Tempy wrote:

I don't think JR had bad intentions but It feels like the discussion is impossible because what's being argued over is - at least as far as I can comprehend - the right to agree that there is a genetic element to intelligence without the connotations of racism that brings, because that has to be acknowledged in order to combat its use by the political right. It's a ghost of a concept, caveats begetting caveats. All I can glean from the rebuttal post is what is *not* being discussed, which is The Bell Curve, but I am at a loss as to what *is* being discussed other than that absence followed by everyone (myself guitly too) chipping in. Honestly at this point I think it's beyond salvaging in this thread, and the only constructive way forward is a proper back and forth between two sides, with an actual premise to argue over, and time for people to research instead of people giving their reckons on either side. He says, giving a reckon. Anyway I only posted this because I always find myself more inclined to read these things when there's debates on here. I don't want to see a popcorn.gif pile on myself, I see little merit in that. There is entirely a kernel of truth in the idea that the stuff the right trots out should be engaged with in some capacity as that is the idea that underpins most of the youtube stuff that I watch. I just don't think the rolling nature of this thread has made that possible in any decent way.

Yeah agreed. This isn't going to go anywhere, the dogpile doesn't help but no one seems to know what's being debated anymore. It's not really JR's fault, who got sucked into giving his opinion on things without necessarily wanting to get into a multi page debate about them. That said, he has started a couple of small fires, run off and then come back and blamed everyone else for the flaming mess.

Anyway, those Russians eh? What they like?

Nothing to apologise about IMO

I have no sympathy, man plays the victim card but he only has himself to blame. He's the one who reacted to the Chomsky chat with petulant comments, and wilted at the first sign a real and substantive argument was coming. He didn't want to defend the bell curve on its terms, but wanted to criticise it's critics... By pointing to other videos and such nonsense. How can he turn around and complain that he is misrepresented when he did his best not to take fixed positions in most of his posts. He is an intellectual lightweight who pats himself in the back watching shills online. Worst, he is a patronising, self pitying moron. I'm ashamed I've ever had owt to do with him, even if it was just a few games of destiny. I hope the likes of him never get an ounce of power, the self-important, arrogant dunce, cos it'll be curtains for a bunch of people if people like him ever call the shots in this country. I'm glad he's ended up in Australia, he can be face's problem.

I'll start another thread if I come across something else Interesting on the topic unless someone has a burning desire to start one anyway. The science thread should probably do.

Unless j is interested in a new thread with the last clarification questions as the starting point? They were, for my part, an attempt to clear air. Because as per others, the dog pile sucks.

Also, re meta analysis. Goldacre bad medicine. The GOAT on the subject.

JRPC wrote:

Facewon wrote:

This is good: https://www.alternet.org/books/what-happened-when-sam-harris-tried-and-failed-embarrass-noam-chomsky Also this: http://www.critical-theory.com/sam-harris-awkwardly-debates-with-noam-chomsky/ For an abridged summary. I could quote within quote within quote, but this isn't the God thread circa 2010.

Wow Face, we are just on different planets when it comes to what we're considering worthwhile reading here. 

This is just trash journalism. If you think either of those articles are worth taking any notice of at all then it's no wonder you're confused about this.

First paragraph from one of those posts:

Sam Harris, the New Atheist philosopher who, with his colleagues, managed to artfully package trendy atheism with old-school Islamophobic bigotry is now trying to publicly debate anarchist intellectual Noam Chomsky.

Seriously!? That you could bring yourself to read beyond this point, let alone to take any word of it as meaningful in any way is genuinely beyond me. 

Did I catch you posting something from Salon the other day?

I mean, look at this post which really got the whole thing started.

Was hoping Jerry Coyne had something on the bell curve and Murray, because I figured he'd be informed enough to discuss the science and would be sympathetic to Harris and criticism of free speech etc, he doesn't have stuff on Murray, really, and has stated he hasn't read the book. (He has an article on Murray's treatment at Millbury.)

However, in searching the site, I found a couple of interesting, if dense, pieces.

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/sign-cornel-west-and-robert-georges-statement-in-favor-of-free-speech/

Cornel West and others advocating letting folks speak.

JRPC wrote:

Maybe for Child or whoever else is intersted. There was a mroe recent Harris podast with genetic researcher Siddhartha Mukherjee, who is critical of Murray in his most recent book The Gene. The second half of the podcast goes back into the whole Murray affair.. Podcast

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/05/05/the-new-yorker-screws-up-big-time-with-science-researchers-criticize-the-mukherjee-piece-on-epigenetics/

Jerry has many posts about this piece and it's flow on, and it dives deep into epigenetics. 

This may be better moved to the science thread, but I always find stuff about science reporting fascinating and important. I'd be a liar if I said I understand half the shit Coyne is on about in the deep dive section though. This is not posted as a challenge, JRPC, this may, I don't know, be an expert stating stuff that you're trying to say, and backing you up. Feel free to use it. 

Or don't, this isn't a throw down, it's just stuff I've read that seems related and may be interesting to someone, mayber. 

Anyhoo.

EDIT: Also, Coyne on Vox science writing.

Double edit: No mention of Bell curve or Murray, but very definitely a discussion of science and issues of race and sex. (Feel free to quote bits, J.)

Fucking triple edit: Re Trans issues. @vela and others, well worth a read. An excellent article on how liberals should address transgender issues

Coyne is a way better writer and thinker than Harris. (that is not agreement with everything he's said ever, but dude writes as clearly as possible and does a great job of trying to be as fair as possible. IMO.

afgavinstan wrote:

Yeah I watched one of his vids one time and now I get recommended stuff from places I'm kinda not with. Dunno where he lies on the Cool Guy-Dumpster Fire scale.

Oh man, same problem here.  Watched the Cathy Newman interview which I must admit was really entertaining.  Then every second Youtube recommend was like "BIG MISTAKE: Feminist tries to snark Peterson" etc etc.  Had to start clicking not interested on them, they're mostly gone now.

Much like Logan Paul I'd never heard of this bloke until this year, now his name and head seems to be popping up everywhere

Facewon wrote:

Brooks wrote:

Facewon wrote:

Meanwhile, was alerted to this bit of gold. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve Jordan peterson take down. Which may poison the well if anyone was planning on saying he's great, but it's too entertaining not to share. Pocket tells me its a 54 minute read. The gist can be gotten in under 10 for the time poor.

Current Affairs/Baffler/Jacobin are such a fixture in my media diet now I'm starting to become suspicious they aren't hardcore enough.

Just did a one year sub to current affairs. That's some writing I can get down with. Now, if none of them could grope their co-workers, that'd be just dandy.

We'll, that's Peterson done. I personally believe he is well meaning, if very emotional. (And emotionally driven to hate the left /SJWs so that he can be disproportionate). But that article expresses my disappointment with the intellectual merit of his work better than I ever could. It is a brutal, but entirely fair, breakdown.

Ok, I promise this is the end of the harris/Murray/IQ posts.....

I hit up former star of the God thread, Some_guy, because he's knee deep in a masters in psychology right now. I asked for the gist on race, IQ and genetics.

He came through with 3 links which are fantastic.

They are all mostly very readable, even for the layman, only one mentions the bell curve, but it's as part of a wider point.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/what-do-iq-tests-test-interview-with-psychologist-w-joel-schneider/

This is a lovely read and the dude can write science for the layman. Gets funky towards the end when he's on about his new gizmo, but whatever.

https://sites.google.com/a/haverford.edu/the-psychology-of/contact/iq-tests-are-biased-against-certain-groups

Again, fantastic writing. Clear and because it's not a polemic or a blog, in this case, it just goes through things piece by piece.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

The third is just good ol wiki. SG is well aware of its limitations, but in this case, it does fine.

Now I'm off to read a bazillion current affairs articles.

How about those Russian, heh?

What about Plus?

Last post on this and my personal take on IQ:

IQ is a reflection of the state of knowledge needed to function in our society. IQ balloons with every generation because of an information feedback loop between society and our brains. The more scientifically knowledgable (schooled?) a society the more our brains adapt to encompass that knowledge.

Also, society itsself has grown to encompass a complex global world, one our brain has to adapt to. Is there a ceiling to the knowledge our brains can absorb? Lord knows.

This interactive feedback loop also extends to SES and IQ. To assume IQ only effects SES in a causitive manner is shortsighted and to me seems like an out of date last century eugenic concept. And that is one of the main reasons the Bell Curve and Harris' stamp of approval annoys me.

To me IQ represents a certain cognitive potential. A person won't actually benefit from it per se if he/she has good genes, you have to have your environment on your side.
Being born into a high enough SES so you're healthy in your physical and mental development is essential. Not being a war/ghetto child suffering ptsd at the age of 4 certainly helps. For a person to reach his or her full IQ potential a certain economic and social stability is mandatory.

It's no coincidence almost all the great thinkers and scientists of the renaissance were nobles or wealthy people. Yeah, you could say they had great genes and therefore they were noble and rich and thus rose to the top of their discipline. But one could also argue they could fullfil their IQ potential because they were born wealthy, healthy, in the safety and comfort of a good home and thus were free to pursue and explore academics as a hobby. Perhaps both arguments are true and one does not exclude the other.

US history of social and racial inequality is well documented by now. When climbing the SES ladder, racial bias is a problem with a skewed preference to white. This makes racial comparisons between populations inherently problematic something Murray also happily bypasses. No, he prefers superior genetics as an explanation even if he has no actual evidence of 'genetic' iq variation between human races.

Above arguments won't stop populists/alt right from citing the bell curve. A simplistic interpretation is preferred as it validates their superiority and prefered policies. It's an interpretation that can easily be communicated to their voterbase to identify with. And so weaponised political science keeps being regurgitated to the masses who happily gobble it all up. Because, who doesn't like to feel special because of his/her genes?

I think to be fair, "good" is in the context of this particular reading of what intelligence is.

I still consider high IQ an ability to abstract above the norm - to see similarities the majority don't see and arrive at insights that others might not.

No idea if genes are involved - a stimulating environment would help though.

Tempy wrote:

Hackman or Wilder innit

Lest ye forget Krupa:

Gene Simmons. Early tests can help prevent him.

hunk wrote:

Last post on this and my personal take on IQ:

IQ is a reflection of the state of knowledge needed to function in our society.
IQ balloons with every generation because of an information feedback loop between society and our brains.
The more scientifically knowledgable (schooled?) a society the more our brains adapt to encompass that knowledge.
Also, society itsself has grown to encompass a complex global world, one our brain has to adapt to.
Is there a ceiling to the knowledge our brains can encompass? Lord knows.
This interactive feedback loop also extends to SES and IQ. To assume IQ only effects SES in a causitive manner is shortsighted and to me seems like an out of date last century eugenic concept. And that is one of the main reasons the Bell Curve and Harris' stamp of approval annoys me.

To me IQ represents a certain cognitive potential.
A person won't actually benefit from it per se if he/she has good genes, you have to have your environment on your side.
Being born into a high enough SES so you're healthy in your physical and mental development is essential. Not being a war/ghetto child suffering ptsd at the age of 4 certainly helps. For a person to reach his or her full IQ potential a certain economic and social stability is mandatory.

It's no coincidence almost all the great thinkers and scientists of the renaissance were nobles or wealthy people.
Yeah, you could say they had great genes and therefore they were noble and rich and thus rose to the top of their discipline.
But one could also argue they could reach their IQ potential because they were born wealthy, healthy, in safety and comfort and thus were free to pursue and explore academics as a hobby to reach their full potential. Perhaps both arguments are right and one does not exclude the other.

US history of social and racial inequality is well documented by now. When climbing the SES ladder, racial bias is a problem with a skewed preference to white. This makes racial comparisons between populations inherently problematic something Murray also happily bypasses.
No, he prefers superior genetics as an explanation even if he has no actual evidence of 'genetic' iq variation between human races.

Above arguments won't stop populists/alt right from citing the bell curve. A simplistic interpretation is preferred as it validates their superiority and prefered policies. It's an interpretation that can easily be communicated to their voterbase to identify with.
And so weaponised political science keeps being regurgitated to the masses who happily gobble it all up.
Because, who doesn't like to feel special because of his/her genes?

I don't know much about IQ and have made it through life without doing a proper one. I did a joke online one which came out at about 115 as a teenagerand a more proper one (but not sure it was the full iq test which was 136 or maybe 146 ). So plainly I'm confident I'd do ok in an iq test. But then I would - went to decent schools, middle class background, always did well academically etc.

I've seen AVG iq test breakdowns per continent which seemed a joke to me. You hear about people with an iq of 85 struggling with basic work functions. Jordan Peterson's says he had patients with an iq of 80 who simply couldnt do a job that was mundane and repetitive - they'd get fired from a charity shop. In the west, having a low iq is plainly debilitating.

Then you see the shit stirring researchers which we mentioned in this thread saying the average iq in Africa is 70. I'm sorry, but if the vast majority of Africans had an iq in the range of 60-80, they essentially would be unable to function. They couldn't do any work to survive, to eat, to shelter etc. So it is demonstrably a nonsense measure of those figures are true. You can go to Accra, Abidjan, Douala etc and see for yourself that:

1) these are people who are obviously capable of functioning at higher levels than the guy you are thinking of with an iq of 70. He is essentially disabled.

2) ergo Plato, of most of these guys score 70 or 80 Inman iq test in the 90s when this data was bandied about, it's because they have no schooling, and if you ask them to do an iq test they think you are a joke, they think it is a joke, or they simply don't have any reference point to do them because of the lack of universal schooling etc.

Put another way, if a French colonial went to my grandparents village in the atlas in 1850, and asked my forebears to do an iq test, I would be very surprised if any of them could score par. Skip three generations later, my father's siblings include an engineer who was top of his school and worked for the world bank, a professor of chemistry, two doctors, an architect, and my father who was an engineer with an iq of 145 (they took those to place you in those days) what was the difference?

Literacy, schooling, and university places for natives in the 20th century. They were all genetically linked, right, so it's not genes. Broadly, genes plainly play a role in intelligence but it's not a sufficient condition for intelligence. For so long as that is the case, no conclusions can be drawn from any study comparing iq and achievement in societies which are unequal in terms of : money,.public services, education services, crime, and critically, social attitudes to education. My forebears might have been illiterate, but once they had the chance they jumped at the chance for their kids to be educated and valued it. Is that the case for chavs in this country? For blacks in Seattle?