Utopia Talk / Politics / uh oh seb

Sam Adams Member	Mon May 29 12:48:30 http://hum...10-year-old-american-children/ New study on race and IQ. Quick better ban it before people learn things that they arent supposed to.
Sam Adams Member	Mon May 29 13:07:57 Note the mixed races are between their components, averaged. There are differences between groups that have suffered no environmental disadvantags. Tough to get that behaviour without a significant genetic component.
Seb Member	Mon May 29 16:07:53 Why do the same patterns not appear in other jurisdictions? Could it be that actually what measuring the difference in IQ's by race in the US is simply reveal the level of impact on education, mental health, physical development due to economic factors etc. that structural racism in the US has on people of different races?
Sam Adams Member	Mon May 29 22:04:52 So then seb, if racism explains it all... then care to explain how asians beat whites?
Sam Adams Member	Mon May 29 22:10:28 Is this magical racism only affecting whites when they win but not when they lose? Did you buy this racism from the same bloke who sold jack his beanstalk beans?
Y2A Member	Tue May 30 00:29:39 http://humanvarieties.org/about/ Human Varieties is a group blog focused on a (mostly) dispassionate examination of the varieties of the human family. The main contributors are John Fuerst (Chuck), Jason Malloy, Meng Hu, and Dalliard.
Y2A Member	Tue May 30 00:31:28 http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/John_G.R._Fuerst John Fuerst aka Gerard Fuerst (online alias: Chuck) is a HBD pseudoscientist, anti-Semite and white nationalist who publishes racist pseudoscience in the far-right Mankind Quarterly and OpenPsych pseudojournals. He's obsessed with racialism and pretty much only talks about that single topic, dedicating whole blogs to fixate on "racial differences" e.g. Human Varieties,[2] Occidental Ascent[3] and Race, Genes and Disparity.[4] In 2015, he published a book (over 100 pages) The Nature of Race: the Genealogy of the Concept and the Biological Construct’s Contemporaneous Utility arguing for the existence of biological human races against the scientific consensus they don't exist. Fuerst is a "research fellow" at Bryan J. Pesta's lab at Cleveland State University and the white supremacist Ulster Institute for Social Research.[5][6] From 2019, Fuerst was publishing under the name John G.R. Fuerst but in 2021 dropped his first name and submitted a manuscript as Gerard R. Fuerst.[7] This is likely to do with the fact searching "John Fuerst" on Google produces this page that exposes his anti-Semitism and racist views.
Y2A Member	Tue May 30 00:45:57 Yeah, twitter posts that start with "Oh Goy". A real intellectual who's through academic research should be taken real seriously. On a side note, if he drops that vehement anti-semitism he might have a shot at the GOP nomination.
Seb Member	Tue May 30 01:41:26 Sam: Asians in both Europe and America are there through a process of immigration that selects for ambition and entrepreneurialism that is culturally transmitted to children and also through their society. If it was a genetic issue as you claim, the patterns you describe wouldn't be so specific to the US. Generally, the patterns in any given jurisdiction tend to match poverty, which in turn tend to reflect social factors. Everything we know about IQ as a metric, education systems, discrimination and poverty make this entirely unsurprising result to anyone who hasn't already decided that the US isn't racist but is looking for evidence for racialised theories to justify actually adopting racist policies.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue May 30 01:46:14 Seb, it’s time to present a study of a different pattern.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue May 30 02:12:39 And the study sam posted, many of the categories have very small sample size, difficult to see that they are statistically representative.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue May 30 02:20:30 "Y2A Member Tue May 30 00:45:57 Yeah, twitter posts that start with "Oh Goy". A real intellectual who's through academic research should be taken real seriously." Yes, the research stands on it's own. What a surprise that you don't understand how this works. We already have historical examples that are more horrific than anything you imbecile leftist can conjure up now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip Literal Nazis who killed literal Jews, produced useful science, some of which put Americans on the moon.
Seb Member	Tue May 30 03:54:42 I've done so in the past. I've been having this argument on this board with this same person for literally over half my life. I'm sorry, but no. I'm not going to go through the whole argument again every time Sam finds another bit of confirmation bias. It's not like he will read, consider, and change his views.
Seb Member	Tue May 30 04:02:44 In any case, I've provided an alternative explanation. It's up to him to exclude these factors before making this claim.
Seb Member	Tue May 30 04:11:18 Also, to second Y2A - its a crank blog - I'm expected to waste my time every time Sam finds a crazy weirdo on the internet. I can't even trust the methodology here.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue May 30 04:44:36 "Also, to second Y2A" Then I will not waste more time here :)
Sam Adams Member	Tue May 30 19:01:31 Y2a, ya its an iffy link but they only made the table. The data was collected by NIH. Seb... "Asians in both Europe and America are there through a process of immigration that selects for ambition and entrepreneurialism" All immigration selects for this. But some groups of immigrants are still much dumber... like recent blacks. "the patterns you describe wouldn't be so specific to the US." Lolwut. Please name for me this mythical country where blacks succeed and asians fail. "Generally, the patterns in any given jurisdiction tend to match poverty" Well ya. Low iq causes poverty.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue May 30 19:15:16 People have strange ideas about the power of poverty, and never ask, why some people get out while others don’t. They share the same environment that people are concerned about and want to throw money at. What they don’t share are genes, too little money is being thrown at that. Poverty is the natural state, the interesting question is why and how some people rise out of poverty to thrive and prosper.
Seb Member	Wed May 31 01:53:39 Sam: "All immigration selects for this" Black Americans by and large didn't immigrate. They have been living in the US for generations, their ancestors trafficked there as slaves, achieving full civil rights only a few decades ago. "Please name for me this mythical country where blacks succeed and asians fail." That's what we call a bait and switch. What I said was the patterns of relative IQ vary by jurisdiction. Which shows they are a product of that, not genetics. "Low iq causes poverty." And you claim genetics cause low iq. So relative poverty and iq should be uniform across jurisdictions. But they aren't. And there's plenty of evidence poverty and associated issues cause low IQ test results: poor quality education, more physically demanding jobs, lower cognitive capacity due to stress from economic precariousness etc. Nim: Ah yes. If some people can escape poverty, that really does help label the rest those that deserve to be there. If some water molecules can escape the sea and evaporate, clearly the ones that are left are simply lazy and stupid! If we get a really powerful microscope, we will see that the water molecules in the sea that haven't evaporated have got bad quarks.
jergul large member	Wed May 31 02:43:18 Boom-bust is the natural state. Some people emerged from that as we discovered storing food (including on hoof and in soil storage) is possible instead of randomly waiting for what nature might provide. Sadly, storing food needs unnatural, artificial devises like knowledge transfer, and social organization. Redistribution has always been part of the mammal experience however. Birds (so dinosaurs too) also practice this. For non-distribution as natural behavior, see most reptiles and fish. Who also happily eat any offspring they can find.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed May 31 03:22:21 Seb People are not like water molecules. Not even a little. Remember when I told you think human being are like atoms? How vehemently you denied that you had such a simpelton view of mankind? lol :-) Ignoring you is the best I can do for you, especially give that ontop of your ridiculous water molecule analogy, you pathologically and predictably gone off on a diatrab, “Poor people who stay poor deserve it”. You just can’t help turning into a goblin.
jergul large member	Wed May 31 03:30:54 Boom-bust cycles is probably at the basis for the evolutionary inclination to redistribute. If the food is going to rot anyway (which also is a form of redistrbution - to bacterial and fungae), then why not share? Chasing a herd of mamoths off a cliff is an example of hyper productivity. Some people are producing way more meat than they could ever consume and have been programmed to share that bounty as doing so provides evolutionary advantages. That friends is our nature state.
jergul large member	Wed May 31 03:36:36 This ultimately is because we are all biologically primed to share because, well, we would die as infants of our mothers did not literally share of themselves through the teat. Redistributing her energy stores directly to her offspring.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed May 31 03:39:17 Anyway, for people who like to use their brains, poverty is the natural state. If you throw a bunch people out in nature, they are going to struggle and be dirt poor. It is unnatural to be rich and prosperous. Nature is not "good". You can solve the major bulk of poverty GLOBALLY by throwing money at the problems, just make sure you chose the right programs. That poverty is largely a system issue. Western poverty, native or imported, is something else. Western systems are functions pretty well, and the Scandinavian systems are among the most comprehensive and best in class. Yet the problems don't go away. That problem is largely rooted in genetics. You are not going to help these people or their offspring, through redistribution, anymore than giving an electric car subsidy will help a person sick with cancer. Accepting that there exists a genetic injustice is the first step towards liberation.
jergul large member	Wed May 31 03:58:54 Anyway, for people who like to use their brains, boom-bust cycles between hyper productivity and starvation is the natural state. Then we invented unnatural constructs to deal with food management using hardwired redistributive instincts to make that work.
Seb Member	Wed May 31 04:07:10 Nim: "People are not like water molecules. Not even a little." Ah, so why are stock-prices - which are the product of human behaviour - modelled so well with brownian motion? The point is you have no actual evidence that the process of escaping poverty cannot be modelled and described entirely in the same way as evaporation - i.e. a stochastic process depending on accumulation of enough "energy" (i.e. boosts) rather than an entirely innate thing that anyone with certain intrinsic qualities. You are choosing to ascribe it to genetics - and defending that choice by making specious arguments (people are not water molecules, ergo this process cannot be modelled in this way).
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed May 31 04:09:50 Jergul I posted before I saw your posts, don't worry, I was not responding to you. If I do, I will address them to you personally, like a man, instead of this passive aggressive caty thing you are doing. But you have nothing to worry about, as you are an even more useless interloper than seb is on these topics.
jergul large member	Wed May 31 04:12:03 What is so hard about that to understand? Calculate your entire networth in meat at say 20 USD per kg? How many tons of meat are you worth? A hunter-gatherer would occassionally surpass your networth. His problem was no way to store the meat without it spoiling, so it was meaningless and evolutionarily ineffective to want to hoard it for himself.
jergul large member	Wed May 31 04:12:48 Someone with a brain would realize they are responding to someone when they say someone with a brain would have to agree with them.
jergul large member	Wed May 31 04:14:56 Nimi Make your case. Why is not boom-bust the natural state of humans in their ecosystems. Why is redistribution the only effective way of breaking the boom bust cycle, and why would not creatures that care for their young not be instinctively primed towards redistribution?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed May 31 04:20:13 Seb Stock prices are not human beings, stock price are the product of a narrow spectrum of human behavior. Nope. I was correct when I said so so many years ago, because it was so obvious that you suffered from the reductionist view that emerges out of physi. It should be mentioned that an ever growing number of theoretical physicist are skeptical about reductionism or have outright thrown it in the trash. You are so wrong on so many levels that it is impossible to penetrate the surface layer to even get to the nut and bolts of what you are saying. Frankly you do not expect this from someone with your background. Jergul, sam adams, Y2A, Paramount yes absolutely.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed May 31 04:24:08 Jergul Until you deal with the two other threads in a manner that I find to be in good faith, and I feel like I am talking to an adult who is trying to understand me, as I am trying to understand him, I am not engaging with someone who at any moment may turn into a goblin.
jergul large member	Wed May 31 04:24:35 Nimi You do not actually have that much of an education yourself, so careful with those stones in your nice glass house. At least not according to what your have shared with us here. If I recall correctly, you have studied to become an autist (engineer). Surfing the web to find ways to confirm your bias does not an intellectual make.
jergul large member	Wed May 31 04:26:01 Ah, ok. You abandon your position for the purposes of this thread. Fair enough. Life is short. There will be other threads.
jergul large member	Wed May 31 04:30:49 Seb actually has a superb education. His use of it is lacklustre, but nothing is wrong with the quality of those 18 years he spent on it (plus whatever posh pre-school and piano playing nannies he had).
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed May 31 04:50:12 Jergul "You do not actually have that much of an education yourself" That is a fair Jergul, I have about the same level of education as the rest of the people I mentioned, on paper one would have the same expectations on me, as the rest of you, sure. I just end up not producing lackluster intellectual output in these discussions. That is the point obviously, which you understood perfectly. Someone like me, shouldn't be schooling someone like seb on the basics of reality, yet here we are. "His use of it is lacklustre" Is there an echo in here?
jergul large member	Wed May 31 04:54:45 Nimi Never fear, your intellectual output is pretty lacklustre. You are just blinded by your thoughts on the brilliance of your thoughts. You have kind of a circular dynamic going there to be fair.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed May 31 04:56:01 Jergul I abandoned you. There is no sense in talking to a person who is not bound by any formal laws of reason and logic, is obnoxious to boot and will instantly turn into a goblin AKA vile caricature. Then blame "this place". I guess that perfectly aligns with your socialist world view, where it's the environment's fault and you have no personal responsibility for your own behavior. You are more consistent that you think :)
jergul large member	Wed May 31 04:56:38 Me? This forum is not exactly my best work either. But good for spitballing.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed May 31 05:00:57 Jergul Nope that is the wrong angle, as always. The blinding thing is the intellectual abyss that you people represent. In that infinite darkness even a candle like me will scare the goblins into action. :) You are not winning pwnage central with me, I think it is best if you choose to go back to civility.
jergul large member	Wed May 31 05:03:15 Nimi Reason and logic are based on axioms. I mostly engage you by challenging the axioms you have placed at the basis for your streams of thought. You often have circular lines of reasoning, "We have poverty because poverty is", so you might mistake it for attacking your reasoning, but that is generally not what I am doing. This thread a case in point. Poverty is definitely not a natural human state. Boom-bust or hyper productivity to starvation is. The first known human civilizations were incidentally highly redisbutrative and yes, redistribution is an instinctive human trait (though this is only me pre-empting what would have come if you cared to debate the points). In this case, I have the facts on my side.
jergul large member	Wed May 31 05:04:28 What? We are not being civil? I missed that.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed May 31 05:06:35 Jergul A bit redundant to say that, just don't pull me down into the cesspit of your own making. What I say here I stand for, I will not fall back on being contrarian, if I do I will upfront about it. I don't consider this my "work", but idea I have in my head. Some are uncooked, then I will say that. Some are strong convictions, and I will say that. Do you see a pattern? It's called being honest. I will smack that into my kids so they don't grow up to be cowards who constantly run away from conflict, instead of talking with people and working it out ;)
jergul large member	Wed May 31 05:07:26 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_economy
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed May 31 05:08:21 Jergul No, I will not engage in the content with you, I have made it clear what you need to do. We can do pwnage central sure, does not require a lot of work from me.
Seb Member	Wed May 31 05:08:21 Nim: "Stock prices are not human beings," They aren't molecules either. So how can it be? "stock price are the product of a narrow spectrum of human behavior." Are all aspects of human behaviour involved in the accumulation of wealth? I mean one way to get wealthy is to invest, and we just discovered that stock prices can be modelled by brownian motion. Turns out that hand waving mystical assertions to the complexity of humans isn't a great argument. And arguing that because some people escape poverty means anyone and everyone can do so, and the determining factor is genetic is far more reductionist than I am being with these counterarguments. You seem to have misunderstood my point entirely: I was making an analogy of how reductionist YOU are being with your argument, and how it is also logically fallacious. The fact that some people escape poverty does not really support the conclusions you are heaping onto it.
jergul large member	Wed May 31 05:12:05 Nimi That stance impresses me not at all and I do not believe it to be particularly true either. To stand lock step with the courage of conviction ultimately means you are intellectually rigid and inflexible and unwilling to change your views. For if you do, you have to change who you are at the core. Very unscientific. The ideal there is to be aware that what you believe is just a placeholder until better theories and information can replace what you currently hold to be true. An ideal, I know, but we should at least strive for it. You are more imaginative than your proclaimed inflexible intellectual capacities gives you credit for.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed May 31 05:20:18 Seb "Turns out that hand waving mystical assertions to the complexity of humans isn't a great argument." Yes the human genome is complex and rich. Nothing mystical about it though. Are you high? Have you had a stroke? "And arguing that because some people escape poverty means anyone and everyone can do so" May god have mercy on you seb. The premise of my genotype outlook is that everyone *can not* escape poverty, not even with the *best systems* in the world does everyone escape poverty. Because they do not have the genetic profile that will make them succesful, they are "ugly", "short", "dumb", suffer from chronic bad health or a combination of these things. Holy shit you suck at reading comprehension, even Jergul understood what I was said. Maybe if the two you work together?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed May 31 05:28:11 Jergul I have no idea what you are on about, it sounds incoherent. I have strong convictions that simply will never change and are not subject to the whims of science. You and seb do, that is for sure, one of them is the topic of this thread. Not me. Like when I say "human life has intrinsic value" that is a strong conviction I have and it will not change. Doesn't matter what average IQ African lineages or European lineages have. My conviction is intact. Either unwilling or unable to comprehend. Of course the full spectrum of ideas and their strength was already in that post, so this is goblin being a goblin :)
jergul large member	Wed May 31 05:50:13 Nimi On that, blame your education. Engineering presents things as truths without exploring the reasons why. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom "Human life has intrisic value" is an axiom. I might challenge you on your conviction by asking "does each human life have equal intrisic value, or is it on a scale? Is that scale subjective, can a human have negative intrisic value (say like hitler), would that not infer that some humans would then have 0 value (not quite as bad as hitler). If this instrisic values that you hold as a conviction is so maleable, would it not be fair to say what you actually are saying is that you are convinced humans can be judged on a scale and placed according to relative worth? Stuff like that. I am attacking your axiom.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed May 31 05:51:49 Like I said I am not discussing the content. As for my conviction about the topic at hand. The best evidence available suggests there a is very strong component to IQ and that IQ correlated strongly with success, happiness and better health. Furthermore that there are group level differences Ashkenazi jews and Asians on average have among the highest, sub-saharan Africans on average have among the lowest. Genes are complicit in every complex human behavior, it is by far the largest single systematic variable for why human being turn out the way they do. When a society enact policy to level the environmental playing field, they also inadvertently maximize the role that genes play in the variability of outcomes. I think it is great that we have done so well solving problem inherent in the environment. Now it is time to work on the problems inherent in the genome. Go science me some IQ raising genetic therapy, and if you are not a scientist in that field, then shut the fuck up with your woke incoherent nonsense and move out of the way. I am fucking tired of you urbanized cave people, who rather waste our resource on your fashionable nonsense, than to put those resource towards helping people. Disgusting to be frank.
jergul large member	Wed May 31 05:57:24 There are all kinds of implicit axioms too. IQ measures the relative worth of humans would be the one for this thread in its many, many incarnations. A soothing thought for about 85% of the population even though a full 50% minus 1 have lower IQs than average. We humans tend to overestimate our own IQs you see :).
Seb Member	Wed May 31 05:59:23 Nimatzo: "Are you high? Have you had a stroke?" No. But you sound to be. Just because generic code is complex doesn't mean you can reduce every social issue to "genes explain it" without any strong evidence. It's like quantum woo theory of consciousness: here are two issues displaying high levels of emergence, complexity and unexplained stuff. They must go together!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed May 31 05:59:25 Jergul Wow, jergul I said "convictions" to use colloquial terminology, you misunderstand what I said and go off on some incoherent tangent so you can dig out an anti scientific ainsult. You call me the autists? lol :) holy shit man. "I am attacking your axiom." Before you start new attacks, admiral, you need to go tend to the two other ships that you abandoned burning. One can't intellectually wrestle with a person who will just turn his back and the smallest hint of trouble, take his metaphorical rain deers and fuck off.
jergul large member	Wed May 31 06:06:16 Happy to oblige. Embryo screening to remove those with markers that correlate with low IQ scores. You are welcome! What you are actually doing is an engineering thing. You want overoptimisation. a neverending pursuit. Say you lift IQs genetically by 5 points. Well, the new bellcurve is now 5 points higher and you are exactly at where you started. Fixing individual IQs is probably best done at an idividual level. Like dont drink and smoke. Freeze your sperm and eggs early in life for use later. Proper nutrition, proper education, proper jobs. But that seems to be a lot harder than state mandate genetherapy at an embryotic stage. You know, changing an offspings genes from hereditary to something else. I can for the world of me not see how that kind of social engineering could possibly go wrong. And for what? Will the sum of human happiness increase with enough therapy, is that your thinking? Unproven to say the least.
jergul large member	Wed May 31 06:07:53 Nimi I am not the one ducking and covering in this thread. You are. So perhaps you do not quite cut the heroic persona you think you do.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed May 31 06:08:48 Seb The only person applying reductive reasoning in this thread, is you. I am very specific, as this thread is specifically about IQ. I understand that you need to cast broader and broader nets to make me the simpelton that you are. Doesn't work. And I am not going to repeatedly ad nausem respond to the same stupid and incorrect thing you have said. We can quote you verbatim as saying that human beings can be reduced to quarks. That text book reductionism. And when I tell you the genome is complex and not "mystical" as you again inserted. You again imply I have said it can not be understood, when I explicitly stated several times in this thread that we need to throw many at solving it, implying that it actually can be understood. It just can not willy nilly in some argument be understood, by a anlogy, about water molecules evaporating from the ocean. I am sorry you are so lost after the 20 meters we have walked from your original assertion.
jergul large member	Wed May 31 06:11:57 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed May 31 06:16:01 Jergul "I am not the one ducking and covering in this thread." I was up front and honest about the level of engagement you were getting. You can post fact delude yourself into whatever you want to walk away from this and scratch another notch on your pwnage belt. I don't care. It's like the diaper shitting totalitarina thread. Your third or second post "you people are descends of slaves and genetically servile" and then a dozen post later "oH MaH gAWD dA Ad HoMS!" How does your wife respond to shit like this? Is she as impressed as we are when you tell her you were just being contrarian?
jergul large member	Wed May 31 06:19:01 On topic. A hormone deficiency (vitamin D) correlates quite strongly with IQ variations between groups with dietary, cultural, and biological reasons for lower synthesis and uptake. IQ variations may perhaps have a genetic dimension with causal ties to skin pigmentation, but it certainly does to correctable cultural and environmental factors. http://www...icle/does-d-make-a-difference/
jergul large member	Wed May 31 06:19:55 You were upfront about being a coward and running away to use your own terms? Oh, that make it all better. Heroic figures are often upfront about that :).
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed May 31 06:20:48 Aaaand completely broken. My work here is done I guess.
jergul large member	Wed May 31 06:23:19 I am generally not one to make genetic arguments, but boy do I love turning the tables on those that do. Feudalism's impact on selection is a reflection of your thoughts in other spheres. I am fine with you thinking it stupid. That was sort of the point :).
jergul large member	Wed May 31 06:24:30 hehe, you should reflect a bit on how rigid you have to be to think you made it through this discussion unscratched :).
jergul large member	Wed May 31 06:26:53 I am also fine with you bailing on this discussion. Like I said. Life is short. There will be other threads.
Seb Member	Wed May 31 07:48:40 Nim: "The only person applying reductive reasoning in this thread, is you." Nope. Look at what you wrote: "People have strange ideas about the power of poverty, and never ask, why some people get out while others don’t." Firstly, that's not true - the discussion about what circumstances help people escape poverty has entire fields dedicated to it. The idea there is a meaningful anti-correlation between people who believe poverty impacts IQ scores and people who "never ask" why some people get out while others don't is both highly reductive argument and also demonstrably false. "They share the same environment that people are concerned about and want to throw money at. What they don’t share are genes, too little money is being thrown at that." This too is highly reductive: because people who escape poverty share the same initial socio-economic conditions as those who do not, but do not share genes, this is a fruitful line of inquiry. "Poverty is the natural state," That is highly questionable depending on what you mean by poverty. "the interesting question is why and how some people rise out of poverty to thrive and prosper." I'm sure it is, but as you say, this thread is about IQ - and you are responding to a point where poverty is known to affect people's IQ scores through a number of mechanisms.
jergul large member	Wed May 31 08:00:50 There is a contradiction there somewhere. If the laudible goal is raising IQs, then dealing with poverty is surely the lowest hanging fruit? Gene manipulation aimed at that goal is highly speculative and fraught with ethical dangers. So first poverty, then gene manipulation, space colonization and any other artisan project you might care to pursue.
Sam Adams Member	Wed May 31 16:26:50 "Black Americans by and large didn't immigrate." Ya, thats why the study differentiates between the two. Lol. "What I said was the patterns of relative IQ vary by jurisdiction." Except they dont. Stop lying.
Seb Member	Thu Jun 01 04:34:04 Sam: So basically your own study shows theres a large spread in IQ points between black Caribbeans, Black Africans, and Black Americans. Two of which are drawn entirely from the same ancestral population. And you think this shows genetics as a predominant factor. "Except they dont. Stop lying." I'm not. But you can't even interpret your own studies correctly.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jun 01 07:01:24 Just popping in to tell seb that I am saving this thread for the future, so he doesn't deny that he compared human behavior with that of evaporating water molecules. Priceless! And you know what, we all KNOW that seb has said this on some company, and the imbeciles he is surrounded with thought it was a profound comparison. lol :) Not been a great couple of weeks for team Sebgul. http://utopiaforums.com/boardthread?id=politics&thread=85972 "Yet ironically, you keep asserting I'm the one that is treating people like atoms, while you are the one applying the practices used to study atoms to complex and often ambiguous policy problems, with zero recognition of how your framing has an implicit normative judgement, whether you intend it or not." Let's seb the above quote by seb: I am not applying reductionist thinking YOU are. The things I am talking about are complex and mysterious! -Seb
jergul large member	Thu Jun 01 07:42:13 Au contraire, it has been a great week for sebgul. You should at least ponder your idea that mankind's nature state is poverty. That has been violently disproven. Boom-bust were humans regularly had resources far in excess of what they could possibly consume. It sort of is key to understanding human development. We have been working forever not so much to increase our productivity (after all, could you ever match the hyperproductivity of a huntergatherer panicking a herd of mammoth over a cliff?), but in managing spoilage (or inherent inefficiencies in resource management). Only then will you understand how our hardwired priming towards redistribution was leveraged to ultimately create the societies we live in today. Redistribution is a feature, not a bug buddy. The sooner you embrace that, the faster in harmony with your instincts you will be.
jergul large member	Thu Jun 01 07:46:31 I know you know it. You forever talk about how we should redistribute resources to create space lifeboats and genetically modified superhumans. You have mentioned here you think it a crime not to support massive redistribution in those areas. I get it. You are following your instincts and want stuff redistributed. We differ only in what we want the redistribution to go to. Which is a trivial detail for as long as we accept or drive towards redistribution.
Seb Member	Thu Jun 01 10:52:36 Nim: " he doesn't deny that he compared human behavior with that of evaporating water molecules." *Sigh* I didn't. I compared how your stated reasoning if applied to a situation where we KNOW that the behaviour is stochastic and the dynamics of an individual element depends on non-intrinsic specifics to demonstrate, would lead to a false conclusion - that "hidden variables" exist where patently none exist. Even then, that does not compare "humans" to water molecules. It is comparing the dynamics of emergent statistical properties generated by large groups of humans to emergent statistical properties of large groups of atoms. This works well in many cases (e.g. you can actual model crowd dynamics quite well as a semi-compressible fluid - this does not imply that humans are water molecules; or indeed stock prices - which are another thing that is an emergent statistical properties generated by large groups of humans; which neither implies stocks are really in some sense engaged in Brownian motion nor that humans are) Humans do have varying intrinsic properties - but asserting that because they do so ALL STATISTICAL OUTCOMES MUST OBVIOUSLY BE A RESULT OF THOSE INTRINSIC PROPERTIES BECAUSE OF THE MAJESTIC COMPLEXITY OF GENES is highly reductionist argument. It's actually a classic example of magical thinking of the "Consciousness must be a quantum phenomenon based in the sub-cellular structures of neurons" type. In fact, it's just a technobabble version of "because a wizard did it", made no more logically rigorous by the fact that genes do exist and wizards do not. There is still a missing causal theory between the phenomenon and ascribed cause - and in this case not even a good set of statistical evidence for correlation.
Seb Member	Thu Jun 01 10:53:20 Of course, feel free to double down on your failed reading comprehension Nim.
williamthebastard Member	Thu Jun 01 11:58:50 IQ is full of misconceptions. For example, the US population's IQ jumped 30 points in 3 decades, to the point that they had to adjust the average. There is no way that was due to a change in genes.
williamthebastard Member	Thu Jun 01 12:07:09 That increase happened when people started getting general education in fields that IQ tests are concerned with.
williamthebastard Member	Thu Jun 01 12:09:25 You would very likely be able to measure a drop in IQ if average joes were only allowed to go to school until they were 12, like the good old days
jergul large member	Thu Jun 01 16:07:27 wtb Flynn effect already posted and ruminated on :).
Sam Adams Member	Thu Jun 01 22:49:15 "So basically your own study shows theres a large spread in IQ points between black Caribbeans, Black Africans, and Black Americans." Its not that large, and africans of all varieties remain at the very bottom, despite differences in environment. If there was no genetic component, surely you would have a population of intelligent africans by now. Except none exists. Thus the genetic component is quite significant.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Jun 01 22:54:28 "IQ is full of misconceptions. For example, the US population's IQ jumped 30 points in 3 decades, to the point that they had to adjust the average." Every single thing you said is wrong. Remarkable.
jergul large member	Thu Jun 01 23:02:49 Sammy An alternate explanation could be D-vitamin deficiency. This is likely and causual. Short Chinamen and bowlegged lapplanders also did not have a genetic component. Turns out, it was just diet.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jun 02 03:59:05 Seb I am not interested in your motte and bailey defense. Next time, don't say outright dumb shit. You did so well in that AI thread, because you understand the subject, notice you didn't say any stupid shit in that thread? You were very careful and remained cautious and nuanced. Probably because the mechanics behind AI are not moralized the way the genetics of cognitive functions are, so there is no third rail for you to grab instinctively. But if there was, you would have done it, because that is how weak your mind is. You can tell when a person understands something and when they are bullshitting their way with sciency sounding polemic and moronic reductios. Until next time Mr T :)
Seb Member	Fri Jun 02 04:56:24 Nim: I didn't say anything dumb or stupid, and I stand by everything I said. It is you who is being sloppy by claiming I compared people with water molecules when it is obvious I did not, and a careful reading shorn of the reductionist thinking you bring to any discussion that touches on genetics would reveal this to you.
Seb Member	Fri Jun 02 04:57:42 The fact you are not interested in reading it and want to cling to an incorrect interpretation is an obvious sign of lack of good faith on your part.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jun 02 05:08:47 Yes you did and when I explicitly rebutted "humans are not like water molecules not even a little" you just went on: Seb Ah, so why are stock-prices - which are the product of human behaviour - modelled so well with brownian motion? The fact that you do not have the spine to admit it was terrible terrible comparison that failed so badly in explaining reality (we all say stupid things from time to time), is chronic you problem, not a me problem. It is all just so funny that you vebatim did what was so obvious to me so many years ago, as you were butchering the conversation down to atoms. What do I tell you? I know you, better than you know me, and probably yourself :P Anyway, we will surely have threads about IQ and genetics in the future. I don't have very high hopes, as I mention above your problems with the third rail is pathological and likely outside your control, nonetheless I will show you good faith.
Seb Member	Fri Jun 02 05:09:10 Sam: The gap between white and black African is 10pts (substantially less than 1 SD), the gap between black African and USA black is 9pts (substantially less than 1SD)
Seb Member	Fri Jun 02 05:18:33 Nim: "Ah, so why are stock-prices - which are the product of human behaviour - modelled so well with brownian motion" Yes. And I explicitly point out that stocks are not molecules, and explicitly point out the fact that two processes can be modelled in similar ways doesn't amount to comparing the nature of the things that are undergoing the process. I.e. it is refuting your fallacious assertion that I'm comparing humans to water molecules. So you are doubly wrong: My first post can only be read as emphasising the difference between water molecules and humans (one group has individuals with intrinsic characteristics the other doesn't, both are quite capable of producing different outcomes for different individuals and the fact that they do so clearly doesn't indicate the outcome *must* be wholly attributed to individuals characteristics). I then go on to point out that comparing process isn't the same as comparing the things undergoing the process. I even spell it out specifically in the post you quote from: "It is comparing the dynamics of emergent statistical properties generated by large groups of humans to emergent statistical properties of large groups of atoms." Yet somehow you've managed to contrive completely the opposite meaning twice. Either you are being extremely stupid and I just don't know what to do other than wish you the best possible luck to live the best possible life someone of such monumental stupidity can lead. Alternatively you are being obtuse for rhetorical purposes, in which case I can only shake my head and wonder why. Or finally, your ideological and reductionist position on this is blinding you to the point you are unable to read something without reinterpreting it to be something it is not. In such case I can only shrug and hope that one day you are able to escape the intellectual prison you have locked yourself in.
jergul large member	Fri Jun 02 05:18:42 "The scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups" Wiki. Interesting, Sammy's initial link would suggest that fractional white contributions are responsible for black Americans scoring poorly as Black Americans also score worse than Black African. The defining genetic difference is white dna from many generations ago. I almost wish I were simple-minded enough to dismiss scientific consensus with a handwave because of some podcast I watched that confirmed my bias. It must be confortable way to live a life.
jergul large member	Fri Jun 02 05:23:34 Black African (no white blood) 90 Black Carribean (a little white blood) 88 Black Puerto Rican (more white blood) 86 Black American (most white blood) 82 This proves that white dna degrades IQ!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jun 02 06:15:31 Seb I am not interested in the motte and bailey, I am even less interested, it speaks even more your weak character, in your strawman of my position grounded in behavioral genetics, with your moronic water molecule comparison. That is even lower in the abyss of intellectual bankruptcy. I suggest you go analyze the AI thread and do whatever you it is that you there. Of course I fact checked everything you said as you can't be trusted. You did not strawman, you didn't not use idiotic analogies, you showed hhumility and were upfront with your ignorance and the limits of what could be explained. That is different specie that the monstrous imbecile we are confronted with in this thread. I would actually give you 10/10 in that thread. A case study for how to not be a seb. Ironically by seb! Obviously I also chose not to go down the crypto discussion and find common ground on the regulatory surface, but that was in part because you behaved so well. Stay on the path, don't grab the electric rails. Don't strawman, don't use reductive reasoning and keep your emotions under control. Ask questions, ask 10 question just to be sure if you ever feel the urge to either caricature your opponents or turn into one yourself, keep your inner goblin in check. Have a nice week end.
Seb Member	Fri Jun 02 06:23:13 Nim: I'm not interested in your straw man.
Seb Member	Fri Jun 02 06:26:28 Oh look, now we are both speaking past each other and accusing eachother of bad faith and citing that in bad faith as a reason not to engage with each other. I guess the conversation is over. You misunderstood my argument. You refused to be corrected on how it was intended to be read. You continue to ascribe a meaning to it that I reject. That's intellectually dishonest and a sign of a lack of faith in your own arguments in my book.
jergul large member	Fri Jun 02 07:32:37 I am bored, so will imagine a philosopher nimi. Jergul You are correct in that scientific concensus today does not recognize evidence of a genetic component to racial variations in IQ. I would argue this is in most part due to issues outlined in theories about paradigm shifts: ""Successive transition from one paradigm to another via revolution is the usual developmental pattern of mature science"" The current paradigm of acknowledging only environmental factors has not yet been overwhelmed by evidence of genetic contributions. Thus, the old paradigm still holds sway. I am not arguing that IQ variations only have genetic explanations. Certainly, there are also evironmental factors in play. But correlations are too strong to avoid concluding there is some genetic contribution along race lines. We are perhaps lucky that caucasian does not take top tier here. So we can dispense with thoughts on this being a supremacist argument ;)
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jun 02 08:31:01 Seb, I will try once again to explain where this thread went wrong and why it always follows the same pattern. You can either think that you were right and that you did not open with a strawman or a terribly reductive argument, or you can ask yourself why we filled the AI thread in good faith, good manners and without talking past each other. The main issue is that, as dispassionate as you were about AI, you just can't do the same with, among other things, the genetics of cognitive functions. Your worldview will be brutally traumatized if you accept the results. It is difficult to moralize the technicalities of how an LLM outputs behavior. If you understand this, then you should be able to examine your own biases. I am not saying that your behavior means I am correct, but rather that this behavior hinders any meaningful discussion about the facts. In this very thread, you have said that I think people who stay poor are lazy [FALSE], implying that I think they deserve it [FALSE]. You have stated that I argue that everyone can escape poverty [FALSE]. Your entire premise for arguments is that I am some kind of libertarian social constructionist. That is immensely stupid, and it is evidently clear in every thread where I talk at length about genetics that my beliefs are far removed from *any* kind of social constructionist thinking. You swing between this or the other extreme where I am a genotype maximalist. It’s like simultaneously accusing someone of being a nazi and a jewish shill. You seem to constantly confuse what I want to do with data like this and what sam adam’s wants to do with it. This is the shoe box that you climb as your moral high ground to assault me. Conversation are thus destined to derail, before any technical things can be discussed. If you still possess an ounce of rigor and humility from your time pursuing your PhD, you can do better, much much better. I am not going to rehash my explanations and defensively deny all the moronic accusations that you or Jergul throw my way. I will simply tell you to fuck off, little goblin. It’s a fair deal, be reasonable and talk in good faith and I will reciprocate. I will make an extra effort next time, just know that my patience has run thin after 2 decades.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Jun 02 08:43:03 This has zero to do with intelligence anyway. The average racist will love his dog to bits because he's such a smart boy, but will hate the black engineer who designs rockets because he's stupid.
Habebe Member	Fri Jun 02 10:42:15 Wtb believes millions of stereotype tropes exist as real people. Back to the man-sex pile.
Seb Member	Fri Jun 02 15:31:23 Nim: Not interested in your disingenuous straw men justifications. Have a good weekend.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Jun 02 15:48:27 So seb, you find any african populations, ever, where intelligence was even average?
williamthebastard Member	Sat Jun 03 04:24:54 Dear me, I see Iranians rank among the lowest in the world with an average IQ of 81
williamthebastard Member	Sat Jun 03 04:29:53 Sherpas in Tibet are supposed to have the lowest recorded IQ. I know, in their world, whose advice Im going to listen to if I have to choose between them and Hawking.
	show deleted posts