Not at all mate, I'm sure me and you (and others) have had discussions around that topic as we seem to have similar views on a lot of this stuff. The conversations tend to blur into each other though so it's difficult keeping track of what I've said to who.

My IQ is 105.

Wait, shit

hunk wrote:

@goobs Agreed we have very similar views. Pretty sure it wasn't you and stoph. Actually it may have been Brooks. Or nmd. Or some others not sure. No matter as I enjoy their posts and like a good debate. The theory that fb/twitter was used/abused to deliver targeted propaganda to tip the scale in Brexit and the US elections was a bit tinfoilhat in 2016/early 2017 though theoretically not unfeasible. It's totally understandable people were sceptical to such an out there scenario back then.

Well whoever it was you sounded dumb and tinfoil at the time but you obviously aren't... maybe.

Anyway this is the best 

Right of centre people seem to enjoy slinging the label "identity politics" with abandon, just like the term political correctness (gone mad). Often in an attempt to portray an anti-rights campaign as being not "common sense".

I guess I have to requote to put the context back in. Again.

Great.

Meanwhile, replace "meaningless" with trivial in my statement. Because I say trivial due to genetics being part of the equation I'm not disagreeing with. I quoted the skeptic article at length for that very reason. A more qualified person said it better.

The issue after that is: Environment is a part of it to. (see again, we have a trivial truth, trivial in the sense that folks disagreeing with Murray et al agree with him on this.) it's what Murray (and Harris) do after this point that is the issue.

Facewon wrote:

I mean I'll just quote myself again,
I guess.

Facewon wrote:

Genetics isn't an isolated true/false when it comes to intelligence. You've acknowledged as much, which means that claiming genetics plays a role as a true/false is either meaningless, or at best, not all of the equation. Meaning a true/false is a poor mechanism for making decisions on this situation.

We have a tricky to define thing in intelligence, measured by a method as susceptible to human bias as anything, filtered through the findings of an avowed conservative who uses motivated reasoning to draw counter-intuitive findings.

Even if you claim you're not defending the bell curve, you are defending IQ as a measure and being a touch too sure that there are differences between races.

What the above shows is that it'd pay to be very skeptical of any study on racial differences because it appears the only folks who care and spend cash are white supremacists/funded by them. Note how many times various pioneer funded folks are referenced. And sure, they may find out some true things, but it seems to me that you, and, to be frank, Harris, are giving Murray and the findings about race and intelligence way too much of a pass because thte cool kids want to show how rational they are for giving controversial views a "fair" hearing.

Now, do Murray and Harris touch on some of the concerns above, yes. But it's the same as Harris conceding the US has done bad things. He carries on assuming best intentions.

They concede things as if scripted, because that's what you have to do to not sound completely biased.

"It's another nefarious flavour of anti-rational leftist identity politics where the evaluation of a hypothesis isn't judged on whether it's true or not but on which political interest it serves."

So when you Harris and Murray go off on one about identity politics it betrays a - to say the least - pet peave which they overreact to. They also use ID-P as a cause of a lot things that it's more of a reaction to. As I said, cart before horse. As the skeptic article said, it's the interpretation of a black guy with a degree being paid less than a white guy with a degree as a sign of a difference in intelligence.....

"Their interpretation or explanation of the data is influenced by their belief system, and their explanations and beliefs intervene between the data and the public policy recommendations that are built on the data. There is good reason to believe that their interpretation of the data is “tainted” or not as pure or databased as their academic affiliations, thick statistical appendix, and scientific-sounding language make it seem. Consider this quote from The Bell Curve: “The median earning of…workers in 1992 [was] $41,005 for white male graduates with a bachelor’s degree and only $31,001 for black males with a bachelor’s degree” (p. 324). Most readers would interpret these data as evidence of persistent discrimination in the labor market. After all, how else could you explain the finding that even when African- Americans and Whites have the same education, and other variables like sex are held constant, African-Americans are paid much less? The authors conclude that this disparity in income shows how important the differences in intelligence really are. The bias in their interpretation of these data is too obvious too deserve additional comment.

Similarly, Herrnstein and Murray cite high drop-out rates for students who are admitted to college as a result of affirmative action programs as evidence that these students lack the intelligence to succeed in college, and therefore affirmative action programs cannot work. Affirmative action admissions are almost always first-generation students from low income households. Why don’t they consider other explanations for the high drop-out rate of students admitted under affirmative action programs, like the fact that these students are more likely to work while they are in college and when they work, they work more hours than their wealthier counterparts? Why don’t they even consider the possibility that affirmative action students start college with deficits that are attributable to an inferior secondary education and social pressures that are not compatible with attending college? Wouldn’t these facts be expected to increase drop-out rates? Like other interpretations of data in The Bell Curve, these conclusions do not ring true."

I fail to see hubris in long-windedly arguing that things might be more complex than you're painting them.

And by my count, I'm 2 up on you for actually reading/listening to podcasts and things you've posted. So I'll take my chances that it's hubris.

Also, while it's certainly true that a lot of the reactions to the book took the tone the guys describe in the pod, they totally ignore the best counters. They just make it sound like every just screamed nazi.

Anyhoo.

SpaceGazelle wrote:

We're all fucked. Fucked.

What is he killing exactly?

I haven't been defending The Bell Curve.

I've said that many times.

JRPC wrote:

What is he killing exactly?

I haven't been defending The Bell Curve.

I've said that many times.

Serious question then. What have you been defending? What ideas/concepts? To take it away from Harris and said book.

Legit looking for clarification.

And, further, it tickles me even more that I can borrow Jay z lyrics to sum up that article even faster....

Cause the nigga wear a kufi, it don't mean that he bright
'Cause you don't understand him, it don't mean that he nice
It just means you don't understand all the bullshit that he write

Am I the only non-cynic in here right now?

The bit that does make me a bit cynical is shifting goal posts. Complaints that arguments are being dismissed not engaged with. So eg Face engages with them and shoots them down. And this then has no apparent bearing on jrpc's view on those arguments. Which remain basically unchanged, he just distances himself from them rather than considering alternatives.

Let me ask a more explicit question: jrpc, do you think a person's race affects their intelligence, in more than an utterly manner?

Facewon wrote:

Am I the only non-cynic in here right now?

It's kind of ironic that you've just linked to that Peterson article (which I enjoyed BTW) and not noted the parallels.

acemuzzy wrote:

It's hard to work out what jrpc actually thinks. About the only point he's actually, explicitly stood behind is that genetics materially impact IQ, and that IQ is causes success (ie earning power).

I'm dubious about any major impact of genetics on the IQ, wh

Well, I'll let him answer the above, but on genetics, that is what Murray thinks (and what he and Harris say is the majority view of the literature.) the earning power bit is definitely a Murray thing.

The bit you're dubious of, is the bit that Murray is strongest on. Not 100%, for want of a blunt number that hunk used, but 50-80%, and again, both Harris and Murray say this is the consensus view amongst experts.

So, to clarify my question one more time, if what I've just said is an accurate enough description of what Murray thinks, and what Harris agreed with, and if JRPC is defending those points, then fuck a duck, you'll have to explain the difference between defending the those points and defending the bell curve.

The fact my IRL name is Murray is definitely making some of this hard to follow...

But you're doing Gods work and finishing hollow knight, so it's fine.

Also, I wouldn't ordinarily make a big deal of who's read what, but it's been pretty glaring how quickly some things have been dismissed.

I totes reserve the right to not read links and post stuff like "can't talk, at work will comment later." and not do it.

I'm sure I've done it before, in fact.

We're spitballing on a forum, after all.

(Harris doesn't have this excuse, mind, so not doing some reading up on noam when he wants to have a public exchange is a bit rich.)