work laws all come down to that one basic fact; Corporations refuse to pay living wages and allow a healthy, stable, and strong workforce capable of negotiating a fair work offer. It's a delusion to say that a fair work offer can be negotiated in these dark days of desperation and suffering.
Is equality truly a leftist notion? If you think so, then go fuck yourself. I say that as kindly as I can, but LGBTQ issues are not leftist issues. They are issues of humanity and my support for their equality is not leftist. It's human, and all fights for the civil rights of Americans are fights for our humanity and should not be partisan. It's only partisan fighting in that the politicians on the Right serve the interests of their religiously intolerant constituents who openly don't want some Americans to enjoy civil rights, but be punished instead for their social transgressions. I will always fight tooth and nail against it because quite simply there are LGBTQ people that I love because they are my friends and family. I won't let them be treated this way.
Is wanting single payer medicine leftist? I would say it isn't. Not by a fucking long shot. Greedy selfish bastards on the Right so fucking concerned that a penny ever leaves their hands to someone else without their judgment attached to it. That being it makes it seem to them like Americans are getting things they don't deserve every day, and their ignorant hasty judgment is that the undeserving Americans should just die in the gutter. Well, I fucking disagree. There are a few things that are clearly done better by us all doing it for each other together. It makes more sense to heal the person, than allow a desperate sick highly intelligent mammal to be roaming free in their desperation. That is responsible for creating crime, and much of the "first time" crime. Which is precisely why we need government in the first place, and what government should be doing. We all deserve free medical. Once you kill all the MBAs, remove the parasites, you will find that medical is all of the sudden affordable. There are other countries in the world objectively doing better than we are. It's time for reforms, and its time to remove profit from health care. Period. There should be no medial insurance premiums and no profits going towards private entities, much less FOREIGN private entities.
Is not wanting the military to be half our fucking budget in the largest social welfare program of all time leftist? I don't fucking think so. Priorities. Infrastructure, Health, Education, Social Programs (small and mostly for the disabled), then Defense. Defense is last. We have so much money going to defense we could reduce the budget by 80% and still have enough to defend ourselves. We both know that the lion share of the money is just going to shareholders anyways, and they should be shot for it. We're Americans dammit, and we pull together to defend ourselves. Not make obscene profits doing it. There are a lot of war profiteers that need to be actually and literally strung up and hanged. So there is a way for us to GREATLY REFORM the military industrial complex. It's INSANE that the majority of our efforts in America every single day are going to defense contractors. Fuck them, we have other things to spend money on then supporting their lifestyles of excess, luxury, cocaine, and hookers.
Of course, environmental issues. How is that leftist? It's only leftist in the sense that the Right has been fucking brainwashed by Big Corporate that environmental issues don't exist. LOL! Yeah, tell that to people in some cities in China! It's not a leftist issue to demand clean drinking water, clean air, and that corporations NOT be allowed to pollute the environment. But fuck, we can't have that. Let's argue the fuck out of it forever while we objectively destroy the planet. I honestly don't believe that I'm leftist for protesting against the Dakota Access Pipeline. I grew up in the oil & gas industry and I can tell you that they are fuck-ups of the highest order and have not demonstrated competency or responsibility in their existing pipelines. The EPA needs to exist because corporations WILL NOT regulate themselves. Not when MBAs pollute the upper echelons of business with their "profits are morally superior" attitude.
I'm not sure how I'm left on anything, but feel free to tell me. I know that I'm not Libertarian because Libertarians ignore Game Theory and are willfully ignorant that some people are more powerful than others, hence why we need government to be at least as big and powerful as they are. Otherwise, there is no check and balance against them and the people start to lose out. Which is exactly why America is the hell hole of inequality and abuse of the workers that it is. Nobody has ever put the Elites in check. Nobody.
But, sure, call me a leftist...... fucking whatever. It's just a meaningless insult to me,.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday March 10 2017, @06:08AM
Ed, Uzzard here is part of our RWNJ infestation. Read through some of his post history. The guy's certifiable. He's not frothing and rabid like our resident diva J-Mo, but something is seriously broken in the man's brain.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:31PM
In the US they are. The right is very open about not being tolerant of those on the left.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:22PM (2 children)
Who are you and what have you done with the real Runaway? Please tell me you dropped the body in a vat of lye or something...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 09 2017, @01:13AM (1 child)
You most definitely know how to be caustic.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 09 2017, @04:52AM
And I cannot lye :D
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:15PM
And the worst part is that the far left AND the far right are perpetuating the class system in the USA.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Reziac on Thursday March 09 2017, @04:12AM
Actually, there have been twin studies that found environment (ie. class) had not nearly the effect (positive or negative) that was expected. Heritability of IQ is pretty well established, with a moderate influence in youth but a strong influence in maturity. If you care to flip it around and consider whether IQ effects environment, consider which parts of the world did and did not invent the wheel, even when they enjoyed tens of thousands of years in splendid isolation and have no one to blame but themselves.
The whole hoorah over The Bell Curve is about one paragraph, where Murray notes (paraphrasing as I can't find it offhand) that if the data is correct, it has unfortunate implications for some racial groups. Is the fact that some people may misapply the data Murray's fault? Apparently so, if you're an SJW, where the logic goes "If you fall out of a tree and break your leg, it's the fault of science for promoting the theory of gravity."
I've watched some of Murray's talks and interviews on YT. He's not pushing an agenda; indeed, he points out where the available data has changed his preconceptions. His big thing is making education fit the student, and to do that you need to know the student's capabilities, so they can best succeed. Philosophically, he's a libertarian.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Friday March 10 2017, @01:38AM
I'm no SJW, but ... [...] Again, I'm no SJW, but ...
I guess this is the updated form of "I'm not a racist, but ...".