RSSNo doubt the truth lives somewhere in between the “canonical” and the wishful. In other words, sub-Saharan Africans — on average — are not as stupid as you say they are claimed to be, and they are not a smart as Chisala wishes us to believe.
@Chanda Chisala do where do you fall in the above spectrum? How smart do you wish us to believe Africans are? You have argued the average African IQ can’t possibly be as low as 70- most HBDers would probably agree. Now can you please plainly state whether you believe there are any differences in IQ at all? Does the Scrabble data suggest no IQ gap, small negligible gap in favor of Whites, small gap in favor of Blacks, large gap in favor of Blacks?
Why do Hispanics out live whites by so much?
Those Hispanics are 1st generation immigrant and thus likely to have had jobs that kept them on their feet and they are healthier for it. Also, there’s really no set retirement age when you are doing the types of jobs immigrants are doing. You’re still going to take any odd jobs that pop up – staying active.
This book was huge and considered a must read for Rationality circles. Years later, the Replication Crisis kicked off found some or most of the studies cited had no predictive power. The ultimate irony of course is that the book is about over confidence and bias.
Well, I dug up the big NYT article from last week and wasn't very impressed. Apparently, lots of Tech people are quite impressed with Alexander's blathering, but this relates to a point I made a year or two ago:
This comment and the other one about never having read a single article of Scott Alexander is the most surprising thing I’ve read all week.
For a guy that runs a weird corner of the internet that is unz.com you would think that other places of the “intellectual dark web” would be known to you.
https://www.unz.com/runz/an-open-letter-to-the-alt-right-and-others/
My strong impression is that most of the leading Silicon Valley people are generally pretty nice and reasonable, but are very politically unsophisticated. They’re totally focused on technology and business issues, and with a few exceptions here and there, don’t really pay any deep attention to politics or ideological matters, sub-contracting out those things to the same “mainstream” opinion-forming elites who provide that role for almost everyone else in our society. Just think of the leading Silicon Valley people as your pleasant, college-educated next door neighbors, who sporadically catch the regular news on TV, glance at the newspaper headlines, and regard that as the reality of the world.
Fair enough.
Also, you’ve got it completely wrong on Peterson. His message isn’t interesting or important to you, because his message isn’t for you or any other high status Ivy Leaguer-millionaire-businessman.
Presumably you publish your opinions on the Minimum Wage, not because you are pining to land a job, but rather you care about society in general and would benefit indirectly from a well functioning one.
Peterson’s message is for lost, disaffected, depressed, young men in a world increasing hostile to merit. In an age where prestige media is telling young black men that they have no agency over their actions, Peterson is teaching young men to be truthful and to take responsibility for oneself, instead of being angry and looking to blame others.
The affluent class has a really hard time of figuring out what’s actually good for the working class. So when they see advice like, clean your room and stand up straight, they just don’t see what the fuss is about, oblivious to the fact the working class don’t have Fathers in the household.
Instead of dismissing Peterson we should be thanking him. It’s hard to fault you for not seeing Peterson’s value, as you are simply too far removed from the target audience of non high status young men.
Sure, he sounds like a perfectly reasonable self-help guru, though the fact that he supposedly used his inflow of sudden cash to become a drug-addict might somewhat detract from his message.
Peterson’s message is for lost, disaffected, depressed, young men in a world increasing hostile to merit. In an age where prestige media is telling young black men that they have no agency over their actions, Peterson is teaching young men to be truthful and to take responsibility for oneself, instead of being angry and looking to blame others...So when they see advice like, clean your room and stand up straight, they just don’t see what the fuss is about, oblivious to the fact the working class don’t have Fathers in the household.
Not really. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever heard of any of them.
Do you read anyone associated with the rationalist movement, like Hanson or Yudkowsky or the Less Wrong blog? I would think your natural proclivities and association with Karlin and, previously, Khan would indicate yes.
That's the thing. I'm just not into "gateway drugs" providing vague and tangential allusions to "controversial" political issues. I'd rather just discuss the political issues directly. That's why I often much prefer books from many decades ago, when such topics were sometimes discussed in very straightforward terms.
I thought his short story about the last unenlightened man on earth was brilliant and hilarious. I shared it with some vaguely “spiritual” friends, as I thought they would enjoy it and find its ending “deep”. I was hoping it would be a gateway drug to more SSC, which would be a gateway drug to actually being able to talk about political issues.
> Not really. In fact, I’m not sure I’ve ever heard of any of them.
This comment and the other one about never having read a single article of Scott Alexander is the most surprising thing I’ve read all week.
For a guy that runs a weird corner of the internet that is unz.com you would think that other places of the “intellectual dark web” would be known to you.
Well, I dug up the big NYT article from last week and wasn't very impressed. Apparently, lots of Tech people are quite impressed with Alexander's blathering, but this relates to a point I made a year or two ago:
This comment and the other one about never having read a single article of Scott Alexander is the most surprising thing I’ve read all week.
For a guy that runs a weird corner of the internet that is unz.com you would think that other places of the “intellectual dark web” would be known to you.
https://www.unz.com/runz/an-open-letter-to-the-alt-right-and-others/
My strong impression is that most of the leading Silicon Valley people are generally pretty nice and reasonable, but are very politically unsophisticated. They’re totally focused on technology and business issues, and with a few exceptions here and there, don’t really pay any deep attention to politics or ideological matters, sub-contracting out those things to the same “mainstream” opinion-forming elites who provide that role for almost everyone else in our society. Just think of the leading Silicon Valley people as your pleasant, college-educated next door neighbors, who sporadically catch the regular news on TV, glance at the newspaper headlines, and regard that as the reality of the world.
Nothing confirming the most salacious rumor yet. It’s probably going to be a big nothing burger . The pictures are quite embarrassing none the less.
I have wondered this too. I’ve read that new Indian immigrants are very impressive which may explain why they top income but lag behind education according to wiki. It could also be that the low castes that made up the founding stock had a genetic potential not as low as we think.
But yes interesting question as it seems like an anomaly.