The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenters to FollowHide Excerpts
By Authors Filter?
Andrei Martyanov Andrew J. Bacevich Andrew Joyce Andrew Napolitano Boyd D. Cathey Brad Griffin C.J. Hopkins Chanda Chisala Eamonn Fingleton Eric Margolis Fred Reed Godfree Roberts Gustavo Arellano Ilana Mercer Israel Shamir James Kirkpatrick James Petras James Thompson Jared Taylor JayMan John Derbyshire John Pilger Jonathan Revusky Kevin MacDonald Linh Dinh Michael Hoffman Michael Hudson Mike Whitney Nathan Cofnas Norman Finkelstein Pat Buchanan Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig Roberts Paul Gottfried Paul Kersey Peter Frost Peter Lee Philip Giraldi Philip Weiss Robert Weissberg Ron Paul Ron Unz Stephen J. Sniegoski The Saker Tom Engelhardt A. Graham Adam Hochschild Aedon Cassiel Ahmet Öncü Alexander Cockburn Alexander Hart Alfred McCoy Alison Rose Levy Alison Weir Anand Gopal Andre Damon Andrew Cockburn Andrew Fraser Andy Kroll Ann Jones Anonymous Anthony DiMaggio Ariel Dorfman Arlie Russell Hochschild Arno Develay Arnold Isaacs Artem Zagorodnov Astra Taylor Austen Layard Aviva Chomsky Ayman Fadel Barbara Ehrenreich Barbara Garson Barbara Myers Barry Lando Belle Chesler Beverly Gologorsky Bill Black Bill Moyers Bob Dreyfuss Bonnie Faulkner Brenton Sanderson Brett Redmayne-Titley Brian Dew Carl Horowitz Catherine Crump Charles Bausman Charles Goodhart Charles Wood Charlotteville Survivor Chase Madar Chris Hedges Chris Roberts Christian Appy Christopher DeGroot Chuck Spinney Coleen Rowley Cooper Sterling Craig Murray Dahr Jamail Dan E. Phillips Dan Sanchez Daniel McAdams Danny Sjursen Dave Kranzler Dave Lindorff David Barsamian David Bromwich David Chibo David Gordon David North David Vine David Walsh David William Pear Dean Baker Dennis Saffran Diana Johnstone Dilip Hiro Dirk Bezemer Ed Warner Edmund Connelly Eduardo Galeano Ellen Cantarow Ellen Packer Ellison Lodge Eric Draitser Eric Zuesse Erik Edstrom Erika Eichelberger Erin L. Thompson Eugene Girin F. Roger Devlin Franklin Lamb Frida Berrigan Friedrich Zauner Gabriel Black Gary Corseri Gary North Gary Younge Gene Tuttle George Albert George Bogdanich George Szamuely Georgianne Nienaber Glenn Greenwald Greg Grandin Greg Johnson Gregoire Chamayou Gregory Foster Gregory Hood Gregory Wilpert Guest Admin Hannah Appel Hans-Hermann Hoppe Harri Honkanen Henry Cockburn Hina Shamsi Howard Zinn Hubert Collins Hugh McInnish Ira Chernus Jack Kerwick Jack Rasmus Jack Ravenwood Jack Sen James Bovard James Carroll James Fulford Jane Lazarre Jared S. Baumeister Jason C. Ditz Jason Kessler Jay Stanley Jeff J. Brown Jeffrey Blankfort Jeffrey St. Clair Jen Marlowe Jeremiah Goulka Jeremy Cooper Jesse Mossman Jim Daniel Jim Kavanagh JoAnn Wypijewski Joe Lauria Johannes Wahlstrom John W. Dower John Feffer John Fund John Harrison Sims John Reid John Stauber John Taylor John V. Walsh John Williams Jon Else Jonathan Alan King Jonathan Anomaly Jonathan Rooper Jonathan Schell Joseph Kishore Juan Cole Judith Coburn K.R. Bolton Karel Van Wolferen Karen Greenberg Kelley Vlahos Kersasp D. Shekhdar Kevin Barrett Kevin Zeese Kshama Sawant Lance Welton Laura Gottesdiener Laura Poitras Laurent Guyénot Lawrence G. Proulx Leo Hohmann Linda Preston Logical Meme Lorraine Barlett M.G. Miles Mac Deford Maidhc O Cathail Malcolm Unwell Marcus Alethia Marcus Cicero Margaret Flowers Mark Danner Mark Engler Mark Perry Matt Parrott Mattea Kramer Matthew Harwood Matthew Richer Matthew Stevenson Max Blumenthal Max Denken Max North Maya Schenwar Michael Gould-Wartofsky Michael Schwartz Michael T. Klare Murray Polner Nan Levinson Naomi Oreskes Nate Terani Ned Stark Nelson Rosit Nicholas Stix Nick Kollerstrom Nick Turse Noam Chomsky Nomi Prins Patrick Cleburne Patrick Cloutier Paul Cochrane Paul Engler Paul Nachman Paul Nehlen Pepe Escobar Peter Brimelow Peter Gemma Peter Van Buren Pierre M. Sprey Pratap Chatterjee Publius Decius Mus Rajan Menon Ralph Nader Ramin Mazaheri Ramziya Zaripova Randy Shields Ray McGovern Razib Khan Rebecca Gordon Rebecca Solnit Richard Krushnic Richard Silverstein Rick Shenkman Rita Rozhkova Robert Baxter Robert Bonomo Robert Fisk Robert Lipsyte Robert Parry Robert Roth Robert S. Griffin Robert Scheer Robert Trivers Robin Eastman Abaya Roger Dooghy Ronald N. Neff Rory Fanning Sam Francis Sam Husseini Sayed Hasan Sharmini Peries Sheldon Richman Spencer Davenport Spencer Quinn Stefan Karganovic Steffen A. Woll Stephanie Savell Stephen J. Rossi Steve Fraser Steven Yates Sydney Schanberg Tanya Golash-Boza Ted Rall Theodore A. Postol Thierry Meyssan Thomas Frank Thomas O. Meehan Tim Shorrock Tim Weiner Tobias Langdon Todd E. Pierce Todd Gitlin Todd Miller Tom Piatak Tom Suarez Tom Sunic Tracy Rosenberg Virginia Dare Vladimir Brovkin Vox Day W. Patrick Lang Walter Block William Binney William DeBuys William Hartung William J. Astore Winslow T. Wheeler Ximena Ortiz Yan Shen
Nothing found
By Topics/Categories Filter?
2016 Election 9/11 Academia AIPAC Alt Right American Media American Military American Pravda Anti-Semitism Benjamin Netanyahu Blacks Britain China Conservative Movement Conspiracy Theories Deep State Donald Trump Economics Foreign Policy Hillary Clinton History Ideology Immigration IQ Iran ISIS Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jews Middle East Neocons Political Correctness Race/IQ Race/Ethnicity Republicans Russia Science Syria Terrorism Turkey Ukraine Vladimir Putin World War II 1971 War 2008 Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 23andMe 70th Anniversary Parade 75-0-25 Or Something A Farewell To Alms A. J. West A Troublesome Inheritance Aarab Barghouti Abc News Abdelhamid Abaaoud Abe Abe Foxman Abigail Marsh Abortion Abraham Lincoln Abu Ghraib Abu Zubaydah Academy Awards Acheivement Gap Acid Attacks Adam Schiff Addiction Adoptees Adoption Adoption Twins ADRA2b AEI Affective Empathy Affirmative Action Affordable Family Formation Afghanistan Africa African Americans African Genetics Africans Afrikaner Afrocentricism Agriculture Aha AIDS Ain't Nobody Got Time For That. Ainu Aircraft Carriers AirSea Battle Al Jazeera Al-Qaeda Alan Dershowitz Alan Macfarlane Albania Alberto Del Rosario Albion's Seed Alcohol Alcoholism Alexander Hamilton Alexandre Skirda Alexis De Tocqueville Algeria All Human Behavioral Traits Are Heritable All Traits Are Heritable Alpha Centauri Alpha Males Alt Left Altruism Amazon.com America The Beautiful American Atheists American Debt American Exceptionalism American Flag American Jews American Left American Legion American Nations American Nations American Prisons American Renaissance Americana Amerindians Amish Amish Quotient Amnesty Amnesty International Amoral Familialism Amy Chua Amygdala An Hbd Liberal Anaconda Anatoly Karlin Ancestry Ancient DNA Ancient Genetics Ancient Jews Ancient Near East Anders Breivik Andrei Nekrasov Andrew Jackson Androids Angela Stent Angelina Jolie Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Anne Buchanan Anne Heche Annual Country Reports On Terrorism Anthropology Antibiotics Antifa Antiquity Antiracism Antisocial Behavior Antiwar Movement Antonin Scalia Antonio Trillanes IV Anywhere But Here Apartheid Appalachia Appalachians Arab Christianity Arab Spring Arabs Archaic DNA Archaic Humans Arctic Humans Arctic Resources Argentina Argentina Default Armenians Army-McCarthy Hearings Arnon Milchan Art Arthur Jensen Artificial Intelligence As-Safir Ash Carter Ashkenazi Intelligence Ashkenazi Jews Ashraf Ghani Asia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians ASPM Assassinations Assimilation Assortative Mating Atheism Atlantic Council Attractiveness Attractiveness Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Austro-Hungarian Empire Austronesians Autism Automation Avi Tuschman Avigdor Lieberman Ayodhhya Babri Masjid Baby Boom Baby Gap Baby Girl Jay Backlash Bacterial Vaginosis Bad Science Bahrain Balanced Polymorphism Balkans Baltimore Riots Bangladesh Banking Banking Industry Banking System Banks Barack H. Obama Barack Obama Barbara Comstock Bariatric Surgery Baseball Bashar Al-Assad Baumeister BDA BDS Movement Beauty Beauty Standards Behavior Genetics Behavioral Genetics Behaviorism Beijing Belgrade Embassy Bombing Believeing In Observational Studies Is Nuts Ben Cardin Ben Carson Benghazi Benjamin Cardin Berlin Wall Bernard Henri-Levy Bernard Lewis Bernie Madoff Bernie Sanders Bernies Sanders Beta Males BICOM Big Five Bilingual Education Bill 59 Bill Clinton Bill Kristol Bill Maher Billionaires Billy Graham Birds Of A Feather Birth Order Birth Rate Bisexuality Bisexuals BJP Black Americans Black Crime Black History Black Lives Matter Black Metal Black Muslims Black Panthers Black Women Attractiveness Blackface Blade Runner Blogging Blond Hair Blue Eyes Bmi Boasian Anthropology Boderlanders Boeing Boers Boiling Off Boko Haram Bolshevik Revolution Books Border Reivers Borderlander Borderlanders Boris Johnson Bosnia Boston Bomb Boston Marathon Bombing Bowe Bergdahl Boycott Divest And Sanction Boycott Divestment And Sanctions Brain Brain Scans Brain Size Brain Structure Brazil Breaking Down The Bullshit Breeder's Equation Bret Stephens Brexit Brian Boutwell Brian Resnick BRICs Brighter Brains Brighton Broken Hill Brown Eyes Bruce Jenner Bruce Lahn brussels Bryan Caplan BS Bundy Family Burakumin Burma Bush Administration C-section Cagots Caitlyn Jenner California Cambodia Cameron Russell Campaign Finance Campaign For Liberty Campus Rape Canada Canada Day Canadian Flag Canadians Cancer Candida Albicans Cannabis Capital Punishment Capitalism Captain Chicken Cardiovascular Disease Care Package Carl Sagan Carly Fiorina Caroline Glick Carroll Quigley Carry Me Back To Ole Virginny Carter Page Castes Catalonia Catholic Church Catholicism Catholics Causation Cavaliers CCTV Censorship Central Asia Chanda Chisala Charles Darwin Charles Krauthammer Charles Murray Charles Schumer Charleston Shooting Charlie Hebdo Charlie Rose Charlottesville Chechens Chechnya Cherlie Hebdo Child Abuse Child Labor Children Chimerism China/America China Stock Market Meltdown China Vietnam Chinese Chinese Communist Party Chinese Evolution Chinese Exclusion Act Chlamydia Chris Gown Chris Rock Chris Stringer Christian Fundamentalism Christianity Christmas Christopher Steele Chuck Chuck Hagel Chuck Schumer CIA Cinema Civil Liberties Civil Rights Civil War Civilian Deaths CJIA Clannishness Clans Clark-unz Selection Classical Economics Classical History Claude-Lévi-Strauss Climate Climate Change Clinton Global Initiative Cliodynamics Cloudburst Flight Clovis Cochran And Harpending Coefficient Of Relationship Cognitive Empathy Cognitive Psychology Cohorts Cold War Colin Kaepernick Colin Woodard Colombia Colonialism Colonists Coming Apart Comments Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Conflict Of Interest Congress Consanguinity Conscientiousness Consequences Conservatism Conservatives Constitution Constitutional Theory Consumer Debt Cornel West Corporal Punishment Correlation Is Still Not Causation Corruption Corruption Perception Index Costa Concordia Cousin Marriage Cover Story CPEC Craniometry CRIF Crime Crimea Criminality Crowded Crowding Cruise Missiles Cuba Cuban Missile Crisis Cuckold Envy Cuckservative Cultural Evolution Cultural Marxism Cut The Sh*t Guys DACA Dads Vs Cads Daily Mail Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Dalliard Dalton Trumbo Damascus Bombing Dan Freedman Dana Milbank Daniel Callahan Danish Daren Acemoglu Dark Ages Dark Tetrad Dark Triad Darwinism Data Posts David Brooks David Friedman David Frum David Goldenberg David Hackett Fischer David Ignatius David Katz David Kramer David Lane David Petraeus Davide Piffer Davos Death Death Penalty Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Debt Declaration Of Universal Human Rights Deep Sleep Deep South Democracy Democratic Party Democrats Demographic Transition Demographics Demography Denisovans Denmark Dennis Ross Depression Deprivation Deregulation Derek Harvey Desired Family Size Detroit Development Developmental Noise Developmental Stability Diabetes Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders Dialects Dick Cheney Die Nibelungen Dienekes Diet Different Peoples Is Different Dinesh D'Souza Dirty Bomb Discrimination Discrimination Paradigm Disney Dissent Diversity Dixie Django Unchained Do You Really Want To Know? Doing My Part Doll Tests Dollar Domestic Terrorism Dominique Strauss-Kahn Dopamine Douglas MacArthur Dr James Thompson Drd4 Dreams From My Father Dresden Drew Barrymore Dreyfus Affair Drinking Drone War Drones Drug Cartels Drugs Dry Counties DSM Dunning-kruger Effect Dusk In Autumn Dustin Hoffman Duterte Dylan Roof Dylann Roof Dysgenic E.O. 9066 E. O. Wilson Eagleman East Asia East Asians Eastern Europe Eastern Europeans Ebola Economic Development Economic Sanctions Economy Ed Miller Education Edward Price Edward Snowden EEA Egypt Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Electric Cars Elie Wiesel Eliot Cohen Eliot Engel Elites Ellen Walker Elliot Abrams Elliot Rodger Elliott Abrams Elon Musk Emigration Emil Kirkegaard Emmanuel Macron Emmanuel Todd Empathy England English Civil War Enhanced Interrogations Enoch Powell Entrepreneurship Environment Environmental Estrogens Environmentalism Erdogan Eric Cantor Espionage Estrogen Ethiopia Ethnic Genetic Interests Ethnic Nepotism Ethnicity EU Eugenic Eugenics Eurasia Europe European Right European Union Europeans Eurozone Everything Evil Evolution Evolutionary Biology Evolutionary Psychology Exercise Extraversion Extreterrestrials Eye Color Eyes Ezra Cohen-Watnick Face Recognition Face Shape Faces Facts Fake News fallout Family Studies Far West Farmers Farming Fascism Fat Head Fat Shaming Father Absence FBI Federal Reserve Female Deference Female Homosexuality Female Sexual Response Feminism Feminists Ferguson Shooting Fertility Fertility Fertility Rates Fethullah Gulen Fetish Feuds Fields Medals FIFA Fifty Shades Of Grey Film Finance Financial Bailout Financial Bubbles Financial Debt Financial Sector Financial Times Finland First Amendment First Law First World War FISA Fitness Flags Flight From White Fluctuating Asymmetry Flynn Effect Food Football For Profit Schools Foreign Service Fourth Of July Fracking Fragrances France Francesco Schettino Frank Salter Frankfurt School Frantz Fanon Franz Boas Fred Hiatt Fred Reed Freddie Gray Frederic Hof Free Speech Free Trade Free Will Freedom Of Navigation Freedom Of Speech French Canadians French National Front French Paradox Friendly & Conventional Front National Frost-harpending Selection Fulford Funny G G Spot Gaddafi Gallipoli Game Gardnerella Vaginalis Gary Taubes Gay Germ Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians Gaza Gaza Flotilla Gcta Gender Gender Gender And Sexuality Gender Confusion Gender Equality Gender Identity Disorder Gender Reassignment Gene-Culture Coevolution Gene-environment Correlation General Intelligence General Social Survey General Theory Of The West Genes Genes: They Matter Bitches Genetic Diversity Genetic Divides Genetic Engineering Genetic Load Genetic Pacification Genetics Genetics Of Height Genocide Genomics Geography Geopolitics George Bush George Clooney George Patton George Romero George Soros George Tenet George W. Bush George Wallace Germ Theory German Catholics Germans Germany Get It Right Get Real Ghouta Gilgit Baltistan Gina Haspel Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Global Terrorism Index Global Warming Globalism Globalization God Delusion Goetsu Going Too Far Gold Gold Warriors Goldman Sachs Good Advice Google Gordon Gallup Goths Government Debt Government Incompetence Government Spending Government Surveillance Great Depression Great Leap Forward Great Recession Greater Appalachia Greece Greeks Greg Clark Greg Cochran Gregory B Christainsen Gregory Clark Gregory Cochran Gregory House GRF Grooming Group Intelligence Group Selection Grumpy Cat GSS Guangzhou Guantanamo Guardian Guilt Culture Gun Control Guns Gynephilia Gypsies H-1B H Bomb H.R. McMaster H1-B Visas Haim Saban Hair Color Hair Lengthening Haiti Hajnal Line Hamas Hamilton: An American Musical Hamilton's Rule Happiness Happy Turkey Day ... Unless You're The Turkey Harriet Tubman Harry Jaffa Harvard Harvey Weinstein Hasbara Hassidim Hate Crimes Hate Speech Hatemi Havelock Ellis Haymarket Affair Hbd Hbd Chick HBD Denial Hbd Fallout Hbd Readers Head Size Health And Medicine Health Care Healthcare Heart Disease Heart Health Heart Of Asia Conference Heartiste Heather Norton Height Helmuth Nyborg Hemoglobin Henri De Man Henry Harpending Henry Kissinger Herbert John Fleure Heredity Heritability Hexaco Hezbollah High Iq Fertility Hip Hop Hiroshima Hispanic Crime Hispanic Paradox Hispanics Historical Genetics Hitler HKND Hollywood Holocaust Homicide Homicide Rate Homo Altaiensis Homophobia Homosexuality Honesty-humility House Intelligence Committee House M.d. House Md House Of Cards Housing Huey Long Huey Newton Hugo Chavez Human Biodiversity Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genomics Human Nature Human Rights Human Varieties Humor Hungary Hunter-Gatherers Hunting Hurricane Hurricane Harvey I.F. Stone I Kissed A Girl And I Liked It I Love Italians I.Q. Genomics Ian Deary Ibd Ibo Ice T Iceland I'd Like To Think It's Obvious I Know What I'm Talking About Ideology And Worldview Idiocracy Igbo Ignorance Ilana Mercer Illegal Immigration IMF immigrants Immigration Imperial Presidency Imperialism Imran Awan In The Electric Mist Inbreeding Income Independence Day India Indians Individualism Inequality Infection Theory Infidelity Intelligence Internet Internet Research Agency Interracial Marriage Inuit Ioannidis Ioannis Metaxas Iosif Lazaridis Iq Iq And Wealth Iran Nuclear Agreement Iran Nuclear Program Iran Sanctions Iranian Nuclear Program Iraq Iraq War Ireland Irish ISIS. Terrorism Islamic Jihad Islamophobia Isolationism Israel Defense Force Israeli Occupation Israeli Settlements Israeli Spying Italianthro Italy It's Determinism - Genetics Is Just A Part It's Not Nature And Nurture Ivanka Ivy League Iwo Eleru J. Edgar Hoover Jack Keane Jake Tapper JAM-GC Jamaica James Clapper James Comey James Fanell James Mattis James Wooley Jamie Foxx Jane Harman Jane Mayer Janet Yellen Japan Japanese Jared Diamond Jared Kushner Jared Taylor Jason Malloy JASTA Jayman Jr. Jayman's Wife Jeff Bezos Jennifer Rubin Jensen Jeremy Corbyn Jerrold Nadler Jerry Seinfeld Jesse Bering Jesuits Jewish History JFK Assassination Jill Stein Jim Crow Joe Cirincione Joe Lieberman John Allen John B. Watson John Boehner John Bolton John Brennan John Derbyshire John Durant John F. Kennedy John Hawks John Hoffecker John Kasich John Kerry John Ladue John McCain John McLaughlin John McWhorter John Mearsheimer John Tooby Joke Posts Jonathan Freedland Jonathan Pollard Joseph Lieberman Joseph McCarthy Judaism Judicial System Judith Harris Julian Assange Jute K.d. Lang Kagans Kanazawa Kashmir Katibat Al-Battar Al-Libi Katy Perry Kay Hymowitz Keith Ellison Ken Livingstone Kenneth Marcus Kennewick Man Kevin MacDonald Kevin McCarthy Kevin Mitchell Kevin Williamson KGL-9268 Khazars Kim Jong Un Kimberly Noble Kin Altruism Kin Selection Kink Kinship Kissing Kiwis Kkk Knesset Know-nothings Korea Korean War Kosovo Ku Klux Klan Kurds Kurt Campbell Labor Day Lactose Lady Gaga Language Larkana Conspiracy Larry Summers Larung Gar Las Vegas Massacre Latin America Latinos Latitude Latvia Law Law Of War Manual Laws Of Behavioral Genetics Lead Poisoning Lebanon Leda Cosmides Lee Kuan Yew Left Coast Left/Right Lenin Leo Strauss Lesbians LGBT Liberal Creationism Liberalism Liberals Libertarianism Libertarians Libya life-expectancy Life In Space Life Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happyness Lifestyle Light Skin Preference Lindsay Graham Lindsey Graham Literacy Litvinenko Lloyd Blankfein Locus Of Control Logan's Run Lombok Strait Long Ass Posts Longevity Look AHEAD Looting Lorde Love Love Dolls Lover Boys Low-carb Low-fat Low Wages LRSO Lutherans Lyndon Johnson M Factor M.g. MacArthur Awards Machiavellianism Madeleine Albright Mahmoud Abbas Maine Malacca Strait Malaysian Airlines MH17 Male Homosexuality Mamasapano Mangan Manor Manorialism Manosphere Manufacturing Mao-a Mao Zedong Maoism Maori Map Posts maps Marc Faber Marco Rubio Marijuana Marine Le Pen Mark Carney Mark Steyn Mark Warner Market Economy Marriage Martin Luther King Marwan Marwan Barghouti Marxism Mary White Ovington Masha Gessen Mass Shootings Massacre In Nice Mate Choice Mate Value Math Mathematics Maulana Bhashani Max Blumenthal Max Boot Max Brooks Mayans McCain/POW Mearsheimer-Walt Measurement Error Mega-Aggressions Mega-anlysis Megan Fox Megyn Kelly Melanin Memorial Day Mental Health Mental Illness Mental Traits Meritocracy Merkel Mesolithic Meta-analysis Meth Mexican-American War Mexico Michael Anton Michael Bloomberg Michael Flynn Michael Hudson Michael Jackson Michael Lewis Michael Morell Michael Pompeo Michael Weiss Michael Woodley Michele Bachmann Michelle Bachmann Michelle Obama Microaggressions Microcephalin Microsoft Middle Ages Mideastwire Migration Mike Huckabee Mike Pence Mike Pompeo Mike Signer Mikhail Khodorkovsky Militarized Police Military Military Pay Military Spending Milner Group Mindanao Minimum Wage Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study Minorities Minstrels Mirror Neurons Miscellaneous Misdreavus Missile Defense Mitt Romney Mixed-Race Modern Humans Mohammed Bin Salman Moldova Monogamy Moral Absolutism Moral Universalism Morality Mormons Moro Mortality Mossad Mountains Movies Moxie Mrs. Jayman MTDNA Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Multiregional Model Music Muslim Muslim Ban Muslims Mutual Assured Destruction My Lai My Old Kentucky Home Myanmar Mysticism Nagasaki Nancy Segal Narendra Modi Nascar National Debt National Differences National Review National Security State National Security Strategy National Wealth Nationalism Native Americans NATO Natural Selection Nature Vs. Nurture Navy Yard Shooting Naz Shah Nazi Nazis Nazism Nbc News Nbc Nightly News Neanderthals NED Neo-Nazis Neoconservatism Neoconservatives Neoliberalism Neolithic Netherlands Neuropolitics Neuroticism Never Forget The Genetic Confound New Addition New Atheists New Cold War New England Patriots New France New French New Netherland New Qing History New Rules New Silk Road New World Order New York City New York Times Newfoundland Newt Gingrich NFL Nicaragua Canal Nicholas Sarkozy Nicholas Wade Nigeria Nightly News Nikki Haley No Free Will Nobel Prize Nobel Prized Nobosuke Kishi Nordics North Africa North Korea Northern Ireland Northwest Europe Norway NSA NSA Surveillance Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear War Nuclear Weapons Null Result Nurture Nurture Assumption Nutrition Nuts NYPD O Mio Babbino Caro Obama Obamacare Obesity Obscured American Occam's Razor Occupy Occupy Wall Street Oceania Oil Oil Industry Old Folks At Home Olfaction Oliver Stone Olympics Omega Males Ominous Signs Once You Go Black Open To Experience Openness To Experience Operational Sex Ratio Opiates Opioids Orban Organ Transplants Orlando Shooting Orthodoxy Osama Bin Laden Ottoman Empire Our Political Nature Out Of Africa Model Outbreeding Oxtr Oxytocin Paekchong Pakistan Pakistani Palatability Paleoamerindians Paleocons Paleolibertarianism Palestine Palestinians Pamela Geller Panama Canal Panama Papers Parasite Parasite Burden Parasite Manipulation Parent-child Interactions Parenting Parenting Parenting Behavioral Genetics Paris Attacks Paris Spring Parsi Paternal Investment Pathogens Patriot Act Patriotism Paul Ewald Paul Krugman Paul Lepage Paul Manafort Paul Ryan Paul Singer Paul Wolfowitz Pavel Grudinin Peace Index Peak Jobs Pearl Harbor Pedophilia Peers Peggy Seagrave Pennsylvania Pentagon Perception Management Personality Peru Peter Frost Peter Thiel Peter Turchin Phil Onderdonk Phil Rushton Philip Breedlove Philippines Physical Anthropology Pierre Van Den Berghe Pieter Van Ostaeyen Piigs Pioneer Hypothesis Pioneers PISA Pizzagate Planets Planned Parenthood Pledge Of Allegiance Pleiotropy Pol Pot Poland Police State Police Training Politics Poll Results Polls Polygenic Score Polygyny Pope Francis Population Growth Population Replacement Populism Pornography Portugal Post 199 Post 201 Post 99 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Post-Nationalism Pot Poverty PRC Prenatal Hormones Prescription Drugs Press Censorship Pretty Graphs Prince Bandar Priti Patel Privatization Progressives Project Plowshares Propaganda Prostitution Protestantism Proud To Be Black Psychology Psychometrics Psychopaths Psychopathy Pubertal Timing Public Schools Puerto Rico Punishment Puritans Putin Pwc Qatar Quakers Quantitative Genetics Quebec Quebecois Race Race And Crime Race And Genomics Race And Iq Race And Religion Race/Crime Race Denialism Race Riots Rachel Dolezal Rachel Maddow Racial Intelligence Racial Reality Racism Radical Islam Ralph And Coop Ralph Nader Rand Paul Randy Fine Rap Music Raqqa Rating People Rationality Raul Pedrozo Razib Khan Reaction Time Reading Real Estate Real Women Really Stop The Armchair Psychoanalysis Recep Tayyip Erdogan Reciprocal Altruism Reconstruction Red Hair Red State Blue State Red States Blue States Refugee Crisis Regional Differences Regional Populations Regression To The Mean Religion Religion Religion And Philosophy Rena Wing Renewable Energy Rentier Reprint Reproductive Strategy Republican Jesus Republican Party Responsibility Reuel Gerecht Reverend Moon Revolution Of 1905 Revolutions Rex Tillerson Richard Dawkins Richard Dyer Richard Lewontin Richard Lynn Richard Nixon Richard Pryor Richard Pryor Live On The Sunset Strip Richard Russell Rick Perry Rickets Rikishi Robert Ford Robert Kraft Robert Lindsay Robert McNamara Robert Mueller Robert Mugabe Robert Plomin Robert Putnam Robert Reich Robert Spencer Robocop Robots Roe Vs. Wade Roger Ailes Rohingya Roman Empire Rome Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Rooshv Rosemary Hopcroft Ross Douthat Ross Perot Rotherham Roy Moore RT International Rupert Murdoch Rural Liberals Rushton Russell Kirk Russia-Georgia War Russiagate Russian Elections 2018 Russian Hack Russian History Russian Military Russian Orthodox Church Ruth Benedict Saakashvili Sam Harris Same Sex Attraction Same-sex Marriage Same-sex Parents Samoans Samuel George Morton San Bernadino Massacre Sandra Beleza Sandusky Sandy Hook Sarah Palin Sarin Gas Satoshi Kanazawa saudi Saudi Arabia Saying What You Have To Say Scandinavia Scandinavians Scarborough Shoal Schizophrenia Science: It Works Bitches Scientism Scotch-irish Scotland Scots Irish Scott Ritter Scrabble Secession Seduced By Food Semai Senate Separating The Truth From The Nonsense Serbia Serenity Sergei Magnitsky Sergei Skripal Sex Sex Ratio Sex Ratio At Birth Sex Recognition Sex Tape Sex Work Sexism Sexual Antagonistic Selection Sexual Dimorphism Sexual Division Of Labor Sexual Fluidity Sexual Identity Sexual Maturation Sexual Orientation Sexual Selection Sexually Transmitted Diseases Seymour Hersh Shai Masot Shame Culture Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Shanghai Stock Exchange Shared Environment Shekhovstov Sheldon Adelson Shias And Sunnis Shimon Arad Shimon Peres Shinzo Abe Shmuley Boteach Shorts And Funnies Shoshana Bryen Shurat HaDin Shyness Siamak Namazi Sibel Edmonds Siberia Silicon Valley Simon Baron Cohen Singapore Single Men Single Motherhood Single Mothers Single Women Sisyphean Six Day War SJWs Skin Bleaching Skin Color Skin Tone Slate Slave Trade Slavery Slavoj Zizek Slavs SLC24A5 Sleep Slobodan Milosevic Smart Fraction Smell Smoking Snow Snyderman Social Constructs Social Justice Warriors Socialism Sociopathy Sociosexuality Solar Energy Solutions Somalia Sometimes You Don't Like The Answer South Africa South Asia South China Sea South Korea South Sudan Southern Italians Southern Poverty Law Center Soviet Union Space Space Space Program Space Race Spain Spanish Paradox Speech SPLC Sports Sputnik News Squid Ink Srebrenica Stabby Somali Staffan Stalinism Stanislas Dehaene Star Trek State Department State Formation States Rights Statins Steny Hoyer Stephan Guyenet Stephen Cohen Stephen Colbert Stephen Hadley Stephen Jay Gould Sterling Seagrave Steve Bannon Steve Sailer Steven Mnuchin Steven Pinker Still Not Free Buddy Stolen Generations Strategic Affairs Ministry Stroke Belt Student Loans Stuxnet SU-57 Sub-replacement Fertility Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africans Subprime Mortgage Crisis Subsistence Living Suffrage Sugar Suicide Summing It All Up Supernatural Support Me Support The Jayman Supreme Court Supression Surveillance Susan Glasser Susan Rice Sweden Swiss Switzerland Syed Farook Syrian Refugees Syriza Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Tale Of Two Maps Taliban Tamerlan Tsarnaev TAS2R16 Tashfeen Malik Taste Tastiness Tatars Tatu Vanhanen Tawang Tax Cuts Tax Evasion Taxes Tea Party Team Performance Technology Ted Cruz Tell Me About You Tell The Truth Terman Terman's Termites Terroris Terrorists Tesla Testosterone Thailand The 10000 Year Explosion The Bible The Breeder's Equation The Confederacy The Dark Knight The Dark Triad The Death Penalty The Deep South The Devil Is In The Details The Dustbowl The Economist The Far West The Future The Great Plains The Great Wall The Left The Left Coast The New York Times The Pursuit Of Happyness The Rock The Saker The Son Also Rises The South The Walking Dead The Washington Post The Wide Environment The World Theodore Roosevelt Theresa May Things Going Sour Third World Thomas Aquinas Thomas Friedman Thomas Perez Thomas Sowell Thomas Talhelm Thorstein Veblen Thurgood Marshall Tibet Tidewater Tiger Mom Time Preference Timmons Title IX Tobin Tax Tom Cotton Tom Naughton Tone It Down Guys Seriously Tony Blair Torture Toxoplasma Gondii TPP Traffic Traffic Fatalities Tragedy Trans-Species Polymorphism Transgender Transgenderism Transsexuals Treasury Tropical Humans Trump Trust TTIP Tuition Tulsi Gabbard Turkheimer TWA 800 Twin Study Twins Twins Raised Apart Twintuition Twitter Two Party System UKIP Ukrainian Crisis UN Security Council Unemployment Unions United Kingdom United Nations United States Universalism University Admissions Upper Paleolithic Urban Riots Ursula Gauthier Uruguay US Blacks USS Liberty Utopian Uttar Pradesh UV Uyghurs Vaginal Yeast Valerie Plame Vassopressin Vdare Veep Venezuela Veterans Administration Victor Canfield Victor Davis Hanson Victoria Nuland Victorian England Victorianism Video Games Vietnam Vietnam War Vietnamese Vikings Violence Vioxx Virginia Visa Waivers Visual Word Form Area Vitamin D Voronezh Vote Fraud Vouchers Vwfa W.E.I.R.D. W.E.I.R.D.O. Wahhabis Wall Street Walter Bodmer Wang Jing War On Christmas War On Terror Washington Post WasPage Watergate Watsoning We Are What We Are We Don't Know All The Environmental Causes Weight Loss WEIRDO Welfare Western Europe Western European Marriage Pattern Western Media Western Religion Westerns What Can You Do What's The Cause Where They're At Where's The Fallout White America White Americans White Conservative Males White Death White Helmets White Nationalist Nuttiness White Nationalists White Privilege White Slavery White Supremacy White Wife Why We Believe Hbd Wikileaks Wild Life Wilhelm Furtwangler William Browder William Buckley William D. Hamilton William Graham Sumner William McGougall WINEP Winston Churchill Women In The Workplace Woodley Effect Woodrow Wilson WORDSUM Workers Working Class Working Memory World Values Survey World War I World War Z Writing WTO X Little Miss JayLady Xhosa Xi Jinping Xinjiang Yankeedom Yankees Yazidis Yemen Yes I Am A Brother Yes I Am Liberal - But That Kind Of Liberal Yochi Dreazen You Can't Handle The Truth You Don't Know Shit Youtube Ban Yugoslavia Zbigniew Brzezinski Zhang Yimou Zika Zika Virus Zimbabwe Zionism Zombies Zones Of Thought Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Nothing found
All Commenters • My
Comments
• Followed
Commenters
All Comments / On "Charles Murray"
 All Comments / On "Charles Murray"
    Post updated, 9/23/15 9/22/15. See below! This will be the first column in a series on the broad human behavioral dimension dubbed "clannishness" by HBD Chick. I've talked quite about clannishness here, and of course it is the main theme of HBD Chick's blog. For background, see: start here | hbd chick clannishness defined |...
  • […] Clannishness – the Series: Zigzag Lightning in the Brain […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • From Vox: Getting worked up over Charles Murray being allowed on a podcast seems a little bizarre. (Here's the podcast.) Under the faux indignation and clickbait headline, however, this is about as good an attempt as any to shore up the Conventional Wisdom that the racial differences in average intel
  • Bob Woodwort [AKA "Andrew Sumners"] says: • Website
    @AnotherGuessModel
    Who does have the rhetorical skills to undermine the increasingly hysterical conventional wisdom and package the mature point of view about genetic diversity in the old soft soap that will go over well with Nice People?

    If the remarkably even-keeled, articulate, and scientifically literate social critic/analyst Charles Murray couldn't do it, who can? Some collective of thinkers will come through eventually. The webzine Quilette seems to be trying to tackle it. Wish I could participate somehow, but a lot of the science is beyond my paygrade.

    The recent death of UK psychologist Chris Brand intersects this comment re “the increasingly
    hysterical conventional wisdom”. By now, perhaps it is more basic to look at the social-mental repressive dynamics surrounding this science than to persist in trying to focus on the facts and findings themselves. Brand’s keen general survey in his briefly published and then almost immediately “de-published” 1995 book re “general mental ability” and nature/nurture–this keen general survey was one of a strand of such “semi burned” books. It is conceivable (but don’t bet on it ) that the Freedom of Information Act might now be used to excavate more information relevant to the details of “de-publishing” Brand’s book??

    An emphatic “insert” is in order at this point. Before noting some of the facts due some retrospective re this 1995 “de-publishing”, the really significant current reality is that Brand
    managed, with obvious assistance from others, to get the full and faithful text of his “totally
    burned” book all online a few years later—a real samizdat victory and a real samizdat manifestation.

    The ( is it by now still? ) neologism of “de-published” is betokened by the fact that the UK publisher did not merely lock their warehouse door on the sale of the book (after about six
    weeks of access to book sellers in the UK) but they sent out vans to pick up advanced copies from booksellers. Wow!

    But this is not “a” story. It is the culmination of “semi-book burning” reaching back most saliently in our historical period to the 1950′s withdrawal of Audrey Shuey’s book on the testing of Black intelligence. This book, fully endorsed by former American Psychological Association President, Prof. Henry Garrett (Columbia U. ), was rescued by Garrett with assistance from the Pioneer Fund founder and was ushered back into access via an ad hoc
    publishing effort devoted to just such book rescue. With Garrett’s advancing age, this ad hoc
    rescue publishing arrangement was passed on to Prof. R. Travis Osborne (U. of Georgia ) who
    not only got a second expanded edition of the Shuey book out, but also rescued Oxford University Professor John R. Baker’s book, RACE, from the dustbin of publishing abandonment. This remarkable classic was submitted in 1972 to the UK publisher but
    somehow publisher nail-biting delayed its publication until 1974. For a work of its genre,
    it sold very well….but after the first run was gone…delay after delay set in and this book,
    after enormous efforts by the author and his contacts, was rescued by Osborne and his
    Pioneer Fund supported ad hoc effort so that it was re-published fully and faithfully in 1981
    in the U.S. In the mid-90′s, Chris Brand at the University of Edinburgh, himself out of the graduate program at Oxford University had never come by a copy of Baker’s RACE until one was sent to him from the U.S. out of the 1981 American re-issue of the exact book published
    (briefly) in the U.K. in 1974. Ironies compound in this samizdat area of life. Then, maybe
    six weeks or so after a few books stores in the U.K. were stocking his book on the “g” factor,
    this book of his got the full axe of “de-publishing” and the withdrawal vans, etc. BTW, after
    the vans carried back to the publisher warehouse all the advanced copies that could be found and reclaimed, the publisher reportedly pulped them all.

    However, in reality Chris Brand’s corpse has been properly disposed of,
    a really artfully arranged means would have been to slowly and carefully burn the corpse over
    a large assembly of used books within this samizdat domain of human evolution, human variations, genes, and IQ. Metaphorically that was what was done to him in the “de-publishing” and in the large context of history what has been done to our culture over several
    successive decades now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @candid_observer
    It's really despicable that these professors -- who certainly know better -- wrote such a dishonest article on Murray's views.

    Every last word in the article is introduced, not to elucidate what is known, but to obfuscate it -- and, worse, to smear Murray.

    Today, these professors can ride high in the esteem of their poorly informed colleagues.

    But they and their reputations will die in real disgrace: when their view is proved wrong -- as not so many years from now it will be -- their cowardice in attacking those who told the truth will not be forgotten.

    This has become all too common in the social sciences. And even the “hard” sciences are bending over backwards to deny racial differences in intelligence. Witness what happened to James Watson. Being fashionable is more important to the modern scholar than pursuing the truth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] on Harris’ Waking Up podcast. It produced a predictable outcry, with replies published here and here and here. We are working on a response to our critics that will be published soon. I am not […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • utu says:
    @WhatsUp
    You are definitely going to be in the disappointed camp since you think intelligence all boils down to one or a few SNPs.

    Actually, how many SNP’s it takes is not really clear. But recent publications that tried to get heritability estimates for (1) height and (2) IQ used 100′s of 1000′s SNP’s. Which seems crazy.

    The GCTA technique they used (which is still somewhat a mathematical mystery to me) cannot really attribute heritability to individual SNP’s. Rather they use a linear model that includes lots of SNP’s. For example to get 45% of heigh variance explained (this still leaves large (35%) heritability gap unexplained) they used 294,831 SNP’s:

    Common SNPs explain a large proportion of the heritability for human height, Nature Genetics 42, 565–569 (2010)

    To show that heritability of IQ increases with age (Wilson effect) 1.7million SNP’s were used. Human genome have approx. 10 million SNP’s in total.

    DNA evidence for strong genetic stability and increasing heritability of intelligence from age 7 to 12, Molecular Psychiatry (2014) 19, 380–384

    There were some doubts raised about GCTA technique and whether it can explain the heritability gap

    Limitations of GCTA as a solution to the missing heritability problem, http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1520109113

    but they were strongly criticized and attacked by the purveyors of GCTA, i.e., Visscher and his associates. I hope more criticism will come when more people get familiar with the GCTA.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Actually no one disputed her claim that the doctrine of disparate impact came out of the EEOC and the courts and was not part of the original 1964 act. They simply didnt discuss that point. The proponent of disparate impact argued for its necessity not its compatibility with the rule of law.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • res says:
    @Corvinus
    "They are inconsistently enforced and open to interpretation depending on the judge and jurisdiction."

    In some cases, absolutely.

    "Since no one has ever identified what the purpose of the law is in the first place then it is impossible for the government to overreach."

    You keep repeating something that is patently false. The purpose of the law has been identified along with its criteria.

    "In the below video one of the women law professors spoke about how no one can know what the business necessity is then everything is prima facie illegal."

    And others disputed her claim.

    "She also claims in addition to the reference I already cited that disparate impact liability came out of the EEOC and the court and was never originally intended by congress."

    And others disputed her claim.

    And others disputed her claim.

    Who do you think was more correct? You make claims every day (I think that’s literally correct, but maybe there is a day off here or there) which are disputed here. Does that make those claims of yours incorrect?

    Your response is incredibly empty given that it neither references the words of those others or presents an argument in your own words. (I know, it’s part of your shtick, carry on)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “They are inconsistently enforced and open to interpretation depending on the judge and jurisdiction.”

    In some cases, absolutely.

    “Since no one has ever identified what the purpose of the law is in the first place then it is impossible for the government to overreach.”

    You keep repeating something that is patently false. The purpose of the law has been identified along with its criteria.

    “In the below video one of the women law professors spoke about how no one can know what the business necessity is then everything is prima facie illegal.”

    And others disputed her claim.

    “She also claims in addition to the reference I already cited that disparate impact liability came out of the EEOC and the court and was never originally intended by congress.”

    And others disputed her claim.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    And others disputed her claim.
     
    Who do you think was more correct? You make claims every day (I think that's literally correct, but maybe there is a day off here or there) which are disputed here. Does that make those claims of yours incorrect?

    Your response is incredibly empty given that it neither references the words of those others or presents an argument in your own words. (I know, it's part of your shtick, carry on)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Corvinus
    the law itself is a bad policy because people cannot know ahead of time if they are following it. No one can mount a defense of government directives because there is no way of knowing ahead of time if people agree with the official interpretations of what constitutes a problem.

    Corrected for accuracy --> Companies know about these laws and they are able to defend themselves from potential government overreach. Courts are the proper venue if there are discrepancies in interpretations.

    Corrected for accuracy –> Companies know about these laws and they are able to defend themselves from potential government overreach. Courts are the proper venue if there are discrepancies in interpretations.
    ———————-
    Amy Wax has written about how the laws work in practice. They are inconsistently enforced and open to interpretation depending on the judge and jurisdiction. Since no one has ever identified what the purpose of the law is in the first place then it is impossible for the government to overreach. In the below video one of the women law professors spoke about how no one can know what the business necessity is then everything is prima facie illegal. She claimed that the best advice for those seeking to avoid disparate impact liablity was to keep your head down and never make clear what your policies are to the public.

    She also claims in addition to the reference I already cited that disparate impact liability came out of the EEOC and the court and was never originally intended by congress.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @RonaldB
    Utu,

    Again, I'm grateful for your bringing a mathematicians perspective and ability to the discussion. I'm also following your contributions on regression to the mean, so I'll be commenting on that as well.

    I agree completely with you on the vague nature of 'g', although as Phil pointed out http://www.unz.com/isteve/vox-charles-murray-is-once-again-peddling-junk-science-about/#comment-1880870
    it has some significant correlations with other measures which are probably more physiologically related than a psychometric score.

    But we can't forget that factor analysis in personality analysis is done on correlations or covariance, and thus, does not imply any causality and might very well reflect a coincidence of development.

    In my opinion, the only way to really make an argument for a physical grounding of g is to use replication. The replication should use not only the factor loadings from previous studies, but the raw weightings of the scores. After all, we're arguing physical reality of a coherent population. Correlations actually provide a normalization on the variance and covariance: but, if we're arguing that we're reflecting a physical reality, I think using a normalization for the replication is biasing the analysis towards our hypothesis. For example, if the correlations remained the same, but the variance changed widely from sample to sample, have we really shown an underlying physical quality?

    I think your discussion on the regression to the mean actually adds to the discussion of g. What you did was to find a mathematical formulation of heritability which reflects both the observed regression to the mean and the invariance of variance (didn't really mean to make a pun) across generations.

    It seems to be accepted that intelligence is a polygenetic trait (begging the question of whether we can speak of "trait" in the singular). Let me construct a model where there are 100 genes affecting intelligence, each gene with two alleles, a dumb allele and a smart allele. Suppose intelligence is determined by the raw number of genes where there are two smart alleles. You could have a smart father and smart mother, but smart because of different genes. The offspring would have a higher chance of having more than average genes with smart alleles, but their expected intelligence would still be lower than their parent outliers, who were really lucky in the number of matched genes.

    The question is, is there any necessary connection of the smart genes to each other, or is it an artifact of population development within a stressful environment? It's pretty accepted that gene alleles have a constant rate of mutation, so in the absence of environmental stresses selecting for a particular allele, it will eventually get replaced in the population. I will assume this holds true for correlations between alleles on different genes. My conclusion is that in the high-technology, low stress environment we are now in, the g construct will become weaker, and mean intelligence test scores (whatever they mean) will decrease. This will take place even without dysgenic immigration.

    Sorry, I can’t respond to points you tried to make. Nothing sound right or not right in what you said.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @epochehusserl
    So that if there are bad policies, officials are able to make remedies when there is flexibility.
    Flexibility also enables officials to create policies in light of problems that arise.
    ----------------------------------
    the law itself is a bad policy because people cannot know ahead of time if they are following it. No one can mount a defense of government directives because there is no way of knowing ahead of time if people agree with the official interpretations of what constitutes a problem.

    the law itself is a bad policy because people cannot know ahead of time if they are following it. No one can mount a defense of government directives because there is no way of knowing ahead of time if people agree with the official interpretations of what constitutes a problem.

    Corrected for accuracy –> Companies know about these laws and they are able to defend themselves from potential government overreach. Courts are the proper venue if there are discrepancies in interpretations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    Corrected for accuracy –> Companies know about these laws and they are able to defend themselves from potential government overreach. Courts are the proper venue if there are discrepancies in interpretations.
    ----------------------
    Amy Wax has written about how the laws work in practice. They are inconsistently enforced and open to interpretation depending on the judge and jurisdiction. Since no one has ever identified what the purpose of the law is in the first place then it is impossible for the government to overreach. In the below video one of the women law professors spoke about how no one can know what the business necessity is then everything is prima facie illegal. She claimed that the best advice for those seeking to avoid disparate impact liablity was to keep your head down and never make clear what your policies are to the public.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTTFFRsdQoE&t=3261s

    She also claims in addition to the reference I already cited that disparate impact liability came out of the EEOC and the court and was never originally intended by congress.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • res says:
    @WhatsUp
    You are definitely going to be in the disappointed camp since you think intelligence all boils down to one or a few SNPs.

    I’m curious where you got that idea. You couldn’t be more wrong. At this point I’d guess we are talking around ten thousand SNPs for intelligence. Latest GWAS for educational attainment found over 600, unclear how many of those will apply to intelligence and we won’t know until we get a large enough study population.

    I hope you are better at making assessments of reality in real life than you are here.

    P.S. Not disappointed at all. It is a fascinating time to be alive for those who think it likely that many individual and group differences can be explained to a large degree (e.g. ~0.70 heritability for IQ) by genetic information. I imagine it is much more disappointing to believe race is solely a social construct or that SNP frequencies are all identical between the continental races.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @res

    When one says “different” and adds qualifiers to those differences, there is a clear indication that one group is “superior” and the other group is “inferior”.
     
    Like when I observe that East Africans are better at long distance running while West Africans are better at sprinting (on average, as shown by top performers, yadda yadda; only an idiot believes every individual in one group is superior to every individual in another group for situations like this): https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/08/14/kenyans-sweep-distance-races-jamaicans-sprints-evolution-shaped-elite-sports/

    Which group have I clearly indicated is superior?

    P.S. On a similar note, which is superior, rock, paper, or scissors?

    P.P.S. Notice the iSteve references at that link. ; )

    P.S. On a similar note, which is superior, rock, paper, or scissors?

    If you win a raffle and the prize is your choice of a rock, a sheet of paper, or scissors, which do you choose? Are all objects equal?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @res

    I will lol when the results show Africans have the same allele frequency as Europeans.
     
    I would not recommend getting your hopes up on that. Let's take a look at the most significant IQ SNP from the recent Nature Genetics paper (see Figure 2a): rs2490272 (1000 Genomes uses different IDs, put rs2490272 in yourself to double check if needed, their data input supports both rsID and chr#:pos but the map only displays the latter).

    http://popgen.uchicago.edu/ggv/?data=%221000genomes%22&chr=6&pos=108895386

    Gosh, vastly different allele frequencies between Africa and the rest of the world. I am shocked. Feel free to repeat the exercise for other alleles.

    Before anyone comes back gleefully pointing out the results for populations ASW or ACB in the Americas, please see the FAQ at http://www.internationalgenome.org/faq/which-populations-are-part-your-study/
    and notice that ASW is African Americans in the Southwest and ACB is African Caribbeans in Barbados.

    By Okbay I assume you mean: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v533/n7604/full/nature17671.html
    I searched for frequency (1 hit) and Africa (0 hits) and saw nothing like what you assert.

    You are definitely going to be in the disappointed camp since you think intelligence all boils down to one or a few SNPs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    I'm curious where you got that idea. You couldn't be more wrong. At this point I'd guess we are talking around ten thousand SNPs for intelligence. Latest GWAS for educational attainment found over 600, unclear how many of those will apply to intelligence and we won't know until we get a large enough study population.

    I hope you are better at making assessments of reality in real life than you are here.

    P.S. Not disappointed at all. It is a fascinating time to be alive for those who think it likely that many individual and group differences can be explained to a large degree (e.g. ~0.70 heritability for IQ) by genetic information. I imagine it is much more disappointing to believe race is solely a social construct or that SNP frequencies are all identical between the continental races.
    , @utu
    Actually, how many SNP's it takes is not really clear. But recent publications that tried to get heritability estimates for (1) height and (2) IQ used 100's of 1000's SNP's. Which seems crazy.

    The GCTA technique they used (which is still somewhat a mathematical mystery to me) cannot really attribute heritability to individual SNP's. Rather they use a linear model that includes lots of SNP's. For example to get 45% of heigh variance explained (this still leaves large (35%) heritability gap unexplained) they used 294,831 SNP's:

    Common SNPs explain a large proportion of the heritability for human height, Nature Genetics 42, 565–569 (2010)
     
    To show that heritability of IQ increases with age (Wilson effect) 1.7million SNP's were used. Human genome have approx. 10 million SNP's in total.

    DNA evidence for strong genetic stability and increasing heritability of intelligence from age 7 to 12, Molecular Psychiatry (2014) 19, 380–384
     
    There were some doubts raised about GCTA technique and whether it can explain the heritability gap

    Limitations of GCTA as a solution to the missing heritability problem, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1520109113
     
    but they were strongly criticized and attacked by the purveyors of GCTA, i.e., Visscher and his associates. I hope more criticism will come when more people get familiar with the GCTA.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Corvinus
    "Charming that you feel compelled to self describe your efforts here as “cogent rebuttal”."

    Annoying that you refused to acknowledge something that was clearly evident.

    "And SJWs appear to be the good guys in your book."

    They, like your side, are the BAD guys.

    "Your handlers have programmed you to come on message boards and spout this party line, but no normal person believes this."

    Another SJW tactic employed here by unilaterally declaring people are other than normal if they believe in something contrary.

    "The inferior/superior dichotomy causes problems in these debates. We should start saying “different” instead."

    When one says "different" and adds qualifiers to those differences, there is a clear indication that one group is "superior" and the other group is "inferior".

    When one says “different” and adds qualifiers to those differences, there is a clear indication that one group is “superior” and the other group is “inferior”.

    Thought experiment:
    Load the migrants just debarked at port into a transport plane and tell them “We’re taking you to the promised land!” When the plane lands at it’s destination, open the door and announce “Welcome to Calcutta!” They have no reason to be dissapointed they didn’t go to London, because neither is superior or inferior, just different, right?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Corvinus
    "Throughout the course of human history there has always been bad policy. Officials have been given flexibility but flexibility towards what end? What is the purpose of this flexibility?"

    So that if there are bad policies, officials are able to make remedies when there is flexibility.
    Flexibility also enables officials to create policies in light of problems that arise.

    So that if there are bad policies, officials are able to make remedies when there is flexibility.
    Flexibility also enables officials to create policies in light of problems that arise.
    ———————————-
    the law itself is a bad policy because people cannot know ahead of time if they are following it. No one can mount a defense of government directives because there is no way of knowing ahead of time if people agree with the official interpretations of what constitutes a problem.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    the law itself is a bad policy because people cannot know ahead of time if they are following it. No one can mount a defense of government directives because there is no way of knowing ahead of time if people agree with the official interpretations of what constitutes a problem.

    Corrected for accuracy --> Companies know about these laws and they are able to defend themselves from potential government overreach. Courts are the proper venue if there are discrepancies in interpretations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @epochehusserl
    “legitimate needs is an open ended statement.”

    Throughout the course of human history, there have been laws created to enable officials to have flexibility. Indeed, there may be legislation that are “open ended statements”. It’s always been that way. Again, laws are complex and must take into account competing interests.
    -----------------------------------
    Throughout the course of human history there has always been bad policy. Officials have been given flexibility but flexibility towards what end? What is the purpose of this flexibility?

    “Throughout the course of human history there has always been bad policy. Officials have been given flexibility but flexibility towards what end? What is the purpose of this flexibility?”

    So that if there are bad policies, officials are able to make remedies when there is flexibility.
    Flexibility also enables officials to create policies in light of problems that arise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    So that if there are bad policies, officials are able to make remedies when there is flexibility.
    Flexibility also enables officials to create policies in light of problems that arise.
    ----------------------------------
    the law itself is a bad policy because people cannot know ahead of time if they are following it. No one can mount a defense of government directives because there is no way of knowing ahead of time if people agree with the official interpretations of what constitutes a problem.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • res says:
    @Corvinus
    "Charming that you feel compelled to self describe your efforts here as “cogent rebuttal”."

    Annoying that you refused to acknowledge something that was clearly evident.

    "And SJWs appear to be the good guys in your book."

    They, like your side, are the BAD guys.

    "Your handlers have programmed you to come on message boards and spout this party line, but no normal person believes this."

    Another SJW tactic employed here by unilaterally declaring people are other than normal if they believe in something contrary.

    "The inferior/superior dichotomy causes problems in these debates. We should start saying “different” instead."

    When one says "different" and adds qualifiers to those differences, there is a clear indication that one group is "superior" and the other group is "inferior".

    When one says “different” and adds qualifiers to those differences, there is a clear indication that one group is “superior” and the other group is “inferior”.

    Like when I observe that East Africans are better at long distance running while West Africans are better at sprinting (on average, as shown by top performers, yadda yadda; only an idiot believes every individual in one group is superior to every individual in another group for situations like this): https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/08/14/kenyans-sweep-distance-races-jamaicans-sprints-evolution-shaped-elite-sports/

    Which group have I clearly indicated is superior?

    P.S. On a similar note, which is superior, rock, paper, or scissors?

    P.P.S. Notice the iSteve references at that link. ; )

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome


    P.S. On a similar note, which is superior, rock, paper, or scissors?

     

    If you win a raffle and the prize is your choice of a rock, a sheet of paper, or scissors, which do you choose? Are all objects equal?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @epochehusserl
    Government coercion? No. Citizen compulsion by way of legislation based on past business dealings that were clear violations of the Constitution.
    -----------------------------------
    Actually the concept of disparate impact liability was developed by the EEOC and the courts, and was not in the original text of the 1964 act. Several historians have noted that an honest appraisal of the 1964 concluded that congress did not intend to prohibit disparate impact at all. The 1991 amendments which overturned Wards Cove do not describe the degree of the disparity nor how "necessary" an employment practice could be. From
    http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1526&context=articles

    ...

    “Actually the concept of disparate impact liability was developed by the EEOC and the courts, and was not in the original text of the 1964 act.”

    No, Title VII of the 1964 Act as well as the 1967 Discrimination in Employment Act specified this concept and the manner by which to proceed in court–as I had outlined previously. The author stated that “Title VII’s disparate impact doctrine can be understood in several different ways, some of which are easier than others to reconcile with modern equal protection jurisprudence”. In other words, he is acknowledging the complexity of the law in its application, that each case is unique, and thus flexibility and discretion is paramount.

    Moreover, the author also says that “as a practical matter, disparate impact litigation now plays a MUCH SMALLER ROLE than it once did in increasing employment opportunities for large numbers of nonwhite workers”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @bomag

    That’s a standard SJW line when he/she/it does not want to directly respond to a cogent rebuttal
     
    Charming that you feel compelled to self describe your efforts here as "cogent rebuttal". And SJWs appear to be the good guys in your book.

    Useful, but not necessarily the “end all and be all”. There are several other factors to take into account.
     
    Then what are we disagreeing about, except for the amount?

    And there are hordes of people who consider the individual regardless of race or ethnicity who refer to his/her skills, work ethic, and resolve, when that enterprise is being created.
     
    EVERYONE notices these things. Don't kid yourself.

    Not everyone. Not even necessarily most people
     
    Everyone. Unless they have some kind of mental derangement.

    Those who follow your suggestions of ethnic/race blindness are weaker in their dealings with the larger world.

    Your handlers have programmed you to come on message boards and spout this party line, but no normal person believes this.

    Assuming that the ________ is superior to a _______
     
    The inferior/superior dichotomy causes problems in these debates. We should start saying "different" instead. For example, SJWs claim "superiority" for their lack of ethnic/racial consciousness, and go on to force those inspired policies on everyone else when they have political power, thus damaging the society and culture that survived by unabashedly taking ethnic/race factors into account.

    “Charming that you feel compelled to self describe your efforts here as “cogent rebuttal”.”

    Annoying that you refused to acknowledge something that was clearly evident.

    “And SJWs appear to be the good guys in your book.”

    They, like your side, are the BAD guys.

    “Your handlers have programmed you to come on message boards and spout this party line, but no normal person believes this.”

    Another SJW tactic employed here by unilaterally declaring people are other than normal if they believe in something contrary.

    “The inferior/superior dichotomy causes problems in these debates. We should start saying “different” instead.”

    When one says “different” and adds qualifiers to those differences, there is a clear indication that one group is “superior” and the other group is “inferior”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    When one says “different” and adds qualifiers to those differences, there is a clear indication that one group is “superior” and the other group is “inferior”.
     
    Like when I observe that East Africans are better at long distance running while West Africans are better at sprinting (on average, as shown by top performers, yadda yadda; only an idiot believes every individual in one group is superior to every individual in another group for situations like this): https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/08/14/kenyans-sweep-distance-races-jamaicans-sprints-evolution-shaped-elite-sports/

    Which group have I clearly indicated is superior?

    P.S. On a similar note, which is superior, rock, paper, or scissors?

    P.P.S. Notice the iSteve references at that link. ; )
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    When one says “different” and adds qualifiers to those differences, there is a clear indication that one group is “superior” and the other group is “inferior”.

     

    Thought experiment:
    Load the migrants just debarked at port into a transport plane and tell them "We're taking you to the promised land!" When the plane lands at it's destination, open the door and announce "Welcome to Calcutta!" They have no reason to be dissapointed they didn't go to London, because neither is superior or inferior, just different, right?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I have a very difficult time thinking that all human groupings geographically separated for millenia must have the same capacity for logical reasoning and abstract thought.

    This subject has always seemed obvious to me. How could there not be genetic differences between the races in terms of cognitive functioning?

    Such an assertion would require denial of the theory of natural selection.

    Gould was comfortable with such denial.

    I find such denial as tenable as belief in a flat Earth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @utu
    As I recall from my student days, the purpose of the rotation of the Principle Components is not only to simplify the mathematics, which has not been a big deal since computers came into common usage, but to improve interpretability of the factors.

    Yes. The question is what is interpretability? It is a value added that is not in data. You rotate as much as needed to get the interpretation you desire. In 1950 there was lots of criticism and questions about FA mainly because it seemed too flexible, too arbitrary. So mathematicians came to the rescue and created mathematically solid criteria (which btw, computationally can be demanding) that redistribute errors and loadings in particular way like e.g., varimax. This restrained a little bit the creative freedom of the interpreters though it still did not make the process unique. When your first component which is the strongest does not load all variable to your liking you can do rotation and increase loading of one particular variable at expense of loadings of other variables.


    https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/151653/what-is-the-intuitive-reason-behind-doing-rotations-in-factor-analysis-pca-how
    There are many forms of orthogonal and oblique rotations. Why? First, because the concept of "simple structure" is not univocal and can be formulated somewhat differently. (For example, varimax - most popular orthogonal method - tries to maximize variance among the squared values of loadings of each factor; orthogonal method quartimax used sometimes minimizes the number of factors needed to explain a variable and often produces the so called "general factor".)
     
    My position is that the proof is in the pudding. This pudding for IQ testing is its predictive ability of life outcomes but it must be kept in mind that often the results are overstated. But there is no pudding that g can prove. g proves nothing. It is just a fancy concept that could only pop out in the optimistic period of the pre WWI Europe when psychologists where thinking that they can emulate physics and mathematics by pushing reductionism beyond absurdity and constructing axiomatic pseudo-mathematical theories.

    I would not go as far as Gould: “The chimerical nature of g is the rotten core of Jensen’s edifice …” though I agree that g is chimerical. It is not unique and by restructuring the test battery you can get increase the strength of the second factor if you want disproving the claim of a single g. So I will repeat myself that the only purpose of g concept is to serve as a rhetorical device that mathematical unsavvy can be swayed to believe that there is a deeper foundation behind the intelligence testing. So, no, it is not a rotten core because there is no core just like in the onion. More layers you remove closer you are to finding out there is nothing inside.

    Utu,

    Again, I’m grateful for your bringing a mathematicians perspective and ability to the discussion. I’m also following your contributions on regression to the mean, so I’ll be commenting on that as well.

    I agree completely with you on the vague nature of ‘g’, although as Phil pointed out http://www.unz.com/isteve/vox-charles-murray-is-once-again-peddling-junk-science-about/#comment-1880870
    it has some significant correlations with other measures which are probably more physiologically related than a psychometric score.

    But we can’t forget that factor analysis in personality analysis is done on correlations or covariance, and thus, does not imply any causality and might very well reflect a coincidence of development.

    In my opinion, the only way to really make an argument for a physical grounding of g is to use replication. The replication should use not only the factor loadings from previous studies, but the raw weightings of the scores. After all, we’re arguing physical reality of a coherent population. Correlations actually provide a normalization on the variance and covariance: but, if we’re arguing that we’re reflecting a physical reality, I think using a normalization for the replication is biasing the analysis towards our hypothesis. For example, if the correlations remained the same, but the variance changed widely from sample to sample, have we really shown an underlying physical quality?

    I think your discussion on the regression to the mean actually adds to the discussion of g. What you did was to find a mathematical formulation of heritability which reflects both the observed regression to the mean and the invariance of variance (didn’t really mean to make a pun) across generations.

    It seems to be accepted that intelligence is a polygenetic trait (begging the question of whether we can speak of “trait” in the singular). Let me construct a model where there are 100 genes affecting intelligence, each gene with two alleles, a dumb allele and a smart allele. Suppose intelligence is determined by the raw number of genes where there are two smart alleles. You could have a smart father and smart mother, but smart because of different genes. The offspring would have a higher chance of having more than average genes with smart alleles, but their expected intelligence would still be lower than their parent outliers, who were really lucky in the number of matched genes.

    The question is, is there any necessary connection of the smart genes to each other, or is it an artifact of population development within a stressful environment? It’s pretty accepted that gene alleles have a constant rate of mutation, so in the absence of environmental stresses selecting for a particular allele, it will eventually get replaced in the population. I will assume this holds true for correlations between alleles on different genes. My conclusion is that in the high-technology, low stress environment we are now in, the g construct will become weaker, and mean intelligence test scores (whatever they mean) will decrease. This will take place even without dysgenic immigration.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Sorry, I can't respond to points you tried to make. Nothing sound right or not right in what you said.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @bomag

    Apparently, Germany and Albania have close ties
     
    I expected you to denounce this as colonialism.

    “I expected you to denounce this as colonialism.”

    And I expected you to know something about human interactions.

    Now, are Germans superior to Albanians? Is there an ethnic hierarchy in Europe? Where did your ancestors fit?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Corvinus
    "legitimate needs is an open ended statement."

    Throughout the course of human history, there have been laws created to enable officials to have flexibility. Indeed, there may be legislation that are "open ended statements". It's always been that way. Again, laws are complex and must take into account competing interests.

    "Disparate Impact theory has been used to throw out literacy tests, IQ tests, criminal background checks."

    Employment testing is legal as long as a professionally-developed employment test is administered according to the test developer’s intended use. It is legal to give accounting applicants comprehensive tests in reading and math. It is not the test that is “legal” or “illegal”-- it is the application of the test that makes the difference.

    Regarding the use of background checks, they are legal. Companies must adhere to specific policies. Remember, applicants have fewer privacy rights than employees. In the case of Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education (1986), Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., Warren E. Burger, William Rehnquist, and Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that “denial of a future employment opportunity is not as intrusive as loss of an existing job’’. There is an observable difference between losing what one has and getting what one wants.

    "The only legitimate needs the courts accept is hiring unproductive black people that they wouldnt want to hire if not for government coercion."

    Corrected for accuracy --> Companies use a wide range of tools to seek employees who will be productive. These businesses understand they must adhere to federal and state laws. They have the liberty to go to court to challenge that legislation.

    Government coercion? No. Citizen compulsion by way of legislation based on past business dealings that were clear violations of the Constitution.

    Government coercion? No. Citizen compulsion by way of legislation based on past business dealings that were clear violations of the Constitution.
    ———————————–
    Actually the concept of disparate impact liability was developed by the EEOC and the courts, and was not in the original text of the 1964 act. Several historians have noted that an honest appraisal of the 1964 concluded that congress did not intend to prohibit disparate impact at all. The 1991 amendments which overturned Wards Cove do not describe the degree of the disparity nor how “necessary” an employment practice could be. From

    http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1526&context=articles

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Actually the concept of disparate impact liability was developed by the EEOC and the courts, and was not in the original text of the 1964 act."

    No, Title VII of the 1964 Act as well as the 1967 Discrimination in Employment Act specified this concept and the manner by which to proceed in court--as I had outlined previously. The author stated that "Title VII's disparate impact doctrine can be understood in several different ways, some of which are easier than others to reconcile with modern equal protection jurisprudence". In other words, he is acknowledging the complexity of the law in its application, that each case is unique, and thus flexibility and discretion is paramount.

    Moreover, the author also says that "as a practical matter, disparate impact litigation now plays a MUCH SMALLER ROLE than it once did in increasing employment opportunities for large numbers of nonwhite workers".

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “legitimate needs is an open ended statement.”

    Throughout the course of human history, there have been laws created to enable officials to have flexibility. Indeed, there may be legislation that are “open ended statements”. It’s always been that way. Again, laws are complex and must take into account competing interests.
    ———————————–
    Throughout the course of human history there has always been bad policy. Officials have been given flexibility but flexibility towards what end? What is the purpose of this flexibility?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Throughout the course of human history there has always been bad policy. Officials have been given flexibility but flexibility towards what end? What is the purpose of this flexibility?"

    So that if there are bad policies, officials are able to make remedies when there is flexibility.
    Flexibility also enables officials to create policies in light of problems that arise.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @epochehusserl
    ‘an available alternative practice that has less disparate impact and serves the [entity’s] legitimate needs’
    -----------------------------
    legitimate needs is an open ended statement. Disparate Impact theory has been used to throw out literacy tests, IQ tests, criminal background checks. The only legitimate needs the courts accept is hiring unproductive black people that they wouldnt want to hire if not for government coercion.

    “legitimate needs is an open ended statement.”

    Throughout the course of human history, there have been laws created to enable officials to have flexibility. Indeed, there may be legislation that are “open ended statements”. It’s always been that way. Again, laws are complex and must take into account competing interests.

    “Disparate Impact theory has been used to throw out literacy tests, IQ tests, criminal background checks.”

    Employment testing is legal as long as a professionally-developed employment test is administered according to the test developer’s intended use. It is legal to give accounting applicants comprehensive tests in reading and math. It is not the test that is “legal” or “illegal”– it is the application of the test that makes the difference.

    Regarding the use of background checks, they are legal. Companies must adhere to specific policies. Remember, applicants have fewer privacy rights than employees. In the case of Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education (1986), Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., Warren E. Burger, William Rehnquist, and Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that “denial of a future employment opportunity is not as intrusive as loss of an existing job’’. There is an observable difference between losing what one has and getting what one wants.

    “The only legitimate needs the courts accept is hiring unproductive black people that they wouldnt want to hire if not for government coercion.”

    Corrected for accuracy –> Companies use a wide range of tools to seek employees who will be productive. These businesses understand they must adhere to federal and state laws. They have the liberty to go to court to challenge that legislation.

    Government coercion? No. Citizen compulsion by way of legislation based on past business dealings that were clear violations of the Constitution.

    Read More
    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    Government coercion? No. Citizen compulsion by way of legislation based on past business dealings that were clear violations of the Constitution.
    -----------------------------------
    Actually the concept of disparate impact liability was developed by the EEOC and the courts, and was not in the original text of the 1964 act. Several historians have noted that an honest appraisal of the 1964 concluded that congress did not intend to prohibit disparate impact at all. The 1991 amendments which overturned Wards Cove do not describe the degree of the disparity nor how "necessary" an employment practice could be. From
    http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1526&context=articles

    ...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Corvinus
    "Apparently, not the Jews, Indians, Chinese etc. etc."

    I was referring to the "hordes of people" in the United States who hold a different mindset compared to bomag.

    "How many Germans immigrating to Albania looking for work and to attend its great universities?"

    Apparently, Germany and Albania have close ties.

    http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/Aussenpolitik/Laender/Laenderinfos/01-Nodes/Albanien_node.html

    "As part of the Schools: Partners for the Future initiative (PASCH), Germany supports 11 Albanian schools at which German is taught. There is a bilingual section at Sami Frasheri Grammar School in Tirana, where – besides German as a foreign language – mathematics and geography are also taught in German, in some cases by teachers seconded from Germany. Graduates in possession of the bilingual Albanian school-leaving certificate are directly entitled to study at a German university. It is hoped to draw up a new memorandum as the 2009 agreement is outdated.

    Germany promotes scientific and academic exchange and supports the establishment of sound academic structures. A number of universities in Albania maintain contacts with German universities, which in some cases have led to student and faculty exchanges. Albanian students and academics also regularly participate in exchange programmes organised by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. In addition, the DAAD academic teacher at the DAAD Liaison Office in Tirana offers regular student counselling on questions relating to studies and grants. Information events on studying in Germany are also held regularly in Tirana."

    Apparently, Germany and Albania have close ties

    I expected you to denounce this as colonialism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "I expected you to denounce this as colonialism."

    And I expected you to know something about human interactions.

    Now, are Germans superior to Albanians? Is there an ethnic hierarchy in Europe? Where did your ancestors fit?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Corvinus
    "Your responses are trending off into the weeds."

    That's a standard SJW line when he/she/it does not want to directly respond to a cogent rebuttal.

    "I hold that ethnic/genetic/race factors as commonly understood are a component that is useful in organizing our affairs."

    Useful, but not necessarily the "end all and be all". There are several other factors to take into account.

    "When organizing an enterprise, I have found that it is useful to consider if the workforce consists of Swedes; or Welshmen; or Haitians; or Armenians; etc.

    And there are hordes of people who consider the individual regardless of race or ethnicity who refer to his/her skills, work ethic, and resolve when that enterprise is being created.

    "It makes a difference worth considering, and everyone does it implicitly."

    Not everyone. Not even necessarily most people.

    "And, yes, it has been misused, and it is quaint now to read about Englishmen fretting about the inferior Welshmen dragging down the species. That doesn’t mean these things are not worth considering in some contexts."

    Assuming that the English is superior to a Welshmen.
    Assuming that a German is superior to an Albanian.
    Assuming that the Japanese is superior to the Chinese.
    Etc., etc. etc.

    That’s a standard SJW line when he/she/it does not want to directly respond to a cogent rebuttal

    Charming that you feel compelled to self describe your efforts here as “cogent rebuttal”. And SJWs appear to be the good guys in your book.

    Useful, but not necessarily the “end all and be all”. There are several other factors to take into account.

    Then what are we disagreeing about, except for the amount?

    And there are hordes of people who consider the individual regardless of race or ethnicity who refer to his/her skills, work ethic, and resolve, when that enterprise is being created.

    EVERYONE notices these things. Don’t kid yourself.

    Not everyone. Not even necessarily most people

    Everyone. Unless they have some kind of mental derangement.

    Those who follow your suggestions of ethnic/race blindness are weaker in their dealings with the larger world.

    Your handlers have programmed you to come on message boards and spout this party line, but no normal person believes this.

    Assuming that the ________ is superior to a _______

    The inferior/superior dichotomy causes problems in these debates. We should start saying “different” instead. For example, SJWs claim “superiority” for their lack of ethnic/racial consciousness, and go on to force those inspired policies on everyone else when they have political power, thus damaging the society and culture that survived by unabashedly taking ethnic/race factors into account.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Charming that you feel compelled to self describe your efforts here as “cogent rebuttal”."

    Annoying that you refused to acknowledge something that was clearly evident.

    "And SJWs appear to be the good guys in your book."

    They, like your side, are the BAD guys.

    "Your handlers have programmed you to come on message boards and spout this party line, but no normal person believes this."

    Another SJW tactic employed here by unilaterally declaring people are other than normal if they believe in something contrary.

    "The inferior/superior dichotomy causes problems in these debates. We should start saying “different” instead."

    When one says "different" and adds qualifiers to those differences, there is a clear indication that one group is "superior" and the other group is "inferior".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Corvinus
    "There were no criteria given Corvinus."

    Yes, I had discussed this part earlier when I stated "Now, there are specific standards in place when it comes to litigation on this particular matter. You don’t sue willy nilly. It falls upon the plaintiff to make the case who must “draw an explicit, causal connection between a policy or practice and the disparate impact or statistical disparity…[with the] defendant having the opportunity to prove the policy is necessary to achieve a valid interest…[with the] plaintiff then show[ing] there is ‘an available alternative practice that has less disparate impact and serves the [entity’s] legitimate needs’. If a plaintiff cannot do so, then their disparate impact claim must fail.”

    ‘an available alternative practice that has less disparate impact and serves the [entity’s] legitimate needs’
    —————————–
    legitimate needs is an open ended statement. Disparate Impact theory has been used to throw out literacy tests, IQ tests, criminal background checks. The only legitimate needs the courts accept is hiring unproductive black people that they wouldnt want to hire if not for government coercion.

    Read More
    • Agree: bomag
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "legitimate needs is an open ended statement."

    Throughout the course of human history, there have been laws created to enable officials to have flexibility. Indeed, there may be legislation that are "open ended statements". It's always been that way. Again, laws are complex and must take into account competing interests.

    "Disparate Impact theory has been used to throw out literacy tests, IQ tests, criminal background checks."

    Employment testing is legal as long as a professionally-developed employment test is administered according to the test developer’s intended use. It is legal to give accounting applicants comprehensive tests in reading and math. It is not the test that is “legal” or “illegal”-- it is the application of the test that makes the difference.

    Regarding the use of background checks, they are legal. Companies must adhere to specific policies. Remember, applicants have fewer privacy rights than employees. In the case of Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education (1986), Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., Warren E. Burger, William Rehnquist, and Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that “denial of a future employment opportunity is not as intrusive as loss of an existing job’’. There is an observable difference between losing what one has and getting what one wants.

    "The only legitimate needs the courts accept is hiring unproductive black people that they wouldnt want to hire if not for government coercion."

    Corrected for accuracy --> Companies use a wide range of tools to seek employees who will be productive. These businesses understand they must adhere to federal and state laws. They have the liberty to go to court to challenge that legislation.

    Government coercion? No. Citizen compulsion by way of legislation based on past business dealings that were clear violations of the Constitution.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Hippopotamusdrome


    And there are hordes of people who consider the individual regardless of race or ethnicity

     

    Apparently, not the Jews, Indians, Chinese etc. etc.


    Assuming that a German is superior to an Albanian.

     

    How many Germans immigrating to Albania looking for work and to attend its great universities?

    “Apparently, not the Jews, Indians, Chinese etc. etc.”

    I was referring to the “hordes of people” in the United States who hold a different mindset compared to bomag.

    “How many Germans immigrating to Albania looking for work and to attend its great universities?”

    Apparently, Germany and Albania have close ties.

    http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/Aussenpolitik/Laender/Laenderinfos/01-Nodes/Albanien_node.html

    “As part of the Schools: Partners for the Future initiative (PASCH), Germany supports 11 Albanian schools at which German is taught. There is a bilingual section at Sami Frasheri Grammar School in Tirana, where – besides German as a foreign language – mathematics and geography are also taught in German, in some cases by teachers seconded from Germany. Graduates in possession of the bilingual Albanian school-leaving certificate are directly entitled to study at a German university. It is hoped to draw up a new memorandum as the 2009 agreement is outdated.

    Germany promotes scientific and academic exchange and supports the establishment of sound academic structures. A number of universities in Albania maintain contacts with German universities, which in some cases have led to student and faculty exchanges. Albanian students and academics also regularly participate in exchange programmes organised by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. In addition, the DAAD academic teacher at the DAAD Liaison Office in Tirana offers regular student counselling on questions relating to studies and grants. Information events on studying in Germany are also held regularly in Tirana.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @bomag

    Apparently, Germany and Albania have close ties
     
    I expected you to denounce this as colonialism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Corvinus
    "Your responses are trending off into the weeds."

    That's a standard SJW line when he/she/it does not want to directly respond to a cogent rebuttal.

    "I hold that ethnic/genetic/race factors as commonly understood are a component that is useful in organizing our affairs."

    Useful, but not necessarily the "end all and be all". There are several other factors to take into account.

    "When organizing an enterprise, I have found that it is useful to consider if the workforce consists of Swedes; or Welshmen; or Haitians; or Armenians; etc.

    And there are hordes of people who consider the individual regardless of race or ethnicity who refer to his/her skills, work ethic, and resolve when that enterprise is being created.

    "It makes a difference worth considering, and everyone does it implicitly."

    Not everyone. Not even necessarily most people.

    "And, yes, it has been misused, and it is quaint now to read about Englishmen fretting about the inferior Welshmen dragging down the species. That doesn’t mean these things are not worth considering in some contexts."

    Assuming that the English is superior to a Welshmen.
    Assuming that a German is superior to an Albanian.
    Assuming that the Japanese is superior to the Chinese.
    Etc., etc. etc.

    And there are hordes of people who consider the individual regardless of race or ethnicity

    Apparently, not the Jews, Indians, Chinese etc. etc.

    Assuming that a German is superior to an Albanian.

    How many Germans immigrating to Albania looking for work and to attend its great universities?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Apparently, not the Jews, Indians, Chinese etc. etc."

    I was referring to the "hordes of people" in the United States who hold a different mindset compared to bomag.

    "How many Germans immigrating to Albania looking for work and to attend its great universities?"

    Apparently, Germany and Albania have close ties.

    http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/Aussenpolitik/Laender/Laenderinfos/01-Nodes/Albanien_node.html

    "As part of the Schools: Partners for the Future initiative (PASCH), Germany supports 11 Albanian schools at which German is taught. There is a bilingual section at Sami Frasheri Grammar School in Tirana, where – besides German as a foreign language – mathematics and geography are also taught in German, in some cases by teachers seconded from Germany. Graduates in possession of the bilingual Albanian school-leaving certificate are directly entitled to study at a German university. It is hoped to draw up a new memorandum as the 2009 agreement is outdated.

    Germany promotes scientific and academic exchange and supports the establishment of sound academic structures. A number of universities in Albania maintain contacts with German universities, which in some cases have led to student and faculty exchanges. Albanian students and academics also regularly participate in exchange programmes organised by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. In addition, the DAAD academic teacher at the DAAD Liaison Office in Tirana offers regular student counselling on questions relating to studies and grants. Information events on studying in Germany are also held regularly in Tirana."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @LauraMR
    Still no evidence of race.

    Inevitable, of course.

    Europeans, for example, are said to have 1% to 4% DNA from another species of the genus Homo.

    Yet the claim is that our "race" is pure somehow, allowing a "your are in, you are out" classification.

    As I said, "race" is a puerile fable that ends in a tragic fiasco.

    If “race” is just a “social construct”, why are organ transplant donors so difficult to find for those who are considered “multi-racial”?
    In addition, there are drugs that work more effectively in one race than another…This is documented in medical journals.
    Race is not only “real” but is necessary for the human species to survive…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @bomag
    Your responses are trending off into the weeds.

    I hold that ethnic/genetic/race factors as commonly understood are a component that is useful in organizing our affairs. When organizing an enterprise, I have found that it is useful to consider if the workforce consists of Swedes; or Welshmen; or Haitians; or Armenians; etc. It makes a difference worth considering, and everyone does it implicitly.

    And, yes, it has been misused, and it is quaint now to read about Englishmen fretting about the inferior Welshmen dragging down the species. That doesn't mean these things are not worth considering in some contexts.

    “Your responses are trending off into the weeds.”

    That’s a standard SJW line when he/she/it does not want to directly respond to a cogent rebuttal.

    “I hold that ethnic/genetic/race factors as commonly understood are a component that is useful in organizing our affairs.”

    Useful, but not necessarily the “end all and be all”. There are several other factors to take into account.

    “When organizing an enterprise, I have found that it is useful to consider if the workforce consists of Swedes; or Welshmen; or Haitians; or Armenians; etc.

    And there are hordes of people who consider the individual regardless of race or ethnicity who refer to his/her skills, work ethic, and resolve when that enterprise is being created.

    “It makes a difference worth considering, and everyone does it implicitly.”

    Not everyone. Not even necessarily most people.

    “And, yes, it has been misused, and it is quaint now to read about Englishmen fretting about the inferior Welshmen dragging down the species. That doesn’t mean these things are not worth considering in some contexts.”

    Assuming that the English is superior to a Welshmen.
    Assuming that a German is superior to an Albanian.
    Assuming that the Japanese is superior to the Chinese.
    Etc., etc. etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome


    And there are hordes of people who consider the individual regardless of race or ethnicity

     

    Apparently, not the Jews, Indians, Chinese etc. etc.


    Assuming that a German is superior to an Albanian.

     

    How many Germans immigrating to Albania looking for work and to attend its great universities?
    , @bomag

    That’s a standard SJW line when he/she/it does not want to directly respond to a cogent rebuttal
     
    Charming that you feel compelled to self describe your efforts here as "cogent rebuttal". And SJWs appear to be the good guys in your book.

    Useful, but not necessarily the “end all and be all”. There are several other factors to take into account.
     
    Then what are we disagreeing about, except for the amount?

    And there are hordes of people who consider the individual regardless of race or ethnicity who refer to his/her skills, work ethic, and resolve, when that enterprise is being created.
     
    EVERYONE notices these things. Don't kid yourself.

    Not everyone. Not even necessarily most people
     
    Everyone. Unless they have some kind of mental derangement.

    Those who follow your suggestions of ethnic/race blindness are weaker in their dealings with the larger world.

    Your handlers have programmed you to come on message boards and spout this party line, but no normal person believes this.

    Assuming that the ________ is superior to a _______
     
    The inferior/superior dichotomy causes problems in these debates. We should start saying "different" instead. For example, SJWs claim "superiority" for their lack of ethnic/racial consciousness, and go on to force those inspired policies on everyone else when they have political power, thus damaging the society and culture that survived by unabashedly taking ethnic/race factors into account.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @epochehusserl
    There were no criteria given Corvinus.

    “There were no criteria given Corvinus.”

    Yes, I had discussed this part earlier when I stated “Now, there are specific standards in place when it comes to litigation on this particular matter. You don’t sue willy nilly. It falls upon the plaintiff to make the case who must “draw an explicit, causal connection between a policy or practice and the disparate impact or statistical disparity…[with the] defendant having the opportunity to prove the policy is necessary to achieve a valid interest…[with the] plaintiff then show[ing] there is ‘an available alternative practice that has less disparate impact and serves the [entity’s] legitimate needs’. If a plaintiff cannot do so, then their disparate impact claim must fail.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    ‘an available alternative practice that has less disparate impact and serves the [entity’s] legitimate needs’
    -----------------------------
    legitimate needs is an open ended statement. Disparate Impact theory has been used to throw out literacy tests, IQ tests, criminal background checks. The only legitimate needs the courts accept is hiring unproductive black people that they wouldnt want to hire if not for government coercion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @LauraMR
    Still no evidence of race.

    Inevitable, of course.

    Europeans, for example, are said to have 1% to 4% DNA from another species of the genus Homo.

    Yet the claim is that our "race" is pure somehow, allowing a "your are in, you are out" classification.

    As I said, "race" is a puerile fable that ends in a tragic fiasco.

    Still no evidence of race.

    You’ve already posted ten times at Unz Review, and there is still no evidence you have a brain.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Corvinus
    "It is an evolving standard that no one can ever be in compliance with."

    No, there are specific criteria involved. The company emerged victorious in the legal process, as the federal government failed to meet the standard of proof required to show there was a disparate impact. Furthermore, the court was not in a position to analyze the company's policy since they were only focusing on the merit of the claim made by the federal government. The decision made clear this analysis does not get to the “job-related” inquiry unless there is first reliable evidence of a disparate impact.

    There were no criteria given Corvinus.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "There were no criteria given Corvinus."

    Yes, I had discussed this part earlier when I stated "Now, there are specific standards in place when it comes to litigation on this particular matter. You don’t sue willy nilly. It falls upon the plaintiff to make the case who must “draw an explicit, causal connection between a policy or practice and the disparate impact or statistical disparity…[with the] defendant having the opportunity to prove the policy is necessary to achieve a valid interest…[with the] plaintiff then show[ing] there is ‘an available alternative practice that has less disparate impact and serves the [entity’s] legitimate needs’. If a plaintiff cannot do so, then their disparate impact claim must fail.”
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Corvinus
    "Some probably did, but people in general are willing to compromise and accommodate."

    Not nativists in general. They in the late 1800's held the same position as yourself--the influx of Eastern and Southern Europeans were "massively harmful" to America (even though you have neglected to explain how and why). Why should nativists "compromise and accommodate" when they are of the mindset they are from superior ethnic groups? It would appear you hold a similar perspective.

    "You have a penchant for the absolutist position that the nativists in 1880 were wrong, so therefore all nativist sentiments are wrong, and we must not in any way discourage the intermingling of people."

    Nativists held the absolute position, like yourself, due to confirmation bias, fear of economic competition, and belief that certain groups are utterly incapable of assimilating into a society.
    Their concerns may be valid, but they are also subject to scrutiny. I don't know why, for example, you insist that Eastern and Southern Europeans had posed significant risks for Americans. Feel free to discourage this "intermingling", but as you just stated, Americans tend to "compromise and accommodate" newcomers. It's our history. It's in our blood as a mutt nation.

    "Current migration patterns indicate that such peoples created the cultures and built the places to which the rest of the world aspires"

    Such peoples HELPED to create these cultures. These places were built for other people to improve their lot in life, similar to the perspective of Northern and Western Europeans. What makes these groups more "special" than Southern and Eastern Europeans from your vantage point?

    "I would suggest the migrants not overwhelm and destroy the goose laying the golden eggs."

    What about your ancestors? Were they from the magical lands of Northern and Western Europe? And you seem to forget that immigrant labor from several European nations was in part responsible for America's streets to be paved with gold.

    "One first lays down a principle, then argues an amount."

    Don't be an SJW, answer the question. Were millions of Japanese and Chinese "modest amounts"?

    "You are fixated on this “magic dirt” concept."

    That would be Mr. Sailer.

    Your responses are trending off into the weeds.

    I hold that ethnic/genetic/race factors as commonly understood are a component that is useful in organizing our affairs. When organizing an enterprise, I have found that it is useful to consider if the workforce consists of Swedes; or Welshmen; or Haitians; or Armenians; etc. It makes a difference worth considering, and everyone does it implicitly.

    And, yes, it has been misused, and it is quaint now to read about Englishmen fretting about the inferior Welshmen dragging down the species. That doesn’t mean these things are not worth considering in some contexts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Your responses are trending off into the weeds."

    That's a standard SJW line when he/she/it does not want to directly respond to a cogent rebuttal.

    "I hold that ethnic/genetic/race factors as commonly understood are a component that is useful in organizing our affairs."

    Useful, but not necessarily the "end all and be all". There are several other factors to take into account.

    "When organizing an enterprise, I have found that it is useful to consider if the workforce consists of Swedes; or Welshmen; or Haitians; or Armenians; etc.

    And there are hordes of people who consider the individual regardless of race or ethnicity who refer to his/her skills, work ethic, and resolve when that enterprise is being created.

    "It makes a difference worth considering, and everyone does it implicitly."

    Not everyone. Not even necessarily most people.

    "And, yes, it has been misused, and it is quaint now to read about Englishmen fretting about the inferior Welshmen dragging down the species. That doesn’t mean these things are not worth considering in some contexts."

    Assuming that the English is superior to a Welshmen.
    Assuming that a German is superior to an Albanian.
    Assuming that the Japanese is superior to the Chinese.
    Etc., etc. etc.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • res says:

    Still no evidence of race.

    LOL

    Yet the claim is that our “race” is pure somehow, allowing a “your are in, you are out” classification.

    Nice strawman.

    As I said, “race” is a puerile fable that ends in a tragic fiasco.

    And a rhetorical flourish for the conclusion. Are you a liberal arts grad perchance?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Still no evidence of race.

    Inevitable, of course.

    Europeans, for example, are said to have 1% to 4% DNA from another species of the genus Homo.

    Yet the claim is that our “race” is pure somehow, allowing a “your are in, you are out” classification.

    As I said, “race” is a puerile fable that ends in a tragic fiasco.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin

    Still no evidence of race.
     
    You've already posted ten times at Unz Review, and there is still no evidence you have a brain.
    , @anarchyst
    If "race" is just a "social construct", why are organ transplant donors so difficult to find for those who are considered "multi-racial"?
    In addition, there are drugs that work more effectively in one race than another...This is documented in medical journals.
    Race is not only "real" but is necessary for the human species to survive...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @epochehusserl
    “The law is purposefully vague so that no one can ever be in compliance thus undermining the idea of private property.”

    When people use terms such as “never”, “always”, “every time”, or “no one can ever be”, it undermines your argument. A number of statutes and regulations give broad latitude to governmental agencies. This discretion offers flexibility. Companies today do comply with those laws while maintaining their liberty to private property. If your premise is true, then there would be perpetual investigations by government over business transactions and dealings. Only when there is specific evidence of wrongdoing will the Feds initiate a case against those corporations.
    -------------------------------------
    In an interview about the doctrine of disparate impact and the rule of law the advocate said the opposite. He admitted that a certain land use regulation indicated that people would always be in violation but that that we had to take re-assurances that government wouldnt go after them. He admitted that it would be impossible in theory to not violate the law. There are perpetual investigations over accusations of racism and sexism which continue to this day. IQ tests, literacy tests, drug tests, criminal background investigations, height and weight requirements have all been investigated by the EEOC. It is an evolving standard that no one can ever be in compliance with. Here is a good link:

    https://www.littler.com/update-criminal-background-checks-impact-eeoc-v-freeman-and-ongoing-challenges-continuously-changing

    Here is the key line:
    While employers have been patiently awaiting the Fourth Circuit's decision in this case in hopes of gleaning some clarity on the topic, they may be disappointed to read that the court stopped short of analyzing whether the company's background check policy was lawful.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Let me say that again, the court refused to affirm whether or not the conduct was allowed or not because they wanted to continue the perpetual investigations as a source of government patronage.

    “It is an evolving standard that no one can ever be in compliance with.”

    No, there are specific criteria involved. The company emerged victorious in the legal process, as the federal government failed to meet the standard of proof required to show there was a disparate impact. Furthermore, the court was not in a position to analyze the company’s policy since they were only focusing on the merit of the claim made by the federal government. The decision made clear this analysis does not get to the “job-related” inquiry unless there is first reliable evidence of a disparate impact.

    Read More
    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    There were no criteria given Corvinus.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • utu says:
    @utu
    Thanks for catching it. I found another problem. The result is different than what I claimed before. I was doing the math in my head before. Now I wrote it down and I think I fixed it. The result is as follow:

    Finally I answered the question how come in the breeder's equation regimen population variance remains stable.

    Answer: The variance for child distribution must be

    V*(1-(h^2)^2)

    (where V=15*15 for IQ) A caveat: if non-Gaussian distributions are considered probably other solutions are possible.
     
    I haven't seen this shown anywhere! But I am not well read in genetics. Recently I tried to figure our why correlations are used in twin studies instead of R-square to account for variance explained. Could not find it anywhere looking at internet. But finally I have figured it out and now I see when variance explained is given by (1) a slope of regression line, by (2) correlation (Pearson) and when by (3) R-square. I am afraid that there is a small core of people working in this area (genetics) who really know the math while the majority (80% or more) just memorize the rules and formulas as it is common among biologists. Neither gcochran nor candid_observer who tried to answer my equation about the stability of population's distribution came close. It was just well intentioned, I hope, hand waving.

    The Proof

    Notation: G(X,M,V)= A*exp[-(X-M)^2/(2V)] - normal distribution

    (1) Distribution of trait X in population (of parents) is G(X,M,V) (with M=100 and V=15*15 for IQ)

    (2) Breeder's equation gives us expected value of child's trait given the parent's trait

    E[X_child]=M+(X_parent-M)*h^2
     
    (2) What is the distribution of X_child of parent with trait X_parent? Let us consider Gaussian

    G(X, M+(X_paren-M)*h^2, V*k)
     
    where k is yet unknown coefficient to be determined.

    (3) Let's calculate now children's generation distribution as a convolution:

    pdf(X, M_c,V_c)=∫G(X, M+(X_parent-M)*h^2, V*k)*G(X_parent, M, V)dX_parent
     
    Introduce new variable Y=(X_parent-M)*h^2 then dY=h^2*dX_parent

    pdf(X, M_c,V_c)=∫G(X, M+Y, V*k)*G(Y, 0,V*(h^2)^2)dY
     
    From property of convolution of two Gaussians we get that

    (i) pdf(X, M_c,V_c) is Gaussian

    and

    (ii) V_c=V*k+V*(h^2)^2

    In order for V_c=V k must be 1-(h^2)^2.

    Note that when h^2-->1 then G(X, M+(X_paren-M)*h^2, V*k)--->Dirac delta. This make sense and gives correct end results because children are identical to parents.

    When h^2=0 we also seem to get a correct result.

    Application: One can calculate what is the probability of having a smarter child than yourself. Breeder's equation itself does not give you this ability.

    Example: What is pdf of your children?

    ______________
    Your IQ=140
    Heritability h^2=0.8

    Children’s IQ expected value=100+(140-100)*0.8=132

    Children SD=sqrt(V)=9

    where V=15^2*(1-0.8^2)=81

    Probability that your children have IQ≥132 is 50% IQ≥141 is 17%
    ______________
    Your IQ=140
    Heritability h^2=0.5

    Children’s IQ expected value=100+(140-100)*0.5=120

    Children SD=sqrt(V)=13

    where V=15^2*(1-0.5^2)= 168.75

    Probability that your children have IQ≥120 is 50% IQ≥133 is 17%

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • utu says:
    @res
    That is interesting. For your first equation computing child expected mean I assume the right hand side should be parent, not child, right?

    Your second equation for child variance (third paragraph) is new to me (I assume mean should also be based on parent there). That works at both the 0 and 1 limits for h^2. What justification do you have for the in between behavior?

    Greg, does that calculation of child variance seem reasonable to you? Perhaps it is well known, but I had searched for a way to calculate child SD previously without success.

    Thanks, utu.

    Thanks for catching it. I found another problem. The result is different than what I claimed before. I was doing the math in my head before. Now I wrote it down and I think I fixed it. The result is as follow:

    Finally I answered the question how come in the breeder’s equation regimen population variance remains stable.

    Answer: The variance for child distribution must be

    V*(1-(h^2)^2)

    (where V=15*15 for IQ) A caveat: if non-Gaussian distributions are considered probably other solutions are possible.

    I haven’t seen this shown anywhere! But I am not well read in genetics. Recently I tried to figure our why correlations are used in twin studies instead of R-square to account for variance explained. Could not find it anywhere looking at internet. But finally I have figured it out and now I see when variance explained is given by (1) a slope of regression line, by (2) correlation (Pearson) and when by (3) R-square. I am afraid that there is a small core of people working in this area (genetics) who really know the math while the majority (80% or more) just memorize the rules and formulas as it is common among biologists. Neither gcochran nor candid_observer who tried to answer my equation about the stability of population’s distribution came close. It was just well intentioned, I hope, hand waving.

    The Proof

    Notation: G(X,M,V)= A*exp[-(X-M)^2/(2V)] – normal distribution

    (1) Distribution of trait X in population (of parents) is G(X,M,V) (with M=100 and V=15*15 for IQ)

    (2) Breeder’s equation gives us expected value of child’s trait given the parent’s trait

    E[X_child]=M+(X_parent-M)*h^2

    (2) What is the distribution of X_child of parent with trait X_parent? Let us consider Gaussian

    G(X, M+(X_paren-M)*h^2, V*k)

    where k is yet unknown coefficient to be determined.

    (3) Let’s calculate now children’s generation distribution as a convolution:

    pdf(X, M_c,V_c)=∫G(X, M+(X_parent-M)*h^2, V*k)*G(X_parent, M, V)dX_parent

    Introduce new variable Y=(X_parent-M)*h^2 then dY=h^2*dX_parent

    pdf(X, M_c,V_c)=∫G(X, M+Y, V*k)*G(Y, 0,V*(h^2)^2)dY

    From property of convolution of two Gaussians we get that

    (i) pdf(X, M_c,V_c) is Gaussian

    and

    (ii) V_c=V*k+V*(h^2)^2

    In order for V_c=V k must be 1-(h^2)^2.

    Note that when h^2–>1 then G(X, M+(X_paren-M)*h^2, V*k)—>Dirac delta. This make sense and gives correct end results because children are identical to parents.

    When h^2=0 we also seem to get a correct result.

    Application: One can calculate what is the probability of having a smarter child than yourself. Breeder’s equation itself does not give you this ability.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    Example: What is pdf of your children?
     

    ______________
    Your IQ=140
    Heritability h^2=0.8

    Children's IQ expected value=100+(140-100)*0.8=132

    Children SD=sqrt(V)=9

    where V=15^2*(1-0.8^2)=81

    Probability that your children have IQ≥132 is 50% IQ≥141 is 17%
    ______________
    Your IQ=140
    Heritability h^2=0.5

    Children's IQ expected value=100+(140-100)*0.5=120

    Children SD=sqrt(V)=13

    where V=15^2*(1-0.5^2)= 168.75

    Probability that your children have IQ≥120 is 50% IQ≥133 is 17%
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • res says:
    @WhatsUp
    I will lol when the results show Africans have the same allele frequency as Europeans. Okbay shows it.

    I will lol when the results show Africans have the same allele frequency as Europeans.

    I would not recommend getting your hopes up on that. Let’s take a look at the most significant IQ SNP from the recent Nature Genetics paper (see Figure 2a): rs2490272 (1000 Genomes uses different IDs, put rs2490272 in yourself to double check if needed, their data input supports both rsID and chr#:pos but the map only displays the latter).

    http://popgen.uchicago.edu/ggv/?data=%221000genomes%22&chr=6&pos=108895386

    Gosh, vastly different allele frequencies between Africa and the rest of the world. I am shocked. Feel free to repeat the exercise for other alleles.

    Before anyone comes back gleefully pointing out the results for populations ASW or ACB in the Americas, please see the FAQ at http://www.internationalgenome.org/faq/which-populations-are-part-your-study/
    and notice that ASW is African Americans in the Southwest and ACB is African Caribbeans in Barbados.

    By Okbay I assume you mean: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v533/n7604/full/nature17671.html
    I searched for frequency (1 hit) and Africa (0 hits) and saw nothing like what you assert.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WhatsUp
    You are definitely going to be in the disappointed camp since you think intelligence all boils down to one or a few SNPs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • res says:
    @utu
    I have figured out what should be the variance of the distribution of the X_child to keep the same distribution in the next generation. If population of parents is normal with variance V and the breeder's eq. holds:

    E[X_child-X_mean]=E[X_child-X_mean]*h^2

    then X_child has normal distribution with mean E[X_child-X_mean]*h^2 and variance V*(1-h^2).

    Then the convolution of this distribution with the distribution of parents population will produce the population of the next generation with unchanged variance. No point of writing down formulas here but if you did it after some variable substitution you will see the result right away and remember that the fact convolution of two Gaussian is Gaussian with variance equal to the sum of variances.

    When h^2--->1 that X_child distribution ---> Dirac delta and the result right away obvious.

    That is interesting. For your first equation computing child expected mean I assume the right hand side should be parent, not child, right?

    Your second equation for child variance (third paragraph) is new to me (I assume mean should also be based on parent there). That works at both the 0 and 1 limits for h^2. What justification do you have for the in between behavior?

    Greg, does that calculation of child variance seem reasonable to you? Perhaps it is well known, but I had searched for a way to calculate child SD previously without success.

    Thanks, utu.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Thanks for catching it. I found another problem. The result is different than what I claimed before. I was doing the math in my head before. Now I wrote it down and I think I fixed it. The result is as follow:

    Finally I answered the question how come in the breeder's equation regimen population variance remains stable.

    Answer: The variance for child distribution must be

    V*(1-(h^2)^2)

    (where V=15*15 for IQ) A caveat: if non-Gaussian distributions are considered probably other solutions are possible.
     
    I haven't seen this shown anywhere! But I am not well read in genetics. Recently I tried to figure our why correlations are used in twin studies instead of R-square to account for variance explained. Could not find it anywhere looking at internet. But finally I have figured it out and now I see when variance explained is given by (1) a slope of regression line, by (2) correlation (Pearson) and when by (3) R-square. I am afraid that there is a small core of people working in this area (genetics) who really know the math while the majority (80% or more) just memorize the rules and formulas as it is common among biologists. Neither gcochran nor candid_observer who tried to answer my equation about the stability of population's distribution came close. It was just well intentioned, I hope, hand waving.

    The Proof

    Notation: G(X,M,V)= A*exp[-(X-M)^2/(2V)] - normal distribution

    (1) Distribution of trait X in population (of parents) is G(X,M,V) (with M=100 and V=15*15 for IQ)

    (2) Breeder's equation gives us expected value of child's trait given the parent's trait

    E[X_child]=M+(X_parent-M)*h^2
     
    (2) What is the distribution of X_child of parent with trait X_parent? Let us consider Gaussian

    G(X, M+(X_paren-M)*h^2, V*k)
     
    where k is yet unknown coefficient to be determined.

    (3) Let's calculate now children's generation distribution as a convolution:

    pdf(X, M_c,V_c)=∫G(X, M+(X_parent-M)*h^2, V*k)*G(X_parent, M, V)dX_parent
     
    Introduce new variable Y=(X_parent-M)*h^2 then dY=h^2*dX_parent

    pdf(X, M_c,V_c)=∫G(X, M+Y, V*k)*G(Y, 0,V*(h^2)^2)dY
     
    From property of convolution of two Gaussians we get that

    (i) pdf(X, M_c,V_c) is Gaussian

    and

    (ii) V_c=V*k+V*(h^2)^2

    In order for V_c=V k must be 1-(h^2)^2.

    Note that when h^2-->1 then G(X, M+(X_paren-M)*h^2, V*k)--->Dirac delta. This make sense and gives correct end results because children are identical to parents.

    When h^2=0 we also seem to get a correct result.

    Application: One can calculate what is the probability of having a smarter child than yourself. Breeder's equation itself does not give you this ability.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “The law is purposefully vague so that no one can ever be in compliance thus undermining the idea of private property.”

    When people use terms such as “never”, “always”, “every time”, or “no one can ever be”, it undermines your argument. A number of statutes and regulations give broad latitude to governmental agencies. This discretion offers flexibility. Companies today do comply with those laws while maintaining their liberty to private property. If your premise is true, then there would be perpetual investigations by government over business transactions and dealings. Only when there is specific evidence of wrongdoing will the Feds initiate a case against those corporations.
    ————————————-
    In an interview about the doctrine of disparate impact and the rule of law the advocate said the opposite. He admitted that a certain land use regulation indicated that people would always be in violation but that that we had to take re-assurances that government wouldnt go after them. He admitted that it would be impossible in theory to not violate the law. There are perpetual investigations over accusations of racism and sexism which continue to this day. IQ tests, literacy tests, drug tests, criminal background investigations, height and weight requirements have all been investigated by the EEOC. It is an evolving standard that no one can ever be in compliance with. Here is a good link:

    https://www.littler.com/update-criminal-background-checks-impact-eeoc-v-freeman-and-ongoing-challenges-continuously-changing

    Here is the key line:
    While employers have been patiently awaiting the Fourth Circuit’s decision in this case in hopes of gleaning some clarity on the topic, they may be disappointed to read that the court stopped short of analyzing whether the company’s background check policy was lawful.
    ————————————————–
    Let me say that again, the court refused to affirm whether or not the conduct was allowed or not because they wanted to continue the perpetual investigations as a source of government patronage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "It is an evolving standard that no one can ever be in compliance with."

    No, there are specific criteria involved. The company emerged victorious in the legal process, as the federal government failed to meet the standard of proof required to show there was a disparate impact. Furthermore, the court was not in a position to analyze the company's policy since they were only focusing on the merit of the claim made by the federal government. The decision made clear this analysis does not get to the “job-related” inquiry unless there is first reliable evidence of a disparate impact.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @epochehusserl
    The law is purposefully vague so that no one can ever be in compliance thus undermining the idea of private property. You are right not all groups of people respect private property or sexual restraint, hence the mayhem in Chicago. Another economic downturn and the chaos of the black matriarchy will spill over to suburbia. The idea of the rule of law is that people are supposed to know if they are breaking the law ahead of time, saying the courts will sort it out really isnt a solution.
    ------------------------------------------
    “just as civil rights activists had destroyed capital investment in the US.”

    You make this statement as if it is accurate. So, please offer in what ways capital investment was “destroyed” due to the actions of promoters of civil rights.
    ------------------------------
    No one one is going to invest in an area where hiring decisions are made by government officials rather than business owners in an era of international finance. Why subject yourself to the foolishness of disparate impact if you can build a factory in vietnam or china? At some point in the next 15 years expect life expectancy to drop for a large number of people.

    “The law is purposefully vague so that no one can ever be in compliance thus undermining the idea of private property.”

    When people use terms such as “never”, “always”, “every time”, or “no one can ever be”, it undermines your argument. A number of statutes and regulations give broad latitude to governmental agencies. This discretion offers flexibility. Companies today do comply with those laws while maintaining their liberty to private property. If your premise is true, then there would be perpetual investigations by government over business transactions and dealings. Only when there is specific evidence of wrongdoing will the Feds initiate a case against those corporations.

    “Another economic downturn and the chaos of the black matriarchy will spill over to suburbia.”

    Thank you for your opinion on this matter.

    “The idea of the rule of law is that people are supposed to know if they are breaking the law ahead of time, saying the courts will sort it out really isnt a solution.”

    Corrected for accuracy –> According to the rule of law, citizens and government officials are to be held accountable to the same laws. They generally know about the law and its consequences. In other cases where the law is complicated, or a situation arises where the law neglected to take it into account, the court system will hear arguments and render a decision.

    “No one one is going to invest in an area where hiring decisions are made by government officials rather than business owners in an era of international finance.”

    American businesses continue to invest in our nation in spite of governmental decisions they oppose, so your statement is totally false. In order to operate, companies must receive permission from the government in the form of a license. Citizens long ago wanted assurances that businesses would be held accountable for their products and practices. Corporations may object to some of these rules, but they continue to be created and continue invest their profits.

    “At some point in the next 15 years expect life expectancy to drop for a large number of people.”

    Perhaps. Perhaps not.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • utu says:
    @gcochran
    ii. parents with IQ= 120

    iii. Sure it does.

    I have figured out what should be the variance of the distribution of the X_child to keep the same distribution in the next generation. If population of parents is normal with variance V and the breeder’s eq. holds:

    E[X_child-X_mean]=E[X_child-X_mean]*h^2

    then X_child has normal distribution with mean E[X_child-X_mean]*h^2 and variance V*(1-h^2).

    Then the convolution of this distribution with the distribution of parents population will produce the population of the next generation with unchanged variance. No point of writing down formulas here but if you did it after some variable substitution you will see the result right away and remember that the fact convolution of two Gaussian is Gaussian with variance equal to the sum of variances.

    When h^2—>1 that X_child distribution —> Dirac delta and the result right away obvious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    That is interesting. For your first equation computing child expected mean I assume the right hand side should be parent, not child, right?

    Your second equation for child variance (third paragraph) is new to me (I assume mean should also be based on parent there). That works at both the 0 and 1 limits for h^2. What justification do you have for the in between behavior?

    Greg, does that calculation of child variance seem reasonable to you? Perhaps it is well known, but I had searched for a way to calculate child SD previously without success.

    Thanks, utu.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Corvinus
    "the constitutionality of a law is not the same as the law being compatible with the rule of law."

    The rule of law implies each and every citizen, including those who are elected to make the laws, are subject to those laws. Those laws must be made according to an outlined process and must be in accordance to specific standards, i.e. a Constitution.

    "There is really no aspect of public policy whatsoever that is as purposefully vague as disparate impact."

    I had listed the specific criteria as what constitutes disparate impact. The legal process sorts it out.

    "Laws are not complex."

    Patently false. A wide range of interests must be taken into account. Laws reflect those sophisticated statements as to the direction of a society. The legislature understands how challenging it is to definitively draw a line in light of competing interests without having applied the law practically. In other words, a law may have unintended consequences. Thus, there must be discussion and revision.

    "People have to know if they are following the laws or not in order to carry on the business of life."

    Except sometimes laws are poorly defined, not vigorously enforced, or are in violation of other laws, or may even contradict other laws.

    "Carrying on the idea of disparate impact as far as the liberals would like would undermine the very idea of private property."

    Private property rights have never been unfettered in a society. There are always rules and regulations made by the citizens of that society through elected representatives as to what constitutes private property, how private property may be accumulated, or how private property may be exercised by individuals or groups of people. Sometimes the majority interests come out on top, while in other cases the minority interests come out on top. Such is life in a society. It has always been that way.

    The law is purposefully vague so that no one can ever be in compliance thus undermining the idea of private property. You are right not all groups of people respect private property or sexual restraint, hence the mayhem in Chicago. Another economic downturn and the chaos of the black matriarchy will spill over to suburbia. The idea of the rule of law is that people are supposed to know if they are breaking the law ahead of time, saying the courts will sort it out really isnt a solution.
    ——————————————
    “just as civil rights activists had destroyed capital investment in the US.”

    You make this statement as if it is accurate. So, please offer in what ways capital investment was “destroyed” due to the actions of promoters of civil rights.
    ——————————
    No one one is going to invest in an area where hiring decisions are made by government officials rather than business owners in an era of international finance. Why subject yourself to the foolishness of disparate impact if you can build a factory in vietnam or china? At some point in the next 15 years expect life expectancy to drop for a large number of people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "The law is purposefully vague so that no one can ever be in compliance thus undermining the idea of private property."

    When people use terms such as "never", "always", "every time", or "no one can ever be", it undermines your argument. A number of statutes and regulations give broad latitude to governmental agencies. This discretion offers flexibility. Companies today do comply with those laws while maintaining their liberty to private property. If your premise is true, then there would be perpetual investigations by government over business transactions and dealings. Only when there is specific evidence of wrongdoing will the Feds initiate a case against those corporations.

    "Another economic downturn and the chaos of the black matriarchy will spill over to suburbia."

    Thank you for your opinion on this matter.

    "The idea of the rule of law is that people are supposed to know if they are breaking the law ahead of time, saying the courts will sort it out really isnt a solution."

    Corrected for accuracy --> According to the rule of law, citizens and government officials are to be held accountable to the same laws. They generally know about the law and its consequences. In other cases where the law is complicated, or a situation arises where the law neglected to take it into account, the court system will hear arguments and render a decision.

    "No one one is going to invest in an area where hiring decisions are made by government officials rather than business owners in an era of international finance."

    American businesses continue to invest in our nation in spite of governmental decisions they oppose, so your statement is totally false. In order to operate, companies must receive permission from the government in the form of a license. Citizens long ago wanted assurances that businesses would be held accountable for their products and practices. Corporations may object to some of these rules, but they continue to be created and continue invest their profits.

    "At some point in the next 15 years expect life expectancy to drop for a large number of people."

    Perhaps. Perhaps not.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Jefferson
    "is (racially) mestiza and (ethnically) Hispanic."

    That's an Amerindian woman. She could be the sister of the murderer They Pablo's sister. Eva Longoria is an example of a Mestiza.

    Sure. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I don’t have calibrated eyeballs, but I reckon you take my point.

    (I suppose I should have used a photo of Longoria or America Ferrera.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @LauraMR
    No one has been able to provide any kind of substantial reality to the notion of "race" beyond ephemeral examples circumscribed to tribal or, at best, ethnic groups and yet, even in those cases, still governed by mixed ancestry. Thus, still no "race" to pin anything on.

    Right… A random person from Sweden and a random person from the Luba tribe of Africa don’t belong to different races, even though their respective ancestors have been separated for 100k+ years. Also, green and yellow don’t exist as separate colors because yellow-green exists. Fixation indices must not exist either.

    Steve’s ever-relevant basic race FAQ

    http://isteve.blogspot.in/2014/05/the-race-faq.html

    Unz’s “Does race exist?”

    http://www.unz.com/runz/does-race-exist-do-hills-exist/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @LauraMR
    No one has been able to provide any kind of substantial reality to the notion of "race" beyond ephemeral examples circumscribed to tribal or, at best, ethnic groups and yet, even in those cases, still governed by mixed ancestry. Thus, still no "race" to pin anything on.

    Laura,

    You’re wrong. On so many levels. Race is important to health, for example. Now tell us how your health is “ephemeral.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • No one has been able to provide any kind of substantial reality to the notion of “race” beyond ephemeral examples circumscribed to tribal or, at best, ethnic groups and yet, even in those cases, still governed by mixed ancestry. Thus, still no “race” to pin anything on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    Laura,

    You're wrong. On so many levels. Race is important to health, for example. Now tell us how your health is "ephemeral."
    , @anonymous
    Right... A random person from Sweden and a random person from the Luba tribe of Africa don't belong to different races, even though their respective ancestors have been separated for 100k+ years. Also, green and yellow don't exist as separate colors because yellow-green exists. Fixation indices must not exist either.

    Steve's ever-relevant basic race FAQ

    http://isteve.blogspot.in/2014/05/the-race-faq.html

    Unz's "Does race exist?"

    http://www.unz.com/runz/does-race-exist-do-hills-exist/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @epochehusserl
    . the constitutionality of a law is not the same as the law being compatible with the rule of law. There is really no aspect of public policy whatsoever that is as purposefully vague as disparate impact. Laws are not complex. People have to know if they are following the laws or not in order to carry on the business of life. Carrying on the idea of disparate impact as far as the liberals would like would undermine the very idea of private property.

    “the constitutionality of a law is not the same as the law being compatible with the rule of law.”

    The rule of law implies each and every citizen, including those who are elected to make the laws, are subject to those laws. Those laws must be made according to an outlined process and must be in accordance to specific standards, i.e. a Constitution.

    “There is really no aspect of public policy whatsoever that is as purposefully vague as disparate impact.”

    I had listed the specific criteria as what constitutes disparate impact. The legal process sorts it out.

    “Laws are not complex.”

    Patently false. A wide range of interests must be taken into account. Laws reflect those sophisticated statements as to the direction of a society. The legislature understands how challenging it is to definitively draw a line in light of competing interests without having applied the law practically. In other words, a law may have unintended consequences. Thus, there must be discussion and revision.

    “People have to know if they are following the laws or not in order to carry on the business of life.”

    Except sometimes laws are poorly defined, not vigorously enforced, or are in violation of other laws, or may even contradict other laws.

    “Carrying on the idea of disparate impact as far as the liberals would like would undermine the very idea of private property.”

    Private property rights have never been unfettered in a society. There are always rules and regulations made by the citizens of that society through elected representatives as to what constitutes private property, how private property may be accumulated, or how private property may be exercised by individuals or groups of people. Sometimes the majority interests come out on top, while in other cases the minority interests come out on top. Such is life in a society. It has always been that way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    The law is purposefully vague so that no one can ever be in compliance thus undermining the idea of private property. You are right not all groups of people respect private property or sexual restraint, hence the mayhem in Chicago. Another economic downturn and the chaos of the black matriarchy will spill over to suburbia. The idea of the rule of law is that people are supposed to know if they are breaking the law ahead of time, saying the courts will sort it out really isnt a solution.
    ------------------------------------------
    “just as civil rights activists had destroyed capital investment in the US.”

    You make this statement as if it is accurate. So, please offer in what ways capital investment was “destroyed” due to the actions of promoters of civil rights.
    ------------------------------
    No one one is going to invest in an area where hiring decisions are made by government officials rather than business owners in an era of international finance. Why subject yourself to the foolishness of disparate impact if you can build a factory in vietnam or china? At some point in the next 15 years expect life expectancy to drop for a large number of people.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @epochehusserl
    I answered all of the questions that Corvy brought up in an earlier thread when I said the following
    ------------------------------------------------------------

    What I said was the social system developed those innovations when the WASPS were in charge. That is not the same thing as saying the WASPS developed all of those things. The WASPS believed in individuals rights whereas most social systems believed in group rights. Many people who are very intelligent from different cultures dont understand social systems based upon individual rights rather than group rights. The WASPS were right in limiting people from those cultures based upon group rights because their system was unique and could be destroyed by people who dont understand non group rights based systems, just as civil rights activists had destroyed capital investment in the US.
    -----------------------------------------
    when you answer a question that corvy makes successfully then he stops asking then brings the same question to someone else.

    “when you answer a question that corvy makes successfully then he stops asking then brings the same question to someone else.”

    I had missed that particular response and now offered my rebuttal.

    Furthermore, it would be most helpful for you to articulate or specify as to what entails this “social system”. This concept is vague. Is that an oversight on your part, or is it purposeful?

    “What I said was the social system developed those innovations when the WASPS were in charge.”

    The social system, whatever that means, was developed by the colonists of several European nations, which facilitated innovations. The resulting technologies were due to the individual efforts of nativists and newcomers, each of whom clearly understood how that social system operated. WASPS who were in control recognized that if citizens contributed to the financial success of the nation, regardless of their race or ethnicity, then the nation would be on the road to self-reliance.

    “The WASPS believed in individuals rights whereas most social systems believed in group rights.”

    Our social system developed and protects individual liberties (e.g. freedom of speech, right to own a firearm) AND group rights (e.g. right to assemble, right to freely practice a religion). Praytell, what social systems believe in group rights? You are vague here.

    “Many people who are very intelligent from different cultures dont understand social systems based upon individual rights rather than group rights.”

    Again, what particular cultures are you referring to? Let us assume you are speaking about Asian societies. Well, American citizens of Japanese and Chinese ancestry, whose relatives generally arrived as laborers in the late 1800′s, have clearly understood how life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness operate.

    “The WASPS were right in limiting people from those cultures based upon group rights because their system was unique and could be destroyed by people who dont understand non group rights based systems.”

    The social system was indeed unique because it enabled immigrants regardless of their background to exercise political freedoms and pursue economic opportunities. You assume that certain groups of people, whoever those people are (as you neglected to mention) lacked the ability to be able to identify and execute these individual rights on a daily basis. You entire argument rests on this false premise.

    “just as civil rights activists had destroyed capital investment in the US.”

    You make this statement as if it is accurate. So, please offer in what ways capital investment was “destroyed” due to the actions of promoters of civil rights.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I will lol when the results show Africans have the same allele frequency as Europeans. Okbay shows it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    I will lol when the results show Africans have the same allele frequency as Europeans.
     
    I would not recommend getting your hopes up on that. Let's take a look at the most significant IQ SNP from the recent Nature Genetics paper (see Figure 2a): rs2490272 (1000 Genomes uses different IDs, put rs2490272 in yourself to double check if needed, their data input supports both rsID and chr#:pos but the map only displays the latter).

    http://popgen.uchicago.edu/ggv/?data=%221000genomes%22&chr=6&pos=108895386

    Gosh, vastly different allele frequencies between Africa and the rest of the world. I am shocked. Feel free to repeat the exercise for other alleles.

    Before anyone comes back gleefully pointing out the results for populations ASW or ACB in the Americas, please see the FAQ at http://www.internationalgenome.org/faq/which-populations-are-part-your-study/
    and notice that ASW is African Americans in the Southwest and ACB is African Caribbeans in Barbados.

    By Okbay I assume you mean: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v533/n7604/full/nature17671.html
    I searched for frequency (1 hit) and Africa (0 hits) and saw nothing like what you assert.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Corvinus
    "the idea of the rule of law is that people are supposed to know if they are following it or not without “going to court”."

    Laws are complex. There are situations where the law may or may not apply. Thus, people go to court to clarify its language as being constitutional or unconstitutional.

    "You are providing an excellent confirmation of the idea that some people are not capable of understanding anglo saxon law."

    I would agree that you fit this profile.

    . the constitutionality of a law is not the same as the law being compatible with the rule of law. There is really no aspect of public policy whatsoever that is as purposefully vague as disparate impact. Laws are not complex. People have to know if they are following the laws or not in order to carry on the business of life. Carrying on the idea of disparate impact as far as the liberals would like would undermine the very idea of private property.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "the constitutionality of a law is not the same as the law being compatible with the rule of law."

    The rule of law implies each and every citizen, including those who are elected to make the laws, are subject to those laws. Those laws must be made according to an outlined process and must be in accordance to specific standards, i.e. a Constitution.

    "There is really no aspect of public policy whatsoever that is as purposefully vague as disparate impact."

    I had listed the specific criteria as what constitutes disparate impact. The legal process sorts it out.

    "Laws are not complex."

    Patently false. A wide range of interests must be taken into account. Laws reflect those sophisticated statements as to the direction of a society. The legislature understands how challenging it is to definitively draw a line in light of competing interests without having applied the law practically. In other words, a law may have unintended consequences. Thus, there must be discussion and revision.

    "People have to know if they are following the laws or not in order to carry on the business of life."

    Except sometimes laws are poorly defined, not vigorously enforced, or are in violation of other laws, or may even contradict other laws.

    "Carrying on the idea of disparate impact as far as the liberals would like would undermine the very idea of private property."

    Private property rights have never been unfettered in a society. There are always rules and regulations made by the citizens of that society through elected representatives as to what constitutes private property, how private property may be accumulated, or how private property may be exercised by individuals or groups of people. Sometimes the majority interests come out on top, while in other cases the minority interests come out on top. Such is life in a society. It has always been that way.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @epochehusserl
    “There really is no way for anyone to know if they are breaking the law ahead of time.”

    That is why they to court.
    -------------------------------------------
    the idea of the rule of law is that people are supposed to know if they are following it or not without "going to court". You are providing an excellent confirmation of the idea that some people are not capable of understanding anglo saxon law

    “the idea of the rule of law is that people are supposed to know if they are following it or not without “going to court”.”

    Laws are complex. There are situations where the law may or may not apply. Thus, people go to court to clarify its language as being constitutional or unconstitutional.

    “You are providing an excellent confirmation of the idea that some people are not capable of understanding anglo saxon law.”

    I would agree that you fit this profile.

    Read More
    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    . the constitutionality of a law is not the same as the law being compatible with the rule of law. There is really no aspect of public policy whatsoever that is as purposefully vague as disparate impact. Laws are not complex. People have to know if they are following the laws or not in order to carry on the business of life. Carrying on the idea of disparate impact as far as the liberals would like would undermine the very idea of private property.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @bomag

    Nativists demanded ethnic purity
     
    Some probably did, but people in general are willing to compromise and accommodate. You have a penchant for the absolutist position that the nativists in 1880 were wrong, so therefore all nativist sentiments are wrong, and we must not in any way discourage the intermingling of people.

    They put a premium on Northern and Western Europeans
     
    Were they wrong to do so? Current migration patterns indicate that such peoples created the cultures and built the places to which the rest of the world aspires. I would suggest the migrants not overwhelm and destroy the goose laying the golden eggs.

    Were millions of Japanese and Chinese “modest” amounts?
     
    One first lays down a principle, then argues an amount.

    Since you conveniently label the Anglo perspective as “underestimating” their abilities, you are affirming Magic Dirt.
     
    You are fixated on this "magic dirt" concept. Most here subscribe to a 50-50 nature-nurture split. Importing group A can increase their accomplishments and have a net positive impact; importing group B can increase their accomplishment and have a net negative benefit.

    I answered all of the questions that Corvy brought up in an earlier thread when I said the following
    ————————————————————

    What I said was the social system developed those innovations when the WASPS were in charge. That is not the same thing as saying the WASPS developed all of those things. The WASPS believed in individuals rights whereas most social systems believed in group rights. Many people who are very intelligent from different cultures dont understand social systems based upon individual rights rather than group rights. The WASPS were right in limiting people from those cultures based upon group rights because their system was unique and could be destroyed by people who dont understand non group rights based systems, just as civil rights activists had destroyed capital investment in the US.
    —————————————–
    when you answer a question that corvy makes successfully then he stops asking then brings the same question to someone else.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "when you answer a question that corvy makes successfully then he stops asking then brings the same question to someone else."

    I had missed that particular response and now offered my rebuttal.

    Furthermore, it would be most helpful for you to articulate or specify as to what entails this "social system". This concept is vague. Is that an oversight on your part, or is it purposeful?

    "What I said was the social system developed those innovations when the WASPS were in charge."

    The social system, whatever that means, was developed by the colonists of several European nations, which facilitated innovations. The resulting technologies were due to the individual efforts of nativists and newcomers, each of whom clearly understood how that social system operated. WASPS who were in control recognized that if citizens contributed to the financial success of the nation, regardless of their race or ethnicity, then the nation would be on the road to self-reliance.

    "The WASPS believed in individuals rights whereas most social systems believed in group rights."

    Our social system developed and protects individual liberties (e.g. freedom of speech, right to own a firearm) AND group rights (e.g. right to assemble, right to freely practice a religion). Praytell, what social systems believe in group rights? You are vague here.

    "Many people who are very intelligent from different cultures dont understand social systems based upon individual rights rather than group rights."

    Again, what particular cultures are you referring to? Let us assume you are speaking about Asian societies. Well, American citizens of Japanese and Chinese ancestry, whose relatives generally arrived as laborers in the late 1800's, have clearly understood how life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness operate.

    "The WASPS were right in limiting people from those cultures based upon group rights because their system was unique and could be destroyed by people who dont understand non group rights based systems."

    The social system was indeed unique because it enabled immigrants regardless of their background to exercise political freedoms and pursue economic opportunities. You assume that certain groups of people, whoever those people are (as you neglected to mention) lacked the ability to be able to identify and execute these individual rights on a daily basis. You entire argument rests on this false premise.

    "just as civil rights activists had destroyed capital investment in the US."

    You make this statement as if it is accurate. So, please offer in what ways capital investment was "destroyed" due to the actions of promoters of civil rights.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • JamesG says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz
    Yes, but you haven't included an answer to my question about the precise nature of your objection at the Gould lecture on the assumption that you don't reject the proposition that there may be genetic changes which are neither adaptive nor eliminated.

    I decided a long time ago that Gould’s published work comprise a pretty handy de facto test of general intelligence. People who admire his work should stay away from my idea that lethal juvenile cancer played a significant role in bilaterian evolution; they will not be capable of understanding the idea or arguments for it.

    As to your point my final response is that you read all of section 1. in the following.

    https://cancerselection.blogspot.com/2014/05/an-open-letter-to-armand-marie-leroi.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Many of those “nepalese” groups are part of the larger tibetan race, with sherpa being part of the larger tibetan family, though distantly related due to the inaccessibility of the high himalayas

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @LauraMR
    The problem is that "race" is a fictional, arbitrary construct. We are all mongrels, of mixed ancestry of some kind or other, if one looks far back enough.

    It couldn't be otherwise. Considering population growth over the centuries, the necessary amount of inbreeding is simply too large to arrive at a pure "race" and, much less, one with inherently superior characteristics.

    Now, does breeding matter? Absolutely. On traits and exhibited by specific individuals. But on "racial" grounds and exhibited systematically at large, nope, such a notion starts with a puerile fable and ends in a tragic fiasco.

    Actually, the opposite. On an individual level, there’s substantial level of variation but from a group level, there’s enough isolation to be able to determine differences in ability and function.

    Obvious example: Nepalese population group has larger hearts and more efficient adaptations to deal with low oxygen environments. You don’t need to single out the Nepalese as a “race” to notice that its a real, and meaningful difference.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @bomag

    Nativists demanded ethnic purity
     
    Some probably did, but people in general are willing to compromise and accommodate. You have a penchant for the absolutist position that the nativists in 1880 were wrong, so therefore all nativist sentiments are wrong, and we must not in any way discourage the intermingling of people.

    They put a premium on Northern and Western Europeans
     
    Were they wrong to do so? Current migration patterns indicate that such peoples created the cultures and built the places to which the rest of the world aspires. I would suggest the migrants not overwhelm and destroy the goose laying the golden eggs.

    Were millions of Japanese and Chinese “modest” amounts?
     
    One first lays down a principle, then argues an amount.

    Since you conveniently label the Anglo perspective as “underestimating” their abilities, you are affirming Magic Dirt.
     
    You are fixated on this "magic dirt" concept. Most here subscribe to a 50-50 nature-nurture split. Importing group A can increase their accomplishments and have a net positive impact; importing group B can increase their accomplishment and have a net negative benefit.

    “Some probably did, but people in general are willing to compromise and accommodate.”

    Not nativists in general. They in the late 1800′s held the same position as yourself–the influx of Eastern and Southern Europeans were “massively harmful” to America (even though you have neglected to explain how and why). Why should nativists “compromise and accommodate” when they are of the mindset they are from superior ethnic groups? It would appear you hold a similar perspective.

    “You have a penchant for the absolutist position that the nativists in 1880 were wrong, so therefore all nativist sentiments are wrong, and we must not in any way discourage the intermingling of people.”

    Nativists held the absolute position, like yourself, due to confirmation bias, fear of economic competition, and belief that certain groups are utterly incapable of assimilating into a society.
    Their concerns may be valid, but they are also subject to scrutiny. I don’t know why, for example, you insist that Eastern and Southern Europeans had posed significant risks for Americans. Feel free to discourage this “intermingling”, but as you just stated, Americans tend to “compromise and accommodate” newcomers. It’s our history. It’s in our blood as a mutt nation.

    “Current migration patterns indicate that such peoples created the cultures and built the places to which the rest of the world aspires”

    Such peoples HELPED to create these cultures. These places were built for other people to improve their lot in life, similar to the perspective of Northern and Western Europeans. What makes these groups more “special” than Southern and Eastern Europeans from your vantage point?

    “I would suggest the migrants not overwhelm and destroy the goose laying the golden eggs.”

    What about your ancestors? Were they from the magical lands of Northern and Western Europe? And you seem to forget that immigrant labor from several European nations was in part responsible for America’s streets to be paved with gold.

    “One first lays down a principle, then argues an amount.”

    Don’t be an SJW, answer the question. Were millions of Japanese and Chinese “modest amounts”?

    “You are fixated on this “magic dirt” concept.”

    That would be Mr. Sailer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bomag
    Your responses are trending off into the weeds.

    I hold that ethnic/genetic/race factors as commonly understood are a component that is useful in organizing our affairs. When organizing an enterprise, I have found that it is useful to consider if the workforce consists of Swedes; or Welshmen; or Haitians; or Armenians; etc. It makes a difference worth considering, and everyone does it implicitly.

    And, yes, it has been misused, and it is quaint now to read about Englishmen fretting about the inferior Welshmen dragging down the species. That doesn't mean these things are not worth considering in some contexts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JamesG
    Thanks for that link.

    I've had a print subscription to NYRB (I thinke) since its founding but I do not have an electronic subscription so cannot post the actual quote.

    I would also love to find a video I once saw on television. It was Gould in a lecture hall probably at Harvard. He extended both arms above his head and said the following "Contingency! Contingency! All is contingent." Some people call that science I call it BS.

    Here's something I put on line a few years ago about my very first encounter with the fraud:

    http://cancerselection.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-axillae-of-san-stefano.html

    How is contingency BS?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Corvinus
    "How so? Countries very much reflect their human capital; thus lands with sparse resources (such as Japan) can still prosper through cleverness and effort; while resource rich regions languish."

    America prospered with this "cleverness and effort", and do you ever forget it. They were wealthy in resources, and took in millions and millions of immigrants to run their factories in urban areas. There was no "languishing" in the late 1800's when it came to American industrial output.

    "If you import the latter peoples, you get the latter people’s accomplishments."

    Using your logic, Eastern and Southern Europeans who emigrated to America by the early 1900's lacked any significant contributions according to Anglos, sans their dilution of traditional culture through their alien social and religious customs. Since you conveniently label the Anglo perspective as "underestimating" their abilities, you are affirming Magic Dirt. Indeed, one imports Eastern and Southern Europeans, one gets less than stellar achievements.

    "Most people graciously accept newcomers and immigrants with the understanding that they should be in modest amounts"

    Were millions of Japanese and Chinese "modest" amounts? Did tens of millions of Eastern and Southern Europeans meet your numerical standard?

    "Demanding racial purity is a death spiral..."

    Nativists demanded ethnic purity. They put a premium on Northern and Western Europeans; they were "higher up" on the ethnic totem pole.

    Nativists demanded ethnic purity

    Some probably did, but people in general are willing to compromise and accommodate. You have a penchant for the absolutist position that the nativists in 1880 were wrong, so therefore all nativist sentiments are wrong, and we must not in any way discourage the intermingling of people.

    They put a premium on Northern and Western Europeans

    Were they wrong to do so? Current migration patterns indicate that such peoples created the cultures and built the places to which the rest of the world aspires. I would suggest the migrants not overwhelm and destroy the goose laying the golden eggs.

    Were millions of Japanese and Chinese “modest” amounts?

    One first lays down a principle, then argues an amount.

    Since you conveniently label the Anglo perspective as “underestimating” their abilities, you are affirming Magic Dirt.

    You are fixated on this “magic dirt” concept. Most here subscribe to a 50-50 nature-nurture split. Importing group A can increase their accomplishments and have a net positive impact; importing group B can increase their accomplishment and have a net negative benefit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Some probably did, but people in general are willing to compromise and accommodate."

    Not nativists in general. They in the late 1800's held the same position as yourself--the influx of Eastern and Southern Europeans were "massively harmful" to America (even though you have neglected to explain how and why). Why should nativists "compromise and accommodate" when they are of the mindset they are from superior ethnic groups? It would appear you hold a similar perspective.

    "You have a penchant for the absolutist position that the nativists in 1880 were wrong, so therefore all nativist sentiments are wrong, and we must not in any way discourage the intermingling of people."

    Nativists held the absolute position, like yourself, due to confirmation bias, fear of economic competition, and belief that certain groups are utterly incapable of assimilating into a society.
    Their concerns may be valid, but they are also subject to scrutiny. I don't know why, for example, you insist that Eastern and Southern Europeans had posed significant risks for Americans. Feel free to discourage this "intermingling", but as you just stated, Americans tend to "compromise and accommodate" newcomers. It's our history. It's in our blood as a mutt nation.

    "Current migration patterns indicate that such peoples created the cultures and built the places to which the rest of the world aspires"

    Such peoples HELPED to create these cultures. These places were built for other people to improve their lot in life, similar to the perspective of Northern and Western Europeans. What makes these groups more "special" than Southern and Eastern Europeans from your vantage point?

    "I would suggest the migrants not overwhelm and destroy the goose laying the golden eggs."

    What about your ancestors? Were they from the magical lands of Northern and Western Europe? And you seem to forget that immigrant labor from several European nations was in part responsible for America's streets to be paved with gold.

    "One first lays down a principle, then argues an amount."

    Don't be an SJW, answer the question. Were millions of Japanese and Chinese "modest amounts"?

    "You are fixated on this “magic dirt” concept."

    That would be Mr. Sailer.
    , @epochehusserl
    I answered all of the questions that Corvy brought up in an earlier thread when I said the following
    ------------------------------------------------------------

    What I said was the social system developed those innovations when the WASPS were in charge. That is not the same thing as saying the WASPS developed all of those things. The WASPS believed in individuals rights whereas most social systems believed in group rights. Many people who are very intelligent from different cultures dont understand social systems based upon individual rights rather than group rights. The WASPS were right in limiting people from those cultures based upon group rights because their system was unique and could be destroyed by people who dont understand non group rights based systems, just as civil rights activists had destroyed capital investment in the US.
    -----------------------------------------
    when you answer a question that corvy makes successfully then he stops asking then brings the same question to someone else.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @peterike

    Actually, it was individuals from various ethnic groups developed those innovations. Although, one has to wonder what about those Eastern and Southern Europeans who came here in droves in the late 1800′s? What were their technological contributions? Did not WASPS generally view them as dim-witted creatures prone to socialism and anarchy?

     

    Oh Corvy, this really is a bugbear with you. You say this repeatedly, and you seem to think it's some kind of killer point. Sorry chico, but it's not.

    You know what? The nativist WASPs were 100% correct. The Eastern and Southern European hordes -- and by that what you mean is Jews and Italians so why not just say it? -- were massively harmful to American life, even if they did contribute to it in many ways, especially the Jews.

    The important question in this context is simply, would America be a better place today had they never been allowed in? Unquestionably yes. It would be a far more unified nation. It would have moved far less to the Left. There probably would not even have been a civil rights movement. To say nothing of feminism, anti-war hysteria, no nukes movement, gay rights, etc. Very likely we would not have gone on the outsourcing and de-industrialization binge we went on. We may not even have entered WWI without Jewish influence or had the monster that is the Federal Reserve (though that was mostly the earlier wave of Jews).

    The quota acts of the 1920′s worked to prevent large numbers of your brethren from reaching our shores.

     

    Yes, good idea, but far too late.

    Remarkably, you share the same attitudes of contempt toward today’s immigrants as the nativists had against your ancestors. Undoubtedly, your great-grandparents who came here to the United States would have loudly opposed those sentiments. They would be rolling in their graves given your position.

     

    First off, stop arguing like a woman with emotional nonsense like this. Actually, the immigrants of the time might very well have thought -- much like the immigrants of today think -- why are these suckers in America letting us in? Don't they know we're coming here to leech what we can and exploit their very nice country? You know it's perfectly possible to look at a situation and say, "this will be bad for America, but I don't care, I'm getting my piece while I can." An adult can discern a difference between these two notions. Robbing a bank might be good for me, assuming I can get away with it. That doesn't mean I think it would be a great idea if everyone else robbed a bank too.

    “Oh Corvy, this really is a bugbear with you. You say this repeatedly, and you seem to think it’s some kind of killer point. Sorry chico, but it’s not.”

    You’re going to have to muster up an argument rather than make a blanket statement here.

    “You know what? The nativist WASPs were 100% correct. The Eastern and Southern European hordes — and by that what you mean is Jews and Italians so why not just say it? — were massively harmful to American life, even if they did contribute to it in many ways, especially the Jews.”

    At least you are being honest here with siding with the WASPs. You do realize you are taking an anti-ethnic and anti-white position here. Now, in what specific ways were Eastern and Southern Europeans–which is what I clearly stated–were “massively harmful”, considering that the great-grandchildren of these immigrants are immersed into American life?

    “The important question in this context is simply, would America be a better place today had they never been allowed in? Unquestionably yes.”

    Thank you very much for your opinion on this matter.

    “It would be a far more unified nation. It would have moved far less to the Left.”

    So without Italians and Serbs, for example, the United States today would be cohesive? Interesting. How do you exactly figure? Now, you do realize that these two groups are generally more conservative in their political views, which actually assists the Republican Party.

    “There probably would not even have been a civil rights movement. To say nothing of feminism, anti-war hysteria, no nukes movement, gay rights, etc.”

    Really, the Civil Rights Movement would have most likely never occurred had it not been for the inclusion of Eastern and Southern Europeans? That opposition to the Vietnam War would have been blunted if Italians and Serbians had not entered our nation? Wow, just wow.

    “Very likely we would not have gone on the outsourcing and de-industrialization binge we went on. We may not even have entered WWI without Jewish influence or had the monster that is the Federal Reserve (though that was mostly the earlier wave of Jews).”

    Your fixation on Jews is duly noted.

    “First off, stop arguing like a woman with emotional nonsense like this.”

    I’m not the one huffing and puffing about da Joos like a jilted school girl.

    “Actually, the immigrants of the time might very well have thought — much like the immigrants of today think — why are these suckers in America letting us in? Don’t they know we’re coming here to leech what we can and exploit their very nice country?”

    Some immigrants perhaps felt that way. Most likely they came to our nation for the same reasons as the English, Scotch-Irish, Irish, and Germans before them–for political freedom and economic opportunity. And today’s immigrants share the same feelings as how YOUR own relatives who came here felt–they had the desire to improve themselves and the society they are now part of. Why do you seemingly despise your own family members?

    “You know it’s perfectly possible to look at a situation and say, “this will be bad for America, but I don’t care, I’m getting my piece while I can.”

    Would not these attitudes also represent YOUR immigrant ancestors?

    “An adult can discern a difference between these two notions. Robbing a bank might be good for me, assuming I can get away with it. That doesn’t mean I think it would be a great idea if everyone else robbed a bank too.”

    False equivalency. We are not talking about two situations involving illegal activity. We are discussing how immigrants were legally entering our nation in hopes of making a better life for themselves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @guest
    The bit might work better if that person were capable of dancing (or merely moving around in a coordinated manner), singing, and cracking jokes at the same time. But they don't train for that stuff anymore, do they?

    Or is part of the joke that she's a bad hip-hopper? More of a joke than the actual jokes, I suppose.

    Its part of the act. Its supposed to illicit cringe. And it does.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JamesG
    "Have I missed something?"

    Yes, but you have lots of company.


    http://cancerselection.blogspot.com/2012/08/speeding-neutrinos-cold-fusion-and.html


    https://cancerselection.blogspot.com/2013/11/an-open-letter-to-armand-marie-leroi.html

    Yes, but you haven’t included an answer to my question about the precise nature of your objection at the Gould lecture on the assumption that you don’t reject the proposition that there may be genetic changes which are neither adaptive nor eliminated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JamesG
    I decided a long time ago that Gould's published work comprise a pretty handy de facto test of general intelligence. People who admire his work should stay away from my idea that lethal juvenile cancer played a significant role in bilaterian evolution; they will not be capable of understanding the idea or arguments for it.

    As to your point my final response is that you read all of section 1. in the following.

    https://cancerselection.blogspot.com/2014/05/an-open-letter-to-armand-marie-leroi.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @utu
    I think I got it after some exchange with candid_observer. Here is my comment I wrote to him:

    Thank you for your explanations.

    As far as the issue with whether variance remains the same, the answer is, of course, yes (under usual assumptions).

    I begin to see that the breeder’s equation does not need to contradict the observation that the variance of population is constant. For IQ_parent the breeder’s equation predicts the expected value of children IQ_child

    E(IQ_child) = Mean+ (IQ_parent -Mean)*h^2

    where h^2≤1 is heritability which probably is not constant across the population but depends on IQ_parent. IQ_child is a random variable with mean E(IQ_child) and some variance V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) that probably must be dependent on IQ_parent. Say, this variable IQ_child has a normal distribution. The question is what constraints must be imposed on the variance V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) to assure than variance of population V(IQ) remains unchanged. Knowing the variance V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) we will be able to answer the question what is a the probability of having offspring of equal or higher IQ than your IQ if your IQ is (IQ -Mean) points off of the Mean?

    So when we talk about the breeder’s equation and the implied regression to the mean we do not need to sound alarmist. The “smart fraction” will not be lost. Equally smart children will be born. So if your children are not as smart as you do not despair. Somebody will produce children that are as smart as you. Population’s statistics will remain unchanged.
    ___________

    (i) I have an impression that the regression to the mean is way too often invoked in an alarmist way.

    (ii) It would be interesting to find out who has a higher probability of having children smarter than them: parents with IQ=120 or parents with IQ=140? To answer this, as I said above I think we need to know V(IQ_child|IQ_parent). There should be some empirical data that V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) could be estimated.

    (iii) The breeder’s equation does not tell us what happens to the Mean when the actual mean of population is changing as the result e.g. that smarter people have less children than others. The Mean in the equation is not the actual mean but it will not remain unchanged.

    ii. parents with IQ= 120

    iii. Sure it does.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    I have figured out what should be the variance of the distribution of the X_child to keep the same distribution in the next generation. If population of parents is normal with variance V and the breeder's eq. holds:

    E[X_child-X_mean]=E[X_child-X_mean]*h^2

    then X_child has normal distribution with mean E[X_child-X_mean]*h^2 and variance V*(1-h^2).

    Then the convolution of this distribution with the distribution of parents population will produce the population of the next generation with unchanged variance. No point of writing down formulas here but if you did it after some variable substitution you will see the result right away and remember that the fact convolution of two Gaussian is Gaussian with variance equal to the sum of variances.

    When h^2--->1 that X_child distribution ---> Dirac delta and the result right away obvious.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • phil says:
    @LauraMR
    The problem is that "race" is a fictional, arbitrary construct. We are all mongrels, of mixed ancestry of some kind or other, if one looks far back enough.

    It couldn't be otherwise. Considering population growth over the centuries, the necessary amount of inbreeding is simply too large to arrive at a pure "race" and, much less, one with inherently superior characteristics.

    Now, does breeding matter? Absolutely. On traits and exhibited by specific individuals. But on "racial" grounds and exhibited systematically at large, nope, such a notion starts with a puerile fable and ends in a tragic fiasco.

    As a word in an English dictionary, “race” is a social construct. The word is used in different ways in different contexts. The biological reality is one of ancestry groupings. To be sure admixture levels vary across individuals, but it highly unlikely that intelligence was evenly distributed over continental or even sub=continental ancestry groups. We can do more to identify admixture and its relevance to cognitve ability scores than your post suggests.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Wizard of Oz
    I read your blog post with interest but couldn't quite fathom your reaction to what I took you to be saying was a poor analogy or illustration used by Gould for his point. Obviously some features of organisms are accidents by mutation on the way to possible adaptations that weren't needed but were not harmful enough to be eliminated. Have I missed something?
    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Yes, but you haven't included an answer to my question about the precise nature of your objection at the Gould lecture on the assumption that you don't reject the proposition that there may be genetic changes which are neither adaptive nor eliminated.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @LauraMR
    The problem is that "race" is a fictional, arbitrary construct. We are all mongrels, of mixed ancestry of some kind or other, if one looks far back enough.

    It couldn't be otherwise. Considering population growth over the centuries, the necessary amount of inbreeding is simply too large to arrive at a pure "race" and, much less, one with inherently superior characteristics.

    Now, does breeding matter? Absolutely. On traits and exhibited by specific individuals. But on "racial" grounds and exhibited systematically at large, nope, such a notion starts with a puerile fable and ends in a tragic fiasco.

    Yes, but if you look back far enough, you will not just see groups mixing to give rise to new groups, but also the same group splitting into two and diverging because of differing pressures in the environment, from weather to social institutions (polygamy, warrior culture, clans etc). The issue here is a level of homogeneity that comes from endogamy, which establishes you as your own group. Way back when, you were a product of Cro Magnons and Neanderthals. But, in the meantine, you became ethnicity X or Y, established as your own groups. Even today, blend the entire world into a brown mix of ice cream flavors and say that humanity is finally homogeneous. The very next day, groups will start to differentiate. Eventually, they might split off completely, from culture to skin tones to average personality and IQ.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @whorefinder
    IQ exists.

    Race exists.

    The two are correlated.

    And there is meaningful difference in average racial IQ.

    Until those four points are accepted in society, we cannot advance beyond a few technological do-dads.

    And because we have not accepted them, we are retarding: we are now denying that sex exists or that certain sexual disorders are "normal."

    So what?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @LauraMR
    The problem is that "race" is a fictional, arbitrary construct. We are all mongrels, of mixed ancestry of some kind or other, if one looks far back enough.

    It couldn't be otherwise. Considering population growth over the centuries, the necessary amount of inbreeding is simply too large to arrive at a pure "race" and, much less, one with inherently superior characteristics.

    Now, does breeding matter? Absolutely. On traits and exhibited by specific individuals. But on "racial" grounds and exhibited systematically at large, nope, such a notion starts with a puerile fable and ends in a tragic fiasco.

    The problem is that “race” is a fictional, arbitrary construct. We are all mongrels, of mixed ancestry of some kind or other, if one looks far back enough.

    You must be new here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The problem is that “race” is a fictional, arbitrary construct. We are all mongrels, of mixed ancestry of some kind or other, if one looks far back enough.

    It couldn’t be otherwise. Considering population growth over the centuries, the necessary amount of inbreeding is simply too large to arrive at a pure “race” and, much less, one with inherently superior characteristics.

    Now, does breeding matter? Absolutely. On traits and exhibited by specific individuals. But on “racial” grounds and exhibited systematically at large, nope, such a notion starts with a puerile fable and ends in a tragic fiasco.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin

    The problem is that “race” is a fictional, arbitrary construct. We are all mongrels, of mixed ancestry of some kind or other, if one looks far back enough.
     
    You must be new here.
    , @Romanian
    Yes, but if you look back far enough, you will not just see groups mixing to give rise to new groups, but also the same group splitting into two and diverging because of differing pressures in the environment, from weather to social institutions (polygamy, warrior culture, clans etc). The issue here is a level of homogeneity that comes from endogamy, which establishes you as your own group. Way back when, you were a product of Cro Magnons and Neanderthals. But, in the meantine, you became ethnicity X or Y, established as your own groups. Even today, blend the entire world into a brown mix of ice cream flavors and say that humanity is finally homogeneous. The very next day, groups will start to differentiate. Eventually, they might split off completely, from culture to skin tones to average personality and IQ.
    , @phil
    As a word in an English dictionary, "race" is a social construct. The word is used in different ways in different contexts. The biological reality is one of ancestry groupings. To be sure admixture levels vary across individuals, but it highly unlikely that intelligence was evenly distributed over continental or even sub=continental ancestry groups. We can do more to identify admixture and its relevance to cognitve ability scores than your post suggests.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Actually, the opposite. On an individual level, there's substantial level of variation but from a group level, there's enough isolation to be able to determine differences in ability and function.

    Obvious example: Nepalese population group has larger hearts and more efficient adaptations to deal with low oxygen environments. You don't need to single out the Nepalese as a "race" to notice that its a real, and meaningful difference.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Extensive research indicates genetics is generally the major contributor to IQ.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sam Shama

    For example, both Barack and Michelle Obama self-identified on the 2010 Census solely as black, but Barack clearly has a higher IQ than Michelle
     
    How is it so clear that Barack has the higher IQ?

    Yep. I believe it but would like it nailed down. Privately I give some weight to a former investment banker and pre Tea Party Republican telling me that Professor Laurence Tribe was present when Obama was elected President (?Editor) of the Harvard Law Review and said he was outstanding.

    (I have my own less generous and more cynical guessed interpretation of what happened).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JamesG
    Thanks for that link.

    I've had a print subscription to NYRB (I thinke) since its founding but I do not have an electronic subscription so cannot post the actual quote.

    I would also love to find a video I once saw on television. It was Gould in a lecture hall probably at Harvard. He extended both arms above his head and said the following "Contingency! Contingency! All is contingent." Some people call that science I call it BS.

    Here's something I put on line a few years ago about my very first encounter with the fraud:

    http://cancerselection.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-axillae-of-san-stefano.html

    #403 was meant for you…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @res
    Thanks for linking to your interesting blog post.

    I just ordered a copy of Storm Over Biology . Thanks for the recommendation. More copies available at Abebooks for $4 if anyone else is interested. The review on Amazon makes it sound apropos to this and other conversations here. It is interesting that Davis would criticize a Harvard colleague like that.

    I looked for your Gould video, but no luck. I wonder if it is the video mentioned (Gould - Wonderful life) in this PDF: http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic545468.files/lecture-5.pdf

    Oops! My first reply was intended for JamesG.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • For example, both Barack and Michelle Obama self-identified on the 2010 Census solely as black, but Barack clearly has a higher IQ than Michelle

    How is it so clear that Barack has the higher IQ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Yep. I believe it but would like it nailed down. Privately I give some weight to a former investment banker and pre Tea Party Republican telling me that Professor Laurence Tribe was present when Obama was elected President (?Editor) of the Harvard Law Review and said he was outstanding.

    (I have my own less generous and more cynical guessed interpretation of what happened).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @res
    You probably got this, but worth emphasizing that I'm pretty sure Caplan's claim is for increasing global per capita GDP, not that of the receiving (or contributing!) country. Reminds me of the old joke about a particular person moving from A to B and lowering the average IQ in both places.

    I see, I think. Very much Ricardo, not necessarily Harvard’s (Competitive Advantage) Michael Porter. And the old joke reminds me of what an English friend said of a talented but rather obnoxious English immigrant to Australia whom we both knew. “Indeed, our loss is your loss” – not original of course, there being no new jokes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @res
    Thanks for linking to your interesting blog post.

    I just ordered a copy of Storm Over Biology . Thanks for the recommendation. More copies available at Abebooks for $4 if anyone else is interested. The review on Amazon makes it sound apropos to this and other conversations here. It is interesting that Davis would criticize a Harvard colleague like that.

    I looked for your Gould video, but no luck. I wonder if it is the video mentioned (Gould - Wonderful life) in this PDF: http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic545468.files/lecture-5.pdf

    I read your blog post with interest but couldn’t quite fathom your reaction to what I took you to be saying was a poor analogy or illustration used by Gould for his point. Obviously some features of organisms are accidents by mutation on the way to possible adaptations that weren’t needed but were not harmful enough to be eliminated. Have I missed something?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JamesG
    "Have I missed something?"

    Yes, but you have lots of company.


    http://cancerselection.blogspot.com/2012/08/speeding-neutrinos-cold-fusion-and.html


    https://cancerselection.blogspot.com/2013/11/an-open-letter-to-armand-marie-leroi.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • res says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    That sounds as though it was meant to sound wise in the 18th century: it certainly doesn't sound wise now. The big geographic move is to cities and cities can flourish in any geographical conditions given a number of changeable circumstances like transport connections, education and skill levels, power costs etc.

    You probably got this, but worth emphasizing that I’m pretty sure Caplan’s claim is for increasing global per capita GDP, not that of the receiving (or contributing!) country. Reminds me of the old joke about a particular person moving from A to B and lowering the average IQ in both places.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I see, I think. Very much Ricardo, not necessarily Harvard's (Competitive Advantage) Michael Porter. And the old joke reminds me of what an English friend said of a talented but rather obnoxious English immigrant to Australia whom we both knew. "Indeed, our loss is your loss" - not original of course, there being no new jokes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • res says:
    @JamesG
    Thanks for that link.

    I've had a print subscription to NYRB (I thinke) since its founding but I do not have an electronic subscription so cannot post the actual quote.

    I would also love to find a video I once saw on television. It was Gould in a lecture hall probably at Harvard. He extended both arms above his head and said the following "Contingency! Contingency! All is contingent." Some people call that science I call it BS.

    Here's something I put on line a few years ago about my very first encounter with the fraud:

    http://cancerselection.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-axillae-of-san-stefano.html

    Thanks for linking to your interesting blog post.

    I just ordered a copy of Storm Over Biology . Thanks for the recommendation. More copies available at Abebooks for $4 if anyone else is interested. The review on Amazon makes it sound apropos to this and other conversations here. It is interesting that Davis would criticize a Harvard colleague like that.

    I looked for your Gould video, but no luck. I wonder if it is the video mentioned (Gould – Wonderful life) in this PDF: http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic545468.files/lecture-5.pdf

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I read your blog post with interest but couldn't quite fathom your reaction to what I took you to be saying was a poor analogy or illustration used by Gould for his point. Obviously some features of organisms are accidents by mutation on the way to possible adaptations that weren't needed but were not harmful enough to be eliminated. Have I missed something?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Oops! My first reply was intended for JamesG.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • res says:
    @anarchyst
    From a medical standpoint, there ARE substantial differences between the races.When it comes to organ donations and transplants, the most difficult recipients to find organ donors for are "bi-racial" individuals.
    There are other medical aspects that clearly define racial differences but, in our culture of "political correctness", it is career suicide to publicize the differences...the truth be damned--not unlike "holocaust ™" truth.
    There ARE differences in the races that cannot be dismissed...

    When it comes to organ donations and transplants, the most difficult recipients to find organ donors for are “bi-racial” individuals.

    Thanks. I did not know that. Here is a decent popular article discussing the issue in more detail: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/31/AR2010053102481.html

    Here is a tool that allows looking at the ethnicities associated with HLA alleles: http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ipd/imgt/hla/ethnicity.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @FactsAreImportant
    OT, Bryan Caplan (almost literally) argues in favor of "magic dirt."

    Geography is Policy

    ... The harsh reality is that geography has a huge effect on countries' economic success. ... Social scientists who accept the power of geography tend to get pretty pessimistic about development. If poor countries adopted the institutions and policies of rich countries, they still wouldn't do very well. ... And that's where the geo-centric economists are completely wrong.

    Contrary to their own self-image, their view is radically optimistic. Consider the extreme scenario where geography is the sole determinant of national prosperity. Is there anything mankind could do to swiftly raise per-capita GDP? Absolutely: Move people from poor countries to rich countries. Is that the kind of thing that policy can change? Again, absolutely: Legalize movement from poor countries to rich countries. How much would that accomplish? Given the draconian regulations now on the books, such deregulation would swiftly transform the world.

    In the real world, of course, geography isn't the sole global problem, so deregulating migration isn't a full-blown panacea for global ills. But if Sachs is remotely right, this deregulation is the closest thing to a panacea we've got. Bad geography only retards human progress insofar as humans remain in locations with bad geography. And once it's legal, humans will vacate the bad areas on a massive scale.

     

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2017/05/geography_is_po.html

    That sounds as though it was meant to sound wise in the 18th century: it certainly doesn’t sound wise now. The big geographic move is to cities and cities can flourish in any geographical conditions given a number of changeable circumstances like transport connections, education and skill levels, power costs etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    You probably got this, but worth emphasizing that I'm pretty sure Caplan's claim is for increasing global per capita GDP, not that of the receiving (or contributing!) country. Reminds me of the old joke about a particular person moving from A to B and lowering the average IQ in both places.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @res
    Thanks. For those who like citations, here is a secondary source

    Here is a link to the original article by Gould, but the preview does not include that quote: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1984/03/29/triumph-of-a-naturalist/

    I wonder if people who quote Gould as an authority on IQ realize how much it outs them as being unaware of the field?

    Thanks for that link.

    I’ve had a print subscription to NYRB (I thinke) since its founding but I do not have an electronic subscription so cannot post the actual quote.

    I would also love to find a video I once saw on television. It was Gould in a lecture hall probably at Harvard. He extended both arms above his head and said the following “Contingency! Contingency! All is contingent.” Some people call that science I call it BS.

    Here’s something I put on line a few years ago about my very first encounter with the fraud:

    http://cancerselection.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-axillae-of-san-stefano.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Thanks for linking to your interesting blog post.

    I just ordered a copy of Storm Over Biology . Thanks for the recommendation. More copies available at Abebooks for $4 if anyone else is interested. The review on Amazon makes it sound apropos to this and other conversations here. It is interesting that Davis would criticize a Harvard colleague like that.

    I looked for your Gould video, but no luck. I wonder if it is the video mentioned (Gould - Wonderful life) in this PDF: http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic545468.files/lecture-5.pdf
    , @Wizard of Oz
    #403 was meant for you...
    , @RaceRealist88
    How is contingency BS?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • phil says:
    @utu
    Did you mean to make this absolutist statement, or did you mean to say, “But if there is no pudding that g can prove, then g proves nothing.”?

    One way of looking at it is in the sense of Occam's razor: "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." What was explained by postulating g? In the empirical realm g does not perform better than IQ test scores. Does g explains why IQ performs well as a predictor of some life outcomes? No, it can't because correlation between g and IQ is less than 1 and between life outcomes and g the correlation is less than the correlation between the same life outcomes and IQ.

    ‘Jensen [in The g Factor] documented that g is the “active ingredient”
    of IQ scores, and is embedded to a greater or lesser extent in
    every question on an intelligence test. He showed that a
    test’s g loading is the best predictor, not just of that test’s
    correlation with scholastic and work-place performance, but
    of biological measures such as heritability coefficients determined
    from twin studies, inbreeding depression scores
    calculated in children of cousin-marriages, brain evoked potentials,
    brain pH levels, brain glucose metabolism, as well
    as nerve conduction velocity and reaction time measures.
    These correlations argue strongly for the heritable and biological,
    as opposed to the mere statistical reality of g. ‘

    The Open Psychology Journal, 2010, Volume 3, p. 15

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • From a medical standpoint, there ARE substantial differences between the races.When it comes to organ donations and transplants, the most difficult recipients to find organ donors for are “bi-racial” individuals.
    There are other medical aspects that clearly define racial differences but, in our culture of “political correctness”, it is career suicide to publicize the differences…the truth be damned–not unlike “holocaust ™” truth.
    There ARE differences in the races that cannot be dismissed…

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    When it comes to organ donations and transplants, the most difficult recipients to find organ donors for are “bi-racial” individuals.
     
    Thanks. I did not know that. Here is a decent popular article discussing the issue in more detail: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/31/AR2010053102481.html

    Here is a tool that allows looking at the ethnicities associated with HLA alleles: http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ipd/imgt/hla/ethnicity.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • There is some consolation that articles as ‘honest’ as this one, so ably reviewed by our Steve, are now appearing – that, gradually, the acceptance is coming that science cannot be denied. Dumb as we are, science is actually becoming more dominant – certainly than religion and maybe now PC too.

    And you determine who are the Good Guys and who are the Bad Guys not by something complicated like what they do, but by something simple: who they are.

    Well said – and we can apply this quite universally: how many of us in professional life know of colleagues with huge reputations built upon nothing but voluminous paper qualifications and membership on ever more distinguished committees?

    In the fields of art and music, how many framed pieces of crap (even literally!) are worshiped in deference to their creators (and, yes, I do have Picasso in mind too!).

    So there!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Luke Lea
    "We very cheerfully accept the fact that less-intelligent and less-attractive and less-socially adept people will have less-happy lives."

    I think you are perhaps confusing happiness with success. Follow my link to see what I mean by "a rich and fulfilling life."

    A good point.

    Although I would suggest that it is not me, but our society as a whole that confuses happiness with success.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • utu says:
    @bomag

    But there is no pudding that g can prove. g proves nothing.
     
    Did you mean to make this absolutist statement, or did you mean to say, "But if there is no pudding that g can prove, then g proves nothing."?

    My position is that the proof is in the pudding. This pudding for IQ testing is its predictive ability of life outcomes but it must be kept in mind that often the results are overstated.
     
    It is one of the best predictors we have in the social sciences. People do attribute magical powers to it, but that is another matter.

    Did you mean to make this absolutist statement, or did you mean to say, “But if there is no pudding that g can prove, then g proves nothing.”?

    One way of looking at it is in the sense of Occam’s razor: “Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.” What was explained by postulating g? In the empirical realm g does not perform better than IQ test scores. Does g explains why IQ performs well as a predictor of some life outcomes? No, it can’t because correlation between g and IQ is less than 1 and between life outcomes and g the correlation is less than the correlation between the same life outcomes and IQ.

    Read More
    • Replies: @phil
    'Jensen [in The g Factor] documented that g is the “active ingredient”
    of IQ scores, and is embedded to a greater or lesser extent in
    every question on an intelligence test. He showed that a
    test’s g loading is the best predictor, not just of that test’s
    correlation with scholastic and work-place performance, but
    of biological measures such as heritability coefficients determined
    from twin studies, inbreeding depression scores
    calculated in children of cousin-marriages, brain evoked potentials,
    brain pH levels, brain glucose metabolism, as well
    as nerve conduction velocity and reaction time measures.
    These correlations argue strongly for the heritable and biological,
    as opposed to the mere statistical reality of g. '

    The Open Psychology Journal, 2010, Volume 3, p. 15
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • utu says:
    @Steve Sailer
    You can look up the Scottish 1932 IQ test of all 11 years olds. Deary came back many decades later and gave some of the now elderly people IQ tests.

    They got correlation of 0.8 between 11 and 80 age. Which is pretty good, I think. I just wonder how can you reconcile this with age dependent heritability twin studies that show that at young age heritability is 0.3 and in adulthood it is 0.7-0.8? If correlation between twins can change so much how can they be so high between ages? Perhaps there is no contradiction here but I need to think about it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @PiltdownMan
    https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2004-deary.pdf

    Thanks for the link. Between age 11 and 80 correlation is 0.71-0.78. Then they say it could be higher (0.8) if correcting for test-retest repeatability that has correlation of approx. 0.9.

    Correlation 0.8 translates to St. Dev of IQ(80)-IQ(11) 9.5 IQ puts (1 -sigma).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • utu says:
    @utu
    Thanks. What you saying is this:

    If you plotted the ratio k=|X_child-Mean|/|X_parent-Mean| as a function of x=|X_parent-Mean| k(x) is smaller than 1 far away from zero (x is large) but at some point closer to zero it becomes larger than 1. How would you call the region where k(x) (which technically is heritability) is greater than 1? What's is the explanation for this process?

    In order for population to maintain the same distribution (constant variance) there must exist a process that replaces the parents P of high IQ that produced an offspring with lower IQ (parents P obeyed the breeder's equation) with next generation members of equally high IQ as parents P who were produced by other parents R who did not obey the breeder's equation.

    It is reasonable to question the wisdom of talking about the regression to the mean if the regression to the mean process must be counterbalanced by some other process acting in opposite direction.

    I got the impression that the regression to the mean is often talked on racialist, HBD and eugenics sites to make a particular self serving arguments. Now I doubt the validity of those arguments as you revealed that the breeder's equation is not applicable across the whole population. People closer to the mean will produce smarter children to counter balance the effect of smart people producing less smart children.

    I think I got it after some exchange with candid_observer. Here is my comment I wrote to him:

    Thank you for your explanations.

    As far as the issue with whether variance remains the same, the answer is, of course, yes (under usual assumptions).

    I begin to see that the breeder’s equation does not need to contradict the observation that the variance of population is constant. For IQ_parent the breeder’s equation predicts the expected value of children IQ_child

    E(IQ_child) = Mean+ (IQ_parent -Mean)*h^2

    where h^2≤1 is heritability which probably is not constant across the population but depends on IQ_parent. IQ_child is a random variable with mean E(IQ_child) and some variance V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) that probably must be dependent on IQ_parent. Say, this variable IQ_child has a normal distribution. The question is what constraints must be imposed on the variance V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) to assure than variance of population V(IQ) remains unchanged. Knowing the variance V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) we will be able to answer the question what is a the probability of having offspring of equal or higher IQ than your IQ if your IQ is (IQ -Mean) points off of the Mean?

    So when we talk about the breeder’s equation and the implied regression to the mean we do not need to sound alarmist. The “smart fraction” will not be lost. Equally smart children will be born. So if your children are not as smart as you do not despair. Somebody will produce children that are as smart as you. Population’s statistics will remain unchanged.
    ___________

    (i) I have an impression that the regression to the mean is way too often invoked in an alarmist way.

    (ii) It would be interesting to find out who has a higher probability of having children smarter than them: parents with IQ=120 or parents with IQ=140? To answer this, as I said above I think we need to know V(IQ_child|IQ_parent). There should be some empirical data that V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) could be estimated.

    (iii) The breeder’s equation does not tell us what happens to the Mean when the actual mean of population is changing as the result e.g. that smarter people have less children than others. The Mean in the equation is not the actual mean but it will not remain unchanged.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gcochran
    ii. parents with IQ= 120

    iii. Sure it does.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • utu says:
    @gcochran
    I wasn't trying to confuse. the children of individuals far from the mean tend to have trait values closer to the mean - but the children of individuals close to the mean tend to have trait values farther from the mean ( in both directions). The effects balance: as long as there is no selection, no systematic reproductive edge for different trait values, nothing changes.

    Thanks. What you saying is this:

    If you plotted the ratio k=|X_child-Mean|/|X_parent-Mean| as a function of x=|X_parent-Mean| k(x) is smaller than 1 far away from zero (x is large) but at some point closer to zero it becomes larger than 1. How would you call the region where k(x) (which technically is heritability) is greater than 1? What’s is the explanation for this process?

    In order for population to maintain the same distribution (constant variance) there must exist a process that replaces the parents P of high IQ that produced an offspring with lower IQ (parents P obeyed the breeder’s equation) with next generation members of equally high IQ as parents P who were produced by other parents R who did not obey the breeder’s equation.

    It is reasonable to question the wisdom of talking about the regression to the mean if the regression to the mean process must be counterbalanced by some other process acting in opposite direction.

    I got the impression that the regression to the mean is often talked on racialist, HBD and eugenics sites to make a particular self serving arguments. Now I doubt the validity of those arguments as you revealed that the breeder’s equation is not applicable across the whole population. People closer to the mean will produce smarter children to counter balance the effect of smart people producing less smart children.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    I think I got it after some exchange with candid_observer. Here is my comment I wrote to him:

    Thank you for your explanations.

    As far as the issue with whether variance remains the same, the answer is, of course, yes (under usual assumptions).

    I begin to see that the breeder’s equation does not need to contradict the observation that the variance of population is constant. For IQ_parent the breeder’s equation predicts the expected value of children IQ_child

    E(IQ_child) = Mean+ (IQ_parent -Mean)*h^2

    where h^2≤1 is heritability which probably is not constant across the population but depends on IQ_parent. IQ_child is a random variable with mean E(IQ_child) and some variance V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) that probably must be dependent on IQ_parent. Say, this variable IQ_child has a normal distribution. The question is what constraints must be imposed on the variance V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) to assure than variance of population V(IQ) remains unchanged. Knowing the variance V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) we will be able to answer the question what is a the probability of having offspring of equal or higher IQ than your IQ if your IQ is (IQ -Mean) points off of the Mean?

    So when we talk about the breeder’s equation and the implied regression to the mean we do not need to sound alarmist. The “smart fraction” will not be lost. Equally smart children will be born. So if your children are not as smart as you do not despair. Somebody will produce children that are as smart as you. Population’s statistics will remain unchanged.
    ___________

    (i) I have an impression that the regression to the mean is way too often invoked in an alarmist way.

    (ii) It would be interesting to find out who has a higher probability of having children smarter than them: parents with IQ=120 or parents with IQ=140? To answer this, as I said above I think we need to know V(IQ_child|IQ_parent). There should be some empirical data that V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) could be estimated.

    (iii) The breeder’s equation does not tell us what happens to the Mean when the actual mean of population is changing as the result e.g. that smarter people have less children than others. The Mean in the equation is not the actual mean but it will not remain unchanged.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @bomag

    I’d say the immigrant boosters of today overestimate the ability of their non-Asian and non-European poster children to keep the lights on.

    Further affirming your support for Magic Dirt.
     
    How so? Countries very much reflect their human capital; thus lands with sparse resources (such as Japan) can still prosper through cleverness and effort; while resource rich regions languish. If you import the latter peoples, you get the latter people's accomplishments.

    Your response is otherwise your usual autistic obtuseness. Most people graciously accept newcomers and immigrants with the understanding that they should be in modest amounts; and not so outlier that they are ghetto man or overlord. Demanding racial purity is a death spiral, but actively importing anyone is another death spiral. Most people intuit this, but not you.

    “How so? Countries very much reflect their human capital; thus lands with sparse resources (such as Japan) can still prosper through cleverness and effort; while resource rich regions languish.”

    America prospered with this “cleverness and effort”, and do you ever forget it. They were wealthy in resources, and took in millions and millions of immigrants to run their factories in urban areas. There was no “languishing” in the late 1800′s when it came to American industrial output.

    “If you import the latter peoples, you get the latter people’s accomplishments.”

    Using your logic, Eastern and Southern Europeans who emigrated to America by the early 1900′s lacked any significant contributions according to Anglos, sans their dilution of traditional culture through their alien social and religious customs. Since you conveniently label the Anglo perspective as “underestimating” their abilities, you are affirming Magic Dirt. Indeed, one imports Eastern and Southern Europeans, one gets less than stellar achievements.

    “Most people graciously accept newcomers and immigrants with the understanding that they should be in modest amounts”

    Were millions of Japanese and Chinese “modest” amounts? Did tens of millions of Eastern and Southern Europeans meet your numerical standard?

    “Demanding racial purity is a death spiral…”

    Nativists demanded ethnic purity. They put a premium on Northern and Western Europeans; they were “higher up” on the ethnic totem pole.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bomag

    Nativists demanded ethnic purity
     
    Some probably did, but people in general are willing to compromise and accommodate. You have a penchant for the absolutist position that the nativists in 1880 were wrong, so therefore all nativist sentiments are wrong, and we must not in any way discourage the intermingling of people.

    They put a premium on Northern and Western Europeans
     
    Were they wrong to do so? Current migration patterns indicate that such peoples created the cultures and built the places to which the rest of the world aspires. I would suggest the migrants not overwhelm and destroy the goose laying the golden eggs.

    Were millions of Japanese and Chinese “modest” amounts?
     
    One first lays down a principle, then argues an amount.

    Since you conveniently label the Anglo perspective as “underestimating” their abilities, you are affirming Magic Dirt.
     
    You are fixated on this "magic dirt" concept. Most here subscribe to a 50-50 nature-nurture split. Importing group A can increase their accomplishments and have a net positive impact; importing group B can increase their accomplishment and have a net negative benefit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @utu
    Why did you paste this from Wiki? This is not about implication of breeder's equation.

    The issue is as follows:

    If

    E(|X_parent - Mean|)> E(|X_child - Mean|)

    then

    Var(X_parent)>Var(X_child)
     

    The first inequality is breeders equation; E( ) is expected value; Var( ) is variance

    Conclusion: Breeder's equation (implies regression to the mean) implies reduction of trait's variance over time as new generation replaces paren't generation. Reduction of variance is not observed in nature. Thus the regression the mean can't universally valid.

    Explain this w/o obfuscation this time, pls.

    I wasn’t trying to confuse. the children of individuals far from the mean tend to have trait values closer to the mean – but the children of individuals close to the mean tend to have trait values farther from the mean ( in both directions). The effects balance: as long as there is no selection, no systematic reproductive edge for different trait values, nothing changes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Thanks. What you saying is this:

    If you plotted the ratio k=|X_child-Mean|/|X_parent-Mean| as a function of x=|X_parent-Mean| k(x) is smaller than 1 far away from zero (x is large) but at some point closer to zero it becomes larger than 1. How would you call the region where k(x) (which technically is heritability) is greater than 1? What's is the explanation for this process?

    In order for population to maintain the same distribution (constant variance) there must exist a process that replaces the parents P of high IQ that produced an offspring with lower IQ (parents P obeyed the breeder's equation) with next generation members of equally high IQ as parents P who were produced by other parents R who did not obey the breeder's equation.

    It is reasonable to question the wisdom of talking about the regression to the mean if the regression to the mean process must be counterbalanced by some other process acting in opposite direction.

    I got the impression that the regression to the mean is often talked on racialist, HBD and eugenics sites to make a particular self serving arguments. Now I doubt the validity of those arguments as you revealed that the breeder's equation is not applicable across the whole population. People closer to the mean will produce smarter children to counter balance the effect of smart people producing less smart children.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Corvinus
    "It is the trend that should concern us. I’m sure that those are nice places, but for how long?"

    Should concern some people. And those places have been nice for a long time. Really no need to worry too much. Life is short.

    "Most legislation is driven by interested minorities; expert; and “expert” opinion."

    Corrected for accuracy --> Legislation is driven by the general citizenry and interest groups, which include minority groups and experts in their related fields.

    "There is a multitude of legislation that has been passed over popular opinion."

    Because one political party controls the House or Senate or presidency. It is up to the people then to remove those individuals from office.

    "Thus making it harder to screen job applicants."

    Not really. It actually gives employers specific criteria to follow.

    "I’d say the skeptics back then underestimated the ability of European immigrants to adapt and carry on the extant culture."

    You are sanitizing the language like an SJW, and it would appear you are a supporter of Magic Dirt. Nativists had NO doubts as to the ability of European newcomers to be able to assimilate. They looked not at the "whiteness" of these groups, but of their ethnic and religious background.

    "I’d say the immigrant boosters of today overestimate the ability of their non-Asian and non-European poster children to keep the lights on."

    Further affirming your support for Magic Dirt.

    I’d say the immigrant boosters of today overestimate the ability of their non-Asian and non-European poster children to keep the lights on.

    Further affirming your support for Magic Dirt.

    How so? Countries very much reflect their human capital; thus lands with sparse resources (such as Japan) can still prosper through cleverness and effort; while resource rich regions languish. If you import the latter peoples, you get the latter people’s accomplishments.

    Your response is otherwise your usual autistic obtuseness. Most people graciously accept newcomers and immigrants with the understanding that they should be in modest amounts; and not so outlier that they are ghetto man or overlord. Demanding racial purity is a death spiral, but actively importing anyone is another death spiral. Most people intuit this, but not you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "How so? Countries very much reflect their human capital; thus lands with sparse resources (such as Japan) can still prosper through cleverness and effort; while resource rich regions languish."

    America prospered with this "cleverness and effort", and do you ever forget it. They were wealthy in resources, and took in millions and millions of immigrants to run their factories in urban areas. There was no "languishing" in the late 1800's when it came to American industrial output.

    "If you import the latter peoples, you get the latter people’s accomplishments."

    Using your logic, Eastern and Southern Europeans who emigrated to America by the early 1900's lacked any significant contributions according to Anglos, sans their dilution of traditional culture through their alien social and religious customs. Since you conveniently label the Anglo perspective as "underestimating" their abilities, you are affirming Magic Dirt. Indeed, one imports Eastern and Southern Europeans, one gets less than stellar achievements.

    "Most people graciously accept newcomers and immigrants with the understanding that they should be in modest amounts"

    Were millions of Japanese and Chinese "modest" amounts? Did tens of millions of Eastern and Southern Europeans meet your numerical standard?

    "Demanding racial purity is a death spiral..."

    Nativists demanded ethnic purity. They put a premium on Northern and Western Europeans; they were "higher up" on the ethnic totem pole.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Autochthon
    This woman is (racially) European and (ethnically) Hispanic.

    This woman is (racially) mestiza and (ethnically) Hispanic.

    The trouble with the invading helots you mention is not that they are Hispanic; it is that they are mestizos, just as the trouble with the descendants of the helots our (racially European) ancestors imported is not that they are Americans, it is that they are (racially) African.

    If your beef is that "Hispanic" and "Latin" as ethnonyms have got completlely out of hand, I agree; as I've suggested elsewhere in this platform, they really ought to be replaced by a term like "Españaphone" at this point – after all, no one confuses Francophones Pierre Trudeau and Macky Sall as belonging to the same race....

    Otherwise, those of us who know the difference between a race and an ethnicity will be happy to explain more any time you like.

    “is (racially) mestiza and (ethnically) Hispanic.”

    That’s an Amerindian woman. She could be the sister of the murderer They Pablo’s sister. Eva Longoria is an example of a Mestiza.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Sure. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I don't have calibrated eyeballs, but I reckon you take my point.

    (I suppose I should have used a photo of Longoria or America Ferrera.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Corvinus
    "It is the trend that should concern us. I’m sure that those are nice places, but for how long?"

    Should concern some people. And those places have been nice for a long time. Really no need to worry too much. Life is short.

    "Most legislation is driven by interested minorities; expert; and “expert” opinion."

    Corrected for accuracy --> Legislation is driven by the general citizenry and interest groups, which include minority groups and experts in their related fields.

    "There is a multitude of legislation that has been passed over popular opinion."

    Because one political party controls the House or Senate or presidency. It is up to the people then to remove those individuals from office.

    "Thus making it harder to screen job applicants."

    Not really. It actually gives employers specific criteria to follow.

    "I’d say the skeptics back then underestimated the ability of European immigrants to adapt and carry on the extant culture."

    You are sanitizing the language like an SJW, and it would appear you are a supporter of Magic Dirt. Nativists had NO doubts as to the ability of European newcomers to be able to assimilate. They looked not at the "whiteness" of these groups, but of their ethnic and religious background.

    "I’d say the immigrant boosters of today overestimate the ability of their non-Asian and non-European poster children to keep the lights on."

    Further affirming your support for Magic Dirt.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.