RSS
The now popular notion that “race does not exist” or that “race is a social construct” have grown greatly in use in books in recent decades, according to Google’s Ngram of American books published in English from 1800 to 2019. (I don’t know what context “race does not exist” was used in the 1840s to 1860s in America.)
The recent upsurges appear to have started in the later 1980s, the dawning of academic political correctness. I suspect the big surge in use of “race does not exist” in the late 1990s to 2002 was related to the Human Genome Project. Genomics entrepreneur Craig Venter’s speech in the White House Rose Garden ceremony about how there are no genetic differences between races has proven wildly influential. For a lot of people online, that appears to be the last time they ever thought about the relationship between genetics and race.
The problem is that nowadays, big institutions like the American Heart Association, take this salesman’s dubious sales pitch as gospel, one that we must do all we can to prevent doubts about.
For example, the AHA just updated its heart attack risk calculator to use some new scientific findings about kidney function and the like, which hopefully will make the new algorithm more accurate overall than the 2013 model. But, the AHA decided to stop asking about the patient’s race, not for scientific reasons, but because they decided “a priori” that they didn’t want to “reify” the biological existence of race.
The AHA has not published how much worse this decision makes the accuracy of its calculator vs. what it could have been if race had continued to be used as a factor. But it seems plausible that this decision to not use race as a factor on theological grounds will lead to more blacks dying due to their greater risk of cardiovascular death. But who cares about black lives matter when the sacredness of the belief that race does not exist can be bolstered?
I’ve been writing about the dangers of the Race Does Not Exist creed for decades. I’m sure it sounded to many awfully esoteric. The problem, I noted, is that many people aren’t smart enough to be cunning hypocrites. People want to believe. They don’t like being machiavels. If a truth, such as that race does exist biologically, is declared unspeakable, we can bump along for awhile being hypocritical. But eventually the truth becomes inconceivable.
And then people die.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Since the covert primary sociopolitical policy of all these western nation-states is to supplant the white population with myriads of Africans/Asians/Arabs/Latin Americans then naturally you’re going to tell the white dum dums that ‘race doesn’t exist’ to expedite their elimination via mongrelism.
The same people who push affirmative action, minority university admissions, reparations, protected classes, hate speech laws, illegal immigration, the idea of White privilege, and 23 genders… now say there’s no such thing as race. Haha that’s great for a Friday afternoon belly laugh!
Or it does, but that’s bad.
https://www.boston.com/news/health/2022/05/18/scientists-create-ai-race-from-x-rays-dont-know-how-it-works-harvard-mit/
It’s hard not to laugh.
Sorta related: The convictions of over 100 negroe soldiers overturned by modern women US Army.
https://www.kiro7.com/news/trending/us-army-overturns-convictions-110-black-soldiers-charged-1917-houston-riot/YVERN7LQ2BGNDAEGDJR6D2X5IE/
I await the pardon of Osama Bin Laden. But not Eddie Slovak; He white.
The use of the one-drop-rule makes asking someone there race when giving medical advice sort of moot. Does one give the same advice if one has a white mother and black father versus two black parents. Does the one drop rule mean the black DNA overwhelms all other genetics and increases the risk of everyone who has any black ancestry the same amount?
That there is a continuum to these things is something to be understood and managed. You don't abandon efforts entirely just because it hurts some people's feelings.
I never heard something be called “a construct” before maybe 20 years ago either. “Construct” is not a noun, dammit, so this already bugs me no matter what is “a construct”.
As for your warning America over 20 years that this talk about the dangers of acting like race doesn’t exist, there’ve been plenty of people killed from healthcare, traffic, who knows what else, due to AA over the last 50 years. Everyone not afraid to talk about it could tell you. Of course, it’s getting blatantly in-your-face stupid now.
Try explaining the big picture of why more incompetent nurses in the hospital, brought in via AA, are going to get people killed. Nobody would take any action, and you’ll be fired.
This deal you see here, well, at least the cardiologists will understand your point. Will they do anything? (For themselves, at least they can use the old methods.)
If “race does not exist” wins the argument, then I hope people stop talking about race. And stop trying to create equity for races that do not exist.
If race is imaginary let’s fire all of the DIE bureaucrats and repeal all the “anti racism” legislation.
Remove all those boxes on applications and forms.
Why wait?
Whites don't exist when we want to take credit for our vast accomplishments. But we do exist when it's time to demonize or attack us.Replies: @Francis Miville, @bomag, @Reg Cæsar
It’s important to know that Steve’s interest in the reality of race is motivated, as always, by concern for the health and safety of black people. He’s going to get that NAACP lifetime achievement award any day now.
I'm not Steve, but I assume his primary drivers in opposing "race does not exist" are:
A) It's nonsense.
And I'm guessing that Steve--like me and a lot of folks here--does not have a "true believer" personality. I.e. does not like assenting to obvious, empirically false, nonsense.
B) It's the key lie undergirding minoritarianism.
The key lie in "bad whitey is oppressing poor innocent minorities (blacks)" propaganda that minoritarians use to attack whites--harass them, encumber them, strip them of rights, displace them.Replies: @Hypnotoad666, @Loyalty is The First Law of Morality
Let’s arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. I’m sure all our magic dirt will smooth everyone into a fine red complexion like in A Princess of Mars.
O/T. Congratulations to the two unanimous MVP winners, Shohei Ohtani and Ronald Acuna. Acuna’s remarkable power + speed season (40 hrs, 70 steals) reminded me of what was said about the great Cool Papa Bell: He is so fast that he can turn off the light at the wall switch, and be in bed before the room gets dark. I think few people know that this was not just a truth-based (Bell was very fast) and clever line, but it actually happened. Bell was rooming with Satchel Paige in a hotel room. The wiring was deficient in that after you turned off the wall switch, there was a delay before the light went out. Bell made a gentlemen’s bet with Paige that he was so fast, he could get into bed before the light went out…and indeed he did.
Steve sez:
Whereas, the truth is that there have always been people in the heart of America — or probably in the hearts of many places, actually — “smart” enough to realize the truth.
They just normally haven’t been heard. (LOL, Maybe they don’t measure up to Steve Sailer’s own standard of “class!” ROTFLMAO)
No, this falsehood is entirely upon the “elite” that Sailer himself wants so badly to be part of.
Oh, hey, am I “low class” for writing this?
Only a social climber — a man just as middle class as me, but somehow insecure — would give a shit.
He likes to play expensive golf courses and have discussions with smart (elite) people but otherwise works out of a closet. I don’t recall him talking about $70 shots of whiskey as one particular Wall Street bore did with or to me one night.
Remove all those boxes on applications and forms.
Why wait?Replies: @Flip, @Loyalty is The First Law of Morality, @kihowi, @Currahee
Agree. If race doesn’t exist, we don’t need quotas or affirmative action.
Says my comment is ‘awaiting moderation’. How long does it take to read a short paragraph? Can’t handle the truth eh?
The question that needs to be posed to any issuing of this statement since this statement and even belief in it is obviously not driven by rational observation:
What are the implications you are trying to avoid (Since that is the only reason anyone says “Race doesn’t exist”) if it wasn’t true?
Because that is the real political and social debate. Do you think to accept the existence of human races means to make some superior to others? Do you think it would mean if one group tended to obtain dominance initially through “meritocratic” means they couldn’t subsequently make decisions that make life harder for others?
I will go further and say that once a belief is implanted, it’s very difficult to change it. A high-quality medical study found that after the arrival of new medical knowledge, it takes on average 17 years for practicing physicians to integrate it into their algorithm for case management.
Past ages placed no value at all on intelligence but a great deal on loyalty and courage; see The Song of Roland. Were they right? Are we?
To cut to the chase, I see Jews as having -- albeit perhaps unconsciously -- made their particular strengths into the essential criteria. So -- for example --Jews are better at pilpul than anyone else in a system in which success has become largely a matter of mastering pilpul.
So? We should agree?Replies: @scrivener3
Stephen Colbert is rumored to be a closet Steve Sailer fan. He had a long-running satirical “I don’t see race” bit.
Trevor Noah used to be funny too… when he was a South African.
I am of Scandinavian descent and have Pernicious Anemia. Pernicious Anemia is caused in several ways, but in its congenital form, it is more common in people of Scandinavian descent than any other group. The AMA, The Mayo Clinic, and other organizations have this on their websites. Will this be removed as well as, since race does not exist, racial subgroups must not exist.
Tucker has an opinion on that:
The scare quotes are a clue.
https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=64127
It’s getting hard not to like the guy.
Except when it does.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2023/11/16/hispanics-labeled-white-traffic-stops-racial-profiling/71602418007/
And you, whitey cop, better simultaneous know that Hispanic is not white and yet there is no race!
I think it’s more that he is trying to show how much BLM and wokeness is a sham. Pretty much all of his readers know this.
For the outside, it’s “Look at how hypocritical you all are being. You’re getting many more black people killed than you supposedly saved by working to defund the police.” Tell you what – they don’t care either… gotta break some eggs, as the man said …
https://64.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8ne7tttDM1rzisk8o1_500.gifReplies: @R.G. Camara, @Twinkie
That’s ridiculous Stephen Colbert is a card-carrying regime propagandist and heretic. Truly an evil man who sold his soul for fame, fortune, and influence. He wouldn’t read Steve unless his masters demanded it so he could mock Steve.
If race does not exist, why was Nkechi Amare Diallo (born Rachel Anne Dolezal to so-called “white” parents) ostracized for transitioning from the “white” to the “black” race?
If you read, e.g., Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, you recognize that the Sailer definition of race as an extended family, writ large, qualifies as how the government uses race.
When the government stops using race as a cudgel to hammer the descendants of European settlers into sheep, we will see the definition of race be used to help people instead of harming them.
Of course, that will not happen under the current regime. But change is one of the few certainties we can depend on. Reality will not succumb to political correctness.
Various races are, on average, better and worse than other races in various ways. This is something virtually everyone knows, though few now dare to say it.
Since I don’t see Jack D here at the moment, I’ll go ahead and help out by labeling this question as obvious anti-semitism and sentence you to eternal damnation for uttering it.
I like your use of machiavel, Kit Marlowe would be proud 🙂
Can anyone recommend a good news aggregation site as an alternative to the Drudge Report? I’ve read Drudge regularly since October 1999, but as many people know around 2019 he was apparently bought off and the site has changed greatly in its political leanings so that it’s now like any other liberal mainstream outlet.
I got an enormous amount of value out of it for 20 years, so it was a good run, but I’ve lately grown to actively despise it for its relentless, fanatical, brain-dead hate for Trump, Musk, Tucker, Rogan, etc. All the people he once would have championed as emblems of independent thought.
And now of course the Jewish emotionalism and hysteria and campaign of lies and propaganda is in full overdrive. Drudge is Jewish so the site always leaned toward one-sided and dishonest coverage that served Israeli/Jewish interests, but I could put up with that as long as the rest of the page skewed sane and countered liberal conventional wisdom.
But now? I’d love to have a site to go to that’s like the Drudge Report of 5 years ago.
Maybe the implication of the upswingingness of the graph goes beyond acceptance of the narrative about race and IQ. Maybe the implication is that, because of the advent of academic political correctness, and social media, ANY ridiculous narrative about human behavior can be brainwashed into peoples’ heads. Or, going further, any narrative about anything.
I will go further and say that once a belief is implanted, it’s very difficult to change it. A high-quality medical study found that after the arrival of new medical knowledge, it takes on average 17 years for practicing physicians to integrate it into their algorithm for case management.
I support cognitive speciation. Intellectually primitive homo sapiens sapiens – emotional thinkers, and intellectually modern homo sapiens sapiens – abstract logical thinkers.
Separate them.
Those in my world who do “big data” pride themselves on making good predictions without using race. However, if asked, they admit that considering race would improve predictions.
However...
It’s not a good look to pretend to be obtuse about things which aren’t that difficult to understand. I don’t have any trouble understanding what the AHA means when they say they do not want to reify the concept of biological race. That’s fine; there are plenty of other indicators they could use without making reference to a sensitive, overly politicized topic.
Moreover, they are basically correct in what they are saying. Race is not a biological category. Race does not pertain to any particular organ or tissue or disease etiology. It is, in effect, medically meaningless. Race is more of a stylistic quality or a mode that applies to the organism as a whole. Even given the (correct) observation that some diseases tend to run more heavily in certain races, this does not of course mean that the cause of that disease is “race.” Race is neither a disease nor a cause of disease; it is simply an indicator of what sort of risks an individual might be exposed to. The disease itself—which is the fundamental topic of medical inquiry—has a much more prosaic etiology.
When Steve brings up things like this, it is not so much a symptom of a strange obsession within mainstream culture to insist that race is not a factor in anything, as it is a symptom of a strange obsession within HBD culture to insist that race is a factor in everything. It isn’t. Race, like personality and temperament, is a condition that might dispose people in certain directions, but it doesn’t simply dissolve every other cause into itself; and, like temperament, it is not conclusive. If you were trying to evaluate the linkage between temperament and heart disease, it may be interesting to ask people who had had heart attacks whether they get angry a lot, and you will probably even find some fascinating correlations. Nonetheless, anger is not medical diagnosis, and neither is race.
I imagine that sophisticated AI paired with increasing knowledge of genetics will make a broad category such as race outdated in medicine.Replies: @Colin Wright
OT:
I recently got my first job in a “proper” corporate environment after working for years in a small “mum and pop” business. So I got my first taste of “HR” and “Office manager” types. I noticed something that I don’t think anyone else has talked about:
Feminism has turned housewives into officewives. As one of the few people who work in the office at my company (most work remotely), I was able to quickly hone in on the fact that “office manager” and “HR” types are mostly women milling about the office making sure the kitchen is kept nice and tidy and nagging and complaining when someone leaves their plates or cups in the sink; setting up the “Christmas” and “Halloween” decorations; and arranging interviews for job seekers much like a mum would arrange play dates for her kids. So basically women are doing housework in offices instead of their own homes.
I think that feminism has been one of the worst things to happen to our civilization because it is the cause of our low fertility. I wish these officewives were back at home being housewives. Perhaps the decline of offices due to the rise of remote work will kill the officewife industry and force these women back to the home and back to breeding?
Thank you.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
There’s currently a per country “cap” on employment-based visas. If this bill passes, close to 120,000 employment-based green cards would go to India tech workers per year. That doesn’t include their American-born children, who get automatic citizenship. This also doesn’t include “guest worker” programs (H1b, L1, B1, OPT, etc.).
More here.
https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2022/12/05/democrats-eagle-act-expands-indentured-service-workforce/
Senator Kevin Cramer will be a conference conferee for this year’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) . He’ll likely attempt to attach the “Eagle Act” to annual defense appropriations bill.
Last year, Cramer and Senator Mike Lee attempted to push the green card giveaway bill through the Senate through unanimous consent. They would’ve succeeded, if not for the failure of the House to agree on some details of the bill.
https://twitter.com/SenKevinCramer/status/1725523340222234943
Summary:
-Senator Kevin Cramer is trying to pass a bill called the “Eagle Act.” The bill would provide almost 120,000 employment-based green cards to India annually.
-Americans will be permanently locked out from a large fraction of high-paying tech jobs.
-The bill almost passed back in 2022 and now is being brought back again.
-Outside his office in Washington, Senator Cramer “proudly” flies an Israeli flag.
OT: The J6 security footage has been placed on line by the new GOP speaker. Supposedly, all of it. With no gate keeper. If America wants to see what a violent insurrection looks like, they finally will get the chance.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b3_O91gyj9oReplies: @res, @Hypnotoad666
Denying the existence of a group is one of the things that’s typically done before committing a genocide against that group.
Media denies the existence of Palestinians and it denies the existence of white people by, for example, popularizing the idea that “race doesn’t exist” within white countries and only white countries.
We are ruled by psychopaths and genocidal maniacs who intend to do – and are laying the groundwork for doing, everything to the white Christian West that you see them doing to the Palestinians. Hopefully you’re not just waking up to this fact.
At present the methods that they’re employing are softer – e.g., media and advertising encouraging miscegenation between whites and non-whites and popularizing pseudo-scientific pablum about the “non-existence” of things that we can all see with our own eyes – but they will turn to harsher methods if necessary. Their goal is the destruction of whites by one means or another.
To steel man that jerk Harvard geneticist’s argument on Twitter:
— The old risk algorithm included race in its factors
— Subsequent to that it became the thing to excluded race from heart studies for fear of being cancelled or for ideological reasons
— Newer risk studies that include new or newly detailed and better supported risk factors exclude race, so whether and how race might affect these new factors is thus unknowable
— Thus one is left with the unfortunate choice of using the new, deliberately sabotaged yet clearly otherwise improved risk factor research, or ignoring it
— The best of these two bad options is in this guy’s opinion is using the new research
Why not use the new research and bolt on the race factor also?
— He thinks the new model based on the new research would react in unpredictable ways if race were just added on because the addition of race might in some cases negate or reverse the newly discovered risks
For example, let’s say that new research has discovered that eating an odd number of Oreos per week reduces risk, but an even number increases risk. You add that to the model. But let’s say that had race been also included in the study the Oreo number risk would have been reversed: Even numbers of Oreos are bad for blacks. Thus the new model is a black box, like an AI, and cannot be easily tampered with.
The problem I see with his argument is:
— Occam’s Razor would say that the odds are that such weird race influences would be rare and weak and would balance out among themselves, and …
— HIS ARGUMENT WOULD RELY ON RACE ANYWAY, just in another place, since he implies that race might change the results of these new, race-ignoring studies.
* Gusev's tone is dismissive and insulting.
* One of the rare times when Sailer becomes less-than-genial.
* Third-party tweets generally make it hard to follow the exchange. A few are able summaries of the central dispute. I will try to edit one in..
Edit: This sidebar discussion between Will-I-Am and Gusev on "ablation study" design is informative.
https://twitter.com/SouthernWintrs/status/1725405344157839819Replies: @ic1000, @Reg Cæsar
#7
“I will go further and say that once a belief is implanted, it’s very difficult to change it.”
Dostoyevsky said that nothing can dislodge an emotionally held belief other than another, more strongly emotionally held belief.
I think it’s relevant to note that ‘meritocratic’ is potentially a self-serving criterion. If, say, I can run a fast fifty yard dash, sketch a man’s face from memory, and start a fire with damp wood, what if I choose to see these as the primary measures of human worth?
Past ages placed no value at all on intelligence but a great deal on loyalty and courage; see The Song of Roland. Were they right? Are we?
To cut to the chase, I see Jews as having — albeit perhaps unconsciously — made their particular strengths into the essential criteria. So — for example –Jews are better at pilpul than anyone else in a system in which success has become largely a matter of mastering pilpul.
So? We should agree?
In a free capitalist society, corporations want to get people to trade their money for what the corporation produces. you try to hire good personable salespeople who can discover people's wants and explain how the product satisfies them. you try to hire finance people who can form an efficient capital structure. You dont want to charge more than the competition because your finance guy screwed up and you have a more expensive capital structure. You want product designers who design well. if your idea of merit is good drawing of people faces by memory, probably your products will not be great, your salespeople will not sell as much, your bankrupcy is impending. the marketplace will take care of your misguided competency hierarchy.
Of course under a king, or a despot, loyalty is much more valued than most other abilities, and courage is required because the leaders and hanger-on's live by force extracting taxes and obedience. The local car dealer could try to sell cars by forcing the customers to obey, but good luck with that.Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Anonymous, @Colin Wright
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-black-lives-matter-equal-opportunity-corporate-diversity/
One thing I find odd is the new source mostly has data from 2016-2020 (did they just not update?) while during the earlier conversation I found the following claim.
https://comptroller.nyc.gov/newsroom/nyc-comptroller-and-pension-fund-trustees-announce-agreements-with-11-companies-to-disclose-annual-workforce-diversity-data/Was it only the S&P 100 which failed to release data before 2020?
This site looks useful.
https://diversiq.com/eeo-1-data/Graphic there showing percentage of companies in S&P 100, S&P 500, and Russell 1000 fully disclosing EEOC-1 data from 2020 to 2023. I suspect "fully" is an important qualifier. I wonder what was going on there.
Here is their list of EEOC-1 disclosures.
https://diversiq.com/free-tools/eeo1-disclosures/
https://i.etsystatic.com/18200874/r/il/1b30bf/3805340577/il_794xN.3805340577_q329.jpg
I'm guessing there may be some manipulation of 1099-form data in one direction or the other, just to make things look
betterwoker. Genetically, DoorDash is the most diverse, in the literal sense, with Tesla close behind. How diverse are the individuals being sued by their blacks for harassment or whatever?Amazon's people aren't in IT, they're in the warehouse. Younger. It's not all automated-- yet.
An age graph would be useful for comparison.
My experience is most blacks firmly and wholly believe in race differences. Go to a majority black event and listen for a while. Many may completely accept systemic racism as real, but that doesn’t mean they don’t also recognize genetic race differences, from the significant to the trivial.
So what group benefits from suggesting there aren’t any differences? Hmm…. Maybe a group that is also different, but in a way that gives them an advantage rather than a disadvantage? Or one that, as a comparatively small group, would benefit from bringing in millions of others to make sure the majority group cannot vote as a bloc? I wonder who that would be?
https://www.kidney.org/atoz/content/minorities-KD
RACE, ETHNICITY AND KIDNEY DISEASE
(...)
"Black or African Americans are more than 3 times as likely and Hispanics or Latinos are 1.3 times more likely to have kidney failure compared to White Americans..."
So, which group benefits from suggesting it’s all the Jooos’ fault?!Replies: @Pat Hannagan
Here’s the thing: all these decisions to verboten race just keep getting more blacks killed, whether from heart attacks or defunding the police. If you believe these people are so wrong but the consequence is mostly them shooting themselves in their feet, why get in their way? Now, I know they will one day come up with some triple bank-shot theory of how it was Trump/Sailer’s fault that these “race does not exist” theories were pushed in the first place, ie whitey killed poor, innocent blackie here too, but they were going to do that no matter what.
The much bigger issue is that so many whites have gotten so dumb and whipped that they accept this blatant nonsense. I don’t know how you counter that: the collapse of the US seems inevitable.
Really only lefty whites sincerely believe this – blacks do not, and most seem to think they are actually members of the superior race. Now it is true that this being the default position of polite white society means a lot of blacks meet an earlier end than is necessary, but blacks are not willing to really push back on it because going along means they remain the focus of attention of a lot of whites and they prize that above almost anything.
“The ass that does not bray does not get fed.” Ancient truths once uttered always apply.
The single most hated idea in modern society is the idea that black people might not be as smart as white people. I believe the popularity of the “race does not exist” meme is almost entirely due to the belief that it rules out this dreaded possibility a priori.
Of course it doesn’t, any more than it rules out the possibility that black people might have darker skin than white people, or curlier hair. Whatever language you want to use to describe it, it is undeniable that people from different parts of the world differ in many physical traits, and there is no reason that intelligence couldn’t be one of those traits. If people could be made to understand this I think most would lose interest in denying the existence of race; the problem is that understanding this argument takes just enough effort that if someone doesn’t want to go there you can’t make them go there. And the people pushing the meme really, really do not want to go there!
I suspect even some people who tell us race does not exist might also believe things that flatly contradict it, and be afraid to say so out loud. It could even be a coping mechanism ... the ones who tell us the most loudly that there is no such thing as race are the ones who desperately wish it were true because all the evidence they see points to the opposite, less pleasing, conclusion. But I can't read minds.
And yes. I suspect the "race does not exist" slogan has a much stronger effect on children than on adults. The impression I get is that whats being pumped into kids' minds in schools these days is so far removed from reality that the thought of racial intelligence differences won't even occur to them. Yet, the Left is at cross purposes with itself, because if there are no races, how do they blame white people for all of the world's problems? I saw a children's book a few days ago containing the sentence "White people made up an idea called race".
I've a hunch they're getting ready to rule by brute force instead of relying on the increasingly tenuous arguments. "Okay, race does exist! You figured it out! And your race is at the bottom because you're the weakest and softest. Too bad!" That's if the "everyone against white people" coalition can hold .... it probably won't work everywhere, but we see places like Portland OR doing it already which proves they can push white people around even while whites are still a majority.
As an aside, can we all agree that the world would be a better place if the black race really was just as smart as whites? I've run into a few leftists who seem to believe that the whole race/IQ debate is about whites trying to prove that blacks are less intelligent to make ourselves feel better. This seems like a ridiculously easy argument to counter, but the few times it's come up in a debate I'm in I've been awash in other things, and I don't really focus on race/IQ anymore.
Are you coining a new word? What’s wrong with Machiavellian?
It's a Shakespearean usage.
GLOUCESTER: I'll set the murderous Machiavel to school...
-- 3 Henry VIReplies: @HammerJack
I guess it’s like domina vs. dominatrix. :-)Replies: @Steve Sailer
https://64.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8ne7tttDM1rzisk8o1_500.gifReplies: @R.G. Camara, @Twinkie
Had. He was kinda funny at one point.
Trevor Noah used to be funny too… when he was a South African.
Cf: Richard III, ca. 1592
“Are you coining a new word?”
It’s a Shakespearean usage.
GLOUCESTER: I’ll set the murderous Machiavel to school…
— 3 Henry VI
Re machiavel: Merriam-Webster’s Third, the big unabridged one, lists it as a synonym for Machiavellian in the nominal sense.
I guess it’s like domina vs. dominatrix. 🙂
Maybe it was to report on a successful extermination, e.g. “The Tasmanian race does not exist any longer”.
Or, "because of the inclement weather, the result from this year's race does not exist."
Or, "Without Darwin's theory [topical at the time], an explanation for the development of the human race does not exist."
Can one track down original source references?
Remove all those boxes on applications and forms.
Why wait?Replies: @Flip, @Loyalty is The First Law of Morality, @kihowi, @Currahee
Because all such “anti-racism” is a code term for anti-White.
Whites don’t exist when we want to take credit for our vast accomplishments. But we do exist when it’s time to demonize or attack us.
--Shambrose BierceReplies: @Loyalty is The First Law of Morality
I guess it’s like domina vs. dominatrix. :-)Replies: @Steve Sailer
Shakespeare uses the term “Machiavel.”
https://openliterature.net/2012/06/01/word-of-the-day-machiavel/
COMMENTS IN MODS.
Meanwhile, soon after Xi’s departure, communist flags no longer stood a chinaman’s chance of waving in San Francisco.
I’m in awe of how San Francisco has been transformed from an emerald city on a hill into a third worldy political bus depot:
So what group benefits from suggesting there aren’t any differences? Hmm…. Maybe a group that is also different, but in a way that gives them an advantage rather than a disadvantage? Or one that, as a comparatively small group, would benefit from bringing in millions of others to make sure the majority group cannot vote as a bloc? I wonder who that would be?Replies: @Franz, @Nicholas Stix
Especially the ones on kidney donor lists or in dialysis. Kidney disease is a very black issue, but now that the AMA (etc) is forbidden to say it I expect some serious pushback.
https://www.kidney.org/atoz/content/minorities-KD
RACE, ETHNICITY AND KIDNEY DISEASE
(…)
“Black or African Americans are more than 3 times as likely and Hispanics or Latinos are 1.3 times more likely to have kidney failure compared to White Americans…”
I keep trying to explain to you bubble-livers that there is a large subset of Social Justice Warriordom whose entire livelihood and sense of self-worth comes from insisting that, yes, Virginia, race does very much exist.
In other words, this is a fallacy, that all SJWs are crazy for the “no such thing as race” locution. They love race, talk about it all the time, obsess on it, use it to divert from anything important. And then you have organs like this one that get really really itchy when they have to talk about any other things than race (like duh Gaza) and breathe an audible sigh of relief when they can get back to repeating endlessly and endlessly, did I say endlessly, that, yes, Virginia, race does exist.
It’s like you guys and the SJWs were set up by some outside, super-powerful but objective entity, to play the perfect foils for each other. A totally artificial, but exquisitely elegant dichotomy.
Just so that no-one ever gets around to talking about things that really matter.
Craig Venter’s position is that of the perfect opportunist. He – oh! – whitewashed his product. – Like a cigarette manufacturer 1970 ff. telling people that no: No cancer risk from cigarettes…
-- The old risk algorithm included race in its factors
-- Subsequent to that it became the thing to excluded race from heart studies for fear of being cancelled or for ideological reasons
-- Newer risk studies that include new or newly detailed and better supported risk factors exclude race, so whether and how race might affect these new factors is thus unknowable
-- Thus one is left with the unfortunate choice of using the new, deliberately sabotaged yet clearly otherwise improved risk factor research, or ignoring it
-- The best of these two bad options is in this guy's opinion is using the new research
Why not use the new research and bolt on the race factor also?
-- He thinks the new model based on the new research would react in unpredictable ways if race were just added on because the addition of race might in some cases negate or reverse the newly discovered risks
For example, let's say that new research has discovered that eating an odd number of Oreos per week reduces risk, but an even number increases risk. You add that to the model. But let's say that had race been also included in the study the Oreo number risk would have been reversed: Even numbers of Oreos are bad for blacks. Thus the new model is a black box, like an AI, and cannot be easily tampered with.
The problem I see with his argument is:
-- Occam's Razor would say that the odds are that such weird race influences would be rare and weak and would balance out among themselves, and ...
-- HIS ARGUMENT WOULD RELY ON RACE ANYWAY, just in another place, since he implies that race might change the results of these new, race-ignoring studies.Replies: @Nicholas Stix, @ic1000, @Peter Johnson
“new or newly detailed and better supported risk factors exclude race” No such animal has been cited.
There Harvard guy in there Twitter thread in question makes certain claims and cites the newly published paper, and another commenter who seems to have read it also implies what I wrote.Replies: @Nicholas Stix
So what group benefits from suggesting there aren’t any differences? Hmm…. Maybe a group that is also different, but in a way that gives them an advantage rather than a disadvantage? Or one that, as a comparatively small group, would benefit from bringing in millions of others to make sure the majority group cannot vote as a bloc? I wonder who that would be?Replies: @Franz, @Nicholas Stix
Bull. Jews have for generations refrained from stating the obvious because, if they’re lefties, they don’t want to get canceled by their red comrades, and if they’re republicans, they don’t want to get canceled by their conservative comrades. There is no advantage to be gained from speaking the truth.
So, which group benefits from suggesting it’s all the Jooos’ fault?!
Thank you. It’s been decades since I read Richard III and I either forgot or never noted in the first place how the word was spelled in it. I didn’t realize Machiavel was the French spelling of Machiavelli, for that matter, it being a term in the Elizabethan era for a certain kind of a villain. I also did not know that Frederick the Great wrote an essay refuting The Prince titled Anti-Machiavel before he ascended to his throne.
The Angel of death may not have me by the balls but there are days when he's rooting around in the underwear, looking for the dangley bits.
I stand corrected and send apologies for the earlier critique!
Steve gets a cite on Zerohedge in an article entitled
They mention something I hadn’t seen but their naming of it was one of those Bart Simpson Doh! moments. There is, of course a government department to bury this type of news, the Department of Justice Community Relations Service.
https://www.justice.gov/crs
AKA Department of Woke.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2023-11-17/burying-black-crime
Vice-President Tucker Carlson?
So, which group benefits from suggesting it’s all the Jooos’ fault?!Replies: @Pat Hannagan
Nicholas, has there ever been a society that has enacted laws to persecute the very people who created and constitute that society?
Give an example where this has happened in all of history.
You won’t find one!
Yet here “we” are, White people, that is non-Jewish White people, legislated against in our own nations. Our public services and corporations openly declare they have policies that exclude us on account of our race.
Our places of higher learning matriculate tertiary degrees in why we must be eradicated.
Our nations are being overrun through massive non-White legal and illegal immigration that is clearly designed to not only drive down our wages, drive up property values thus making family formation unaffordable, clearly to replace us in our own nations with a non-White other.
At the same time we have laws specifically crafted to criminalise any isolating of Jews as a people, laws that criminalise any non-laudatory account of Jewish history, all the whiles we’ve had to fight an ongoing series of wars to advance Jewish interests in the Middle East as our our nations are plundered by the same Jews to intake all the refugees from these wars.
While we are legislated against we simultaneously have laws explicitly designed to protect Jews from any backlash to their manipulations.
Mate, if you want to be an ally you need to reconcile what’s clear to all with your own complicity in this ongoing holocaust of the White races.
It's a Shakespearean usage.
GLOUCESTER: I'll set the murderous Machiavel to school...
-- 3 Henry VIReplies: @HammerJack
Well thank you for that. Turns out my depending on Lord Olivier for Richard III misled me: he borrowed the lines from Henry to flesh out his soliloquy in Richard. I learn something new every day.
See my reply to Germ Theory: I was relying on Olivier’s Richard III, which I’ve watched over and over. So unless you also read Henry VI you would indeed have missed it.
Anyway, it was indeed Shakespeare’s Richard Gloucester speaking, but Olivier lifted some of his lines from one play to enhance another.
As I said earlier, races exist in Japan, and they existed in America 300 years ago. Nowadays, races do not exist in America as workable notions. To which race do you assign Kamala Harris, your future president?
So this is five hours late for the Friday Good News but raises a smile.
https://citizenwatchreport.com/bud-light-paid-sissyboy-dylan-mulvaney-185000-for-the-ad-that-killed-their-brand-the-chief-of-marketing-for-the-entire-us-gets-the-boot/
-- The old risk algorithm included race in its factors
-- Subsequent to that it became the thing to excluded race from heart studies for fear of being cancelled or for ideological reasons
-- Newer risk studies that include new or newly detailed and better supported risk factors exclude race, so whether and how race might affect these new factors is thus unknowable
-- Thus one is left with the unfortunate choice of using the new, deliberately sabotaged yet clearly otherwise improved risk factor research, or ignoring it
-- The best of these two bad options is in this guy's opinion is using the new research
Why not use the new research and bolt on the race factor also?
-- He thinks the new model based on the new research would react in unpredictable ways if race were just added on because the addition of race might in some cases negate or reverse the newly discovered risks
For example, let's say that new research has discovered that eating an odd number of Oreos per week reduces risk, but an even number increases risk. You add that to the model. But let's say that had race been also included in the study the Oreo number risk would have been reversed: Even numbers of Oreos are bad for blacks. Thus the new model is a black box, like an AI, and cannot be easily tampered with.
The problem I see with his argument is:
-- Occam's Razor would say that the odds are that such weird race influences would be rare and weak and would balance out among themselves, and ...
-- HIS ARGUMENT WOULD RELY ON RACE ANYWAY, just in another place, since he implies that race might change the results of these new, race-ignoring studies.Replies: @Nicholas Stix, @ic1000, @Peter Johnson
> To steel man that jerk Harvard geneticist’s argument on Twitter
Anon[130] is referring to an exchange between Sailer and Harvard quantitative geneticist (Assoc. Professor) Sasha Gusev. In the way that Twitter sometimes can be, it’s hard to post a link that catches the entire conversation. Here is one core tweet; scroll up and down.
* Notable that a Harvard eminence engaged with Sailer, cf. the usual strategy, ignore.
* Gusev’s tone is dismissive and insulting.
* One of the rare times when Sailer becomes less-than-genial.
* Third-party tweets generally make it hard to follow the exchange. A few are able summaries of the central dispute. I will try to edit one in.
.
Edit: This sidebar discussion between Will-I-Am and Gusev on “ablation study” design is informative.
@Steve_Sailer (12:45 PM Nov 15, 2023) -- Here are links to the underlying academic paper announcing the new raceless algorithm. Strikingly, it doesn't include a comparison of its accuracy vs. the old 2013 algorithm:
[res' comment #59 at iSteve post]
.
@StoneBiology -- you're reading the wrong paper they do a direct comparison (it outperforms the old equation)
https://ahajournals.org/doi/epdf/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.067626
.
@Steve_Sailer -- The AHA improved its algorithm from 2013 to 2023 in a number of noncontroversial scientific ways, but that hardly proves it didn't hurt its algorithm, ceteris paribus, by dropping race as a factor.
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- This is a very weasely way of acknowledging that the new algorithm that drops race is more accurate
.
@Steve_Sailer -- Are you familiar with the concept of ceteris paribus?
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- It's not possible to hold all conditions equal, this isn't a breeding program. But is there a reason you lied about the study right from the start?
.
@Steve_Sailer -- In updating a risk model like the American Heart Association's, it's very much possible to hold all else equal while assessing each proposed change. The AHA has the data on what the accuracy would be with and without race as a factor, but they decided not to publish it.
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- This is incorrect. Adding a race interaction substantially changes the model structure and also limits your training data to studies that have harmonized race. Now can you explain why you lied about the study?
.
@SouthernWintrs [Will I Am - e/acc - 1:47 AM · Nov 17, 2023] -- Ablation studies are a very common technique when studying algorithm design.
You can train the same model with any factor and one without the same factor and compare accuracies.
This is a very standard study design if one wants to be honest about changes to an algorithm.
·
@SashaGusevPosts -- Steve's not asking for an ablation study, he wants a new model that uses race, which will change the model structure and the training set (to studies that have harmonized race). This after the old model using race was shown to be inferior.
.
@SouthernWintrs -- If you take an honest and good faith reading at what he is saying, he wants the new model to be tested with race being included and excluded as a factor, aka a standard ablation study.
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- It's not an ablation study if you didn't use the feature in building the model! This is basic stuff.
.
@SouthernWintrs -- You can add and remove features in a statistical model pretty easily! Ablation models are even used to add and remove architectural features of a model to test if they have an effect.
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- Adding features is not ablation. And you can't add features that weren't collected in your training data.
.
@SouthernWintrs -- [posts image of text with emphasis added]
"In Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly Machine Learning (ML), ablation is the removal of a component of an AI system. An ablation study investigates the performance of an AI system by removing certain components to understand the contribution of the component to the overall system."
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- Your quote confirms my point
.
@SouthernWintrs -- It absolutely does not. A study comparing the model with and without race as a feature would be an ablation study. And given the use of race in previous models, ceteris paribus, you'd need an ablation study to show whether it makes a model better or worse.
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- I can't believe your still having this conversation not knowing the difference between taking an existing feature out of the model (ablation) and adding a new feature (a new model). Sailer really does a number on the brain.
.
@SouthernWintrs -- The original model had race. The new model does not have race. Other things were presumably changed about the model. To make a valid comparison between models to see if race was a factor, you would add race to the new model and compare the new model with and without race as a factor. That is where your ablation study comes in.
A priori making the decision to not include race when it was included in the previous model and was a significant factor without such a comparison is pretty much scientific malpractice. The only way someone can justify it is on ideological grounds. We know two [sic] things:
1. Previous model used race
2. Race was a significant factor in the previous model.
3. New model doesn't use race.
Saying that the new model should be tested using race, isn't some crazy out of the world demand. It should be the default position given what we know previously. Without that ablation study, you can't claim that race isn't a significant factor here. You just have no proof for that. Sailer has better proof because the previous model used race and it was a significant factor.Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @candid_observer, @res, @jb, @res
Sasha, of course, is the Russian diminutive of Aleksandr. Is it as childish to their ear as it is to ours? It's not even Al, Alec, or Alex. More like Allie or Sandy. Is this increasing onomastic
diminutivizationdimunition something we should be concerned about? Some very serious people do it, e.g., Jimmy Carter or Elie Wiesel.Steve, at least, has some dignity to it. And it is was chosen to avoid the Steven/Stephen issue, the way we're asked to write the colonial Côte d'Ivoire or Timor Leste just so the mail doesn't get lost.
(For a fun diversion, go down Wikipedia's "Languages" list for either of these countries, or put the generic words into Google Translate. You can appreciate their point. White Russia is more... problematic. Though it survives among their near neighbors.)
That might actually be a good thing for the American Establishment, since it will allow them to point at the increasing racial gap in cardiovascular deaths as evidence of systemic racism.
I am not saying that that is the reason why the AHA made this decision — but it might become the reason why this change will not be reversed.
Yes, I am extremely cynical.
The only line I remember from Dick 3 is : I wasted time. now time doth waste me.
The Angel of death may not have me by the balls but there are days when he’s rooting around in the underwear, looking for the dangley bits.
* Gusev's tone is dismissive and insulting.
* One of the rare times when Sailer becomes less-than-genial.
* Third-party tweets generally make it hard to follow the exchange. A few are able summaries of the central dispute. I will try to edit one in..
Edit: This sidebar discussion between Will-I-Am and Gusev on "ablation study" design is informative.
https://twitter.com/SouthernWintrs/status/1725405344157839819Replies: @ic1000, @Reg Cæsar
Ugh. It looks like one has to know which “Show replies” buttons to press, to read this discussion. Below the fold is the (a?) transcript.
@Steve_Sailer (12:45 PM Nov 15, 2023) — Here are links to the underlying academic paper announcing the new raceless algorithm. Strikingly, it doesn’t include a comparison of its accuracy vs. the old 2013 algorithm:
[res’ comment #59 at iSteve post]
.
@StoneBiology — you’re reading the wrong paper they do a direct comparison (it outperforms the old equation)
https://ahajournals.org/doi/epdf/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.067626
.
@Steve_Sailer — The AHA improved its algorithm from 2013 to 2023 in a number of noncontroversial scientific ways, but that hardly proves it didn’t hurt its algorithm, ceteris paribus, by dropping race as a factor.
.
@SashaGusevPosts — This is a very weasely way of acknowledging that the new algorithm that drops race is more accurate
.
@Steve_Sailer — Are you familiar with the concept of ceteris paribus?
.
@SashaGusevPosts — It’s not possible to hold all conditions equal, this isn’t a breeding program. But is there a reason you lied about the study right from the start?
.
@Steve_Sailer — In updating a risk model like the American Heart Association’s, it’s very much possible to hold all else equal while assessing each proposed change. The AHA has the data on what the accuracy would be with and without race as a factor, but they decided not to publish it.
.
@SashaGusevPosts — This is incorrect. Adding a race interaction substantially changes the model structure and also limits your training data to studies that have harmonized race. Now can you explain why you lied about the study?
.
@SouthernWintrs [Will I Am – e/acc – 1:47 AM · Nov 17, 2023] — Ablation studies are a very common technique when studying algorithm design.
You can train the same model with any factor and one without the same factor and compare accuracies.
This is a very standard study design if one wants to be honest about changes to an algorithm.
·
@SashaGusevPosts — Steve’s not asking for an ablation study, he wants a new model that uses race, which will change the model structure and the training set (to studies that have harmonized race). This after the old model using race was shown to be inferior.
.
@SouthernWintrs — If you take an honest and good faith reading at what he is saying, he wants the new model to be tested with race being included and excluded as a factor, aka a standard ablation study.
.
@SashaGusevPosts — It’s not an ablation study if you didn’t use the feature in building the model! This is basic stuff.
.
@SouthernWintrs — You can add and remove features in a statistical model pretty easily! Ablation models are even used to add and remove architectural features of a model to test if they have an effect.
.
@SashaGusevPosts — Adding features is not ablation. And you can’t add features that weren’t collected in your training data.
.
@SouthernWintrs — [posts image of text with emphasis added]
“In Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly Machine Learning (ML), ablation is the removal of a component of an AI system. An ablation study investigates the performance of an AI system by removing certain components to understand the contribution of the component to the overall system.”
.
@SashaGusevPosts — Your quote confirms my point
.
@SouthernWintrs — It absolutely does not. A study comparing the model with and without race as a feature would be an ablation study. And given the use of race in previous models, ceteris paribus, you’d need an ablation study to show whether it makes a model better or worse.
.
@SashaGusevPosts — I can’t believe your still having this conversation not knowing the difference between taking an existing feature out of the model (ablation) and adding a new feature (a new model). Sailer really does a number on the brain.
.
@SouthernWintrs — The original model had race. The new model does not have race. Other things were presumably changed about the model. To make a valid comparison between models to see if race was a factor, you would add race to the new model and compare the new model with and without race as a factor. That is where your ablation study comes in.
A priori making the decision to not include race when it was included in the previous model and was a significant factor without such a comparison is pretty much scientific malpractice. The only way someone can justify it is on ideological grounds. We know two [sic] things:
1. Previous model used race
2. Race was a significant factor in the previous model.
3. New model doesn’t use race.
Saying that the new model should be tested using race, isn’t some crazy out of the world demand. It should be the default position given what we know previously. Without that ablation study, you can’t claim that race isn’t a significant factor here. You just have no proof for that. Sailer has better proof because the previous model used race and it was a significant factor.
This is the most I have seen Steve lose his cool. And he is right.One thing that intrigues me me is Gusev seems to be claiming they don't have race data in some cases. I wonder
1. Is that true?
2. Which studies and why?
I think Gusev's point about "entirely new model" relates to the way the 2013 model uses completely different models by race. It looks to me like they broke the data up by race and constructed separate models for each race. See Table A coefficients statement in this comment.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/american-heart-association-sabotages-its-own-predictive-algorithm/#comment-6264144
P.S. Pretty embarrassing series of posts for a Harvard professor. But I guess Gusev demonstrated his virtue.Replies: @Anonymous, @ic1000
The newsreader I used was trn, which was in some ways very primitive, having a text-based rather than graphical user interface. Yet despite this limitation trn, because it was a threaded news client, was able to effectively display large portions of the discussion tree, so you could see at a glance which posts had the most replies, and how deep the discussion went. I really haven't seen anything that sophisticated since. Of course you had to learn a large number of keystroke commands to use trn effectively, and given how much the Internet has dumbed down since the early days I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that nobody has tried to match its functionality.
(BTW, although most of the discussion that took place on Usenet has moved to various web forums, including Twitter, Usenet is still active. It can be accessed through Google Groups, but it is not a a service provided by Google, and in fact it predates the World Wide Web itself. If you have a Unix shell account somewhere you can still access it via clients like trn).Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.067626
Regarding StoneBiology's assertion, here is some verbal commentary.The actual model comparison is interesting. I believe this table captures it:
Table 4. Meta-analyzed discrimination, calibration, and net reclassification statistics of model performance for prediction of total cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular disease subtypes in validation cohorts.
The metric for model comparison is the C-statistic. This article claims it is the same as AUC ROC:
https://www.mcw.edu/-/media/MCW/Departments/Biostatistics/vo19no4.pdf
Based on that it appears:
1. They did a comparison with the old model.
2. The new PREVENT Base model was better than the old PCE model.
3. The PREVENT model became better with novel predictors (though not available in all cohorts).
4. Given that they were able to test against the PCE model it would seem Gusev's assertion that race was not available was a lie. They claimed to have used the same sample.
Returning to the variable comparison between the two models in Table A here
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/suppl/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001191
The PREVENT (base, non * variables in that table) and PCE models use slightly different variable sets. Most notably the PREVENT model adds two new variables: eGFR% and statin treatment. Therefore the comparison they did is not really fair. The right comparison to make is between models using the PREVENT variable set with and without race.
So StoneBiology's basic point was correct, but it does not answer Steve's larger point--they should have compared the new model with and without the race variable.
Further regarding the race variable being available (see other comments), Table 1 of that paper shows it for both the derivation and validation sample. They give other/missing percentages of 4.1-5.5% though. There is an * there which appears to be an error of some sort. The actual * is interesting though so I will include here.The original 2013 model appears to have covered the Others race category (see Table 5) so I am not seeing why that should be an obstacle.
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/01.cir.0000437741.48606.98
-- The old risk algorithm included race in its factors
-- Subsequent to that it became the thing to excluded race from heart studies for fear of being cancelled or for ideological reasons
-- Newer risk studies that include new or newly detailed and better supported risk factors exclude race, so whether and how race might affect these new factors is thus unknowable
-- Thus one is left with the unfortunate choice of using the new, deliberately sabotaged yet clearly otherwise improved risk factor research, or ignoring it
-- The best of these two bad options is in this guy's opinion is using the new research
Why not use the new research and bolt on the race factor also?
-- He thinks the new model based on the new research would react in unpredictable ways if race were just added on because the addition of race might in some cases negate or reverse the newly discovered risks
For example, let's say that new research has discovered that eating an odd number of Oreos per week reduces risk, but an even number increases risk. You add that to the model. But let's say that had race been also included in the study the Oreo number risk would have been reversed: Even numbers of Oreos are bad for blacks. Thus the new model is a black box, like an AI, and cannot be easily tampered with.
The problem I see with his argument is:
-- Occam's Razor would say that the odds are that such weird race influences would be rare and weak and would balance out among themselves, and ...
-- HIS ARGUMENT WOULD RELY ON RACE ANYWAY, just in another place, since he implies that race might change the results of these new, race-ignoring studies.Replies: @Nicholas Stix, @ic1000, @Peter Johnson
In terms of model estimation procedure it seems unlikely that race could not be added to the model, even if some recent related papers exclude it for PC reasons. The full database has race recorded, presumably.
Maybe, “since the treaty was signed, an arms race does not exist.”
Or, “because of the inclement weather, the result from this year’s race does not exist.”
Or, “Without Darwin’s theory [topical at the time], an explanation for the development of the human race does not exist.”
Can one track down original source references?
Biden’s America
Unedited high lights.
You really couldn’t make this shit up.
https://trendingpoliticsnews.com/breaking-stacey-abrams-brother-in-law-arrested-for-human-trafficking-mace/?utm_source=proude
Whites don't exist when we want to take credit for our vast accomplishments. But we do exist when it's time to demonize or attack us.Replies: @Francis Miville, @bomag, @Reg Cæsar
The Whites for sure don’t exist as a race. But they do exist as a genetic illness, like albinism, like hemophilia, like colour-blindness. Fortunately, like most of such hereditary defects, the illness is recessive and can be got rid of through the means of enforced mongrelization.
Like intelligence, race is what is called a *latent variable* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_and_observable_variables. No one specific observable feature defines the concept, yet there is often a concept is real and mathematically expressible in a model relating the concept to the observables. This is, in fact, the math behind psychometrics and this is commonly employed in both psychology and sociology.
Those with ADD (Abstraction Deficit Disorder) are incapable of conceptualizing that observables can the manifestation (reification?) of something else that is not easily observed directly. Arguing with them is like trying to explain color to the blind.
@Steve_Sailer (12:45 PM Nov 15, 2023) -- Here are links to the underlying academic paper announcing the new raceless algorithm. Strikingly, it doesn't include a comparison of its accuracy vs. the old 2013 algorithm:
[res' comment #59 at iSteve post]
.
@StoneBiology -- you're reading the wrong paper they do a direct comparison (it outperforms the old equation)
https://ahajournals.org/doi/epdf/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.067626
.
@Steve_Sailer -- The AHA improved its algorithm from 2013 to 2023 in a number of noncontroversial scientific ways, but that hardly proves it didn't hurt its algorithm, ceteris paribus, by dropping race as a factor.
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- This is a very weasely way of acknowledging that the new algorithm that drops race is more accurate
.
@Steve_Sailer -- Are you familiar with the concept of ceteris paribus?
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- It's not possible to hold all conditions equal, this isn't a breeding program. But is there a reason you lied about the study right from the start?
.
@Steve_Sailer -- In updating a risk model like the American Heart Association's, it's very much possible to hold all else equal while assessing each proposed change. The AHA has the data on what the accuracy would be with and without race as a factor, but they decided not to publish it.
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- This is incorrect. Adding a race interaction substantially changes the model structure and also limits your training data to studies that have harmonized race. Now can you explain why you lied about the study?
.
@SouthernWintrs [Will I Am - e/acc - 1:47 AM · Nov 17, 2023] -- Ablation studies are a very common technique when studying algorithm design.
You can train the same model with any factor and one without the same factor and compare accuracies.
This is a very standard study design if one wants to be honest about changes to an algorithm.
·
@SashaGusevPosts -- Steve's not asking for an ablation study, he wants a new model that uses race, which will change the model structure and the training set (to studies that have harmonized race). This after the old model using race was shown to be inferior.
.
@SouthernWintrs -- If you take an honest and good faith reading at what he is saying, he wants the new model to be tested with race being included and excluded as a factor, aka a standard ablation study.
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- It's not an ablation study if you didn't use the feature in building the model! This is basic stuff.
.
@SouthernWintrs -- You can add and remove features in a statistical model pretty easily! Ablation models are even used to add and remove architectural features of a model to test if they have an effect.
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- Adding features is not ablation. And you can't add features that weren't collected in your training data.
.
@SouthernWintrs -- [posts image of text with emphasis added]
"In Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly Machine Learning (ML), ablation is the removal of a component of an AI system. An ablation study investigates the performance of an AI system by removing certain components to understand the contribution of the component to the overall system."
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- Your quote confirms my point
.
@SouthernWintrs -- It absolutely does not. A study comparing the model with and without race as a feature would be an ablation study. And given the use of race in previous models, ceteris paribus, you'd need an ablation study to show whether it makes a model better or worse.
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- I can't believe your still having this conversation not knowing the difference between taking an existing feature out of the model (ablation) and adding a new feature (a new model). Sailer really does a number on the brain.
.
@SouthernWintrs -- The original model had race. The new model does not have race. Other things were presumably changed about the model. To make a valid comparison between models to see if race was a factor, you would add race to the new model and compare the new model with and without race as a factor. That is where your ablation study comes in.
A priori making the decision to not include race when it was included in the previous model and was a significant factor without such a comparison is pretty much scientific malpractice. The only way someone can justify it is on ideological grounds. We know two [sic] things:
1. Previous model used race
2. Race was a significant factor in the previous model.
3. New model doesn't use race.
Saying that the new model should be tested using race, isn't some crazy out of the world demand. It should be the default position given what we know previously. Without that ablation study, you can't claim that race isn't a significant factor here. You just have no proof for that. Sailer has better proof because the previous model used race and it was a significant factor.Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @candid_observer, @res, @jb, @res
It is pretty obvious from this exchange that Sailer and the Sailerites are not only wrong, but do not know what they are talking about, as I more or less described in my earlier comment, (which for some reason has been stuck in moderation since last night).
If they’re lying about things that any child can see with his eyes to be false, which other more technically obscure truths are they suppressing?
This is going to be our future – monstrous falsehoods serving ideology smuggled into every discipline. Only credentialed “experts” will have standing to challenge the falsehoods, but challenging the falsehoods is a de facto surrender of one’s credentials.
https://www.genome.gov/10001356/june-2000-white-house-eventNot sure if that could be seen as true at the time (e.g. not enough data to determine ancestry informative markers), but the bolded parts are clearly a lie now.
Karl Popper declared some eighty years ago that all concepts are “social constructs”. Their value depends on the question if they can be used to express true assertions (or assertions with a degree of verisimilarity). So the whole debate was obsolete from the beginning.
By “exclude” I mean that race was not gathered on the data collection or was not cited/broken out in the published research, the same way that IQ is not considered in most sociology research, even though it’s the main variable in reality.
There Harvard guy in there Twitter thread in question makes certain claims and cites the newly published paper, and another commenter who seems to have read it also implies what I wrote.
N.S.: No such animal has been cited.“Seems to have read it”?; “implies what I wrote”?
That ain’t cuttin’ it.
About a year ago, a black supremacist fake journalist claimed to have read a document that nobody had ever spoken of, which reported that, along with several other people, a White woman had kidnapped and murdered Emmett Till.
She had read no such document, because no such document existed. The black supremacist fake journalist was trying to get Carolyn Bryant lynched. That was the married White woman whom Emmett Till had sought to rape, or who at the very least, had demanded sex from Mrs. Bryant, who responded (believing he would rape her, otherwise), by getting her gun. She headed out for her gun in her car, before Till whistled at her. (In order to protect Till, Mrs. Bryant refused to tell her husband what Till had done to her, but a black man him separately.)
You’re going to have to do better.
This seems relevant to all sorts of policies both domestic and foreign.
Remember those selfish servicemen, victims of denier propaganda, who refused to be vaccinated against covid, putting their comrades at risk, and were rightfully dismissed the service?
Well it’s alright, the armed forces didn’t mean it, you can all come back and you won’t have to be vaxxed!
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/ndaa-military-vaccine-mandate-soldiers-sailors-rejoin-military-rcna60391
Quite right too. If officers could think for themselves, then where would we be?
“…blacks are not willing to really push back on it because going along means they remain the focus of attention of a lot of whites and they prize that above almost anything.”
“The ass that does not bray does not get fed.” Ancient truths once uttered always apply.
In the modern western world, black is white.
Literally.
New front in Left’s war of historical defacement: German WWII Aces did not exist!
Ongoing edit war over Wikipedia list of WWII aces:
I've had two list-type articles of mine chopped up into smaller sub-lists by other editors. (Both with unpolitical content.) It's apparently Wikipedia policy to get rid of monster lists like that.
Thanks a lot?
You could always put it to the opposite use it was intended, especially if the company has a right-leaning customer base.
https://ir.library.louisville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2372&context=etd
Academia still produces some fun stuff–oh wait, the copyright date is 1930. Oh well…
Here’s a bit about the other two:
https://openliterature.net/2012/06/01/word-of-the-day-machiavel/
Remove all those boxes on applications and forms.
Why wait?Replies: @Flip, @Loyalty is The First Law of Morality, @kihowi, @Currahee
If race doesn’t exist, how do racists know who to be racist to with such perfect accuracy?
The American Heart Association thinks race doesn’t exist? Cool. Let’s poll the AHA executives and voting members to see how diverse their neighborhoods are. If race doesn’t exist to them, they should have no problem living in the ghetto. Heck, they should prefer it, since homes are cheaper there.
@Steve_Sailer (12:45 PM Nov 15, 2023) -- Here are links to the underlying academic paper announcing the new raceless algorithm. Strikingly, it doesn't include a comparison of its accuracy vs. the old 2013 algorithm:
[res' comment #59 at iSteve post]
.
@StoneBiology -- you're reading the wrong paper they do a direct comparison (it outperforms the old equation)
https://ahajournals.org/doi/epdf/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.067626
.
@Steve_Sailer -- The AHA improved its algorithm from 2013 to 2023 in a number of noncontroversial scientific ways, but that hardly proves it didn't hurt its algorithm, ceteris paribus, by dropping race as a factor.
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- This is a very weasely way of acknowledging that the new algorithm that drops race is more accurate
.
@Steve_Sailer -- Are you familiar with the concept of ceteris paribus?
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- It's not possible to hold all conditions equal, this isn't a breeding program. But is there a reason you lied about the study right from the start?
.
@Steve_Sailer -- In updating a risk model like the American Heart Association's, it's very much possible to hold all else equal while assessing each proposed change. The AHA has the data on what the accuracy would be with and without race as a factor, but they decided not to publish it.
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- This is incorrect. Adding a race interaction substantially changes the model structure and also limits your training data to studies that have harmonized race. Now can you explain why you lied about the study?
.
@SouthernWintrs [Will I Am - e/acc - 1:47 AM · Nov 17, 2023] -- Ablation studies are a very common technique when studying algorithm design.
You can train the same model with any factor and one without the same factor and compare accuracies.
This is a very standard study design if one wants to be honest about changes to an algorithm.
·
@SashaGusevPosts -- Steve's not asking for an ablation study, he wants a new model that uses race, which will change the model structure and the training set (to studies that have harmonized race). This after the old model using race was shown to be inferior.
.
@SouthernWintrs -- If you take an honest and good faith reading at what he is saying, he wants the new model to be tested with race being included and excluded as a factor, aka a standard ablation study.
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- It's not an ablation study if you didn't use the feature in building the model! This is basic stuff.
.
@SouthernWintrs -- You can add and remove features in a statistical model pretty easily! Ablation models are even used to add and remove architectural features of a model to test if they have an effect.
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- Adding features is not ablation. And you can't add features that weren't collected in your training data.
.
@SouthernWintrs -- [posts image of text with emphasis added]
"In Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly Machine Learning (ML), ablation is the removal of a component of an AI system. An ablation study investigates the performance of an AI system by removing certain components to understand the contribution of the component to the overall system."
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- Your quote confirms my point
.
@SouthernWintrs -- It absolutely does not. A study comparing the model with and without race as a feature would be an ablation study. And given the use of race in previous models, ceteris paribus, you'd need an ablation study to show whether it makes a model better or worse.
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- I can't believe your still having this conversation not knowing the difference between taking an existing feature out of the model (ablation) and adding a new feature (a new model). Sailer really does a number on the brain.
.
@SouthernWintrs -- The original model had race. The new model does not have race. Other things were presumably changed about the model. To make a valid comparison between models to see if race was a factor, you would add race to the new model and compare the new model with and without race as a factor. That is where your ablation study comes in.
A priori making the decision to not include race when it was included in the previous model and was a significant factor without such a comparison is pretty much scientific malpractice. The only way someone can justify it is on ideological grounds. We know two [sic] things:
1. Previous model used race
2. Race was a significant factor in the previous model.
3. New model doesn't use race.
Saying that the new model should be tested using race, isn't some crazy out of the world demand. It should be the default position given what we know previously. Without that ablation study, you can't claim that race isn't a significant factor here. You just have no proof for that. Sailer has better proof because the previous model used race and it was a significant factor.Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @candid_observer, @res, @jb, @res
The thing that baffles me about the approach the “Race does not exist” crowd takes in contexts like this is that it seems to contradict the claims they make elsewhere.
If indeed including race in models does not add any power to prediction of health outcomes, how can it be that it is racism that creates worse outcomes for blacks?
You see, if adding race as a parameter does not alter the predictions, that does not tell only against relevant genetic differences between blacks and whites, it also tells against relevant environmental differences between them. And yet, according to these same authors, it is supposed to be the massive effects of racism — above and beyond all other environmental factors — that engender worse outcomes in blacks.
If these authors really believe their claims about racism, why don’t they demand that race be taken into account, lest blacks not be found to be as vulnerable as they are to health issues?
A technological solution to the Steve Sailer – Sasha Gusev tiff.
Sailer approach:
1. For each patient in the training and validation sets, obtain 23andMe-style spit-in-a-tube SNP data (wholesale cost, ≤$50 each).
2. See whether including the SNP data improves the predictive power of the 2023 AHA test (i.e. higher AUC).
3. If it does: check to see whether the SNP genotypes that alter cardiovascular disease risk correlate with SNP genotypes that are indicative of
racegeographic ancestry.Gusev approach:
1. As above.
2. As above.
3. If it does: forbid checking to see whether the SNP genotypes that alter cardiovascular disease risk correlate with SNP genotypes that are indicative of
racegeographic ancestry..
The “Knowledge Is Good” crowd and the “Reification” crowd will still be at crossed swords, but at least the AHA CV Risk diagnostic would be as good as it could be.
Evaluation of 71 Coronary Artery Disease Risk Variants in a Multiethnic Cohort
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2018.00019/fullAlternatively, a 2019 paper from a different angle.
Sex and racial differences in cardiovascular disease risk in patients with atrial fibrillation
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6726240/
Sure it did…
Thanks. https://www.diversify.fyi/ makes a nice companion to the Bloomberg S&P 100 article Steve wrote about recently.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-black-lives-matter-equal-opportunity-corporate-diversity/
One thing I find odd is the new source mostly has data from 2016-2020 (did they just not update?) while during the earlier conversation I found the following claim.
https://comptroller.nyc.gov/newsroom/nyc-comptroller-and-pension-fund-trustees-announce-agreements-with-11-companies-to-disclose-annual-workforce-diversity-data/
Was it only the S&P 100 which failed to release data before 2020?
This site looks useful.
https://diversiq.com/eeo-1-data/
Graphic there showing percentage of companies in S&P 100, S&P 500, and Russell 1000 fully disclosing EEOC-1 data from 2020 to 2023. I suspect “fully” is an important qualifier. I wonder what was going on there.
Here is their list of EEOC-1 disclosures.
https://diversiq.com/free-tools/eeo1-disclosures/
Ongoing edit war over Wikipedia list of WWII aces:
https://twitter.com/swampfog1/status/1725700597419028921Replies: @Mike Tre, @Anonymous, @Colin Wright
The “Left’s” war? Can you be more specific? 🙂
@Steve_Sailer (12:45 PM Nov 15, 2023) -- Here are links to the underlying academic paper announcing the new raceless algorithm. Strikingly, it doesn't include a comparison of its accuracy vs. the old 2013 algorithm:
[res' comment #59 at iSteve post]
.
@StoneBiology -- you're reading the wrong paper they do a direct comparison (it outperforms the old equation)
https://ahajournals.org/doi/epdf/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.067626
.
@Steve_Sailer -- The AHA improved its algorithm from 2013 to 2023 in a number of noncontroversial scientific ways, but that hardly proves it didn't hurt its algorithm, ceteris paribus, by dropping race as a factor.
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- This is a very weasely way of acknowledging that the new algorithm that drops race is more accurate
.
@Steve_Sailer -- Are you familiar with the concept of ceteris paribus?
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- It's not possible to hold all conditions equal, this isn't a breeding program. But is there a reason you lied about the study right from the start?
.
@Steve_Sailer -- In updating a risk model like the American Heart Association's, it's very much possible to hold all else equal while assessing each proposed change. The AHA has the data on what the accuracy would be with and without race as a factor, but they decided not to publish it.
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- This is incorrect. Adding a race interaction substantially changes the model structure and also limits your training data to studies that have harmonized race. Now can you explain why you lied about the study?
.
@SouthernWintrs [Will I Am - e/acc - 1:47 AM · Nov 17, 2023] -- Ablation studies are a very common technique when studying algorithm design.
You can train the same model with any factor and one without the same factor and compare accuracies.
This is a very standard study design if one wants to be honest about changes to an algorithm.
·
@SashaGusevPosts -- Steve's not asking for an ablation study, he wants a new model that uses race, which will change the model structure and the training set (to studies that have harmonized race). This after the old model using race was shown to be inferior.
.
@SouthernWintrs -- If you take an honest and good faith reading at what he is saying, he wants the new model to be tested with race being included and excluded as a factor, aka a standard ablation study.
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- It's not an ablation study if you didn't use the feature in building the model! This is basic stuff.
.
@SouthernWintrs -- You can add and remove features in a statistical model pretty easily! Ablation models are even used to add and remove architectural features of a model to test if they have an effect.
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- Adding features is not ablation. And you can't add features that weren't collected in your training data.
.
@SouthernWintrs -- [posts image of text with emphasis added]
"In Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly Machine Learning (ML), ablation is the removal of a component of an AI system. An ablation study investigates the performance of an AI system by removing certain components to understand the contribution of the component to the overall system."
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- Your quote confirms my point
.
@SouthernWintrs -- It absolutely does not. A study comparing the model with and without race as a feature would be an ablation study. And given the use of race in previous models, ceteris paribus, you'd need an ablation study to show whether it makes a model better or worse.
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- I can't believe your still having this conversation not knowing the difference between taking an existing feature out of the model (ablation) and adding a new feature (a new model). Sailer really does a number on the brain.
.
@SouthernWintrs -- The original model had race. The new model does not have race. Other things were presumably changed about the model. To make a valid comparison between models to see if race was a factor, you would add race to the new model and compare the new model with and without race as a factor. That is where your ablation study comes in.
A priori making the decision to not include race when it was included in the previous model and was a significant factor without such a comparison is pretty much scientific malpractice. The only way someone can justify it is on ideological grounds. We know two [sic] things:
1. Previous model used race
2. Race was a significant factor in the previous model.
3. New model doesn't use race.
Saying that the new model should be tested using race, isn't some crazy out of the world demand. It should be the default position given what we know previously. Without that ablation study, you can't claim that race isn't a significant factor here. You just have no proof for that. Sailer has better proof because the previous model used race and it was a significant factor.Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @candid_observer, @res, @jb, @res
Thanks for putting that together. It is almost like X/Twitter was constructed to make it hard to have real conversations. And reproduce them later.
This is the most I have seen Steve lose his cool. And he is right.
One thing that intrigues me me is Gusev seems to be claiming they don’t have race data in some cases. I wonder
1. Is that true?
2. Which studies and why?
I think Gusev’s point about “entirely new model” relates to the way the 2013 model uses completely different models by race. It looks to me like they broke the data up by race and constructed separate models for each race. See Table A coefficients statement in this comment.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/american-heart-association-sabotages-its-own-predictive-algorithm/#comment-6264144
P.S. Pretty embarrassing series of posts for a Harvard professor. But I guess Gusev demonstrated his virtue.
At a more general level, there's some sleight of hand.
Sailer is saying, "The official AHA-adopted model of 2013 employed "race." At the announcement of the official AHA successor model of 2023, you announced that you made an a priori decision to exclude "race," because of reification. Your 2023 papers are silent on whether exclusion of "race" improved the model, had no effect, or made it worse. The fact that "race" improved the 2013 model is reason to think that the 2023 successor model may be worse (lower AUC) than would have been the case, had "race" been included in it."
Gusev is rebutting, "Ah, but there have been lots of groups doing lots of work since the official AHA-adopted model of 2013 was published. We thought including "race" was good back then, but having learned about reification, now we know that that's bad. So the post-2013 researchers (or at least some of them) didn't ask patients (or at least some of them) about their self-identified race. Or didn't publish that data, or made it difficult to access -- same thing in practical terms! Given this history, it's meaningless to ask whether "including 'race'" in the 2023 model would improve it. Quizzing me about "ceteris paribus" shows that you lack standing to participate in the discussion; obviously you fail to understand the diagnostic-development process of the past ten years."
@SouthernWintrs' characterization of the process Gusev is defending:That seems correct.
Yes, he has Richard III saying he will “set the murderous Machiavel to school”. Anachronistic because Richard III died when Machiavelli was 16 and had yet to write anything significant.
Whites don't exist when we want to take credit for our vast accomplishments. But we do exist when it's time to demonize or attack us.Replies: @Francis Miville, @bomag, @Reg Cæsar
Or extract money.
This is going to be our future - monstrous falsehoods serving ideology smuggled into every discipline. Only credentialed "experts" will have standing to challenge the falsehoods, but challenging the falsehoods is a de facto surrender of one's credentials.Replies: @res
Thanks. I had not remembered just how bad Venter’s statement was. The full text appears here. Excerpt below. Emphasis mine.
https://www.genome.gov/10001356/june-2000-white-house-event
Not sure if that could be seen as true at the time (e.g. not enough data to determine ancestry informative markers), but the bolded parts are clearly a lie now.
He’ll get that before he gets the ADL Lifetime Achievement Award, but that doesn’t stop him. Ironically, he may get something like a VDare Lifetime Achievement Award for standing up for Whites. Crazy times!
@Steve_Sailer (12:45 PM Nov 15, 2023) -- Here are links to the underlying academic paper announcing the new raceless algorithm. Strikingly, it doesn't include a comparison of its accuracy vs. the old 2013 algorithm:
[res' comment #59 at iSteve post]
.
@StoneBiology -- you're reading the wrong paper they do a direct comparison (it outperforms the old equation)
https://ahajournals.org/doi/epdf/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.067626
.
@Steve_Sailer -- The AHA improved its algorithm from 2013 to 2023 in a number of noncontroversial scientific ways, but that hardly proves it didn't hurt its algorithm, ceteris paribus, by dropping race as a factor.
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- This is a very weasely way of acknowledging that the new algorithm that drops race is more accurate
.
@Steve_Sailer -- Are you familiar with the concept of ceteris paribus?
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- It's not possible to hold all conditions equal, this isn't a breeding program. But is there a reason you lied about the study right from the start?
.
@Steve_Sailer -- In updating a risk model like the American Heart Association's, it's very much possible to hold all else equal while assessing each proposed change. The AHA has the data on what the accuracy would be with and without race as a factor, but they decided not to publish it.
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- This is incorrect. Adding a race interaction substantially changes the model structure and also limits your training data to studies that have harmonized race. Now can you explain why you lied about the study?
.
@SouthernWintrs [Will I Am - e/acc - 1:47 AM · Nov 17, 2023] -- Ablation studies are a very common technique when studying algorithm design.
You can train the same model with any factor and one without the same factor and compare accuracies.
This is a very standard study design if one wants to be honest about changes to an algorithm.
·
@SashaGusevPosts -- Steve's not asking for an ablation study, he wants a new model that uses race, which will change the model structure and the training set (to studies that have harmonized race). This after the old model using race was shown to be inferior.
.
@SouthernWintrs -- If you take an honest and good faith reading at what he is saying, he wants the new model to be tested with race being included and excluded as a factor, aka a standard ablation study.
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- It's not an ablation study if you didn't use the feature in building the model! This is basic stuff.
.
@SouthernWintrs -- You can add and remove features in a statistical model pretty easily! Ablation models are even used to add and remove architectural features of a model to test if they have an effect.
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- Adding features is not ablation. And you can't add features that weren't collected in your training data.
.
@SouthernWintrs -- [posts image of text with emphasis added]
"In Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly Machine Learning (ML), ablation is the removal of a component of an AI system. An ablation study investigates the performance of an AI system by removing certain components to understand the contribution of the component to the overall system."
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- Your quote confirms my point
.
@SouthernWintrs -- It absolutely does not. A study comparing the model with and without race as a feature would be an ablation study. And given the use of race in previous models, ceteris paribus, you'd need an ablation study to show whether it makes a model better or worse.
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- I can't believe your still having this conversation not knowing the difference between taking an existing feature out of the model (ablation) and adding a new feature (a new model). Sailer really does a number on the brain.
.
@SouthernWintrs -- The original model had race. The new model does not have race. Other things were presumably changed about the model. To make a valid comparison between models to see if race was a factor, you would add race to the new model and compare the new model with and without race as a factor. That is where your ablation study comes in.
A priori making the decision to not include race when it was included in the previous model and was a significant factor without such a comparison is pretty much scientific malpractice. The only way someone can justify it is on ideological grounds. We know two [sic] things:
1. Previous model used race
2. Race was a significant factor in the previous model.
3. New model doesn't use race.
Saying that the new model should be tested using race, isn't some crazy out of the world demand. It should be the default position given what we know previously. Without that ablation study, you can't claim that race isn't a significant factor here. You just have no proof for that. Sailer has better proof because the previous model used race and it was a significant factor.Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @candid_observer, @res, @jb, @res
The Twitter user interface is pretty useless. Way back in the 90s I was active on Usenet, which served a function similar to that of Twitter (i.e., basically a giant universal chat room), and I have to say Usenet was superior to Twitter in a number of important ways. For example, rather than being a single space, Usenet actually consisted of a large number of separate chat rooms (newsgroups), so you could focus a discussion on a particular subject; however if appropriate it was also possible to spread a single discussion across multiple newsgroups via crossposting.
The newsreader I used was trn, which was in some ways very primitive, having a text-based rather than graphical user interface. Yet despite this limitation trn, because it was a threaded news client, was able to effectively display large portions of the discussion tree, so you could see at a glance which posts had the most replies, and how deep the discussion went. I really haven’t seen anything that sophisticated since. Of course you had to learn a large number of keystroke commands to use trn effectively, and given how much the Internet has dumbed down since the early days I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that nobody has tried to match its functionality.
(BTW, although most of the discussion that took place on Usenet has moved to various web forums, including Twitter, Usenet is still active. It can be accessed through Google Groups, but it is not a a service provided by Google, and in fact it predates the World Wide Web itself. If you have a Unix shell account somewhere you can still access it via clients like trn).
This is the most I have seen Steve lose his cool. And he is right.One thing that intrigues me me is Gusev seems to be claiming they don't have race data in some cases. I wonder
1. Is that true?
2. Which studies and why?
I think Gusev's point about "entirely new model" relates to the way the 2013 model uses completely different models by race. It looks to me like they broke the data up by race and constructed separate models for each race. See Table A coefficients statement in this comment.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/american-heart-association-sabotages-its-own-predictive-algorithm/#comment-6264144
P.S. Pretty embarrassing series of posts for a Harvard professor. But I guess Gusev demonstrated his virtue.Replies: @Anonymous, @ic1000
If that is true, then isn’t Gusev correct? They wouldn’t have had race data to add to the model even if they wanted to.
Forgive the cynicism around the emphasis added. Perhaps it comes from being a bystander of the Climate Wars of the early 2010s. Steve Macintyre founded his Climate Audit blog to explore paleoclimate reconstructions based on tree rings and other proxies -- he was skeptical of certain high-profile reconstructions' validity. The reactions of the great and the good largely presaged Greta Thunberg's How Dare You!.
Nobody's perfect, but Macintyre was more right than wrong. The eminences on the other side had lots of tricks. By today's post-Replication-Crisis standards, many of them amounted to scientific malpractice. And even by the standards of the day.
Re: your point -- As a commenter upthread noted, every patient intake form asks your date of birth, gender, race, and ethnicity. So if 'they' don't have data on race, it was due to a decision to not collect it (or compile it). "Darn it, we just can't run the model with the variable that we chose not to collect, so that we would be unable to run the model with it."
The question we really should be thinking about is whether or not ethnicity exists. That seems much more important.
Keep in mind the calculus here: Blacks benefit greatly from installing the belief that “race doesn’t exist”. Quite a bit of coin rains down via AA; disparate impact; and such. Far outweighs the loss from marginal medical diagnoses.
This is the most I have seen Steve lose his cool. And he is right.One thing that intrigues me me is Gusev seems to be claiming they don't have race data in some cases. I wonder
1. Is that true?
2. Which studies and why?
I think Gusev's point about "entirely new model" relates to the way the 2013 model uses completely different models by race. It looks to me like they broke the data up by race and constructed separate models for each race. See Table A coefficients statement in this comment.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/american-heart-association-sabotages-its-own-predictive-algorithm/#comment-6264144
P.S. Pretty embarrassing series of posts for a Harvard professor. But I guess Gusev demonstrated his virtue.Replies: @Anonymous, @ic1000
> I think Gusev’s point about “entirely new model” relates to the way the 2013 model uses completely different models by race.
At a more general level, there’s some sleight of hand.
Sailer is saying, “The official AHA-adopted model of 2013 employed “race.” At the announcement of the official AHA successor model of 2023, you announced that you made an a priori decision to exclude “race,” because of reification. Your 2023 papers are silent on whether exclusion of “race” improved the model, had no effect, or made it worse. The fact that “race” improved the 2013 model is reason to think that the 2023 successor model may be worse (lower AUC) than would have been the case, had “race” been included in it.”
Gusev is rebutting, “Ah, but there have been lots of groups doing lots of work since the official AHA-adopted model of 2013 was published. We thought including “race” was good back then, but having learned about reification, now we know that that’s bad. So the post-2013 researchers (or at least some of them) didn’t ask patients (or at least some of them) about their self-identified race. Or didn’t publish that data, or made it difficult to access — same thing in practical terms! Given this history, it’s meaningless to ask whether “including ‘race’” in the 2023 model would improve it. Quizzing me about “ceteris paribus” shows that you lack standing to participate in the discussion; obviously you fail to understand the diagnostic-development process of the past ten years.”
@SouthernWintrs’ characterization of the process Gusev is defending:
That seems correct.
Past ages placed no value at all on intelligence but a great deal on loyalty and courage; see The Song of Roland. Were they right? Are we?
To cut to the chase, I see Jews as having -- albeit perhaps unconsciously -- made their particular strengths into the essential criteria. So -- for example --Jews are better at pilpul than anyone else in a system in which success has become largely a matter of mastering pilpul.
So? We should agree?Replies: @scrivener3
I believe that you are thinking like a collectivist. As if some cabal of Harvard profs would set a giant scale and decide where people fit on it. In a free society people normally organize in a hierarchy of competence. In a pick up touch football game you try to put each person in the position he is most competent at. you want to win the game.
In a free capitalist society, corporations want to get people to trade their money for what the corporation produces. you try to hire good personable salespeople who can discover people’s wants and explain how the product satisfies them. you try to hire finance people who can form an efficient capital structure. You dont want to charge more than the competition because your finance guy screwed up and you have a more expensive capital structure. You want product designers who design well. if your idea of merit is good drawing of people faces by memory, probably your products will not be great, your salespeople will not sell as much, your bankrupcy is impending. the marketplace will take care of your misguided competency hierarchy.
Of course under a king, or a despot, loyalty is much more valued than most other abilities, and courage is required because the leaders and hanger-on’s live by force extracting taxes and obedience. The local car dealer could try to sell cars by forcing the customers to obey, but good luck with that.
How is some vicious creature like Jennifer Rubin better than he? Because she's glib and intelligent and quick off the mark with some arresting opinion? Who would you actually trust with your fate?
Traditional China exalted academic excellence; so did the Jews of the shtetl. Where did it get them? Compare and contrast to the Britons of Victoria's time. They distrusted the 'brainy' and preferred a man who exemplified other traits -- and they did alright. Our own ancestors weren't too impressed by what the dons of the Ivy League came up with; we did admire those who actually did something. Even when I was a boy, the heroes were the Wright Brothers, Lindbergh, Edison, Henry Ford. Sure, be smart -- but what have you done?
But more and more, thanks partly to the ever-increasing emphasis on academic marks of various kinds and also due to the Jewish cultural obsession with purely intellectual pyrotechnics, we are becoming a society devoted to doing well on the Imperial exams, to who can cook up the most mystifying mass of legal pilpul. We're on the verge of choosing our next president on the basis of whether lawyers can or cannot cook up a disqualifying crime out of some unbelievably trivial actions in the past.
...and this is not a recognition of some inherent ruling principle in the nature of things; it's a matter of letting people who couldn't pour piss out of a boot with instructions written in the heel but who can rationalize literally anything and take pride in the fact reorganize society to their complete satisfaction.
Do we really want to enter Alan Dershowitz's paradise? Is it somehow the right thing, the natural state of perfection?
Does Shopify hire a lot of “non-binaries”? And why is Etsy so male? All those ladies knitting, crocheting, sewing, origamiing, whatever, your amigurumi tree ornaments aren’t counted as “employees”?
I’m guessing there may be some manipulation of 1099-form data in one direction or the other, just to make things look
betterwoker. Genetically, DoorDash is the most diverse, in the literal sense, with Tesla close behind. How diverse are the individuals being sued by their blacks for harassment or whatever?Amazon’s people aren’t in IT, they’re in the warehouse. Younger. It’s not all automated– yet.
An age graph would be useful for comparison.
https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1725633489947541653
https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1725603033617146350
https://twitter.com/THECITYNY/status/1725541939183841704
https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1725403653811363891
https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1725395754754195699
https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1725598078365827248Replies: @New Dealer
It’s customary here, when posting lengthy or boilerplate content, to put it under the MORE button, so that readers can choose how much of it to scan.
Thank you.
Radar long corrupted the meaning of this word -- it was scanning so fast it looked like skimming-- but copying machines helped rein this in-- if a scanner is good, it gets everything. Plus, radar in the public mind has shifted from scanners on poles to "guns" on highways:https://www.rfcafe.com/references/radio-news/images/radar-silent-weapon-wwii-october-1945-radio-news-1.jpg
https://www.findlaw.com/static/fi/images/content/original-images/Police-officer-using-a-radar-gun.jpg
I remember hearing “there’s no race!” from the same student in high school who at another time also stated, as if it were plain to all, that Asians are smarter than whites. I don’t think an adult would let that slip out … acknowledging one racial IQ gap suggests it’s overwhelmingly likely that others exist, and we have a lot more evidence for the black-white gap than for the white-Asian gap. Fortunately my high school wasn’t a place where students went on trial for things they said. I suppose I could add she wasn’t Asian and I don’t think there were any Asians in the class.
I suspect even some people who tell us race does not exist might also believe things that flatly contradict it, and be afraid to say so out loud. It could even be a coping mechanism … the ones who tell us the most loudly that there is no such thing as race are the ones who desperately wish it were true because all the evidence they see points to the opposite, less pleasing, conclusion. But I can’t read minds.
And yes. I suspect the “race does not exist” slogan has a much stronger effect on children than on adults. The impression I get is that whats being pumped into kids’ minds in schools these days is so far removed from reality that the thought of racial intelligence differences won’t even occur to them. Yet, the Left is at cross purposes with itself, because if there are no races, how do they blame white people for all of the world’s problems? I saw a children’s book a few days ago containing the sentence “White people made up an idea called race”.
I’ve a hunch they’re getting ready to rule by brute force instead of relying on the increasingly tenuous arguments. “Okay, race does exist! You figured it out! And your race is at the bottom because you’re the weakest and softest. Too bad!” That’s if the “everyone against white people” coalition can hold …. it probably won’t work everywhere, but we see places like Portland OR doing it already which proves they can push white people around even while whites are still a majority.
As an aside, can we all agree that the world would be a better place if the black race really was just as smart as whites? I’ve run into a few leftists who seem to believe that the whole race/IQ debate is about whites trying to prove that blacks are less intelligent to make ourselves feel better. This seems like a ridiculously easy argument to counter, but the few times it’s come up in a debate I’m in I’ve been awash in other things, and I don’t really focus on race/IQ anymore.
* Gusev's tone is dismissive and insulting.
* One of the rare times when Sailer becomes less-than-genial.
* Third-party tweets generally make it hard to follow the exchange. A few are able summaries of the central dispute. I will try to edit one in..
Edit: This sidebar discussion between Will-I-Am and Gusev on "ablation study" design is informative.
https://twitter.com/SouthernWintrs/status/1725405344157839819Replies: @ic1000, @Reg Cæsar
Sasha Gusev = Save, as “hug”.
Sasha, of course, is the Russian diminutive of Aleksandr. Is it as childish to their ear as it is to ours? It’s not even Al, Alec, or Alex. More like Allie or Sandy. Is this increasing onomastic
diminutivizationdimunition something we should be concerned about? Some very serious people do it, e.g., Jimmy Carter or Elie Wiesel.Steve, at least, has some dignity to it. And it is was chosen to avoid the Steven/Stephen issue, the way we’re asked to write the colonial Côte d’Ivoire or Timor Leste just so the mail doesn’t get lost.
(For a fun diversion, go down Wikipedia’s “Languages” list for either of these countries, or put the generic words into Google Translate. You can appreciate their point. White Russia is more… problematic. Though it survives among their near neighbors.)
https://twitter.com/BehizyTweets/status/1725619557937631544?s=19Replies: @Corvinus
George came out with a retraction. He meant to show this video.
In a free capitalist society, corporations want to get people to trade their money for what the corporation produces. you try to hire good personable salespeople who can discover people's wants and explain how the product satisfies them. you try to hire finance people who can form an efficient capital structure. You dont want to charge more than the competition because your finance guy screwed up and you have a more expensive capital structure. You want product designers who design well. if your idea of merit is good drawing of people faces by memory, probably your products will not be great, your salespeople will not sell as much, your bankrupcy is impending. the marketplace will take care of your misguided competency hierarchy.
Of course under a king, or a despot, loyalty is much more valued than most other abilities, and courage is required because the leaders and hanger-on's live by force extracting taxes and obedience. The local car dealer could try to sell cars by forcing the customers to obey, but good luck with that.Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Anonymous, @Colin Wright
When similarly noting the relative unimportance of intelligence in the Middle Ages, Thomas Sowell contrasted it not with “loyalty and courage” but sheer muscle. That makes sense, particularly to an economist. Strength was rare and easily measurable.
You do realize he's 93. Before him, we we're told all about that genius George Washington Carver. He tore that peanut up! Don't you have anyone else in the pipeline?
Is the last time you updated your worldview when Huey Lewis and the News had a number one hit?Replies: @Reg Cæsar
> If that is true, then isn’t Gusev correct? They wouldn’t have had race data to add to the model even if they wanted to.
Forgive the cynicism around the emphasis added. Perhaps it comes from being a bystander of the Climate Wars of the early 2010s. Steve Macintyre founded his Climate Audit blog to explore paleoclimate reconstructions based on tree rings and other proxies — he was skeptical of certain high-profile reconstructions’ validity. The reactions of the great and the good largely presaged Greta Thunberg’s How Dare You!.
Nobody’s perfect, but Macintyre was more right than wrong. The eminences on the other side had lots of tricks. By today’s post-Replication-Crisis standards, many of them amounted to scientific malpractice. And even by the standards of the day.
Re: your point — As a commenter upthread noted, every patient intake form asks your date of birth, gender, race, and ethnicity. So if ‘they’ don’t have data on race, it was due to a decision to not collect it (or compile it). “Darn it, we just can’t run the model with the variable that we chose not to collect, so that we would be unable to run the model with it.”
Don’t worry about the AHA. Doctors in the trenches are smart and adaptable. They all use race as an essential part of their differential diagnosis, and then if you ask them what amounts to a political question about the existence of race, they all know the “right” answer.
Today’s doctors still know enough to “doctor” the incomplete testing algorithm.
Toad, you’ve got this habit of strawmanning Steve’s motivations. And doing it from crudely from what is obviously the marketing spin he puts on some of these pieces. (“Hey look your supposed “race does not exist” policy just gets more (of your sacred) blacks killed.”)
I’m not Steve, but I assume his primary drivers in opposing “race does not exist” are:
A) It’s nonsense.
And I’m guessing that Steve–like me and a lot of folks here–does not have a “true believer” personality. I.e. does not like assenting to obvious, empirically false, nonsense.
B) It’s the key lie undergirding minoritarianism.
The key lie in “bad whitey is oppressing poor innocent minorities (blacks)” propaganda that minoritarians use to attack whites–harass them, encumber them, strip them of rights, displace them.
But leaning in too far on the normie framing can be comparable to GOP Establishment types saying "Democrats are the real racists" because affirmative action or welfare imposes the "bigotry of low expectations.". Blah, blah, blah.
To me, the lede point here is that the AHA is willing to be objectively stupid and harmful to Americans in order to serve a political agenda. It's just right out in the open: "Yeah, we are corrupt. What are you going to do about it. We get to be the gatekeepers of official wisdom and truth, anyway. That's just how it is."
But if the medical establishment is so obviously corrupted by the dominant racial political agenda, why can't we connect the dots regarding other agendas and institutions? Steve does a good job of staying on brand, and on message. But sometimes I feel like he's always hammering the exact same nail.
The only game that matters is making it socially acceptable for Whites to publicly speak on their own behalf. Not in half-measures and not through proxies.
Thank you.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
You are right– except about to scan. Which by definition means reading every single jot and tittle of it.
Radar long corrupted the meaning of this word — it was scanning so fast it looked like skimming– but copying machines helped rein this in– if a scanner is good, it gets everything. Plus, radar in the public mind has shifted from scanners on poles to “guns” on highways:
As for your warning America over 20 years that this talk about the dangers of acting like race doesn't exist, there've been plenty of people killed from healthcare, traffic, who knows what else, due to AA over the last 50 years. Everyone not afraid to talk about it could tell you. Of course, it's getting blatantly in-your-face stupid now.
Try explaining the big picture of why more incompetent nurses in the hospital, brought in via AA, are going to get people killed. Nobody would take any action, and you'll be fired.
This deal you see here, well, at least the cardiologists will understand your point. Will they do anything? (For themselves, at least they can use the old methods.)Replies: @Guest007
One should look up how nursing education and hiring works before blathering about it.
Over the last 3 years, her floor went from mostly White to mostly black, and then some Philippine Pier I imports too. I know the difference in the care level and competency.
It's an average, mind you, but if you've been reading/trolling iSteve for as long as you have, you ought to have picked up some concept of statistics. I would hope so, but for someone who is as wrong as you are and so damn often... who knows?Replies: @Guest007
The same place as Drag Queen Story Hour: Judæa.
The newsreader I used was trn, which was in some ways very primitive, having a text-based rather than graphical user interface. Yet despite this limitation trn, because it was a threaded news client, was able to effectively display large portions of the discussion tree, so you could see at a glance which posts had the most replies, and how deep the discussion went. I really haven't seen anything that sophisticated since. Of course you had to learn a large number of keystroke commands to use trn effectively, and given how much the Internet has dumbed down since the early days I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that nobody has tried to match its functionality.
(BTW, although most of the discussion that took place on Usenet has moved to various web forums, including Twitter, Usenet is still active. It can be accessed through Google Groups, but it is not a a service provided by Google, and in fact it predates the World Wide Web itself. If you have a Unix shell account somewhere you can still access it via clients like trn).Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
Of course Usenet was better. sci*, alt.*, soc.*…. Those were the days. These were almost academic discussions.
Thanks.
I hereby insert “glimpse through.”
I was taught intensive speed-reading for a full 9th grade school year, where we learned how to scan rapidly with sufficient comprehension to slow down if detail were wanted. And I do that with most of the comments on the internet. For average size book text on easy topics, I can take in a page at a glance.
But if the beginning is something that doesn’t interest me enough, I do glimpse through, which is different from skipping.
I should be doing something useful at home today rather than obsessing about words.
But people of a certain age will be familiar with the Evelyn-Wood Speed Reading courses that were a staple of daytime TV advertising in the 1970's.
I'm not Steve, but I assume his primary drivers in opposing "race does not exist" are:
A) It's nonsense.
And I'm guessing that Steve--like me and a lot of folks here--does not have a "true believer" personality. I.e. does not like assenting to obvious, empirically false, nonsense.
B) It's the key lie undergirding minoritarianism.
The key lie in "bad whitey is oppressing poor innocent minorities (blacks)" propaganda that minoritarians use to attack whites--harass them, encumber them, strip them of rights, displace them.Replies: @Hypnotoad666, @Loyalty is The First Law of Morality
I understand Steve’s angle here is largely marketing for normies with conventionally acceptable arguments. This actually makes sense here as black lives actually do matter.
But leaning in too far on the normie framing can be comparable to GOP Establishment types saying “Democrats are the real racists” because affirmative action or welfare imposes the “bigotry of low expectations.”. Blah, blah, blah.
To me, the lede point here is that the AHA is willing to be objectively stupid and harmful to Americans in order to serve a political agenda. It’s just right out in the open: “Yeah, we are corrupt. What are you going to do about it. We get to be the gatekeepers of official wisdom and truth, anyway. That’s just how it is.”
But if the medical establishment is so obviously corrupted by the dominant racial political agenda, why can’t we connect the dots regarding other agendas and institutions? Steve does a good job of staying on brand, and on message. But sometimes I feel like he’s always hammering the exact same nail.
I hereby insert "glimpse through."
I was taught intensive speed-reading for a full 9th grade school year, where we learned how to scan rapidly with sufficient comprehension to slow down if detail were wanted. And I do that with most of the comments on the internet. For average size book text on easy topics, I can take in a page at a glance.
But if the beginning is something that doesn't interest me enough, I do glimpse through, which is different from skipping.
I should be doing something useful at home today rather than obsessing about words.Replies: @Hypnotoad666
I had that class for a semester in HS as well. As you suggest, those techniques really work! I wonder why “speed reading’ went away. Something to do with people switching to computer screens or something, I suppose.
But people of a certain age will be familiar with the Evelyn-Wood Speed Reading courses that were a staple of daytime TV advertising in the 1970’s.
Remember when Justice Jackson cited that medical study as a justification for allowing black quotas in medical school applications? The study allegedly showed,
One of the statements that white medical students were to assess as true or false was:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4843483/#si1
So, if a white student indicates “false” to the above statement, they would be considered more likely to subject black patients to unnecessary pain, so the implication goes in this garbage study.
The whole article is garbage, of course, but how will they be able to smoke out racist whitey if a given list of race differences (some true, some false) is not even permitted going forward?
Why, they'll just stomp out ALL whiteys, under the presumption they're ALL racist.
The race to the bottom.
Sailer approach:
1. For each patient in the training and validation sets, obtain 23andMe-style spit-in-a-tube SNP data (wholesale cost, ≤$50 each).
2. See whether including the SNP data improves the predictive power of the 2023 AHA test (i.e. higher AUC).
3. If it does: check to see whether the SNP genotypes that alter cardiovascular disease risk correlate with SNP genotypes that are indicative of
racegeographic ancestry.Gusev approach:
1. As above.
2. As above.
3. If it does: forbid checking to see whether the SNP genotypes that alter cardiovascular disease risk correlate with SNP genotypes that are indicative of
racegeographic ancestry..
The "Knowledge Is Good" crowd and the "Reification" crowd will still be at crossed swords, but at least the AHA CV Risk diagnostic would be as good as it could be.Replies: @res
Or you could just look at existing CVD studies which do a genetic analysis and look at race. Here is some 2018 fodder for the tiff.
Evaluation of 71 Coronary Artery Disease Risk Variants in a Multiethnic Cohort
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2018.00019/full
Alternatively, a 2019 paper from a different angle.
Sex and racial differences in cardiovascular disease risk in patients with atrial fibrillation
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6726240/
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b3_O91gyj9oReplies: @res, @Hypnotoad666
Found the gatekeeper wannabe.
Yeah, it’s not raw footage. It’s edited to make it seem like the Fed’s assets ( Proud Boys) took the Capitol by storm.
This is why I love this fine opinion webzine, because comments like this are disinformation. The fact of the matter is that the Proud Boys were the asset of Roger Stone.Replies: @libertyORdeath716, @BB753
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b3_O91gyj9oReplies: @res, @Hypnotoad666
LOL, Corvi. As usual, you miss the whole point. Releasing ALL the footage was necessary so that the cherry-picked, edited, propaganda that you’re rebroadcasting can be compared to what really happened inside the building.
Indeed, “George” is attempting to minimize the violence that the Capitol Police endured.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/11/what-is-going-capitol-officers-spotted-un-cuffing/Replies: @Corvinus
The following is from your earlier comment:
You are clearly not in medicine, are you?
And what’s with the strawman? Nobody is claiming that race is the cause of disease.
But here in the real world, those in medicine rely on race and ethnicity as a broad indicator (because we don’t yet have the technology to run quick genetic tests on individual patients) for a whole of host risk factors that are highly medically relevant. Indeed, you admit that “some diseases tend to run more heavily in certain races” – you don’t think this is a medically meaningful information?
If the patient is black, you consider increased chance of diabetes and kidney disease. If the patient is East Asian, you consider (and scan for) gastric cancer at certain age threshold (East Asians have it at 5 to 13 times the rate of whites). If the patient is Indian (dot, not feather), check for cardio-vascular disease much earlier than other groups. And so on.
It’s literally stupid not to consider race and ethnicity in medical risk analysis and even diagnosis. This is an insane ideology run amok that is going to harm people!
In case there are any lingering suspicions that the AHA has stopped acknowledging racial disparities in the prevalence of heart disease, we should be clear that the authors of the paper did not attempt to deny that nor even to downplay it:The authors had no qualms about identifying race as a proxy for, but not a cause of, disparities in the prevalence of heart disease. They specifically structured their argument such that disagreement with this point logically entails that the disputant is asserting that "race" is a biological cause of disease.
Ergo, that is exactly what Steve Sailer is claiming. And if Steve Sailer does not wish to be seen as claiming that, then maybe he needs to read the paper more carefully and reformulate his response.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Hypnotoad666, @Twinkie
Whet really happened there is that there a protest movement, which began as peaceful, ended up with a breach of the Capitol building, in which dozens of law enforcement officers were attacked and suffered injuries.
https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1723444347834622114
Just a reminder.
Pizza Gate is real.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/john-podhoretz-jews-are-not-white/#comment-6270852
Race Does Not Exist, people! pass it on
Yeah, they were fighting for their lives there, weren’t they!
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/11/what-is-going-capitol-officers-spotted-un-cuffing/
Remove all those boxes on applications and forms.
Why wait?Replies: @Flip, @Loyalty is The First Law of Morality, @kihowi, @Currahee
Doublethink.
In a free capitalist society, corporations want to get people to trade their money for what the corporation produces. you try to hire good personable salespeople who can discover people's wants and explain how the product satisfies them. you try to hire finance people who can form an efficient capital structure. You dont want to charge more than the competition because your finance guy screwed up and you have a more expensive capital structure. You want product designers who design well. if your idea of merit is good drawing of people faces by memory, probably your products will not be great, your salespeople will not sell as much, your bankrupcy is impending. the marketplace will take care of your misguided competency hierarchy.
Of course under a king, or a despot, loyalty is much more valued than most other abilities, and courage is required because the leaders and hanger-on's live by force extracting taxes and obedience. The local car dealer could try to sell cars by forcing the customers to obey, but good luck with that.Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Anonymous, @Colin Wright
This is the Randian/libertarian worldview. But human beings are not free floating atoms, we are a social/tribal species. Everything you’re describing can only take place inside of a society.
And the only societies that have come close to what you’re describing are white nations.
It’s funny, I’ve never seen people less capable of forming a society than a gathering of libertarians. However, please feel free to be dropped off in the Congo to build your classical liberal paradise! Go make it work among a group of black or brown people before you continue theorizing.
OT — Follow-up to the BsM thing: the excellent NPR weekend music programs arrive. The “World Music” one opens with Indigenous Night, with this very 90s, “nothing ballsier than a sixty year old woman” Native American bit. No alcohol! Sky soldiers, star walker (you gon be 70s, be 70s)! Wolf sister! Yeah, turns out it’s by that Italian chick (Eheu! Wolf sister indeed!! Starts with an M), BsM.
MODERATE ME NOW AND I SHALL BE LESS AUTHENTICALLY INDIGENOUS THAN WHEN TURTLE FIRST EXTENDED HIS HEAD.
Here’s a fairly common looking tribal Council. Who looks more Native, the Italian or these guys?Replies: @J.Ross
Muh Thomas Sowell!
You do realize he’s 93. Before him, we we’re told all about that genius George Washington Carver. He tore that peanut up! Don’t you have anyone else in the pipeline?
Is the last time you updated your worldview when Huey Lewis and the News had a number one hit?
I credited the man who made it, who indeed was born in 1930. Simple courtesy. You constantly quote Robert Frost, without attribution-- likely because you've never heard of him-- who was born in 1874.
Come back when you grow up. And act white.
Sally Satel wrote a book on “PC” in medicine two decades ago. See here for video and transcript: https://booknotes.org/Watch/164282-1
She wrote a piece for the NYT: “ I Am a Racially Profiling Doctor”: https://web.archive.org/web/20050207071948/http://www.sallysatelmd.com/html/a-nytimes3.html (she got some help from Steve apparently: https://www.unz.com/isteve/sally-satel-s-important-nyt-magazine-article-quot-i-am/)
Was the stupid yet brilliant 1994 movie The Paper an attempt to do a serious grown-up non-cartoon Simpsons episode as a live action feature, or is it just that writing styles overlap?
Also: find the RoboCop references.
Also: “You’re not a columnist, you’re a reporter who can’t get to the point.” Not an exact quote but so true, especially now.
Also: I like Michael Keaton out of the wierd black rubber and have done so since he took the blanket; since before, when he was assiduously polishing the nothing-screen.
Also: “The world? I don’t live in the world, I live in New York City, so you go yourself!!!” [Some words edited out]
I have a family member who is a hospital floor nurse (medi-surgical, you call it, in general), an RN. I know all about nursing education, both the classroom part and the subjective clinical portion.
Over the last 3 years, her floor went from mostly White to mostly black, and then some Philippine Pier I imports too. I know the difference in the care level and competency.
It’s an average, mind you, but if you’ve been reading/trolling iSteve for as long as you have, you ought to have picked up some concept of statistics. I would hope so, but for someone who is as wrong as you are and so damn often… who knows?
Yes, someone is claiming that. That is exactly what Steve Sailer and his confreres here are implying when they insist that race should be included in the risk assessment without explicitly admitting that race is there functioning as a proxy for other risk factors relevant in the development of heart disease, but that race itself is not a biological cause of heart disease; and it was precisely owning to confusion over this very specific point that the AHA decided to remove race as a risk factor in the development of the model in the first place. The stated goal was to avoid race-specific treatment decisions. In a world where physicians are increasingly mindless automatons applying decision trees to patients they may have never physically interacted with, this is probably for the best.
In case there are any lingering suspicions that the AHA has stopped acknowledging racial disparities in the prevalence of heart disease, we should be clear that the authors of the paper did not attempt to deny that nor even to downplay it:
The authors had no qualms about identifying race as a proxy for, but not a cause of, disparities in the prevalence of heart disease. They specifically structured their argument such that disagreement with this point logically entails that the disputant is asserting that “race” is a biological cause of disease.
Ergo, that is exactly what Steve Sailer is claiming. And if Steve Sailer does not wish to be seen as claiming that, then maybe he needs to read the paper more carefully and reformulate his response.
For example, being black doesn't "cause" sickle cell disease. But that gene occurs far more often in people of African descent (aka "black people"). So even if being black doesn't technically "cause" sickle cell, it would still be medical malpractice to ignore a person's race as a risk factor.
The bottom line is that AHA's model is supposed to simply be predictive -- and knowing the underlying causative mechanisms is beside the point. They are commiting malpractice by deliberately omitting any factor that makes the predictions less accurate.Replies: @Twinkie, @Jonathan Mason
I got an enormous amount of value out of it for 20 years, so it was a good run, but I've lately grown to actively despise it for its relentless, fanatical, brain-dead hate for Trump, Musk, Tucker, Rogan, etc. All the people he once would have championed as emblems of independent thought.
And now of course the Jewish emotionalism and hysteria and campaign of lies and propaganda is in full overdrive. Drudge is Jewish so the site always leaned toward one-sided and dishonest coverage that served Israeli/Jewish interests, but I could put up with that as long as the rest of the page skewed sane and countered liberal conventional wisdom.
But now? I'd love to have a site to go to that's like the Drudge Report of 5 years ago.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Stumpy Pepys, @Yngvar
Sam, your comment goes along with what I’ve said a few times, as I quit reading Drudge about a year or 2 before you did, maybe mid/late ’17, as I recall. Yes, he went from pretty fair, sometimes Libertarian, to left-wing in a couple of years before that time. I’d had enough.
I can’t vouch for this one – Revolver News – because I haven’t pulled it up that many times. However, it’s got headlines only, like Drudge did, and someone here recommended it when I made one of my comments before about Drudge’s entry into the sanitary sewer.
Moreover, they are basically correct in what they are saying. Race is not a biological category. Race does not pertain to any particular organ or tissue or disease etiology. It is, in effect, medically meaningless. Race is more of a stylistic quality or a mode that applies to the organism as a whole. Even given the (correct) observation that some diseases tend to run more heavily in certain races, this does not of course mean that the cause of that disease is "race." Race is neither a disease nor a cause of disease; it is simply an indicator of what sort of risks an individual might be exposed to. The disease itself---which is the fundamental topic of medical inquiry---has a much more prosaic etiology.
When Steve brings up things like this, it is not so much a symptom of a strange obsession within mainstream culture to insist that race is not a factor in anything, as it is a symptom of a strange obsession within HBD culture to insist that race is a factor in everything. It isn't. Race, like personality and temperament, is a condition that might dispose people in certain directions, but it doesn't simply dissolve every other cause into itself; and, like temperament, it is not conclusive. If you were trying to evaluate the linkage between temperament and heart disease, it may be interesting to ask people who had had heart attacks whether they get angry a lot, and you will probably even find some fascinating correlations. Nonetheless, anger is not medical diagnosis, and neither is race.Replies: @mc23
At this point I’ve heard race can have some use in diagnois and treatment. Race can vaguely be seen as extended family. For example, they’ve found that certain meds work better on one “race” versus another.
I imagine that sophisticated AI paired with increasing knowledge of genetics will make a broad category such as race outdated in medicine.
We could write building codes that didn't differentiate between residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The language and definitions would be a lot more prolix and obscure, but we could do it. We could define young drivers so that we could charge more to insure boys than we charge to ensure girls without actually identifying anyone as a boy or a girl. 'Your image fits our profile of a higher-risk driver.'
But why? Isn't it simpler to call a spade a spade, so to speak? Per se, there is nothing wrong with sorting people by race -- no more than there is anything wrong with sorting them by age, gender, alcohol intake, BMI, family history, or anything else. It's purely a matter of observing meaningful associations and proceeding accordingly. It's called intelligent behavior.Replies: @mc23
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/11/what-is-going-capitol-officers-spotted-un-cuffing/Replies: @Corvinus
Undoubtedly there were Capitol Police officers who appeared to have been sympathetic to the crowd, or in some cases, after talking to the lawbreaker, freed them if said lawbreaker left the premises. But the fact remains that dozens and dozens of police officers were violently attacked by a mob inside the Capitol on January 6. My vague impression is that you would have enjoyed being there in the thick of things…
This applies not only to race. For example, once the last of the founders of the USSR retired, the next generation no longer held in their head both the reality of things, and the propaganda. They simply grew up in the solipsistic fantasy, and perpetuated it.
The momentum from the first generation lasted into the space race, and by 1970 stagnation set in, and then stagnation turned to degeneration — slowly, slowly, then fast.
Once you cut enough links with objective external reality, you start having trains derail, factories catch on fire, consumer goods fall in quality and then in number, power outages, Afghanistan fiascos, Chernobyl-style catastrophes, rising ethnic strife, the power structure fracturing into locale and institution-based mafias, and in the end — sudden collapse.
A very similar process to the one that led to the apocalypse-level collapse of the “Victorian civilization” via WWI, the Great Depression, and WWII. Once people’s heads get wedged too deep inside their asses, reality becomes a cruel mistress indeed.
Whites don't exist when we want to take credit for our vast accomplishments. But we do exist when it's time to demonize or attack us.Replies: @Francis Miville, @bomag, @Reg Cæsar
Our accomplishments: The handiest boast for the man who has none of his own.
–Shambrose Bierce
Funny how White people 1n 1623, 1723, 1823, and 1923 had it right, and could say so straightforwardly, and here their descendants are, thumbs up their keisters, giving everything away without a fight, and tying themselves up in knots trying to explain their idiotic positions.
@Steve_Sailer (12:45 PM Nov 15, 2023) -- Here are links to the underlying academic paper announcing the new raceless algorithm. Strikingly, it doesn't include a comparison of its accuracy vs. the old 2013 algorithm:
[res' comment #59 at iSteve post]
.
@StoneBiology -- you're reading the wrong paper they do a direct comparison (it outperforms the old equation)
https://ahajournals.org/doi/epdf/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.067626
.
@Steve_Sailer -- The AHA improved its algorithm from 2013 to 2023 in a number of noncontroversial scientific ways, but that hardly proves it didn't hurt its algorithm, ceteris paribus, by dropping race as a factor.
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- This is a very weasely way of acknowledging that the new algorithm that drops race is more accurate
.
@Steve_Sailer -- Are you familiar with the concept of ceteris paribus?
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- It's not possible to hold all conditions equal, this isn't a breeding program. But is there a reason you lied about the study right from the start?
.
@Steve_Sailer -- In updating a risk model like the American Heart Association's, it's very much possible to hold all else equal while assessing each proposed change. The AHA has the data on what the accuracy would be with and without race as a factor, but they decided not to publish it.
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- This is incorrect. Adding a race interaction substantially changes the model structure and also limits your training data to studies that have harmonized race. Now can you explain why you lied about the study?
.
@SouthernWintrs [Will I Am - e/acc - 1:47 AM · Nov 17, 2023] -- Ablation studies are a very common technique when studying algorithm design.
You can train the same model with any factor and one without the same factor and compare accuracies.
This is a very standard study design if one wants to be honest about changes to an algorithm.
·
@SashaGusevPosts -- Steve's not asking for an ablation study, he wants a new model that uses race, which will change the model structure and the training set (to studies that have harmonized race). This after the old model using race was shown to be inferior.
.
@SouthernWintrs -- If you take an honest and good faith reading at what he is saying, he wants the new model to be tested with race being included and excluded as a factor, aka a standard ablation study.
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- It's not an ablation study if you didn't use the feature in building the model! This is basic stuff.
.
@SouthernWintrs -- You can add and remove features in a statistical model pretty easily! Ablation models are even used to add and remove architectural features of a model to test if they have an effect.
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- Adding features is not ablation. And you can't add features that weren't collected in your training data.
.
@SouthernWintrs -- [posts image of text with emphasis added]
"In Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly Machine Learning (ML), ablation is the removal of a component of an AI system. An ablation study investigates the performance of an AI system by removing certain components to understand the contribution of the component to the overall system."
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- Your quote confirms my point
.
@SouthernWintrs -- It absolutely does not. A study comparing the model with and without race as a feature would be an ablation study. And given the use of race in previous models, ceteris paribus, you'd need an ablation study to show whether it makes a model better or worse.
.
@SashaGusevPosts -- I can't believe your still having this conversation not knowing the difference between taking an existing feature out of the model (ablation) and adding a new feature (a new model). Sailer really does a number on the brain.
.
@SouthernWintrs -- The original model had race. The new model does not have race. Other things were presumably changed about the model. To make a valid comparison between models to see if race was a factor, you would add race to the new model and compare the new model with and without race as a factor. That is where your ablation study comes in.
A priori making the decision to not include race when it was included in the previous model and was a significant factor without such a comparison is pretty much scientific malpractice. The only way someone can justify it is on ideological grounds. We know two [sic] things:
1. Previous model used race
2. Race was a significant factor in the previous model.
3. New model doesn't use race.
Saying that the new model should be tested using race, isn't some crazy out of the world demand. It should be the default position given what we know previously. Without that ablation study, you can't claim that race isn't a significant factor here. You just have no proof for that. Sailer has better proof because the previous model used race and it was a significant factor.Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @candid_observer, @res, @jb, @res
Let’s return to a specific point there.
First, that link fails for me. Here is another.
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.067626
Regarding StoneBiology’s assertion, here is some verbal commentary.
The actual model comparison is interesting. I believe this table captures it:
Table 4. Meta-analyzed discrimination, calibration, and net reclassification statistics of model performance for prediction of total cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular disease subtypes in validation cohorts.
The metric for model comparison is the C-statistic. This article claims it is the same as AUC ROC:
https://www.mcw.edu/-/media/MCW/Departments/Biostatistics/vo19no4.pdf
Based on that it appears:
1. They did a comparison with the old model.
2. The new PREVENT Base model was better than the old PCE model.
3. The PREVENT model became better with novel predictors (though not available in all cohorts).
4. Given that they were able to test against the PCE model it would seem Gusev’s assertion that race was not available was a lie. They claimed to have used the same sample.
Returning to the variable comparison between the two models in Table A here
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/suppl/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001191
The PREVENT (base, non * variables in that table) and PCE models use slightly different variable sets. Most notably the PREVENT model adds two new variables: eGFR% and statin treatment. Therefore the comparison they did is not really fair. The right comparison to make is between models using the PREVENT variable set with and without race.
So StoneBiology’s basic point was correct, but it does not answer Steve’s larger point–they should have compared the new model with and without the race variable.
Further regarding the race variable being available (see other comments), Table 1 of that paper shows it for both the derivation and validation sample. They give other/missing percentages of 4.1-5.5% though. There is an * there which appears to be an error of some sort. The actual * is interesting though so I will include here.
The original 2013 model appears to have covered the Others race category (see Table 5) so I am not seeing why that should be an obstacle.
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/01.cir.0000437741.48606.98
They just normally haven't been heard. (LOL, Maybe they don't measure up to Steve Sailer's own standard of "class!" ROTFLMAO)
No, this falsehood is entirely upon the "elite" that Sailer himself wants so badly to be part of.
Oh, hey, am I "low class" for writing this?
Only a social climber -- a man just as middle class as me, but somehow insecure -- would give a shit.Replies: @Curle
“No, this falsehood is entirely upon the “elite” that Sailer himself wants so badly to be part of.”
He likes to play expensive golf courses and have discussions with smart (elite) people but otherwise works out of a closet. I don’t recall him talking about $70 shots of whiskey as one particular Wall Street bore did with or to me one night.
From a project choosing to name itself after the one person about whom it can be said, without contradiction I would hope, pursued an 100% avoidable and unwarranted war of conquest that cost 600,000 lives of combatants during the war, countless non-combatants during the war and over one million people dead from the economic effects of the war afterwards. Truly one of histories greatest monsters. By the way, where was Trotsky and Berea? They always get left out of these collages for some reason.
In case there are any lingering suspicions that the AHA has stopped acknowledging racial disparities in the prevalence of heart disease, we should be clear that the authors of the paper did not attempt to deny that nor even to downplay it:The authors had no qualms about identifying race as a proxy for, but not a cause of, disparities in the prevalence of heart disease. They specifically structured their argument such that disagreement with this point logically entails that the disputant is asserting that "race" is a biological cause of disease.
Ergo, that is exactly what Steve Sailer is claiming. And if Steve Sailer does not wish to be seen as claiming that, then maybe he needs to read the paper more carefully and reformulate his response.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Hypnotoad666, @Twinkie
Race is about who your relatives are. You get both your nature (genes) from your ancestors and, usually, also quite a bit of your nurture (e.g., your cuisine in many cases). That, all else being equal, cardiologists should be more concerned about patients who identify as African-American does not say whether the statistical correlation that African-Americans are more prone to cardiovascular disease is due to nature or nurture. Is this due to their genes or because their mom took them to Popeye’s a lot? That’s a fascinating question for scientists and public health officials, but for doctors treating individual patients, it’s enough to know that with blacks, it’s more likely to turn out serious.
Now you're hedging your bets. My vague impression is that you read my comment (59) from "The AHA's "Scientific Statement" On Why They Are Hamstringing Their Heart Attack Risk Algorithm a Priori". You don't like being wrong, but at least you are tacitly admitting you need to rethink things.
But that doesn't last for long, as evident by your recent spate of Jewish content. Must be tin cup narrative time around the corner.
The idiocy of that is mind-numbing. No doubt insurers could evaluate risks for drivers without looking at driving records: age, gender, place of residence, make and model of vehicle…
However…
I imagine that sophisticated AI paired with increasing knowledge of genetics will make a broad category such as race outdated in medicine.Replies: @Colin Wright
It’ll mean they’ll be able to identify someone as black without saying that they’re black.
We could write building codes that didn’t differentiate between residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The language and definitions would be a lot more prolix and obscure, but we could do it. We could define young drivers so that we could charge more to insure boys than we charge to ensure girls without actually identifying anyone as a boy or a girl. ‘Your image fits our profile of a higher-risk driver.’
But why? Isn’t it simpler to call a spade a spade, so to speak? Per se, there is nothing wrong with sorting people by race — no more than there is anything wrong with sorting them by age, gender, alcohol intake, BMI, family history, or anything else. It’s purely a matter of observing meaningful associations and proceeding accordingly. It’s called intelligent behavior.
When say you have one group of Hamas holding hostages you can surround and seal off the place then try and get the optimum ratio of living hostages to dead or captured Hamas, but in a fluid situation when for all you know you could be outflanked any second, the temptation to kill all Hamas even if hostages suffer must be very great, just as the temptation to fire on any vehicle coming towards you ('terrorists attacking!") or fleeing away from you ("terrorists escaping!") must be great.
And that's assuming you can easily distinguish between a Hamas guy with a gun and a settler with a gun. Don't know if that's true.
The Lincoln Project is denouncing the Biden administration?
In case there are any lingering suspicions that the AHA has stopped acknowledging racial disparities in the prevalence of heart disease, we should be clear that the authors of the paper did not attempt to deny that nor even to downplay it:The authors had no qualms about identifying race as a proxy for, but not a cause of, disparities in the prevalence of heart disease. They specifically structured their argument such that disagreement with this point logically entails that the disputant is asserting that "race" is a biological cause of disease.
Ergo, that is exactly what Steve Sailer is claiming. And if Steve Sailer does not wish to be seen as claiming that, then maybe he needs to read the paper more carefully and reformulate his response.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Hypnotoad666, @Twinkie
That’s true. “Race itself” isn’t the biological cause of anything. But specific genes can cause disease, and those genes are more likely to occur in members of certain ancestry groups (aka “races”).
For example, being black doesn’t “cause” sickle cell disease. But that gene occurs far more often in people of African descent (aka “black people”). So even if being black doesn’t technically “cause” sickle cell, it would still be medical malpractice to ignore a person’s race as a risk factor.
The bottom line is that AHA’s model is supposed to simply be predictive — and knowing the underlying causative mechanisms is beside the point. They are commiting malpractice by deliberately omitting any factor that makes the predictions less accurate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU0fS0GA6Ek
MODERATE ME NOW AND I SHALL BE LESS AUTHENTICALLY INDIGENOUS THAN WHEN TURTLE FIRST EXTENDED HIS HEAD.Replies: @Curle
Here’s a fairly common looking tribal Council. Who looks more Native, the Italian or these guys?
I imagine some of the big data model-builders “cheat” by first running the most accurate model possible (i.e., with race included), and then reverse engineering the same result by re-weighting the politically permissible factors.
Christian research into creation of a young earth emphasizes there being only 2 people to start the human race, then repeated after the Flood with 3 couples. At the Tower of Babel, 70 languages and people groups were separated. Answers in Genesis can tell you how to get your Y chromosome tested to find out which of the 70 and which of the 3 sons you are descended from.
Different races today are like different species of dogs or cats. Each looks different and has a variety of characteristics and problems and disease susceptibility but can reproduce by their own kind.
I’m not sure I understand the significance of this line of thought in the first place.
I mean, for a moment let’s simply grant the premise: race has no basis in science or biological fact, it is a social construct.
So what? Humans are social animals, and social constructs matter a great deal to human societies, which make most policy with respect to the realities of social constructs. Being rich, or being a criminal, are both social constructs — and people live and die all the time in accordance with such mutual understandings. If race is a social construct — and that IS the premise — it is still an observable identifiable social fact, and policy can legitimately be made with respect to it… IF that is what we want (we don’t have to, but it’s intellectually defensible to do so.)
A lot of our more twisted policies have a basis in now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t shell games with respect to racial identity; blacks are an identifiable group when it’s time to hand out benefits, but they become invisible when we want to discuss crime or incarceration. Whites do not exist until it is time to milk them, and so on.
Even granting the (dubious) idea that there is zero biology involved, the mere existence of multiple, clearly identifiable “social constructs” with associated identifiable patterns of societal behavior is still grounds for making observably rational policy with respect to said constructs.
So, stop placing all your blind faith in Steve Sailer and his obfuscatory race-reporting. Things are not as he says they are. Steve whiffed this one because, while he was never right about race to begin with, now he's getting old and sloppy in addition to being wrong and ridiculous, and he and his followers are reverting to the sort of arguments like the one you made above, simply to cover their asses.
"Well, even if race is a social construct, it's a valid social construct!"
Yes, the paper says as much. It quite plainly acknowledges a racial disparity in the incidence of heart disease. The new model represents an attempt to capture that component sociologically so as to avoid giving the impression that race is a biological factor in disease etiology, and to avoid the prospect of doctors making race-specific treatment decisions (which, in this day and age, would be grounds for a lawsuit in the event of a bad outcome).
Imagine if it ever came to light that a doctor advised a course of dietary modification instead of statin drugs to a black patient at risk for heart disease, on the grounds that "everybody just knows black people have a higher rate of kidney disease leading to CVD, and it's probably a result of their poor diets." Then the patient has a heart attack and dies. His estate could then claim that a race-based standard of care was responsible for his death.
If you're a hospital administrator, you're going to love the new model because it provides quantitative metrics for recommending the same standards of care to everyone without resorting to vague notions like self-reported race. Neither the doctor nor the patient himself should be considered qualified to assess the accuracy of self-reported race nor to determine how much weight, if any, such judgments ought to hold in a medical context. If easily measured, quantitative metrics like eGFR are more predictive and less controversial, then what is the problem here?
Now, here is the kicker and the real bone of contention. The only reason for including "race" as a factor in itself in the predictive model, above and beyond those quantitative factors that race is known to be a proxy for, is if there is some hidden variable that remains causally unexplained but is quantitatively captured by the race metric. However, even if, for argument's sake, we assume the existence of such a hidden variable, the question remains, "What the hell is medical science supposed to do about it?" If it cannot be explained, it cannot be treated. The only thing to do would be to use brute-force statistical methods to comb through full medical histories looking for associations to follow up with. Then we might end up with statements like the following:
"Approximately 6% of the variance of CVD in black patients is captured by a variable called "self-reported race" with no known causal explanation. We have no idea why, but within that 6%, black patients who reported eating broccoli 2-3 times per week had a 16% lower incidence of severe cardiac events."
Does it follow from this that recommending broccoli to black heart patients is a viable treatment option? No. A reasonable person would assume that the broccoli-eating was the result of more general lifestyle differences, the effects of which had already been pretty well captured elsewhere in the data. The bang-for-the-buck of such studies is quite low, and the likelihood of discovering spurious associations is quite high. Since medical science cannot help with this, it is better to not to invite the temptation and risk turning it into even more of a cargo cult than it already is.
House M.D. had a skit on race and medicine in one of the early seasons:
Ongoing edit war over Wikipedia list of WWII aces:
https://twitter.com/swampfog1/status/1725700597419028921Replies: @Mike Tre, @Anonymous, @Colin Wright
That is a long ass list though (nearly 2000 entries).
I’ve had two list-type articles of mine chopped up into smaller sub-lists by other editors. (Both with unpolitical content.) It’s apparently Wikipedia policy to get rid of monster lists like that.
For example, being black doesn't "cause" sickle cell disease. But that gene occurs far more often in people of African descent (aka "black people"). So even if being black doesn't technically "cause" sickle cell, it would still be medical malpractice to ignore a person's race as a risk factor.
The bottom line is that AHA's model is supposed to simply be predictive -- and knowing the underlying causative mechanisms is beside the point. They are commiting malpractice by deliberately omitting any factor that makes the predictions less accurate.Replies: @Twinkie, @Jonathan Mason
Agree 100%.
--Shambrose BierceReplies: @Loyalty is The First Law of Morality
Human beings are a social species, which you seem to allow for everyone – except White people. We can talk about the achievements of Japan and know that some people played a bigger role than others, while understanding the entire society was necessary in order for any of it to have occurred.
If you had dropped Isaac Newton off as a baby in the middle of Africa we would have never heard of him or his achievements. They were a function of his genes plus his learning from other White men and being in a White society.
They were a function of his genes plus his learning from other [Christian ⛪] men and being in a [Christian ⛪] society. FIFY2.I challenge you to quote the "White society" anthem for us. Every nation has an anthem, official or customary. This is the English Christian one:
And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God
On England's pleasant pastures seen?And did the Countenance Divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark Satanic mills?
Now give us yours-- or admit, for once, you're a fraud. A wigger. A troll. Or both.Replies: @Corvinus, @Jenner Ickham Errican
Actually, there are studies that factor out lifestyle choices. For example, Indians (South Asians) are highly prone to heart diseases (doctors will privately talk about “Indian hearts”). Scientists immediately went to obesity and bad diet/lack of exercise at first as the culprits, but then several studies showed that even at lower weight thresholds and non-Indian diet (and vigorous physical activity), Indians were prone to heart diseases at higher rates than whites and East Asians. The scientific conclusion is often “we don’t know, but it’s there with Indians.” If press, especially in private, they will admit that it’s likely genetic, but “not sure… for now.”
In case there are any lingering suspicions that the AHA has stopped acknowledging racial disparities in the prevalence of heart disease, we should be clear that the authors of the paper did not attempt to deny that nor even to downplay it:The authors had no qualms about identifying race as a proxy for, but not a cause of, disparities in the prevalence of heart disease. They specifically structured their argument such that disagreement with this point logically entails that the disputant is asserting that "race" is a biological cause of disease.
Ergo, that is exactly what Steve Sailer is claiming. And if Steve Sailer does not wish to be seen as claiming that, then maybe he needs to read the paper more carefully and reformulate his response.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Hypnotoad666, @Twinkie
I don’t want to speak for Mr. Sailer, but I don’t read him that way.
This is a common statistical trick when dealing with “race.” Yes, if you pick a tiny fraction of black people who live in elite neighborhoods, are extremely affluent, are upper crust, are “psycho-socially” healthy, have not committed crimes, and have not otherwise engaged in other negative “behavioral factors,” indeed you might find such a black person to have similar mortality profile as a white person.
But we all know that the preponderance of such blacks is miniscule compared to the fraction of such people among whites or Asians.
Let me use a bit reductio ad absurdum. I’m pretty sure that if you compared the non-criminal fraction of the black population in America to other groups, they have committed the same amount of crimes (zero) as the number of crimes the non-criminal fraction of whites or Asians have. But we all know in this case that the selection effects are widely divergent by groups, don’t we?
Also, do you note “nearly” in that quoted statement above? This formulation is used a lot in scientific race talk… for a reason.
Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics---2023 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association
Interested readers are welcome to verify for themselves whether the term "nearly" is being used disingenuously here, or not.Replies: @res, @Twinkie
Associations of Clinical and Social Risk Factors With Racial Differences in Premature Cardiovascular Disease
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.058311Table 1 has a summary table of variables (mean and SD) by sex and race (limited to black and white). Table 2 has hazard ratios for the variables (for one version of the analysis, see below).Some things which caught my eye there.
1. The site HRs (Birmingham, Chicago, Minneapolis, and Oakland) are large--though only Oakland is significant.
2. The FVC (Forced vital capacity) HR is 0.83 but not significant. What makes this interesting is blacks are an SD worse than whites for FVC.
3.The HR for antihypertensive medication is largest of the HRs.
4. Heavy alcohol intake actually has a low HR?! 0.48 for women.As seems to happen all too frequently, things become more interesting in the Supplemental Material.
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/suppl/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.058311First, in Table S4 we see that a third their participants are excluded for missing data. The excluded are disproportionately black (64% vs. 44.8% included) and have worse socioeconomic factors. I wonder what influence that has on the analysis. I believe ALL are included in the imputed data set seen in Table Second (and more interesting) is it turns out that the race HRs have several versions (two presented in the paper results summary). The results given appear to be model 1 in Table S2 and model 6 in Table S6 (though numbers differ slightly it seems closest). Here are the relevant SM table titles.Table S2. Hazard ratios for incident cardiovascular disease in Black versus White participants and percent reduction in parameter estimates using baseline-only factor data in the imputed dataset used in Table S2.Table S6. Hazard ratios for incident cardiovascular disease in Black versus White participants and percent reduction in parameter estimates using time-varying factor data in the complete-case dataset
(full set of HRs in Table S5)Table S7. Hazard ratios for incident cardiovascular disease in Black versus White participants and percent reduction in parameter estimates using baseline-only factor data in the complete-case datasetIn addition, each of those tables has three versions of the analysis: sequential adjustment, individual adjustment, and leave-out adjustment. Those are discussed in the paper and helpful for understanding which variables have the largest effects on the race HRs. It seems appropriate to focus on Model 6 under sequential adjustment because that is the complete model.I prefer to focus on the two complete case analysis (more comparable and more reliable data, though exclusions an issue) in Tables S6 and S7. The only difference I see there is the use of baseline-only vs. time-varying factor data. This table lists which variables were measured in each exam:
Supplemental Methods Table. Detailing of the fully conditional specification of the multiple imputation procedure.
If you take a look at that table, including ALL of the measured variables increases the number of variables available about 5x. And allows looking at variables over a period of 30 years! It would be interesting to see an ANOVA for the model with all of those variables.The difference in factors (variables) used is described in the paper.Given how much increased power the time-varying factor data adds (and keep in mind this is what was quoted in the results) I think it makes sense to focus on the predictive power shown in Table S7 (baseline factors for complete cases).Contrasting the original results:In Table S7 we see:Black (versus White) adults had a higher risk of incident premature CVD (Black women: HR, 2.62 [95% CI, 1.64–4.21], Black men: HR, 1.81 [1.27–2.57] adjusted for age and center). Racial differences were not (barely) statistically significant after full adjustment (Black women: HR, 1.83 [0.95–3.56], Black men: HR 1.56 [0.94–2.57]). Oddly the Model 6 results in Table S2 (imputed factors for baseline data) moved in opposite directions for men and women (becoming statistically significant for women).after full adjustment Black women: HR, 2.29 [1.36–3.86], Black men: HR 1.33 [0.87–2.02]Look at those adjusted numbers again (and recall that in Table 2 the HRs for smoking are 1.60 for women and 2.13 for men). It is clear they chose the analysis which most favored their desired conclusion. At least they included the others in the SM...Sigh. So much BS, so little time.P.S. This summing up I left on the earlier thread might be worth a look for anyone following the AHA discussion. In particular, some discussion of South Asians there.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-american-heart-associations-scientific-statement-on-why-they-are-hamstringing-their-heart-attack-risk-algorithm/#comment-6271231P.P.S. From the paper. What a Current Year we live in.Replies: @Twinkie
Genomics entrepreneur Craig Venter’s speech in the White House Rose Garden ceremony asserting that there are no genetic differences between races has proven wildly influential. FIFY
What events is he talking about?
Ongoing edit war over Wikipedia list of WWII aces:
https://twitter.com/swampfog1/status/1725700597419028921Replies: @Mike Tre, @Anonymous, @Colin Wright
I would say ‘thanks,’ but this news is just depressing.
Thanks a lot?
Well, the entirety of the video from inside the Capitol is going to be available. (After being hidden and suppressed by Team Deep State for three years.) So, if you or your fellow Fedsurrection Hoaxers can show any police officers being attacked inside the Capitol, the world will be able to see it. We’ll all be waiting with bated breath.
There are dozens of news outlets that have showed extensive video footage of what happened, from groups who weee respectful to law enforcement to other groups running roughshod over law enforcement, from officers talking down protestors from entering the premises to allowing then to ransack lawmakers offices to beating up protestors who were minding their own business.
My vague impression is that you come across as gleeful that police officers were pummeled during the riot at the Capitol on January 6.
Of course, in ANY protest movement in which the crowd becomes violent, the offenders should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
“So, if you or your fellow Fedsurrection Hoaxers can show any police officers being attacked inside the Capitol, the world will be able to see it. We’ll all be waiting with bated breath.”
So now you’re being a weasel here. The Capitol was breached. Officers inside the building were vastly outnumbered. They did not get reinforcements. It is other than surprising that those remaining officers were seeking to maintain a modicum of law and order by repeatedly ordering the culprits to leave.
Regardless, here is footage of Capitol police inside the doorway being bum rushed.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2021/jan/10/police-officer-crushed-in-doorway-by-rioters-during-capitol-breach-video
Listen, if you are seemingly gung-ho about curb stomping members of law enforcement, why don’t you lead the charge? After all, “your kind” for the past 60 years is being allegedly genocided by non-whites, courtesy of Jews supposedly leading the charge. Why haven’t you done anything of note to stop this (checks Trump speech notes) “vermin”?Replies: @Jonathan Mason
We could write building codes that didn't differentiate between residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The language and definitions would be a lot more prolix and obscure, but we could do it. We could define young drivers so that we could charge more to insure boys than we charge to ensure girls without actually identifying anyone as a boy or a girl. 'Your image fits our profile of a higher-risk driver.'
But why? Isn't it simpler to call a spade a spade, so to speak? Per se, there is nothing wrong with sorting people by race -- no more than there is anything wrong with sorting them by age, gender, alcohol intake, BMI, family history, or anything else. It's purely a matter of observing meaningful associations and proceeding accordingly. It's called intelligent behavior.Replies: @mc23
I agree with you. I just don’t think it will be needed at some point. I believe it’s irresponsible not to use race until we’ve reached that level of sophistication.
https://web.archive.org/web/20231114025647/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/11/us/politics/trump-2025-immigration-agenda.html
https://www.kiro7.com/news/trending/us-army-overturns-convictions-110-black-soldiers-charged-1917-houston-riot/YVERN7LQ2BGNDAEGDJR6D2X5IE/Replies: @Old Prude
Jeezus. The modern US Military continues to beclown itself. At least it doesn’t cost anything. Next comes the conviction of Bobby Lee and his boys for treason. The Army Corps of Engineers will excavate their bones and execute them with an injection of lethal drugs.
I await the pardon of Osama Bin Laden. But not Eddie Slovak; He white.
https://twitter.com/clashreport/status/1725760677661311290Replies: @Gordo, @YetAnotherAnon
Serves them right for calling it HMAS Toowoomba and not HMAS Macquarie or something like that.
https://twitter.com/MattWallace888/status/1725932770369867918
Just a reminder.
Pizza Gate is real.Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
LOL. Jack D, Twinkie, and PhysicistDave would have us believe there’s no way anyone could tell he’s Ashkenazi just by looking at his face. One would have to be a “Jew hater” to know that Jews are real!
https://www.unz.com/isteve/john-podhoretz-jews-are-not-white/#comment-6270852
Race Does Not Exist, people! pass it on
Over the last 3 years, her floor went from mostly White to mostly black, and then some Philippine Pier I imports too. I know the difference in the care level and competency.
It's an average, mind you, but if you've been reading/trolling iSteve for as long as you have, you ought to have picked up some concept of statistics. I would hope so, but for someone who is as wrong as you are and so damn often... who knows?Replies: @Guest007
It is impossible to do statistics on anecdotes but that never stops idiots from doing it. Please provide a link that shows that hospitals with large number of Filipino or black nurses have higher error rates.
NOBODY is going to be allowed to do a good study on hospital deaths vs. race of staff. Good luck with that one.
The very obvious idea is that, by definition, when you hire people who are of lower quality than you could have, on the average, you'll have less competence. That goes for any field. For most realms of employment the AA/Wokeness hiring just results in lower profits for the company, a less unified workforce with lower morale, more defective products, and poorer service. In some, however, the long-term results are higher risks of harm and/or death.
I understand iSteve's point here. I am just saying this is just a small part of the harm AA and Wokeness have caused over the many years.Replies: @Guest007
1) I didn't meant the Filipanas are part of AA. They were imported. We have no idea about their training.
2) Hospital errors are not like errors in baseball. You won't know many of them.
3) NOBODY, but NOBODY is going to do studies of such mistakes as a function of racial make-up of the staff. Feel free to give it a go though.
4) The OBVIOUS. By DEFINITION of AA, the less qualified are admitted over more qualified. Therefore, there will be more harm and more (or earlier) deaths.Replies: @bomag
https://twitter.com/clashreport/status/1725760677661311290Replies: @Gordo, @YetAnotherAnon
It was always likely that many of the deaths on 7th October were friendly fire deaths. Looked at from the perspective of the Israeli security forces, they knew the attack was yuge but didn’t know exactly how yuge or what was coming next.
When say you have one group of Hamas holding hostages you can surround and seal off the place then try and get the optimum ratio of living hostages to dead or captured Hamas, but in a fluid situation when for all you know you could be outflanked any second, the temptation to kill all Hamas even if hostages suffer must be very great, just as the temptation to fire on any vehicle coming towards you (‘terrorists attacking!”) or fleeing away from you (“terrorists escaping!”) must be great.
And that’s assuming you can easily distinguish between a Hamas guy with a gun and a settler with a gun. Don’t know if that’s true.
I mean, for a moment let's simply grant the premise: race has no basis in science or biological fact, it is a social construct.
So what? Humans are social animals, and social constructs matter a great deal to human societies, which make most policy with respect to the realities of social constructs. Being rich, or being a criminal, are both social constructs -- and people live and die all the time in accordance with such mutual understandings. If race is a social construct -- and that IS the premise -- it is still an observable identifiable social fact, and policy can legitimately be made with respect to it... IF that is what we want (we don't have to, but it's intellectually defensible to do so.)
A lot of our more twisted policies have a basis in now-you-see-it-now-you-don't shell games with respect to racial identity; blacks are an identifiable group when it's time to hand out benefits, but they become invisible when we want to discuss crime or incarceration. Whites do not exist until it is time to milk them, and so on.
Even granting the (dubious) idea that there is zero biology involved, the mere existence of multiple, clearly identifiable "social constructs" with associated identifiable patterns of societal behavior is still grounds for making observably rational policy with respect to said constructs.Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
Yes, and if you actually read the paper—God damn it—you’ll see that that’s exactly what was done here.
So, stop placing all your blind faith in Steve Sailer and his obfuscatory race-reporting. Things are not as he says they are. Steve whiffed this one because, while he was never right about race to begin with, now he’s getting old and sloppy in addition to being wrong and ridiculous, and he and his followers are reverting to the sort of arguments like the one you made above, simply to cover their asses.
“Well, even if race is a social construct, it’s a valid social construct!”
Yes, the paper says as much. It quite plainly acknowledges a racial disparity in the incidence of heart disease. The new model represents an attempt to capture that component sociologically so as to avoid giving the impression that race is a biological factor in disease etiology, and to avoid the prospect of doctors making race-specific treatment decisions (which, in this day and age, would be grounds for a lawsuit in the event of a bad outcome).
Imagine if it ever came to light that a doctor advised a course of dietary modification instead of statin drugs to a black patient at risk for heart disease, on the grounds that “everybody just knows black people have a higher rate of kidney disease leading to CVD, and it’s probably a result of their poor diets.” Then the patient has a heart attack and dies. His estate could then claim that a race-based standard of care was responsible for his death.
If you’re a hospital administrator, you’re going to love the new model because it provides quantitative metrics for recommending the same standards of care to everyone without resorting to vague notions like self-reported race. Neither the doctor nor the patient himself should be considered qualified to assess the accuracy of self-reported race nor to determine how much weight, if any, such judgments ought to hold in a medical context. If easily measured, quantitative metrics like eGFR are more predictive and less controversial, then what is the problem here?
Now, here is the kicker and the real bone of contention. The only reason for including “race” as a factor in itself in the predictive model, above and beyond those quantitative factors that race is known to be a proxy for, is if there is some hidden variable that remains causally unexplained but is quantitatively captured by the race metric. However, even if, for argument’s sake, we assume the existence of such a hidden variable, the question remains, “What the hell is medical science supposed to do about it?” If it cannot be explained, it cannot be treated. The only thing to do would be to use brute-force statistical methods to comb through full medical histories looking for associations to follow up with. Then we might end up with statements like the following:
“Approximately 6% of the variance of CVD in black patients is captured by a variable called “self-reported race” with no known causal explanation. We have no idea why, but within that 6%, black patients who reported eating broccoli 2-3 times per week had a 16% lower incidence of severe cardiac events.”
Does it follow from this that recommending broccoli to black heart patients is a viable treatment option? No. A reasonable person would assume that the broccoli-eating was the result of more general lifestyle differences, the effects of which had already been pretty well captured elsewhere in the data. The bang-for-the-buck of such studies is quite low, and the likelihood of discovering spurious associations is quite high. Since medical science cannot help with this, it is better to not to invite the temptation and risk turning it into even more of a cargo cult than it already is.
I’m not old enough to remember the Scopes trial in Tennessee, but I did see “Inherit the Wind.” Guess those hicks were just ahead of their time on this natural selection stuff.
Yes, and that reason is because it’s the right word to use. In the original paper, the quoted statement contains a footnote to the data used to cash out the term “nearly.” It is here if you care to review it.
Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2023 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association
Interested readers are welcome to verify for themselves whether the term “nearly” is being used disingenuously here, or not.
I note that you didn't address the main point of my comment. In all seriousness, I'd like to know what you think of the divergent selections in sampling.Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Loyalty is The First Law of Morality
I got an enormous amount of value out of it for 20 years, so it was a good run, but I've lately grown to actively despise it for its relentless, fanatical, brain-dead hate for Trump, Musk, Tucker, Rogan, etc. All the people he once would have championed as emblems of independent thought.
And now of course the Jewish emotionalism and hysteria and campaign of lies and propaganda is in full overdrive. Drudge is Jewish so the site always leaned toward one-sided and dishonest coverage that served Israeli/Jewish interests, but I could put up with that as long as the rest of the page skewed sane and countered liberal conventional wisdom.
But now? I'd love to have a site to go to that's like the Drudge Report of 5 years ago.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Stumpy Pepys, @Yngvar
Citizens Free Press. The Liberty Daily. Revolver News.
“Well, the entirety of the video from inside the Capitol is going to be available. (After being hidden and suppressed by Team Deep State for three years.)”
There are dozens of news outlets that have showed extensive video footage of what happened, from groups who weee respectful to law enforcement to other groups running roughshod over law enforcement, from officers talking down protestors from entering the premises to allowing then to ransack lawmakers offices to beating up protestors who were minding their own business.
My vague impression is that you come across as gleeful that police officers were pummeled during the riot at the Capitol on January 6.
Of course, in ANY protest movement in which the crowd becomes violent, the offenders should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
“So, if you or your fellow Fedsurrection Hoaxers can show any police officers being attacked inside the Capitol, the world will be able to see it. We’ll all be waiting with bated breath.”
So now you’re being a weasel here. The Capitol was breached. Officers inside the building were vastly outnumbered. They did not get reinforcements. It is other than surprising that those remaining officers were seeking to maintain a modicum of law and order by repeatedly ordering the culprits to leave.
Regardless, here is footage of Capitol police inside the doorway being bum rushed.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2021/jan/10/police-officer-crushed-in-doorway-by-rioters-during-capitol-breach-video
Listen, if you are seemingly gung-ho about curb stomping members of law enforcement, why don’t you lead the charge? After all, “your kind” for the past 60 years is being allegedly genocided by non-whites, courtesy of Jews supposedly leading the charge. Why haven’t you done anything of note to stop this (checks Trump speech notes) “vermin”?
Their job is probably mostly ceremonial, and it certainly very different from being used to gracefully handling rowdy soccer crowds (or whatever sport of your choice.)
Very likely they decided to stand by and wait for reinforcements to arrive, which would be fairly reasonable since they were outnumbered. The offenders could be recognized later via closed circuit cameras.
Had the police attacked the protesters or linked arms to block their passage, the end result would probably have been more injuries and deaths.Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @cool daddy jimbo
In a free capitalist society, corporations want to get people to trade their money for what the corporation produces. you try to hire good personable salespeople who can discover people's wants and explain how the product satisfies them. you try to hire finance people who can form an efficient capital structure. You dont want to charge more than the competition because your finance guy screwed up and you have a more expensive capital structure. You want product designers who design well. if your idea of merit is good drawing of people faces by memory, probably your products will not be great, your salespeople will not sell as much, your bankrupcy is impending. the marketplace will take care of your misguided competency hierarchy.
Of course under a king, or a despot, loyalty is much more valued than most other abilities, and courage is required because the leaders and hanger-on's live by force extracting taxes and obedience. The local car dealer could try to sell cars by forcing the customers to obey, but good luck with that.Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Anonymous, @Colin Wright
I’d retort that you are simply making our current values into eternal verities. I’ve got a neighbor who’s not too bright; but he’s honest, responsible, always willing to help…
How is some vicious creature like Jennifer Rubin better than he? Because she’s glib and intelligent and quick off the mark with some arresting opinion? Who would you actually trust with your fate?
Traditional China exalted academic excellence; so did the Jews of the shtetl. Where did it get them? Compare and contrast to the Britons of Victoria’s time. They distrusted the ‘brainy’ and preferred a man who exemplified other traits — and they did alright. Our own ancestors weren’t too impressed by what the dons of the Ivy League came up with; we did admire those who actually did something. Even when I was a boy, the heroes were the Wright Brothers, Lindbergh, Edison, Henry Ford. Sure, be smart — but what have you done?
But more and more, thanks partly to the ever-increasing emphasis on academic marks of various kinds and also due to the Jewish cultural obsession with purely intellectual pyrotechnics, we are becoming a society devoted to doing well on the Imperial exams, to who can cook up the most mystifying mass of legal pilpul. We’re on the verge of choosing our next president on the basis of whether lawyers can or cannot cook up a disqualifying crime out of some unbelievably trivial actions in the past.
…and this is not a recognition of some inherent ruling principle in the nature of things; it’s a matter of letting people who couldn’t pour piss out of a boot with instructions written in the heel but who can rationalize literally anything and take pride in the fact reorganize society to their complete satisfaction.
Do we really want to enter Alan Dershowitz’s paradise? Is it somehow the right thing, the natural state of perfection?
You do realize he's 93. Before him, we we're told all about that genius George Washington Carver. He tore that peanut up! Don't you have anyone else in the pipeline?
Is the last time you updated your worldview when Huey Lewis and the News had a number one hit?Replies: @Reg Cæsar
I brought up a point relevant to the comment at hand. The source of that point is irrelevant, unless you are suggesting the man is a serial liar. You seem to be. His statement is either true or false. Deal with that.
I credited the man who made it, who indeed was born in 1930. Simple courtesy. You constantly quote Robert Frost, without attribution– likely because you’ve never heard of him– who was born in 1874.
Come back when you grow up. And act white.
I can imagine taking a linear combination of the following variables: (1) whether the person smokes Newports; (2) whether they like fried chicken and watermelon; (3) whether they listen to rap music, or maybe even better, breaking it out into several select “artists”; (4) zip code; (5) favorite NFL quarterback. Probably with ten or so variables you might get a correlation coefficient of 0.9 or so with the forbidden race “social construct.”
They were a function of his genes plus his learning from other [English 🇫🇴] men and being in [an English 🇫🇴] society. FIFY.
Come to think of it…
They were a function of his genes plus his learning from other [Christian ⛪] men and being in a [Christian ⛪] society. FIFY2.
I challenge you to quote the “White society” anthem for us. Every nation has an anthem, official or customary. This is the English Christian one:
And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England’s mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God
On England’s pleasant pastures seen?
And did the Countenance Divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark Satanic mills?
Now give us yours– or admit, for once, you’re a fraud. A wigger. A troll. Or both.
Wait, you have shown to be pro-white in the past, but when confronted for not being pro-white enough, you veer away from it?
This is exactly why “pro-whitisn” isn’t going anywhere. Competing groups have a different litmus test when it come to what comes who is and who is not “pro white”.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIIU2JvoMX4
Sweet dreams you can't resist
N-E-S-T-L-E-S
A dream as sweet as this
N-E-S-T-L-E-S
Creamy White, dreamy White
Nestlé makes the very best
N-E-S-T-L-E-S
Sweet dreams you can’t resist“N-E-S-T-L-E-S” is an anagram for “lens set”, or eyes, which you can use to see White.Sadly for you, you are blinded by the White and get revved up like a douche.
“Yeah, it’s not raw footage. It’s edited to make it seem like the Fed’s assets ( Proud Boys) took the Capitol by storm.”
This is why I love this fine opinion webzine, because comments like this are disinformation. The fact of the matter is that the Proud Boys were the asset of Roger Stone.
But them working for Roger Stone, other than him possibly hiring them as security, is absurd. I guess rightwingwatch just isn't that great of a source.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/27/proud-boys-leader-enrique-tarrio-fbi-informant
They were a function of his genes plus his learning from other [Christian ⛪] men and being in a [Christian ⛪] society. FIFY2.I challenge you to quote the "White society" anthem for us. Every nation has an anthem, official or customary. This is the English Christian one:
And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God
On England's pleasant pastures seen?And did the Countenance Divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark Satanic mills?
Now give us yours-- or admit, for once, you're a fraud. A wigger. A troll. Or both.Replies: @Corvinus, @Jenner Ickham Errican
“I challenge you to quote the “White society” anthem for us.”
Wait, you have shown to be pro-white in the past, but when confronted for not being pro-white enough, you veer away from it?
This is exactly why “pro-whitisn” isn’t going anywhere. Competing groups have a different litmus test when it come to what comes who is and who is not “pro white”.
Did you train little brother to troll? Good job! He's quickly surpassed you as the worst commenter here.
No, but one probably faces a different distribution curve for certain risks.
That there is a continuum to these things is something to be understood and managed. You don’t abandon efforts entirely just because it hurts some people’s feelings.
So, if a white student indicates “false” to the above statement, they would be considered more likely to subject black patients to unnecessary pain, so the implication goes in this garbage study.
The whole article is garbage, of course, but how will they be able to smoke out racist whitey if a given list of race differences (some true, some false) is not even permitted going forward?Replies: @deep anonymous
“The whole article is garbage, of course, but how will they be able to smoke out racist whitey if a given list of race differences (some true, some false) is not even permitted going forward?”
Why, they’ll just stomp out ALL whiteys, under the presumption they’re ALL racist.
I’m sure they’ll use the resulting deaths to “prove” that systemic racism still exists somehow.
This is why I love this fine opinion webzine, because comments like this are disinformation. The fact of the matter is that the Proud Boys were the asset of Roger Stone.Replies: @libertyORdeath716, @BB753
Roger Stone? You MUST be a leftist to be that clueless. I don’t think most of the Proud Boys were feds, but there’s zero doubt that high-ranking members were in fact federal informants at one time or another.
But them working for Roger Stone, other than him possibly hiring them as security, is absurd. I guess rightwingwatch just isn’t that great of a source.
I took a look at one of the CARDIA studies. I looked at the CVD version since that is the larger topic of discussion here. Immediately following the quote you gave from Steve we see this in the paper.
Reference 137 is this paper.
Associations of Clinical and Social Risk Factors With Racial Differences in Premature Cardiovascular Disease
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.058311
Table 1 has a summary table of variables (mean and SD) by sex and race (limited to black and white). Table 2 has hazard ratios for the variables (for one version of the analysis, see below).
Some things which caught my eye there.
1. The site HRs (Birmingham, Chicago, Minneapolis, and Oakland) are large–though only Oakland is significant.
2. The FVC (Forced vital capacity) HR is 0.83 but not significant. What makes this interesting is blacks are an SD worse than whites for FVC.
3.The HR for antihypertensive medication is largest of the HRs.
4. Heavy alcohol intake actually has a low HR?! 0.48 for women.
As seems to happen all too frequently, things become more interesting in the Supplemental Material.
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/suppl/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.058311
First, in Table S4 we see that a third their participants are excluded for missing data. The excluded are disproportionately black (64% vs. 44.8% included) and have worse socioeconomic factors. I wonder what influence that has on the analysis. I believe ALL are included in the imputed data set seen in Table
Second (and more interesting) is it turns out that the race HRs have several versions (two presented in the paper results summary). The results given appear to be model 1 in Table S2 and model 6 in Table S6 (though numbers differ slightly it seems closest). Here are the relevant SM table titles.
Table S2. Hazard ratios for incident cardiovascular disease in Black versus White participants and percent reduction in parameter estimates using baseline-only factor data in the imputed dataset used in Table S2.
Table S6. Hazard ratios for incident cardiovascular disease in Black versus White participants and percent reduction in parameter estimates using time-varying factor data in the complete-case dataset
(full set of HRs in Table S5)
Table S7. Hazard ratios for incident cardiovascular disease in Black versus White participants and percent reduction in parameter estimates using baseline-only factor data in the complete-case dataset
In addition, each of those tables has three versions of the analysis: sequential adjustment, individual adjustment, and leave-out adjustment. Those are discussed in the paper and helpful for understanding which variables have the largest effects on the race HRs. It seems appropriate to focus on Model 6 under sequential adjustment because that is the complete model.
I prefer to focus on the two complete case analysis (more comparable and more reliable data, though exclusions an issue) in Tables S6 and S7. The only difference I see there is the use of baseline-only vs. time-varying factor data. This table lists which variables were measured in each exam:
Supplemental Methods Table. Detailing of the fully conditional specification of the multiple imputation procedure.
If you take a look at that table, including ALL of the measured variables increases the number of variables available about 5x. And allows looking at variables over a period of 30 years! It would be interesting to see an ANOVA for the model with all of those variables.
The difference in factors (variables) used is described in the paper.
Given how much increased power the time-varying factor data adds (and keep in mind this is what was quoted in the results) I think it makes sense to focus on the predictive power shown in Table S7 (baseline factors for complete cases).
Contrasting the original results:
In Table S7 we see:
Black (versus White) adults had a higher risk of incident premature CVD (Black women: HR, 2.62 [95% CI, 1.64–4.21], Black men: HR, 1.81 [1.27–2.57] adjusted for age and center). Racial differences were not (barely) statistically significant after full adjustment (Black women: HR, 1.83 [0.95–3.56], Black men: HR 1.56 [0.94–2.57]).
Oddly the Model 6 results in Table S2 (imputed factors for baseline data) moved in opposite directions for men and women (becoming statistically significant for women).
after full adjustment Black women: HR, 2.29 [1.36–3.86], Black men: HR 1.33 [0.87–2.02]
Look at those adjusted numbers again (and recall that in Table 2 the HRs for smoking are 1.60 for women and 2.13 for men). It is clear they chose the analysis which most favored their desired conclusion. At least they included the others in the SM…
Sigh. So much BS, so little time.
P.S. This summing up I left on the earlier thread might be worth a look for anyone following the AHA discussion. In particular, some discussion of South Asians there.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-american-heart-associations-scientific-statement-on-why-they-are-hamstringing-their-heart-attack-risk-algorithm/#comment-6271231
P.P.S. From the paper. What a Current Year we live in.
I salute you. You are like a dog with a bone, chasing down the data and the methodology to expose the tricks that are used to arrive at the clearly pre-preferred outcome. It's going to take a while for me to chase down all the points in your comment vis-a-vis the original study texts and data!I did not quote Steve. I quoted Intelligent Dasein's formulation.Yup, not the first time. Nor the last. They do this to obfuscate. We've seen this movie before.
By the way, via your citing your earlier comment I read the following, which you quoted:LOL, just LOL. If I wear a dhoti, start eating tiffins, and incessantly complaining about my HOA bill and haggling for a discount, I'm going to start having a higher CVD risk!
There are dozens of news outlets that have showed extensive video footage of what happened, from groups who weee respectful to law enforcement to other groups running roughshod over law enforcement, from officers talking down protestors from entering the premises to allowing then to ransack lawmakers offices to beating up protestors who were minding their own business.
My vague impression is that you come across as gleeful that police officers were pummeled during the riot at the Capitol on January 6.
Of course, in ANY protest movement in which the crowd becomes violent, the offenders should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
“So, if you or your fellow Fedsurrection Hoaxers can show any police officers being attacked inside the Capitol, the world will be able to see it. We’ll all be waiting with bated breath.”
So now you’re being a weasel here. The Capitol was breached. Officers inside the building were vastly outnumbered. They did not get reinforcements. It is other than surprising that those remaining officers were seeking to maintain a modicum of law and order by repeatedly ordering the culprits to leave.
Regardless, here is footage of Capitol police inside the doorway being bum rushed.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2021/jan/10/police-officer-crushed-in-doorway-by-rioters-during-capitol-breach-video
Listen, if you are seemingly gung-ho about curb stomping members of law enforcement, why don’t you lead the charge? After all, “your kind” for the past 60 years is being allegedly genocided by non-whites, courtesy of Jews supposedly leading the charge. Why haven’t you done anything of note to stop this (checks Trump speech notes) “vermin”?Replies: @Jonathan Mason
I imagine that the capitol police were scared.
Their job is probably mostly ceremonial, and it certainly very different from being used to gracefully handling rowdy soccer crowds (or whatever sport of your choice.)
Very likely they decided to stand by and wait for reinforcements to arrive, which would be fairly reasonable since they were outnumbered. The offenders could be recognized later via closed circuit cameras.
Had the police attacked the protesters or linked arms to block their passage, the end result would probably have been more injuries and deaths.
Though it was a mistake to park the van I bought from my brother with Florida plates still attached outside Comiskey Park for a game. It got egged. The Sox had been threatening to move south that year to mulct a new stadium from the city.
For example, being black doesn't "cause" sickle cell disease. But that gene occurs far more often in people of African descent (aka "black people"). So even if being black doesn't technically "cause" sickle cell, it would still be medical malpractice to ignore a person's race as a risk factor.
The bottom line is that AHA's model is supposed to simply be predictive -- and knowing the underlying causative mechanisms is beside the point. They are commiting malpractice by deliberately omitting any factor that makes the predictions less accurate.Replies: @Twinkie, @Jonathan Mason
In the United States testing for sickle cell trait is part of the routine screening for all newborns of all races.
However in certain situations for example on admission to prisons, a person’s whole medical record from birth may not be available. But it is useful for prison doctors to know that if a black person says that they suffer from sickle cell anaemia, then that history should not be disregarded, even if they are a member of a group (prisoners) who are known to be above average in telling lies.
Wait, you have shown to be pro-white in the past, but when confronted for not being pro-white enough, you veer away from it?
This is exactly why “pro-whitisn” isn’t going anywhere. Competing groups have a different litmus test when it come to what comes who is and who is not “pro white”.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
“Loyalty” shares your manners and attitude, but expresses opinions exactly 180% to yours. (You’re the closest thing to a “civic nationalist” at this site. All nationalisms are leftist in roots.)
Did you train little brother to troll? Good job! He’s quickly surpassed you as the worst commenter here.
Here’s a fairly common looking tribal Council. Who looks more Native, the Italian or these guys?Replies: @J.Ross
I was thinking more along the lines of how she was talking and about how NPR appears to have not gotten the memo about authenticity.
Their job is probably mostly ceremonial, and it certainly very different from being used to gracefully handling rowdy soccer crowds (or whatever sport of your choice.)
Very likely they decided to stand by and wait for reinforcements to arrive, which would be fairly reasonable since they were outnumbered. The offenders could be recognized later via closed circuit cameras.
Had the police attacked the protesters or linked arms to block their passage, the end result would probably have been more injuries and deaths.Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @cool daddy jimbo
Our sports crowds are decidedly less rowdy than yours. Riots, fisticuffs, and the like are rare. We are more into friendly “tailgaiting”, where the other side is welcome but subject to teasing. (Lancastrian Ninh Ly says many Brits find this feature of American football particularly appealing.) It was funny a few years back when St Louis won the ice hockey championship and Toronto the basketball one the same month. What bedlam occurred was in the latter.
Though it was a mistake to park the van I bought from my brother with Florida plates still attached outside Comiskey Park for a game. It got egged. The Sox had been threatening to move south that year to mulct a new stadium from the city.
Although it is normal practice in contemporary medicine to order routine diagnostic blood work for everyone.
Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics---2023 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association
Interested readers are welcome to verify for themselves whether the term "nearly" is being used disingenuously here, or not.Replies: @res, @Twinkie
If you sincerely want to engage maybe try something more than just linking a paper with 30 chapters and giving a vague “contains a footnote” pointer. For instance, quote the footnote.
Maybe they started out white and turned black for a reason. A person can start out in one condition but turn against God and end in another. Seems the world keeps trying to go back to black. The inside shows on the outside.
Everyone has their place and in their place they should be.
The last time a +1 SD IQ group (white people) came in contact with a – 1 SD group (blacks) the high IQ group kidnapped the lower IQ group and kept them in chains as their unpaid servants for 250 years. So if all Jews do is get you hooked on Family Feud then you should count your lucky stars.
There are reasons and whites have paid ten times over for things they never did. Their parents and children have paid over and over. In your place!
*Jack D just loves blacks, so much so that he constantly refers to them as "negroes" and describes them in the least charitable terms.Replies: @HammerJack, @Jack D
Ah, yes, that is all Jews do.
Every time I think that you can't possibly be more contemptible, I lose another bet wif me mates down the pub.
You know, Jack, whatever your group's average, you're not bringing it up. Sometimes I even think you're some kind of Occidental Review black propaganda op. Kevin MacDonald sits at his desk and thinks, 'I've got to do more -- but what?'
'JackD' is born.Replies: @Jack D
Maybe you should count your stars on one hand. Whites have been kept in chains far longer and it’s time for it to stop.
There are reasons and whites have paid ten times over for things they never did. Their parents and children have paid over and over. In your place!
I can’t tell if you’re trolling or just plain stupid. How do you get these error rates? Do you think that little screw ups and incompetence are all logged as errors? This isn’t baseball
NOBODY is going to be allowed to do a good study on hospital deaths vs. race of staff. Good luck with that one.
The very obvious idea is that, by definition, when you hire people who are of lower quality than you could have, on the average, you’ll have less competence. That goes for any field. For most realms of employment the AA/Wokeness hiring just results in lower profits for the company, a less unified workforce with lower morale, more defective products, and poorer service. In some, however, the long-term results are higher risks of harm and/or death.
I understand iSteve’s point here. I am just saying this is just a small part of the harm AA and Wokeness have caused over the many years.
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/crime/2022/03/25/radonda-vaught-trial-vanderbilt-nurse-jury-verdict/7154135001/
Medication error and adverse events have to be reported. It is something that the Joint Commission looks at.
They were a function of his genes plus his learning from other [Christian ⛪] men and being in a [Christian ⛪] society. FIFY2.I challenge you to quote the "White society" anthem for us. Every nation has an anthem, official or customary. This is the English Christian one:
And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God
On England's pleasant pastures seen?And did the Countenance Divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark Satanic mills?
Now give us yours-- or admit, for once, you're a fraud. A wigger. A troll. Or both.Replies: @Corvinus, @Jenner Ickham Errican
I have already posted it before:
https://www.unz.com/isteve/how-the-dei-cake-is-baked/#comment-6169624 (#240)
It’s called “Sweet Dreams” and the anthem with video should be played before every Winter Olympics event.
Sweet dreams you can’t resist
N-E-S-T-L-E-S
A dream as sweet as this
N-E-S-T-L-E-S
Creamy White, dreamy White
Nestlé makes the very best
N-E-S-T-L-E-S
Sweet dreams you can’t resist
“N-E-S-T-L-E-S” is an anagram for “lens set”, or eyes, which you can use to see White.
Sadly for you, you are blinded by the White and get revved up like a douche.
I'm not Steve, but I assume his primary drivers in opposing "race does not exist" are:
A) It's nonsense.
And I'm guessing that Steve--like me and a lot of folks here--does not have a "true believer" personality. I.e. does not like assenting to obvious, empirically false, nonsense.
B) It's the key lie undergirding minoritarianism.
The key lie in "bad whitey is oppressing poor innocent minorities (blacks)" propaganda that minoritarians use to attack whites--harass them, encumber them, strip them of rights, displace them.Replies: @Hypnotoad666, @Loyalty is The First Law of Morality
Because it’s always 1985? We need to figure out how to market to nervous white women who’ve been in the grave for a decade?
There is no reason to think Sailer is loyal to Whites and many reason to think otherwise.
However, there is this Gutfeld Mentality (after Greg Gutfeld). It’s this sorta kinda rightish NYC thing of guys who sometimes identify as White, sometimes not, but whose BIG goal is to keep White people from being on their own side. If you notice, Gutfed has no cultural impact, compared to guys who are much more open about their beliefs (Tucker, Elon, etc), so it’s big waste of time.
The only game that matters is making it socially acceptable for Whites to publicly speak on their own behalf. Not in half-measures and not through proxies.
Admitting the existence of race would be the equivalent of declaring bankruptcy, that’s why. Its one of those absurd, absysmal conundrums living in a jew run society gets you.
In the previous century, the USA indirectly declared the existence of a fraudulent invention -magic dirt. I am convinced, this is why such monumental national debt could be taken out. After all, you have the proverbial elixir, or perpetual motion machine, paradise is just around the corner, right? Why not let JUSA borrow endless amounts of money.
And additionally, groups like the Chinese know no different. Being IQ and rote-smart to begin with, our universities are used like a drive through car wash that turns their peasants in one end into young professinoals out of the other. The problem is the Africans and Amerindians are awaiting the same thing to happen to them.
Admitting that magic dirt is fraudulent discovery, would bankrupt the the USA and company overnight- it would be identical to a securities fraud collapsing. The lenders of 30 trillion+ would (correctly) hear that %40 of the U.S population will have to be written off as the coffee-colored welfare recipients that they are, and the fantasy of millions of brainiac American scientist lifting the world out of poverty isn’t going to happen.
Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics---2023 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association
Interested readers are welcome to verify for themselves whether the term "nearly" is being used disingenuously here, or not.Replies: @res, @Twinkie
It’s common in any race-related mainstream research to engage in extreme selection to get blacks as close as possible to whites and then describe the remaining difference as “nearly.”
I note that you didn’t address the main point of my comment. In all seriousness, I’d like to know what you think of the divergent selections in sampling.
I think that, assuming someone is really trying to home in on a pure racial signal, this kind of divergent sampling is actually the correct methodology, because it is the only way to establish what might be called "analogous groups."
If you simply compare the black population as a whole to the white population as a whole, you are dealing with populations that are very dissimilar in many respects. It is not an apples-to-apples comparison simply because the two groups are already so wildly divergent on social metrics. The further citing of such studies as explanations for the divergent social data then becomes a massive and laborious exercise in begging the question.
But what if you compared the black population to the black-analogous white population instead? Perhaps we should select a group of 43 million American whites, with the stipulation that this group must have an average IQ of 85 with the same standard deviation as the black IQ, and it must have an average household income of $46,000 with the same standard deviation as black incomes, so on and so forth. Then you could begin to compare these two populations for other relevant sociological metrics.
If there really is a pure racial signal, then by definition it should be the residual left over once we've done our best to eliminate all other differences, but we can only do that by divergently selecting analogous sets to compare. If we find that the racial signal between divergently selected but analogous groups has disappeared or grown very small (as I believe we would most of the time), then we can safely say that race is not relevant to that metric.Replies: @Twinkie
“You oppressed the blacks*, you dirty goyish whites, so you have to let us Jews lord over you forever.” Really? That’s your argument now?
*Jack D just loves blacks, so much so that he constantly refers to them as “negroes” and describes them in the least charitable terms.
Would it be fair to say that you describe Jews in " the least charitable terms"? You couldn't even think of a single positive contribution the Jews have made. I can think of many positive contributions by blacks in the fields of sports, music, entertainment, etc. O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson, etc.Replies: @res, @Twinkie
Associations of Clinical and Social Risk Factors With Racial Differences in Premature Cardiovascular Disease
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.058311Table 1 has a summary table of variables (mean and SD) by sex and race (limited to black and white). Table 2 has hazard ratios for the variables (for one version of the analysis, see below).Some things which caught my eye there.
1. The site HRs (Birmingham, Chicago, Minneapolis, and Oakland) are large--though only Oakland is significant.
2. The FVC (Forced vital capacity) HR is 0.83 but not significant. What makes this interesting is blacks are an SD worse than whites for FVC.
3.The HR for antihypertensive medication is largest of the HRs.
4. Heavy alcohol intake actually has a low HR?! 0.48 for women.As seems to happen all too frequently, things become more interesting in the Supplemental Material.
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/suppl/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.058311First, in Table S4 we see that a third their participants are excluded for missing data. The excluded are disproportionately black (64% vs. 44.8% included) and have worse socioeconomic factors. I wonder what influence that has on the analysis. I believe ALL are included in the imputed data set seen in Table Second (and more interesting) is it turns out that the race HRs have several versions (two presented in the paper results summary). The results given appear to be model 1 in Table S2 and model 6 in Table S6 (though numbers differ slightly it seems closest). Here are the relevant SM table titles.Table S2. Hazard ratios for incident cardiovascular disease in Black versus White participants and percent reduction in parameter estimates using baseline-only factor data in the imputed dataset used in Table S2.Table S6. Hazard ratios for incident cardiovascular disease in Black versus White participants and percent reduction in parameter estimates using time-varying factor data in the complete-case dataset
(full set of HRs in Table S5)Table S7. Hazard ratios for incident cardiovascular disease in Black versus White participants and percent reduction in parameter estimates using baseline-only factor data in the complete-case datasetIn addition, each of those tables has three versions of the analysis: sequential adjustment, individual adjustment, and leave-out adjustment. Those are discussed in the paper and helpful for understanding which variables have the largest effects on the race HRs. It seems appropriate to focus on Model 6 under sequential adjustment because that is the complete model.I prefer to focus on the two complete case analysis (more comparable and more reliable data, though exclusions an issue) in Tables S6 and S7. The only difference I see there is the use of baseline-only vs. time-varying factor data. This table lists which variables were measured in each exam:
Supplemental Methods Table. Detailing of the fully conditional specification of the multiple imputation procedure.
If you take a look at that table, including ALL of the measured variables increases the number of variables available about 5x. And allows looking at variables over a period of 30 years! It would be interesting to see an ANOVA for the model with all of those variables.The difference in factors (variables) used is described in the paper.Given how much increased power the time-varying factor data adds (and keep in mind this is what was quoted in the results) I think it makes sense to focus on the predictive power shown in Table S7 (baseline factors for complete cases).Contrasting the original results:In Table S7 we see:Black (versus White) adults had a higher risk of incident premature CVD (Black women: HR, 2.62 [95% CI, 1.64–4.21], Black men: HR, 1.81 [1.27–2.57] adjusted for age and center). Racial differences were not (barely) statistically significant after full adjustment (Black women: HR, 1.83 [0.95–3.56], Black men: HR 1.56 [0.94–2.57]). Oddly the Model 6 results in Table S2 (imputed factors for baseline data) moved in opposite directions for men and women (becoming statistically significant for women).after full adjustment Black women: HR, 2.29 [1.36–3.86], Black men: HR 1.33 [0.87–2.02]Look at those adjusted numbers again (and recall that in Table 2 the HRs for smoking are 1.60 for women and 2.13 for men). It is clear they chose the analysis which most favored their desired conclusion. At least they included the others in the SM...Sigh. So much BS, so little time.P.S. This summing up I left on the earlier thread might be worth a look for anyone following the AHA discussion. In particular, some discussion of South Asians there.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-american-heart-associations-scientific-statement-on-why-they-are-hamstringing-their-heart-attack-risk-algorithm/#comment-6271231P.P.S. From the paper. What a Current Year we live in.Replies: @Twinkie
res,
I salute you. You are like a dog with a bone, chasing down the data and the methodology to expose the tricks that are used to arrive at the clearly pre-preferred outcome. It’s going to take a while for me to chase down all the points in your comment vis-a-vis the original study texts and data!
I did not quote Steve. I quoted Intelligent Dasein’s formulation.
Yup, not the first time. Nor the last. They do this to obfuscate. We’ve seen this movie before.
By the way, via your citing your earlier comment I read the following, which you quoted:
LOL, just LOL. If I wear a dhoti, start eating tiffins, and incessantly complaining about my HOA bill and haggling for a discount, I’m going to start having a higher CVD risk!
*Jack D just loves blacks, so much so that he constantly refers to them as "negroes" and describes them in the least charitable terms.Replies: @HammerJack, @Jack D
He’s right though. It’s not their habit of, say, genociding defenseless peasants by the tens of thousands that causes them to be hated. It’s their annoying television game shows.
He imagines that this is persuasive.
I note that you didn't address the main point of my comment. In all seriousness, I'd like to know what you think of the divergent selections in sampling.Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Loyalty is The First Law of Morality
I actually started writing a comment about that, but I decided to dump it since I’d already spent too much time here today. However, since you asked, I’m happy to oblige.
I think that, assuming someone is really trying to home in on a pure racial signal, this kind of divergent sampling is actually the correct methodology, because it is the only way to establish what might be called “analogous groups.”
If you simply compare the black population as a whole to the white population as a whole, you are dealing with populations that are very dissimilar in many respects. It is not an apples-to-apples comparison simply because the two groups are already so wildly divergent on social metrics. The further citing of such studies as explanations for the divergent social data then becomes a massive and laborious exercise in begging the question.
But what if you compared the black population to the black-analogous white population instead? Perhaps we should select a group of 43 million American whites, with the stipulation that this group must have an average IQ of 85 with the same standard deviation as the black IQ, and it must have an average household income of $46,000 with the same standard deviation as black incomes, so on and so forth. Then you could begin to compare these two populations for other relevant sociological metrics.
If there really is a pure racial signal, then by definition it should be the residual left over once we’ve done our best to eliminate all other differences, but we can only do that by divergently selecting analogous sets to compare. If we find that the racial signal between divergently selected but analogous groups has disappeared or grown very small (as I believe we would most of the time), then we can safely say that race is not relevant to that metric.
Note that, in reality, nature and nurture are often mutually-reinforcing rather than opposing forces.Let me use my earlier example. If we were to select among blacks, people who have never committed crimes and do so for, say, East Asians as well. Then we find that both groups are non-criminal. Can we then say, well, once we control for "social pathology," we find that race doesn't matter in criminal proclivities?
Or, as a thought experiment, let's look at another (larger) difference - male vs. female:
Once we engage in extremely divergent selection and pick men with unusually and extremely low testosterone levels and females with unusually and extremely high testosterone levels and then find that the gap in incidents of violent behaviors is relatively small. Can we then say "sex plays little to no role in violent behavioral tendencies once we find 'analogous populations'"? Ah, but doesn't sex account for the vastly different distributions of hormones - on average - between men and women in the first place - that hormonal differences are part and parcel of sexual differences?
And back to race. If I were to only select very fair-skinned blacks (say, those who suffer from albinism, who are a tiny fraction of blacks) and then pick out similarly colored whites (a much larger fraction of whites), can I then say, "Clearly race means little here - being black or African-descended doesn't mean the skin color has to be dark"?Replies: @ic1000, @Intelligent Dasein, @Colin Wright
I note that you didn't address the main point of my comment. In all seriousness, I'd like to know what you think of the divergent selections in sampling.Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Loyalty is The First Law of Morality
They did this decades ago when looking at the rate of development in White vs Black babies. They picked some point (maybe like 12 weeks but I don’t remember) at which they are roughly the same, and said, “look, both races develop at the same rate). It was dishonest because the researchers had seen differences before and after whatever point they picked.
“So if all Jews do is get you hooked on Family Feud then you should count your lucky stars.”
Ah, yes, that is all Jews do.
Every time I think that you can’t possibly be more contemptible, I lose another bet wif me mates down the pub.
I think that, assuming someone is really trying to home in on a pure racial signal, this kind of divergent sampling is actually the correct methodology, because it is the only way to establish what might be called "analogous groups."
If you simply compare the black population as a whole to the white population as a whole, you are dealing with populations that are very dissimilar in many respects. It is not an apples-to-apples comparison simply because the two groups are already so wildly divergent on social metrics. The further citing of such studies as explanations for the divergent social data then becomes a massive and laborious exercise in begging the question.
But what if you compared the black population to the black-analogous white population instead? Perhaps we should select a group of 43 million American whites, with the stipulation that this group must have an average IQ of 85 with the same standard deviation as the black IQ, and it must have an average household income of $46,000 with the same standard deviation as black incomes, so on and so forth. Then you could begin to compare these two populations for other relevant sociological metrics.
If there really is a pure racial signal, then by definition it should be the residual left over once we've done our best to eliminate all other differences, but we can only do that by divergently selecting analogous sets to compare. If we find that the racial signal between divergently selected but analogous groups has disappeared or grown very small (as I believe we would most of the time), then we can safely say that race is not relevant to that metric.Replies: @Twinkie
And you don’t think innate (that is, genetic) differences don’t account of any of these significant dissimilarities?
Yes, but what if those “wildly divergent social metrices” themselves are (at least partly) expressions of genetic differences?
Note that, in reality, nature and nurture are often mutually-reinforcing rather than opposing forces.
Let me use my earlier example. If we were to select among blacks, people who have never committed crimes and do so for, say, East Asians as well. Then we find that both groups are non-criminal. Can we then say, well, once we control for “social pathology,” we find that race doesn’t matter in criminal proclivities?
Or, as a thought experiment, let’s look at another (larger) difference – male vs. female:
Once we engage in extremely divergent selection and pick men with unusually and extremely low testosterone levels and females with unusually and extremely high testosterone levels and then find that the gap in incidents of violent behaviors is relatively small. Can we then say “sex plays little to no role in violent behavioral tendencies once we find ‘analogous populations’”? Ah, but doesn’t sex account for the vastly different distributions of hormones – on average – between men and women in the first place – that hormonal differences are part and parcel of sexual differences?
And back to race. If I were to only select very fair-skinned blacks (say, those who suffer from albinism, who are a tiny fraction of blacks) and then pick out similarly colored whites (a much larger fraction of whites), can I then say, “Clearly race means little here – being black or African-descended doesn’t mean the skin color has to be dark”?
Note that, in reality, nature and nurture are often mutually-reinforcing rather than opposing forces.Let me use my earlier example. If we were to select among blacks, people who have never committed crimes and do so for, say, East Asians as well. Then we find that both groups are non-criminal. Can we then say, well, once we control for "social pathology," we find that race doesn't matter in criminal proclivities?
Or, as a thought experiment, let's look at another (larger) difference - male vs. female:
Once we engage in extremely divergent selection and pick men with unusually and extremely low testosterone levels and females with unusually and extremely high testosterone levels and then find that the gap in incidents of violent behaviors is relatively small. Can we then say "sex plays little to no role in violent behavioral tendencies once we find 'analogous populations'"? Ah, but doesn't sex account for the vastly different distributions of hormones - on average - between men and women in the first place - that hormonal differences are part and parcel of sexual differences?
And back to race. If I were to only select very fair-skinned blacks (say, those who suffer from albinism, who are a tiny fraction of blacks) and then pick out similarly colored whites (a much larger fraction of whites), can I then say, "Clearly race means little here - being black or African-descended doesn't mean the skin color has to be dark"?Replies: @ic1000, @Intelligent Dasein, @Colin Wright
(1) IIRC, Intelligent Dasein does not accept the validity of The Modern Synthesis, (e.g. natural selection, evolution), and thus is unlikely to think in terms of later developments (e.g. DNA-based concepts of the gene, allele frequencies, incomplete penetrance). Not trying to strawman, so please correct me if I am wrong.
(2) I.D. does not seem to have the same concept of “risk” or “risk screening tool” that you, res, I, and many others share. As we see it (again, good-faith interpretation), a screening tool is built on the basis of:
** Most diseases are hard to predict in terms of timing and severity, for many reasons. For any given patient, disease onset has a large stochastic component. Causal mechanisms are multifactorial, to a large extent unknown, and manifest differently with different genetic backgrounds and in different environmental conditions. If we can’t predict disease onset or its timing with certainty, we can at least devise a tool for screening people that gives a quantitative estimate of each person’s relative and absolute risks of developing the disease in question over a given period of years. If a screening tool is accurate enough, it can be used to allocate resources to positively impact patient health. Ceteris parabis, a more accurate tool will always be superior to a less accurate tool. **
It follows that an input variable need not have defined causality, or be causal at all: the builders of a tool are looking for correlations. Further, a multi-factor tool will perform better when the variables are orthogonal to one another.
So the questions on the “race” variable for a non-political scientist or statistician working to improve the AHA’s 2013 CV Risk Tool would be:
1. Is “race” orthogonal to other included measures (age, sex, blood pressure, GFR, Zip-code-based Social Deprivation Index)? Does it improve the tool’s accuracy? (AUC/C-Statistic, see res’ comment #150.) The 2013 assay shows the answers the last time this was evaluated were Yes and Yes.
2. In revising/improving the 2013 tool, do added variables or added algorithms cause the “race” variable to no longer add value (raise the AUC/C-Statistic)? The answer is, “For ideological reasons (‘reification’), we decided not to check.”
As you and res have noted, the authors of the 2023 papers engage in self-contradictory pretzel logic in a number of places in the texts — “Yeah, Everybody Knows that race (African-American, South Asian) is an imaginary social construct, but buried in the supplemental materials, we are forced to point out that it does, nevertheless, influence the results.”
I write this not to convince you or res (obviously, you know all this) or I.D. (obviously, for different reasons), but for any interested readers unfamiliar with the philosophy behind the design of diagnostics and screens… who have made it this far down the thread.
It seems a decent bet that a race variable would give at least some of the benefit observed with the SDI variable (my guess is it would do even better, please prove me wrong, "scientists") with a much more universally available variable.
Variable availability also has a temporal aspect. Which is why I am so cranky about the CARDIA CVD work having 30 years worth of variables available (and apparently used in some of their models, in particular the model they choose to highlight!). When you are making these screening decisions you can only go on what is known at the time.
Along the lines of what you are saying it would also be interesting to have a correlation matrix for the different variables.
P.S. I should note I went back and looked at Gusev's statement about the availability of racial data. He did not lie. He merely implied in misleading fashion (especially ironic given SDI variable availability issue noted above).What he failed to note is that the paper comparing the 2013 and 2023 models shows the data used for the validation (and presumable derivation, per Table 1) sample have race data available. This can be seen in
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.067626
Table 4 gives results (on the validation sample) for the 2013 PCE model which requires race.
Table 1 gives variable summaries. It indicates that 4.9-5.5% of the race values are Other/Missing, but apparently that did not affect the ability to use the PCE model (compare sample sizes in Table 4 and Table 1 Validation Sample).
Since iSteve whimmed my reply from yesterday:
1) I didn’t meant the Filipanas are part of AA. They were imported. We have no idea about their training.
2) Hospital errors are not like errors in baseball. You won’t know many of them.
3) NOBODY, but NOBODY is going to do studies of such mistakes as a function of racial make-up of the staff. Feel free to give it a go though.
4) The OBVIOUS. By DEFINITION of AA, the less qualified are admitted over more qualified. Therefore, there will be more harm and more (or earlier) deaths.
I vaguely recall, from early times on the web, a reference to charges and convictions of crimes with a hospital setting (rape of patients, etc.). Usual stark racial differences.
Not that long ago here, a guy linked to mass murders by hospital personnel. He did it with the claim most were done by Whites. But he didn't look at the data. Tsk.
This is why I love this fine opinion webzine, because comments like this are disinformation. The fact of the matter is that the Proud Boys were the asset of Roger Stone.Replies: @libertyORdeath716, @BB753
You’re delusional.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/27/proud-boys-leader-enrique-tarrio-fbi-informant
*Jack D just loves blacks, so much so that he constantly refers to them as "negroes" and describes them in the least charitable terms.Replies: @HammerJack, @Jack D
The Koreans may have the Jews beat on military discipline and cabbage fermentation, but Jews definitely are ahead on humor. You wouldn’t know a joke if it hit you.
Would it be fair to say that you describe Jews in ” the least charitable terms”? You couldn’t even think of a single positive contribution the Jews have made. I can think of many positive contributions by blacks in the fields of sports, music, entertainment, etc. O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson, etc.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/john-podhoretz-jews-are-not-white/#comment-6271872Replies: @Jack D
Their job is probably mostly ceremonial, and it certainly very different from being used to gracefully handling rowdy soccer crowds (or whatever sport of your choice.)
Very likely they decided to stand by and wait for reinforcements to arrive, which would be fairly reasonable since they were outnumbered. The offenders could be recognized later via closed circuit cameras.
Had the police attacked the protesters or linked arms to block their passage, the end result would probably have been more injuries and deaths.Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @cool daddy jimbo
Maybe not scared as much as realizing they were vastly outnumbered and there was no point to getting beat up over this nonsense. So it was, “Sure guys. Come on in. Have a look around. Hey! Don’t break that!”
Note that, in reality, nature and nurture are often mutually-reinforcing rather than opposing forces.Let me use my earlier example. If we were to select among blacks, people who have never committed crimes and do so for, say, East Asians as well. Then we find that both groups are non-criminal. Can we then say, well, once we control for "social pathology," we find that race doesn't matter in criminal proclivities?
Or, as a thought experiment, let's look at another (larger) difference - male vs. female:
Once we engage in extremely divergent selection and pick men with unusually and extremely low testosterone levels and females with unusually and extremely high testosterone levels and then find that the gap in incidents of violent behaviors is relatively small. Can we then say "sex plays little to no role in violent behavioral tendencies once we find 'analogous populations'"? Ah, but doesn't sex account for the vastly different distributions of hormones - on average - between men and women in the first place - that hormonal differences are part and parcel of sexual differences?
And back to race. If I were to only select very fair-skinned blacks (say, those who suffer from albinism, who are a tiny fraction of blacks) and then pick out similarly colored whites (a much larger fraction of whites), can I then say, "Clearly race means little here - being black or African-descended doesn't mean the skin color has to be dark"?Replies: @ic1000, @Intelligent Dasein, @Colin Wright
Thank you for bringing this up, and for your subsequent examples. This is where it gets interesting. This illustrates precisely why we need a different theory about what “race” actually means. And, as strange as it may sound to contemporary ears, your reductios have the germ of truth in them.
Something strange and subtle is going on in the HBD culture whenever these subjects are discussed. The standard HBDer begins stating his basic case by saying, “Look, the races are obviously different genetically and biologically. Why, just look at the statistics!” Then he proceeds to bring forth crime data, income data, education data, and so on—all sociological measures.
We speak about “biological” race, but we lay out the case in sociological metrics. Why is that?
For the HBDer, this is no problem. His worldview contains the sweeping generalization that things like criminality and educational attainment are reducible to general intelligence and behavioral traits, which are themselves reducible to genetics; and if racial differences just are genetic differences, then the divergent qualities of the races can be set down to the (very small) difference in average genetic components between them. Genetic race supervenes on sociological metrics.
Herein lies the problem with HBD. Regardless of one’s opinions on the state of racial politics in America, this whole line of thinking is untenable because the reductions are impossible. It cannot be the case (for example) that educational attainment differences between the races are reducible to genetic differences between the races, because educational attainment simpliciter is not reducible to genetics simpliciter. For another example: While I hold Darwinian evolution to be a spurious theory, even if this were not the case, it would still not be true that human behavior is reducible to “evolutionary psychology” because human behavior is not reducible to psychology, evolutionary or otherwise.
The general form of this argument is that sociological facts are not reducible to biological race, and this is why divergent sampling is not “cherry picking.” The presence of even one exception disproves the rule, but exceptions abound. There are black geniuses, even if not very many; and there are plenty of stupid, violent, sociopathic whites. “Race” does not supervene on these qualities, so whatever the word means has to be something else.
I hold that race is a mode of substance. It would take a long time to try to explain that fully, but the more acutely relevant corollary is the fact that racial differences are not inexplicable in terms of basic human nature. They are not mechanistic differences nor accidental differences—i.e. they are neither nature nor nurture nor some combination of the two—but temporal differences. They are analogous to the different behaviors displayed by one and the same person at different points in his life. The same man might behave very differently depending upon whether he was in a nightclub on Friday night or at his desk on Monday morning. If one man thinks he is going to a party and another man thinks he is going to work, the two of them will not get along. They will be, in all basic tendencies and tactical details, very antagonistic to one another. And it is fate that decides which way we are going at any given time.
“Race” and “fate” have very similar meanings—they cannot be understood without the temporal component. As far as “biological race” goes, while it somewhat pains me to say it, the progressive description that it is simply a reference to “who your ancestors were” is actually closer to reality than the remonstrations of the HBDers. Fate overcomes ethnic origins in human affairs. The comparative unimportance of biology is greatly exaggerated by HBDers precisely to avoid the recognition that, underneath the skin, the vast majority of human beings of whatever ethnicity all belong to the same broad class of mediocrity, and that our so-called virtues are scarcely distinguishable from the vices we decry in others in a different temporal mode.
It goes without saying that there are doubtlessly many ill-informed / biased / lazy / ill-intentioned (etc.) people who fit your description to a tee. But a discussion of this point is not germane to the question of the 2013-2023 shift by the AHA. Nor is it a value-add to me.
(Points leftward: "Look! Stupid people over there!" Gestures to the right: "Over there, too!")
I know.
I don't have the time (or inclination) to step through every misapprehension in #216. I'll tackle one at the end of this comment. A careful reading of some of Sailer's "primer" posts should clear up many of the rest. Robert Reich's 2018 book "Who We Are And How We Got Here," while unfortunately written from a Progressive point of view, addresses many subtler points on e.g. the nature of
racegeography-based partly-inbred ancestry groups, as seen from a DNA-based (i.e. allele-frequency) perspective.You wrote, "I hold that race is a mode of substance... racial differences are not inexplicable in terms of basic human nature. They are... temporal differences."
Funnily enough, I think Reich would generally agree with the temporal nature of racial differences -- of race itself -- although not it the same way that you conceive of it.
.
Straw Man example:
> We speak about “biological” race, but we lay out the case in sociological metrics.
No, I do not. Biological race (race is also a social construct) is best visualized by PCA analyses of autosomal DNA, commonly done with 23andMe-style SNP data. There are many such informative figures in the literature.
> [The HBDer's] worldview contains the sweeping generalization that things like criminality and educational attainment are reducible to general intelligence and behavioral traits...
This is either tautological or incorrect. If criminality and educational attainment are behavioral traits -- they are often considered as such -- then yes, they are "reducible to behavioral traits."
> which are themselves reducible to genetics.
Who is claiming that criminality and educational attainment are "reducible to genetics"? Me? Sailer? Citation, please.
> if racial differences just are genetic differences, then the divergent qualities of the races can be set down to the (very small) difference in average genetic components between them.
Search Sailer's archive for essays where he offers an HBD-informed "starting best guess" that differences among genetically-definable racial groups (or subgroups) will tend to be "about half" due to genetics (nature) and "about half" due to environment (nurture). His oft-made subtler point is that since genes work through environment, it is often very challenging to disentangle the two.Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @MEH 0910
Yes, of course, there are some socially-constructed elements to this identification, but, at heart, this is a biological identification, and the two identifications largely coincide, if not perfectly. And, yes, this means that the reason they share these traits is due to both common biology (genetic similarities) as well as a shared history going back thousands of years, during which time they were subject to similar environmental and developmental patterns.This is, "There are black idiots and white idiots, so people are the same, they are all mostly idiots" type of an argument.
Yes, races are a sub-category of a species, which means that humans have more in common with each other than they do with other species. But because humans are the most complex of creatures and possess both self-awareness and, relatedly, a sense of the past and the future, and are, therefore, chart their own destinies (God-granted free will, if you'd like), even seemingly small differences between groups manifestly greatly over time even beyond the effects of the environment as in the case of other species (and, of course, you are no doubt aware that human traits are often distributed in a bell curve, so even small average differences can create significant distribution differences at the edges, e.g. number of East Asians with perfect SAT scores vs. the number of Africans with the same per capita).
Now, this doesn't mean you have to be an essentialist about race. It doesn't mean that, say, sub-Saharan Africans are forever doomed to possess lower IQ than, say, East Asians. If, for some reason, intelligent East Asians refuse to procreate and die off and only those of lesser intelligence procreate and their offspring are reared in intellectually unchallenging environments all the while, for other reasons, only the most intelligent sub-Saharan Africans have offspring while the less intelligent ones do not (and the offspring of the former are subject to conditions that are very challenging to the brain), and there are these selective breeding conditions for generation, one day we would have a sub-Saharan African population that is intelligent and East Asians who are less so. People can and do change - as a group. And it has happened continuously ever since the human race began. That's called history.
Are you suggesting the time for us to act is now?
You know, Jack, whatever your group’s average, you’re not bringing it up. Sometimes I even think you’re some kind of Occidental Review black propaganda op. Kevin MacDonald sits at his desk and thinks, ‘I’ve got to do more — but what?’
‘JackD’ is born.
Thanks for that elaboration. One thing I would add is variable availability. Looking at Table 4 (see PS and look in the table for “PREVENT Model Enhanced for Social Risk with SDI”) you can see that requiring the SDI (social deprivation index) variable cut the sample size down to a third of its original number.
It seems a decent bet that a race variable would give at least some of the benefit observed with the SDI variable (my guess is it would do even better, please prove me wrong, “scientists”) with a much more universally available variable.
Variable availability also has a temporal aspect. Which is why I am so cranky about the CARDIA CVD work having 30 years worth of variables available (and apparently used in some of their models, in particular the model they choose to highlight!). When you are making these screening decisions you can only go on what is known at the time.
Along the lines of what you are saying it would also be interesting to have a correlation matrix for the different variables.
P.S. I should note I went back and looked at Gusev’s statement about the availability of racial data. He did not lie. He merely implied in misleading fashion (especially ironic given SDI variable availability issue noted above).
What he failed to note is that the paper comparing the 2013 and 2023 models shows the data used for the validation (and presumable derivation, per Table 1) sample have race data available. This can be seen in
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.067626
Table 4 gives results (on the validation sample) for the 2013 PCE model which requires race.
Table 1 gives variable summaries. It indicates that 4.9-5.5% of the race values are Other/Missing, but apparently that did not affect the ability to use the PCE model (compare sample sizes in Table 4 and Table 1 Validation Sample).
Would it be fair to say that you describe Jews in " the least charitable terms"? You couldn't even think of a single positive contribution the Jews have made. I can think of many positive contributions by blacks in the fields of sports, music, entertainment, etc. O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson, etc.Replies: @res, @Twinkie
The “it was just a joke” disclaimer is tiresome. You and I (and Twinkie) all know you very much mean the intent if not the exact words.
Stop lying. Here is a recent (three hours before your comment here which was written three hours before this response of mine) reply from Twinkie to you.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/john-podhoretz-jews-are-not-white/#comment-6271872
What is unique about the Jews is that they are the only group whose very existence is apparently up for grabs. No one debates whether the negatives of the Koreans outweigh their positives such that Koreans have no right to exist. It's just not a topic for discussion.Replies: @res, @Twinkie
At least consider the difference between “reducible to” and “related to.”
I.D., I subscribe to most (perhaps all) of the “HBD” way of perceiving the world, as laid out by Mr. Sailer. I bring this up because, while I believe you wrote comment #216 in good faith, you nonetheless paint a Straw Man portrait of the HBD position. At least as I (likely many others) understand it.
It goes without saying that there are doubtlessly many ill-informed / biased / lazy / ill-intentioned (etc.) people who fit your description to a tee. But a discussion of this point is not germane to the question of the 2013-2023 shift by the AHA. Nor is it a value-add to me.
(Points leftward: “Look! Stupid people over there!” Gestures to the right: “Over there, too!”)
I know.
I don’t have the time (or inclination) to step through every misapprehension in #216. I’ll tackle one at the end of this comment. A careful reading of some of Sailer’s “primer” posts should clear up many of the rest. Robert Reich’s 2018 book “Who We Are And How We Got Here,” while unfortunately written from a Progressive point of view, addresses many subtler points on e.g. the nature of
racegeography-based partly-inbred ancestry groups, as seen from a DNA-based (i.e. allele-frequency) perspective.You wrote, “I hold that race is a mode of substance… racial differences are not inexplicable in terms of basic human nature. They are… temporal differences.”
Funnily enough, I think Reich would generally agree with the temporal nature of racial differences — of race itself — although not it the same way that you conceive of it.
.
Straw Man example:
> We speak about “biological” race, but we lay out the case in sociological metrics.
No, I do not. Biological race (race is also a social construct) is best visualized by PCA analyses of autosomal DNA, commonly done with 23andMe-style SNP data. There are many such informative figures in the literature.
> [The HBDer’s] worldview contains the sweeping generalization that things like criminality and educational attainment are reducible to general intelligence and behavioral traits…
This is either tautological or incorrect. If criminality and educational attainment are behavioral traits — they are often considered as such — then yes, they are “reducible to behavioral traits.”
> which are themselves reducible to genetics.
Who is claiming that criminality and educational attainment are “reducible to genetics”? Me? Sailer? Citation, please.
> if racial differences just are genetic differences, then the divergent qualities of the races can be set down to the (very small) difference in average genetic components between them.
Search Sailer’s archive for essays where he offers an HBD-informed “starting best guess” that differences among genetically-definable racial groups (or subgroups) will tend to be “about half” due to genetics (nature) and “about half” due to environment (nurture). His oft-made subtler point is that since genes work through environment, it is often very challenging to disentangle the two.
On the other hand, whenever I make an attempt at thoroughness and scholarly attention to detail, I get accused of prolixity, so I just can't win with some people.
I certainly don't mind doing a deeper dive on specific questions, as long as they are asked in good faith. In the meantime, thank you very much for your comments in this thread.Replies: @Twinkie, @ic1000
https://www.unz.com/anepigone/alt-wrong-paradigms/Replies: @Twinkie
Thanks, but Revolver is the one I’d heard about and am not too impressed by. Someone mentioned a couple others that I’ll check out.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/john-podhoretz-jews-are-not-white/#comment-6271872Replies: @Jack D
I was referring to a different comment that he made in another thread. He has apparently softened his position since – according to Twinkie, Jews did make some positive contributions (but only starting in the 19th century) but their negatives far outweigh the positives. He is entitled to his opinion but I am entitled to my opinion that this makes him an antisemite.
What is unique about the Jews is that they are the only group whose very existence is apparently up for grabs. No one debates whether the negatives of the Koreans outweigh their positives such that Koreans have no right to exist. It’s just not a topic for discussion.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/theres-no-such-thing-as-judeo-christian-values/#comment-730219Seems like he is (and has been, going back to some of his earliest comments) willing to credit Jewish contributions. Contra your repeated assertions (lies).How can you write that with a straight face? Or is this another of your "jokes"? First, I don't see Twinkie denying anyone a right to exist. And second, as far as the negatives and positives of other groups being discussed here, have you forgotten about blacks?
Point out where I write of wanting the Jews to jump in the cattle car or the oven.
I have Jewish friends. I welcome patriotic Jewish-Americans. I treat individuals as they are, not based on their ethnicity, e.g. I critique you harshly, not because you are a Jew, but because you are an unpatriotic elitist who wants to sacralize your own ethnic group above others, often by maligning the majority Christian whites with charges of racism and anti-Semitism. It's clear, though, that kind of argument-by-ethnic categorization directed at others is a projection (look how quickly you try to tar me with Korean-this, Korean-that).
That doesn't mean we can't discuss roles different ethnic communities and group play in demographic and statistical terms. You yourself routinely disparage blacks for their high rates of social pathologies and often use archaic terms about them to evince your clear dislike of the entire group. You likely do this also out of trying to play "fellow whites" shtick. But, of course, you and your fellow Jews are off-limits to such discussions, because any such discussion is "anti-Semitism" and Holocaust 2.0.
I am on record as stating that although I think the blacks as a group have many problems in this country, I want policies that will help them be productive, responsible citizens, because they are my fellow citizens and also because their problems inevitably spill into other groups.
Likewise, I want American Jews to be patriotic to this country, not Israel, and show some noblesse oblige toward their socio-economic inferiors who are not Jews, their fellow citizens. And, at the end of the day, I want them to assimilate into the majority and not be "a people apart," because that has and will continue to cause all sorts of problems, problems for the country at large and for the Jews as well.
But you are not interested in that. You just want the Jews to lord over others, be immune from criticism, and exist as an over-caste, all the while supporting the State of Israel no matter what it does. In the long run, that's just not going to fly with the 98% of the population that is not Jewish.Because, for better or worse, Koreans in America have not had much influence in elite American politics, finance, media, law, etc. Koreans tend to intermarry at high rates, assimilate, and disappear quickly into the majority. Within a generation or two in this country, they become, for example, like this:
https://biographyhost.com/uploads/images/Mike-Glover-with-his-SGT-Team.jpgReplies: @Jack D
You know, Jack, whatever your group's average, you're not bringing it up. Sometimes I even think you're some kind of Occidental Review black propaganda op. Kevin MacDonald sits at his desk and thinks, 'I've got to do more -- but what?'
'JackD' is born.Replies: @Jack D
Yes, I want the Men of Unz to have the courage of their convictions, like Robert Bowers. If Jews are really an existential threat to America like you say every day, if their negatives outweigh their positives and they are on the whole destructive, why are you just gassing about it? You must not really mean it. Or maybe you are trying to get unstable people like Bowers riled up to do your dirty work for you?
I don't hate you...I wuv you the bestest. Well, not you personally, Jack, but... [okay, we're not going down that road.]
The point is that there must be some way to get you guys, collectively, lumping in the good with the bad, to just stop.
Any ideas? Ghettos? Maybe, like Jim Crow, what looks like antediluvian barbarism really was the best solution, at the end of the day.
But I'm open. What do you suggest?
What is unique about the Jews is that they are the only group whose very existence is apparently up for grabs. No one debates whether the negatives of the Koreans outweigh their positives such that Koreans have no right to exist. It's just not a topic for discussion.Replies: @res, @Twinkie
Here is a 2014 (!) comment from Twinkie.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/theres-no-such-thing-as-judeo-christian-values/#comment-730219
Seems like he is (and has been, going back to some of his earliest comments) willing to credit Jewish contributions. Contra your repeated assertions (lies).
How can you write that with a straight face? Or is this another of your “jokes”? First, I don’t see Twinkie denying anyone a right to exist. And second, as far as the negatives and positives of other groups being discussed here, have you forgotten about blacks?
It goes without saying that there are doubtlessly many ill-informed / biased / lazy / ill-intentioned (etc.) people who fit your description to a tee. But a discussion of this point is not germane to the question of the 2013-2023 shift by the AHA. Nor is it a value-add to me.
(Points leftward: "Look! Stupid people over there!" Gestures to the right: "Over there, too!")
I know.
I don't have the time (or inclination) to step through every misapprehension in #216. I'll tackle one at the end of this comment. A careful reading of some of Sailer's "primer" posts should clear up many of the rest. Robert Reich's 2018 book "Who We Are And How We Got Here," while unfortunately written from a Progressive point of view, addresses many subtler points on e.g. the nature of
racegeography-based partly-inbred ancestry groups, as seen from a DNA-based (i.e. allele-frequency) perspective.You wrote, "I hold that race is a mode of substance... racial differences are not inexplicable in terms of basic human nature. They are... temporal differences."
Funnily enough, I think Reich would generally agree with the temporal nature of racial differences -- of race itself -- although not it the same way that you conceive of it.
.
Straw Man example:
> We speak about “biological” race, but we lay out the case in sociological metrics.
No, I do not. Biological race (race is also a social construct) is best visualized by PCA analyses of autosomal DNA, commonly done with 23andMe-style SNP data. There are many such informative figures in the literature.
> [The HBDer's] worldview contains the sweeping generalization that things like criminality and educational attainment are reducible to general intelligence and behavioral traits...
This is either tautological or incorrect. If criminality and educational attainment are behavioral traits -- they are often considered as such -- then yes, they are "reducible to behavioral traits."
> which are themselves reducible to genetics.
Who is claiming that criminality and educational attainment are "reducible to genetics"? Me? Sailer? Citation, please.
> if racial differences just are genetic differences, then the divergent qualities of the races can be set down to the (very small) difference in average genetic components between them.
Search Sailer's archive for essays where he offers an HBD-informed "starting best guess" that differences among genetically-definable racial groups (or subgroups) will tend to be "about half" due to genetics (nature) and "about half" due to environment (nurture). His oft-made subtler point is that since genes work through environment, it is often very challenging to disentangle the two.Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @MEH 0910
I certainly respect the evident care you put into this response. It is a good summation of many things. However, I would ask that you cut me a little slack with the accusations of straw-manning. The Modern Synthesis is a gigantic ideology that has been the fruit of many decades and of many thousands of researchers and intellectuals—I simply cannot explore all the nuances and counter all the arguments in the space of a blog comment. If I give a necessarily truncated and cartoonish version of opposing positions, this is done in the interests of time. It is not meant to be a rhetorical cheap shot.
On the other hand, whenever I make an attempt at thoroughness and scholarly attention to detail, I get accused of prolixity, so I just can’t win with some people.
I certainly don’t mind doing a deeper dive on specific questions, as long as they are asked in good faith. In the meantime, thank you very much for your comments in this thread.
You will find that, if you were to display such brilliance and clarity, you will develop a sizable readership and following quickly.Replies: @Colin Wright
https://twitter.com/s_decatur/status/1727475227188166688
The thread recounts the long conflict between Edward O. Wilson on the one side, Steven Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin on the other.
Representing Darwin on the one side. Rousseau, Marx and Freud on the other.
Who behaved with integrity and honor, and who did not?
Whose ideas are more insighful and hold more explanatory power?Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
No…that’s simply not the case. You notwithstanding, many of the people I have the fondest memories of in my life have been Jews.
I don’t hate you…I wuv you the bestest. Well, not you personally, Jack, but… [okay, we’re not going down that road.]
The point is that there must be some way to get you guys, collectively, lumping in the good with the bad, to just stop.
Any ideas? Ghettos? Maybe, like Jim Crow, what looks like antediluvian barbarism really was the best solution, at the end of the day.
But I’m open. What do you suggest?
“That’s a fascinating question for scientists and public health officials, but for doctors treating individual patients, it’s enough to know that with blacks, it’s more likely to turn out serious.”
Now you’re hedging your bets. My vague impression is that you read my comment (59) from “The AHA’s “Scientific Statement” On Why They Are Hamstringing Their Heart Attack Risk Algorithm a Priori”. You don’t like being wrong, but at least you are tacitly admitting you need to rethink things.
But that doesn’t last for long, as evident by your recent spate of Jewish content. Must be tin cup narrative time around the corner.
It goes without saying that there are doubtlessly many ill-informed / biased / lazy / ill-intentioned (etc.) people who fit your description to a tee. But a discussion of this point is not germane to the question of the 2013-2023 shift by the AHA. Nor is it a value-add to me.
(Points leftward: "Look! Stupid people over there!" Gestures to the right: "Over there, too!")
I know.
I don't have the time (or inclination) to step through every misapprehension in #216. I'll tackle one at the end of this comment. A careful reading of some of Sailer's "primer" posts should clear up many of the rest. Robert Reich's 2018 book "Who We Are And How We Got Here," while unfortunately written from a Progressive point of view, addresses many subtler points on e.g. the nature of
racegeography-based partly-inbred ancestry groups, as seen from a DNA-based (i.e. allele-frequency) perspective.You wrote, "I hold that race is a mode of substance... racial differences are not inexplicable in terms of basic human nature. They are... temporal differences."
Funnily enough, I think Reich would generally agree with the temporal nature of racial differences -- of race itself -- although not it the same way that you conceive of it.
.
Straw Man example:
> We speak about “biological” race, but we lay out the case in sociological metrics.
No, I do not. Biological race (race is also a social construct) is best visualized by PCA analyses of autosomal DNA, commonly done with 23andMe-style SNP data. There are many such informative figures in the literature.
> [The HBDer's] worldview contains the sweeping generalization that things like criminality and educational attainment are reducible to general intelligence and behavioral traits...
This is either tautological or incorrect. If criminality and educational attainment are behavioral traits -- they are often considered as such -- then yes, they are "reducible to behavioral traits."
> which are themselves reducible to genetics.
Who is claiming that criminality and educational attainment are "reducible to genetics"? Me? Sailer? Citation, please.
> if racial differences just are genetic differences, then the divergent qualities of the races can be set down to the (very small) difference in average genetic components between them.
Search Sailer's archive for essays where he offers an HBD-informed "starting best guess" that differences among genetically-definable racial groups (or subgroups) will tend to be "about half" due to genetics (nature) and "about half" due to environment (nurture). His oft-made subtler point is that since genes work through environment, it is often very challenging to disentangle the two.Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @MEH 0910
Here is Intelligent Dasein’s critique of HBD:
https://www.unz.com/anepigone/alt-wrong-paradigms/
There is also the possibly the longest comment I have ever seen (seen, not read) on Unz: https://www.unz.com/anepigone/alt-wrong-paradigms/#comment-3935273Replies: @res
This is “Look, squirrel” type of an argument. Don’t tell me about the strawman “standard HBDer” you constructed in your own mind. Address me and what I’ve written.
Regardless of what you may think, race is simply a group of people who cluster genetically, usually at the continental or the larger geographical level, who also broadly share certain phenotypical traits.
Yes, of course, there are some socially-constructed elements to this identification, but, at heart, this is a biological identification, and the two identifications largely coincide, if not perfectly. And, yes, this means that the reason they share these traits is due to both common biology (genetic similarities) as well as a shared history going back thousands of years, during which time they were subject to similar environmental and developmental patterns.
This is, “There are black idiots and white idiots, so people are the same, they are all mostly idiots” type of an argument.
Yes, races are a sub-category of a species, which means that humans have more in common with each other than they do with other species. But because humans are the most complex of creatures and possess both self-awareness and, relatedly, a sense of the past and the future, and are, therefore, chart their own destinies (God-granted free will, if you’d like), even seemingly small differences between groups manifestly greatly over time even beyond the effects of the environment as in the case of other species (and, of course, you are no doubt aware that human traits are often distributed in a bell curve, so even small average differences can create significant distribution differences at the edges, e.g. number of East Asians with perfect SAT scores vs. the number of Africans with the same per capita).
Now, this doesn’t mean you have to be an essentialist about race. It doesn’t mean that, say, sub-Saharan Africans are forever doomed to possess lower IQ than, say, East Asians. If, for some reason, intelligent East Asians refuse to procreate and die off and only those of lesser intelligence procreate and their offspring are reared in intellectually unchallenging environments all the while, for other reasons, only the most intelligent sub-Saharan Africans have offspring while the less intelligent ones do not (and the offspring of the former are subject to conditions that are very challenging to the brain), and there are these selective breeding conditions for generation, one day we would have a sub-Saharan African population that is intelligent and East Asians who are less so. People can and do change – as a group. And it has happened continuously ever since the human race began. That’s called history.
https://www.unz.com/anepigone/alt-wrong-paradigms/Replies: @Twinkie
The comments in that thread are absolutely hilarious. Example: https://www.unz.com/anepigone/alt-wrong-paradigms/#comment-3920680
There is also the possibly the longest comment I have ever seen (seen, not read) on Unz: https://www.unz.com/anepigone/alt-wrong-paradigms/#comment-3935273
Me on the other hand... Not sure I have ever had a higher ratio of off to on topic comments in a thread.Replies: @Twinkie
Would it be fair to say that you describe Jews in " the least charitable terms"? You couldn't even think of a single positive contribution the Jews have made. I can think of many positive contributions by blacks in the fields of sports, music, entertainment, etc. O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson, etc.Replies: @res, @Twinkie
Likely true in the present. The last time South Koreans let a thousand hostiles overrun its borders, kill hundreds of its citizens, and abduct hundreds more as hostages was c. 1950.
Why don’t you write something funny, for a change, and find out?
On the other hand, whenever I make an attempt at thoroughness and scholarly attention to detail, I get accused of prolixity, so I just can't win with some people.
I certainly don't mind doing a deeper dive on specific questions, as long as they are asked in good faith. In the meantime, thank you very much for your comments in this thread.Replies: @Twinkie, @ic1000
This is false dichotomy. There is a happy middle where – with some brilliance and clarity – you can convey complex thoughts with lucid brevity – in between the cartoon and a 20,000 word essay written in an extremely florid, grandiloquent and archaic style (which another commenter summarized in 20 words). That’s another word for… excellence.
You will find that, if you were to display such brilliance and clarity, you will develop a sizable readership and following quickly.
Note that, in reality, nature and nurture are often mutually-reinforcing rather than opposing forces.Let me use my earlier example. If we were to select among blacks, people who have never committed crimes and do so for, say, East Asians as well. Then we find that both groups are non-criminal. Can we then say, well, once we control for "social pathology," we find that race doesn't matter in criminal proclivities?
Or, as a thought experiment, let's look at another (larger) difference - male vs. female:
Once we engage in extremely divergent selection and pick men with unusually and extremely low testosterone levels and females with unusually and extremely high testosterone levels and then find that the gap in incidents of violent behaviors is relatively small. Can we then say "sex plays little to no role in violent behavioral tendencies once we find 'analogous populations'"? Ah, but doesn't sex account for the vastly different distributions of hormones - on average - between men and women in the first place - that hormonal differences are part and parcel of sexual differences?
And back to race. If I were to only select very fair-skinned blacks (say, those who suffer from albinism, who are a tiny fraction of blacks) and then pick out similarly colored whites (a much larger fraction of whites), can I then say, "Clearly race means little here - being black or African-descended doesn't mean the skin color has to be dark"?Replies: @ic1000, @Intelligent Dasein, @Colin Wright
I think this is a very important point.
You will find that, if you were to display such brilliance and clarity, you will develop a sizable readership and following quickly.Replies: @Colin Wright
Didn’t someone just quote Truman to the effect that he could give a two-hour speech right now — but would need two weeks if he was to make a ten-minute one?
Sometimes, just piling on more words doesn’t help.
NOBODY is going to be allowed to do a good study on hospital deaths vs. race of staff. Good luck with that one.
The very obvious idea is that, by definition, when you hire people who are of lower quality than you could have, on the average, you'll have less competence. That goes for any field. For most realms of employment the AA/Wokeness hiring just results in lower profits for the company, a less unified workforce with lower morale, more defective products, and poorer service. In some, however, the long-term results are higher risks of harm and/or death.
I understand iSteve's point here. I am just saying this is just a small part of the harm AA and Wokeness have caused over the many years.Replies: @Guest007
So the position is based on the idea that no black nurses are qualified and that they all make more mistakes because they is what one believes. Major errors have to be reported. It was a white nurse that killed patients at Vanderbilt University Medical Center.
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/crime/2022/03/25/radonda-vaught-trial-vanderbilt-nurse-jury-verdict/7154135001/
Medication error and adverse events have to be reported. It is something that the Joint Commission looks at.
1) I didn't meant the Filipanas are part of AA. They were imported. We have no idea about their training.
2) Hospital errors are not like errors in baseball. You won't know many of them.
3) NOBODY, but NOBODY is going to do studies of such mistakes as a function of racial make-up of the staff. Feel free to give it a go though.
4) The OBVIOUS. By DEFINITION of AA, the less qualified are admitted over more qualified. Therefore, there will be more harm and more (or earlier) deaths.Replies: @bomag
It is as you say.
I vaguely recall, from early times on the web, a reference to charges and convictions of crimes with a hospital setting (rape of patients, etc.). Usual stark racial differences.
Not that long ago here, a guy linked to mass murders by hospital personnel. He did it with the claim most were done by Whites. But he didn’t look at the data. Tsk.
There is also the possibly the longest comment I have ever seen (seen, not read) on Unz: https://www.unz.com/anepigone/alt-wrong-paradigms/#comment-3935273Replies: @res
TGToD had more good comments in that thread. A quick search there for “disease says” was worthwhile.
Me on the other hand… Not sure I have ever had a higher ratio of off to on topic comments in a thread.
By the way, I am glad that commenter Intelligent Dasein no longer write in what the other commenter called "late Henry Jamesian." I think he could offer interesting observations and thoughts and be a very good interlocutor here if he could just stop calling other people idiots and assuming an immediate air of intellectual superiority. He might be well-read about certain topics, but he has so little intellectual humility that he thinks he knows much more about other topics (about which he's clearly ignorant) than actual experts of those fields (e.g. he once wrote that I know nothing about violence and that I sound like a guy who's never been in a fight or something to that effect). But, some people are their own worst enemy (the best example of which is probably Jack D these days).
Not “sometimes,” most of the time. Especially on the internet.
On the other hand, you're right that a lot of times I realize 'this isn't helping; just delete it.'
On the other hand, you're right that a lot of times I realize 'this isn't helping; just delete it.'
If you haven't quite got it, the solution isn't to pile on more words; it's to express it once, accurately.
Me on the other hand... Not sure I have ever had a higher ratio of off to on topic comments in a thread.Replies: @Twinkie
Yup, such as this: https://www.unz.com/anepigone/alt-wrong-paradigms/#comment-3920880
You got involved in an argument about population IQ averages. OT, yes, but all useful information. I don’t have a problem with OT comments (so long as they are packed with useful information like yours). Most of us use this site occasionally as a forum rather than simply responding to the posted articles by the authors.
By the way, I am glad that commenter Intelligent Dasein no longer write in what the other commenter called “late Henry Jamesian.” I think he could offer interesting observations and thoughts and be a very good interlocutor here if he could just stop calling other people idiots and assuming an immediate air of intellectual superiority. He might be well-read about certain topics, but he has so little intellectual humility that he thinks he knows much more about other topics (about which he’s clearly ignorant) than actual experts of those fields (e.g. he once wrote that I know nothing about violence and that I sound like a guy who’s never been in a fight or something to that effect). But, some people are their own worst enemy (the best example of which is probably Jack D these days).
What is unique about the Jews is that they are the only group whose very existence is apparently up for grabs. No one debates whether the negatives of the Koreans outweigh their positives such that Koreans have no right to exist. It's just not a topic for discussion.Replies: @res, @Twinkie
You keep making up lies about me. There was no “softening” – as “res” pointed out, my position has been consistent for years – I always acknowledged contributions talented Jews have made, but I also contrasted that with the enormous Jewish overrepresentation and leadership in causes that were malignant to the Western Civilization and the United States.
Nope, that’s just the strawman that you keep cooking up to tar your opponents.
Point out where I write of wanting the Jews to jump in the cattle car or the oven.
I have Jewish friends. I welcome patriotic Jewish-Americans. I treat individuals as they are, not based on their ethnicity, e.g. I critique you harshly, not because you are a Jew, but because you are an unpatriotic elitist who wants to sacralize your own ethnic group above others, often by maligning the majority Christian whites with charges of racism and anti-Semitism. It’s clear, though, that kind of argument-by-ethnic categorization directed at others is a projection (look how quickly you try to tar me with Korean-this, Korean-that).
That doesn’t mean we can’t discuss roles different ethnic communities and group play in demographic and statistical terms. You yourself routinely disparage blacks for their high rates of social pathologies and often use archaic terms about them to evince your clear dislike of the entire group. You likely do this also out of trying to play “fellow whites” shtick. But, of course, you and your fellow Jews are off-limits to such discussions, because any such discussion is “anti-Semitism” and Holocaust 2.0.
I am on record as stating that although I think the blacks as a group have many problems in this country, I want policies that will help them be productive, responsible citizens, because they are my fellow citizens and also because their problems inevitably spill into other groups.
Likewise, I want American Jews to be patriotic to this country, not Israel, and show some noblesse oblige toward their socio-economic inferiors who are not Jews, their fellow citizens. And, at the end of the day, I want them to assimilate into the majority and not be “a people apart,” because that has and will continue to cause all sorts of problems, problems for the country at large and for the Jews as well.
But you are not interested in that. You just want the Jews to lord over others, be immune from criticism, and exist as an over-caste, all the while supporting the State of Israel no matter what it does. In the long run, that’s just not going to fly with the 98% of the population that is not Jewish.
Because, for better or worse, Koreans in America have not had much influence in elite American politics, finance, media, law, etc. Koreans tend to intermarry at high rates, assimilate, and disappear quickly into the majority. Within a generation or two in this country, they become, for example, like this:
I'm sure that Koreans had sincere religious reasons for embracing Christianity but I wonder whether there was a "cargo cult" aspect to it - they were dirt poor after the war and the Americans were rich and they knew that they had to adopt certain aspects of American culture in order to achieve American wealth but they didn't know which ingredients in the secret sauce of Americanism were necessary and which ones were irrelevant so they put Christianity on the necessary side.Replies: @Twinkie
Point out where I write of wanting the Jews to jump in the cattle car or the oven.
I have Jewish friends. I welcome patriotic Jewish-Americans. I treat individuals as they are, not based on their ethnicity, e.g. I critique you harshly, not because you are a Jew, but because you are an unpatriotic elitist who wants to sacralize your own ethnic group above others, often by maligning the majority Christian whites with charges of racism and anti-Semitism. It's clear, though, that kind of argument-by-ethnic categorization directed at others is a projection (look how quickly you try to tar me with Korean-this, Korean-that).
That doesn't mean we can't discuss roles different ethnic communities and group play in demographic and statistical terms. You yourself routinely disparage blacks for their high rates of social pathologies and often use archaic terms about them to evince your clear dislike of the entire group. You likely do this also out of trying to play "fellow whites" shtick. But, of course, you and your fellow Jews are off-limits to such discussions, because any such discussion is "anti-Semitism" and Holocaust 2.0.
I am on record as stating that although I think the blacks as a group have many problems in this country, I want policies that will help them be productive, responsible citizens, because they are my fellow citizens and also because their problems inevitably spill into other groups.
Likewise, I want American Jews to be patriotic to this country, not Israel, and show some noblesse oblige toward their socio-economic inferiors who are not Jews, their fellow citizens. And, at the end of the day, I want them to assimilate into the majority and not be "a people apart," because that has and will continue to cause all sorts of problems, problems for the country at large and for the Jews as well.
But you are not interested in that. You just want the Jews to lord over others, be immune from criticism, and exist as an over-caste, all the while supporting the State of Israel no matter what it does. In the long run, that's just not going to fly with the 98% of the population that is not Jewish.Because, for better or worse, Koreans in America have not had much influence in elite American politics, finance, media, law, etc. Koreans tend to intermarry at high rates, assimilate, and disappear quickly into the majority. Within a generation or two in this country, they become, for example, like this:
https://biographyhost.com/uploads/images/Mike-Glover-with-his-SGT-Team.jpgReplies: @Jack D
Another thing I have never heard discussed here (in contrast to the endless discussion of the Jews) is the embrace by (South) Koreans of Christianity, especially Protestant Christianity, which is fairly recent and unique among Asian nations. American Protestant missionaries spent a century in China and never really got anywhere except among a small elite. Why did Christianity “take” in Korea when it didn’t in the rest of Asia? Don’t Koreans feel any guilt or sense of loss about having abandoned the religion of their ancestors? Has there been any movement among the young to rebel from their parents and return to the ancestral religion?
I’m sure that Koreans had sincere religious reasons for embracing Christianity but I wonder whether there was a “cargo cult” aspect to it – they were dirt poor after the war and the Americans were rich and they knew that they had to adopt certain aspects of American culture in order to achieve American wealth but they didn’t know which ingredients in the secret sauce of Americanism were necessary and which ones were irrelevant so they put Christianity on the necessary side.
Oda Nobunaga, the first of the Sengoku Jidai daimyo to unify Japan (he preceded Toyotomi Hideyoshi and Tokugawa Ieyasu who competed the unification), violently crushed the Buddhists sects as Tokugawa eventually did with the Christians. In China, of course, this kind of oppression has continued during the communist rule.
Likewise, the Joseon Dynasty persecuted Christians mercilessly. One of my ancestors was an early convert who was martyred: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Martyrs
This was what Westerners wrote of early Korean converts:And this?I don't know - do Europeans feel any guilt or sense of loss about having abandoned the religion of their ancestors like Odinism?
By the way, things are changing in South Korera. Protestantism is declining, because a lot of people are turned off by the excesses of the entrepreneurial aspects of Protestant churches, esp. evangelical ones, and there has been a large rise in Catholic converts (my mother was a part of this phenomenon). Excellent, isn't it?
As for this:I think this "interpretation" says more about you than about Korean converts to Christianity. Try not to project. Because when you reveal your inside like this, it only fuels the stereotype that the Jew only cares about making a buck.
Speaking for myself, though, sometimes I have to tell myself, ‘slow down; explain what you mean.’
On the other hand, you’re right that a lot of times I realize ‘this isn’t helping; just delete it.’
Speaking for myself, though, sometimes I have to tell myself, ‘slow down; explain what you mean.’
On the other hand, you’re right that a lot of times I realize ‘this isn’t helping; just delete it.’
If you haven’t quite got it, the solution isn’t to pile on more words; it’s to express it once, accurately.
I'm sure that Koreans had sincere religious reasons for embracing Christianity but I wonder whether there was a "cargo cult" aspect to it - they were dirt poor after the war and the Americans were rich and they knew that they had to adopt certain aspects of American culture in order to achieve American wealth but they didn't know which ingredients in the secret sauce of Americanism were necessary and which ones were irrelevant so they put Christianity on the necessary side.Replies: @Twinkie
Like a slimy Jell-O on the wall, you don’t address my rebuttal. You just ooze around it and take another crack on something else. Aren’t you tired of being this shifty?
South Korea is the most Protestant country in Asia, but it is not the most Christian. That honor belongs to the Philippines. And Vietnam had a substantial Catholic population that was persecuted and expelled by the communists.
In China, Japan, and Korea, Christianity spread like wildfire when it first arrived and resulted in mass-conversions from the ordinary peasants to high officials and generals. But historically, East Asian countries have had powerful unitary states that were suspicious of, and suppressed, religions. So, they often engaged in vicious efforts to crush them. This applied not just to Christianity, but also, say, Buddhism.
Oda Nobunaga, the first of the Sengoku Jidai daimyo to unify Japan (he preceded Toyotomi Hideyoshi and Tokugawa Ieyasu who competed the unification), violently crushed the Buddhists sects as Tokugawa eventually did with the Christians. In China, of course, this kind of oppression has continued during the communist rule.
Likewise, the Joseon Dynasty persecuted Christians mercilessly. One of my ancestors was an early convert who was martyred: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Martyrs
This was what Westerners wrote of early Korean converts:
And this?
I don’t know – do Europeans feel any guilt or sense of loss about having abandoned the religion of their ancestors like Odinism?
By the way, things are changing in South Korera. Protestantism is declining, because a lot of people are turned off by the excesses of the entrepreneurial aspects of Protestant churches, esp. evangelical ones, and there has been a large rise in Catholic converts (my mother was a part of this phenomenon). Excellent, isn’t it?
As for this:
I think this “interpretation” says more about you than about Korean converts to Christianity. Try not to project. Because when you reveal your inside like this, it only fuels the stereotype that the Jew only cares about making a buck.
I got an enormous amount of value out of it for 20 years, so it was a good run, but I've lately grown to actively despise it for its relentless, fanatical, brain-dead hate for Trump, Musk, Tucker, Rogan, etc. All the people he once would have championed as emblems of independent thought.
And now of course the Jewish emotionalism and hysteria and campaign of lies and propaganda is in full overdrive. Drudge is Jewish so the site always leaned toward one-sided and dishonest coverage that served Israeli/Jewish interests, but I could put up with that as long as the rest of the page skewed sane and countered liberal conventional wisdom.
But now? I'd love to have a site to go to that's like the Drudge Report of 5 years ago.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Stumpy Pepys, @Yngvar
rantingly.com | Run by a guy in California.
Another version of this is an appellate judge apologizing to the other judges on the panel, explaining that he didn’t have time to write a 10-page opinion instead of the 25-page opinion he had just distributed to the panel.
On the other hand, whenever I make an attempt at thoroughness and scholarly attention to detail, I get accused of prolixity, so I just can't win with some people.
I certainly don't mind doing a deeper dive on specific questions, as long as they are asked in good faith. In the meantime, thank you very much for your comments in this thread.Replies: @Twinkie, @ic1000
re:
Here is a Twitter thread that employs relatively few words, but is rich in its treatment of ideas.
The thread recounts the long conflict between Edward O. Wilson on the one side, Steven Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin on the other.
Representing Darwin on the one side. Rousseau, Marx and Freud on the other.
Who behaved with integrity and honor, and who did not?
Whose ideas are more insighful and hold more explanatory power?
However, is this really what you wanted to talk about? None of this should really matter as far as this conversation between you and me is concerned. While I understand the direction you are trying to steer me in with that Twitter thread, you must understand that this has nothing to do with me. Whatever may be the rancorous disagreements between followers of Wilson and followers of Gould, as far as I'm concerned, that whole debate is not even wrong. My beef is with Darwinism itself, with Darwinism as metaphysic, not with some Harvard faculty spat between two brands of Darwinist.
If I haven't made this clear by now, I'm not sure what else I could say that could possibly clarify it. Darwinism is not correct. It is a factually untrue hypothesis that needs to be abandoned. Therefore, the entire HBD superstructure built on the Darwinist foundation is also not correct. This does not mean that race isn't "real," but it does mean that everybody who continues to operate within the HBD paradigm is basically just whistling Dixie. There is no substance and no reality to any of it.Replies: @ic1000
https://twitter.com/s_decatur/status/1727475227188166688
The thread recounts the long conflict between Edward O. Wilson on the one side, Steven Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin on the other.
Representing Darwin on the one side. Rousseau, Marx and Freud on the other.
Who behaved with integrity and honor, and who did not?
Whose ideas are more insighful and hold more explanatory power?Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
I have to disagree with you on that score. I read the thread; I don’t really see any “ideas” of any description being presented there. The only real subject of that thread seems to be an unnamed essay by Tom Wolfe wherein he—in his typical sloppy and bloviating style—adulates Wilson as some sort of great moral crusader. This is sensationalist writing, not to be taken seriously. The idea that there was some sort of Battle of the Titans going on between Darwin/Wilson and Marx/Freud/Gould/Lewontin is simply not correct in any sense. Gould and Lewontin both considered themselves thoroughgoing evolutionists and, be it added (contrary to Wolfe’s ridiculous claims), they both received their own measure of scientific and literary fame.
However, is this really what you wanted to talk about? None of this should really matter as far as this conversation between you and me is concerned. While I understand the direction you are trying to steer me in with that Twitter thread, you must understand that this has nothing to do with me. Whatever may be the rancorous disagreements between followers of Wilson and followers of Gould, as far as I’m concerned, that whole debate is not even wrong. My beef is with Darwinism itself, with Darwinism as metaphysic, not with some Harvard faculty spat between two brands of Darwinist.
If I haven’t made this clear by now, I’m not sure what else I could say that could possibly clarify it. Darwinism is not correct. It is a factually untrue hypothesis that needs to be abandoned. Therefore, the entire HBD superstructure built on the Darwinist foundation is also not correct. This does not mean that race isn’t “real,” but it does mean that everybody who continues to operate within the HBD paradigm is basically just whistling Dixie. There is no substance and no reality to any of it.
(The world is a stochastic place, so not as correct and quantitative as one might hope. Perhaps something better will come along, someday.)
There's no 'convincing' around this point, pro or con, for either of us. We will just have to agree to disagree.
However, is this really what you wanted to talk about? None of this should really matter as far as this conversation between you and me is concerned. While I understand the direction you are trying to steer me in with that Twitter thread, you must understand that this has nothing to do with me. Whatever may be the rancorous disagreements between followers of Wilson and followers of Gould, as far as I'm concerned, that whole debate is not even wrong. My beef is with Darwinism itself, with Darwinism as metaphysic, not with some Harvard faculty spat between two brands of Darwinist.
If I haven't made this clear by now, I'm not sure what else I could say that could possibly clarify it. Darwinism is not correct. It is a factually untrue hypothesis that needs to be abandoned. Therefore, the entire HBD superstructure built on the Darwinist foundation is also not correct. This does not mean that race isn't "real," but it does mean that everybody who continues to operate within the HBD paradigm is basically just whistling Dixie. There is no substance and no reality to any of it.Replies: @ic1000
Thanks for reading that thread. What separates Darwinism (its modern version) from Marxism and Freudianism is that it can make correct and quantitative predictions — it is useful.
(The world is a stochastic place, so not as correct and quantitative as one might hope. Perhaps something better will come along, someday.)
There’s no ‘convincing’ around this point, pro or con, for either of us. We will just have to agree to disagree.
There Harvard guy in there Twitter thread in question makes certain claims and cites the newly published paper, and another commenter who seems to have read it also implies what I wrote.Replies: @Nicholas Stix
122: “new or newly detailed and better supported risk factors exclude race”
N.S.: No such animal has been cited.
“Seems to have read it”?; “implies what I wrote”?
That ain’t cuttin’ it.
About a year ago, a black supremacist fake journalist claimed to have read a document that nobody had ever spoken of, which reported that, along with several other people, a White woman had kidnapped and murdered Emmett Till.
She had read no such document, because no such document existed. The black supremacist fake journalist was trying to get Carolyn Bryant lynched. That was the married White woman whom Emmett Till had sought to rape, or who at the very least, had demanded sex from Mrs. Bryant, who responded (believing he would rape her, otherwise), by getting her gun. She headed out for her gun in her car, before Till whistled at her. (In order to protect Till, Mrs. Bryant refused to tell her husband what Till had done to her, but a black man him separately.)
You’re going to have to do better.