The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Who Is the Most Accurate Media Source on Intelligence?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Results of a survey of human intelligence experts:

Table 4. Expert opinions on intelligence in the media and public debates.

Accuracy of media, scale 1 (inaccurate) to 9 (accurate)

Score # of Respondents
Steve Sailer blog 7.4 27
Anatoly Karlin blog 6.1 10
Die Zeit 5.1 20
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 4.9 18
Die Welt 4.7 15
Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ) 4.5 13
Süddeutsche Zeitung 4.4 19
Times (of London) 4.3 30
Economist 4.2 41
Wall Street Journal 4.2 49
Le Monde 3.9 8
Der Spiegel 3.8 19
El Pais 3.8 12
New York Times 3.8 58
Focus 3.7 17
Daily Telegraph 3.7 27
Le Figaro 3.6 8
Tageszeitung 3.6 15
Guardian 3.6 37
Time 3.6 44
Washington Post 3.5 41
National Public Radio 3.5 62
Newsweek 3.5 44
El Mundo 3.5 12
State-owned television networks 3.3 61
Commercial television networks 2.7 70
This table is adapted from Intelligence:

Survey of expert opinion on intelligence: Intelligence research, experts’ background, controversial issues, and the media

Heiner Rindermann, David Becker, Thomas R. Coyle

Volume 78, January–February 2020 …

Abstract
Experts (Nmax = 102 answering) on intelligence completed a survey about IQ research, controversies, and the media. The survey was conducted in 2013 and 2014 using the Internet-based Expert Questionnaire on Cognitive Ability (EQCA). In the current study, we examined the background of the experts (e.g., nationality, gender, religion, and political orientation) and their positions on intelligence research, controversial issues, and the media. Most experts were male (83%) and from Western countries (90%). Political affiliations ranged from the left (liberal, 54%) to the right (conservative, 24%), with more extreme responses within the left-liberal spectrum. Experts rated the media and public debates as far below adequate. Experts with a left (liberal, progressive) political orientation were more likely to have positive views of the media (around r = |.30|). In contrast, compared to female and left (liberal) experts, male and right (conservative) experts were more likely to endorse the validity of IQ testing (correlations with gender, politics: r = .55, .41), the g factor theory of intelligence (r = .18, .34), and the impact of genes on US Black-White differences (r = .50, .48). The paper compares the results to those of prior expert surveys and discusses the role of experts’ backgrounds, with a focus on political orientation and gender. An underrepresentation of viewpoints associated with experts’ background characteristics (i.e., political views, gender) may distort research findings and should be addressed in higher education policy.

Experts were skeptical of the quality of media reports on intelligence research (Table 4). In general, mean expert ratings of media accuracy were around 3–4, on a scale of 1 (very inaccurate) to 9 (very accurate). Only two media outlets received positive ratings, the blogs of Steve Sailer (M = 7.38, N = 26 ratings) and Anatoly Karlin (6.10, N = 10 ratings). Unfortunately, the survey did not consider James Thompson’s blog Psychological Comments, which was just beginning when the survey was administered. All three blogs are currently hosted by The Unz Review. Among traditional publications (newspapers, radio, television), only the German newspaper Die Zeit received a positive rating (M = 5.10, N = 20 ratings). (It should be noted that different experts rated newspapers from different countries, written in English, Spanish, French, or German.) Experts were generally critical of state-owned or private television networks and radio networks (means around 2.5–3.5, N = 60–70 ratings), with low variability for the ratings (around SD = 1.5–2.0). The results suggest broad agreement among experts that television and radio do not provide accurate information about intelligence research. …

Keep in mind that this survey was done 7 to 8 years ago, and I’m now past my prime in covering intelligence-related issues. I’ve always found writing about IQ to be the single most mentally demanding topic I’ve regularly taken on, so I do it less often these days. I suspect my last important contribution was my 2015 essay “The Flynn Effect: IQ Testing Across Space and Time.”

That said, why isn’t this survey even mentioned in the Wikipedia article about me?

 
Hide 164 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. That said, why isn’t this survey even mentioned in the Wikipedia article about me?

    Would it be difficult for one of us to edit Wikipedia to make its article on Steve more complete? Do they allow that?

    • Replies: @James Speaks
    @Anon

    Yes, they do, for Wikipedia editors with experience.

    , @ic1000
    @Anon

    > [Is it difficult] to edit Wikipedia to make its article on Steve more complete? Do they allow that?

    [408], it's super-easy to correct or expand almost any Wikipedia article. You just do it -- you don't even have to sign up for an account.

    The system works great when the topic is obscure and doesn't attract passions. Wikipedia has good and reliable descriptions of the opening of the proto-Atlantic, the Battle of the Somme, and Ice Cube's career(s).

    However.

    Wikipedia is designed to be resilient to the vandalism that this structure invites. When you edit Ice Cube's article to state that his first hit was in 1916, the system automatically notifies those Ice-Cube-interested editors who have asked to be kept current with changes. One of them will "revert" the article to its prior, correct condition, often within seconds. This can lead to "edit wars," and Wiki has policies for that, too. Vandals get beaten down.

    Most Wikipedia editors are leftists. At every step up the chain through more-committed editors to admins and above, the progressivism and wokism becomes more pronounced. So almost all edit wars end with politically correct text holding the field.

    To the Wikirati, editing the Steve Sailer to paint a truer portrait of the man and his writings is indistinguishable from vandalism, and they handle it the same way.

    Now and then, a well-meaning person will start a journey through the looking glass by submitting a Narrative-nonconforming edit. Occasionally, the edit war ends with a correction to a falsehood or misinterpretation. By design, the cost is always high.

    Replies: @anon, @Bardon Kaldian, @Lot, @Anonymouse, @Reg Cæsar, @Curle

    , @Anonymouse
    @Anon

    Anybody can become a Wikipedia editor. I have been a Wikipedia editor for years. My editing has consisted mainly of minor edits correcting grammatical errors and adding details personally known to me to improve an article. I looked at the Wikipedia entry for Steve and found a number of arbitrary labels of his views that I could edit out. All my edits have been of uncontroversial subjects. In the case of highly partisan articles, which get edited back and forth, the uber-editors can step in and freeze an article from being re-edited ad infinitum.

    I am at a loss as to what is patently unfair in the Steve Wikipedia entry and what is accurate. For example, it states that Steve's writings are hosted in a blog owned and edited by a nut-job who publishes over-the-top anti-jewish and anti-Israel diatribes.

    I have an idea. How 'bout if we copy Steve's Wikipedia entry to the comments section here and propose reasonable edits?

    My next post will paste in Steve's Wikipedia entry. Then we can go at it and hopefully arrive at a reasonable re-edit.

    , @Paperback Writer
    @Anon

    You cannot be serious.

    , @Bill Jones
    @Anon


    Would it be difficult for one of us to edit Wikipedia to make its article on Steve more complete? Do they allow that?
     
    Are you Jewish?
    , @jon
    @Anon

    There is an alternative to wikipedia - infogalactic.com. It's not much now, but it could be if more people got involved.

  2. Sailer, Sailer, he’s our man, if he can’t do it, no one can!

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon, TWS
  3. When I first read the title, I thought you might be looking for the network with the most embedded spooks, e.g. Anderson Cooper at CNN, or the C(eye-ay) Broacasting System, or the Pixie-girls at Faux News.

  4. Anonymous[476] • Disclaimer says:

    All of this (non-mainstream, non-Woke coverage) was a lot more engaging before the genre was exclusively relegated to Documenting the Collapse. This sphere of the internet/ideology has yet to catch up with reality and no one has been able to articulate where anything should go because all avenues are essentially closed and the game is over. The discussions have gotten stupid and stale, and most of them won’t even engage with the reality of what is but years away. Robotics is just one very important example that receives essentially zero focus. The Collapse in so far as it exists or will exist does not and will not look anything like what this sphere is currently visualizing, and the concentration on the flaws and hypocrisies of the system has veered into hobbyism and Dungeons & Dragons. It’s discouraging, and least of all from an entertainment perspective, but collectives that were briefly ahead of the curve have been quickly rendered woefully out of date.

    • Agree: ATate
    • Thanks: vhrm, jon
    • Replies: @TWS
    @Anonymous

    D&D?

    , @vinteuil
    @Anonymous

    Can someone please translate this interesting post into English?

    Replies: @J.Ross, @jon

    , @J.Ross
    @Anonymous

    Y'know what I think it's going to be like is this episode in my middle school career where I did schoolwork for less industrious schoolchildren who had no respect for me. It ended when I misread social reality and went wrecker out of resentment.
    You will do all the work, for people who cannot do that work, but instead of gratitude you will be hated, and you will have to participate in the official lie of your own inability. A lot of people will react to that position by ditching. The ones with the most commitment to social reality have already signed on and are accelerating the process. It used to be that China was backward because Henry Ford was born a thousand times there, but took a look around and realized he enjoyed breathing, and resolved to not be disruptive. Now we will be backward for that reason.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  5. That said, why isn’t this survey even mentioned in the Wikipedia article about me?

    Because it shines a positive light on what you’re doing and shows people like and respect you. You know that…

  6. Congrats again to Steve Sailer. I love and adore and (oftentimes) praise your FAQ about race and about IQ – just great! – Should be in school textbooks everywhere (will soon be in China, I could imagine…).

    DIE ZEIT is still doing ok as long as it does not come to racial differences. They had ca. 15 000 words long dossier after Robert Plomin’s Blueprint had come out, written by Ulrich Bahnsen. The NZZ caught up and is now by far the best German-speaking publication on this topic, with lots of great pieces (not least be Markus Schär).

    The FAZ – is deteriorating. The two main science writers Joachim Müller Jung and his new sidekick Sibylle Anderl, both confused and – quite scared to make a wrong move. Müller-Jung did accept the articles of Konstanz biologist Axel Meyer here and there in the science-section of the FAZ, which are anti-woke and fine.

    Focus.de featured Heiner Rindermann’s articles for a while. But that seems to have ended, unfortunately.

    Best article – and most courageous by far, including the racial differences! – last year by retired Konstanz biologist and photographer Max von Tilzer on the blog Tichy’s Einblick.

    https://www.tichyseinblick.de/gastbeitrag/wenn-einem-wissenschaftliche-fakten-nicht-in-den-politischen-kram-passen/

  7. This post has resurfaced because it was the first link in a private email that Slatestarcodex sent a former friend who subsequently leaked it.

    Many of us knew that SSC was too smart and honest not to believe in HBD and you could see sympathetic statements in many of his writings. I always believed that he read Sailer.

    I found it a little cowardly that SSC didn’t link Steve Sailer in his blog roll. Though by linking particularly Greg Cochran he was coming pretty close.

    The interesting question is does this encourage more elites to admit to similar (i.e. mainstream psychometric beliefs that square with observed reality) beliefs?

    The best bet is no – but the dam wall may be showing another crack.

  8. Anonymous[476] wrote:

    Robotics is just one very important example that receives essentially zero focus.

    Hmmm…. Are you trying to say that robots will replace humans at tasks requiring higher human intelligence?

    I have a family member involved in academic research relevant to robotics — and let’s just say that progress in the field is a lot harder than you might think from the popular media. Computer vision alone is not as advanced as you might think: computer vision tends to have real problems with reflections (e.g., from nice shiny new cars). And simple tasks like folding laundry or cooking in a kitchen are surprisingly difficult.

    The hardest things to replace are simple manual work that requires human-level awareness of the environment and high-level intellectual work. The easiest to replace is low-level white-collar work that involves looking at a computer screen and entering results according to well-defined rules.

    And “deep learning” is not all it is cracked up to be: I worked through an online course on this and really know something about it. One of the standard texts on the subject refers to the coming “AI winter”: that is, a period of disappointment as people come to realize its limits.

    Of course, most of all, increasingly stupid people mean increasingly bad policy decisions, assuming at least that we continue to allow people to make those decisions.

    There is a reason for Schiller’s famous quip: ” Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.”

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @PhysicistDave

    AI is overrated in sci fi milieu.

    Actually, nothing truly NEW can come out of AI.

    , @Anonymous
    @PhysicistDave

    Increasingly stupid people have been making increasingly bad policy decisions for a while now, at least on the surface level. Has it created any real opportunities to reshape the world in a way that is closer to your liking? Do we really think this is a bug and not a feature?

    Most here probably know on some level that the people who actually shape policy and culture are pretty well aware of these dynamics, and many criticisms and concerns in this sphere explicitly touch on this (I.E. the effects of mass immigration). But when it comes down to charting the specifics of what this means and how broadly deleterious trends might be counteracted, there is a general refusal or inability to acknowledge the enormity of the situation, where things are, and where they are actually heading. Maybe this is called hope, if we are being generous.

    One way I'd frame this is in reference to the Flight 93 Election article. I think this cohort found a lot to agree with in that article, and it captured a real feeling and thought process at the time. Well, we had our F93 Election and the subsequent F93 presidency. We have come out the other end of it, and the thinkers and ideological energy that helped make that possible have been rendered directionless. The avenues are closed, and no one serious has really tried to come up with answers because there aren't actually any good ideas that interface with situation as it actually is. We had the Flight 93 election. We did that.

    Documenting The Collapse has some level of intrinsic value, but engaging with the reality of the system and its victory is unpleasant, and detours into its contradictions or briefly touting the verboten realities of intelligence research or x or y or xx and xy are just hobbies or intellectual masturbation at this point.

    It doesn't matter if Lori Lightfoot (as an individual or a D&D character class) is not high IQ. Lori Lightfoot is the mayor of Chicago. You and I are not. She is also just a single facet of many-multi-trillion, many-multi-national global apparatus. We can gloat that she is not high IQ or point to this intelligence study or that intelligence study, but this is just something most of us do to feel better or occupy spare time for our simultaneously understimulated and overstimulated minds.

    There is a fantasy that our elites are divorced from reality. It should be understood that this is a fantasy. Reality will not come for them. Reality, as it is, will come for you.

    What I'm saying is that people getting dumber (in many respects) and politicians getting slimier and less interested in representing the populace as it may have traditionally been conceived is a trend that has been going on for a long time. Has that created many great opportunities for victory? It created the opening for Trump, but in retrospect we should all be able to look at that for what it was, and more importantly, where we are now. The system is effective for many reasons, and while many will look at Lori Lightfootism as an operational facet of this system, people are ignoring its efficacy in the broader operational scheme because there is some satisfaction in pointing out that she is not high IQ and then charting idealistic outcomes based on past paradigms. This is not "the old days."

    With regards to robotics and machine learning, the current shortcomings are largely irrelevant in the context of Who, Whomism. Lori Lightfoot (the individual and the idea) already has an army of virtual machines at her disposal. It does not matter that they are imperfect. Soon, there will be very real machines walking around at her disposal. If it sounds stupid or the current shortcomings of these technologies are the object of fixation, I suspect it is largely because the implications are unpleasant. Stupid humans are currently cheaper than stupid robots, but the point at which that is no longer true is fast approaching. And if it is low level white color jobs and functions which are the first to be outmoded, we might ask: Who will this hit first and hardest? And if we answer that question honestly while holding to that initial premise, we might then ask: Where is the error in elite initiatives to fill countries with New Citizens who may be, on average, lower IQ? Surely they have considered these things. Some of our elites may in fact be quite stupid. Broadly speaking, however, they are not.

    I've gotten longwinded at this point and apologize to a degree for the tone. I'd like to think that I mean well and that it is out of justified frustration. To sum it up, pointing out the flaws in the system is a (often irresistible) distraction if you have no system of your own or way of building one. That is the present reality.

    It doesn't matter if machine learning has limitations. Simply within the realm of political expression, we should be able to see that it can be and has been very effective. It doesn't matter if their robot dogs will be imperfect when people who might actually represent opposition to the system will never come close to sniffing ownership of their own robot factory.

    If this ideological sphere is honest with regards to circumstances and specifics, it would have to routinely confront the significance of barely being able to "own" a Twitter account or maintain a payment processor. This happens on some level, but it is mostly surface or shortsighted. It's currently very difficult to address these things in the context of system's enormity and momentum without losing hope, and I do not want anyone to be hopeless.

    At the same time, I think it's important to realize that pointing out the system's contradictions, factual distortions, and blind spots will not score enough points to win the game at this point. Do I have any suggestions? Not really. I'm in the same boat as everyone else and possess no extraordinary insights or talent. If there's continued value in intelligence debates or dunking on Lori Lightfoot or AOC or whoever, these things have to made cohesive again. We got a more accurate picture of the system because these types of things were briefly cohesive and ahead of the curve, but the reality of that picture and its implications and consequences has also made this sphere stagnant, outdated, and without a clear (practical, beneficial) way forward.

    Replies: @vhrm, @Kratoklastes

  9. This is one of those subjects where a lot of people are just resistant to the idea that nature is at least as strong as nurture and there are significant group differences, since it goes against the egalitarian ethos of our culture. I also think that as the social classes get more ossified an increasing share of people in positions of influence/authority really don’t have any experience of living or working with others whose backgrounds and native abilities are substantially different from their own, and cannot grasp just how different these can be.

    It’s also not a subject either political party wants to face. Democrats would have to accept that we reached the limit of what social interventions/programs could do a long time ago and the inequalities we see today are largely a product of differences in ability. Republicans would have to come to grips with the fact that the bootstrap theory of self improvement has a natural limit on it and a significant portion of our population is never going to climb out of the bottom 3rd no matter what, which includes a healthy share of the hourly immigrant laborers they have let in legally or otherwise.

    • Agree: Cortes, Gary in Gramercy
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @Arclight


    I also think that as the social classes get more ossified an increasing share of people in positions of influence/authority really don’t have any experience of living or working with others whose backgrounds and native abilities are substantially different from their own, and cannot grasp just how different these can be.
     
    Ackshualllllllly … This phenomenon has existed for a long time, and some of us have experienced it.

    I believe Charles Murray mentions something like it: We here, for example, tend to live, work and mix with people who can read and understand this here stuff, like what we are reading and writing right here now. He correctly points out that people live inside bubbles populated by people of similar intellectual ability and socio-economic status.

    Now, say, for example, you happen to drop out of the upper middle class world of professionals that your parents brought you into. You find yourself in a world of average Americans (in this American's true-from-life example.) You discover, to your dismay, that there really are a lot of stupid, crazy, mean, dirty, sick people out there. You find it hard to believe.

    Just in the "average" world, there are a surprising number of nut jobs, weirdos and disgusting people -- even of your own, vaunted race!

    If you haven't lived this, then you don't know it, but it's true. We here at this moment are insulated from this fact, and I daresay most here have never come close to seeing this truth.

    It is almost as if what we here think are clean, "normal," intelligent humans are the exception rather than the rule.

    The fact that a vastly under-appreciated writer of a blog -- who works in a closet for a fraction of what he is worth being paid -- is the highest-rated writer on human intelligence (!) -- seems to support this observation: People, on average, are stupid, dirty and crazy. We sane and semi-sane, clean people are the exception, not the rule.

    We should be preserved and protected. Instead, we are being shamed and eliminated.

    Replies: @Mike Tre, @Dieter Kief, @rebel yell, @vhrm, @Bill Jones, @Bill Jones

  10. @Anon

    That said, why isn’t this survey even mentioned in the Wikipedia article about me?
     
    Would it be difficult for one of us to edit Wikipedia to make its article on Steve more complete? Do they allow that?

    Replies: @James Speaks, @ic1000, @Anonymouse, @Paperback Writer, @Bill Jones, @jon

    Yes, they do, for Wikipedia editors with experience.

  11. @Anon

    That said, why isn’t this survey even mentioned in the Wikipedia article about me?
     
    Would it be difficult for one of us to edit Wikipedia to make its article on Steve more complete? Do they allow that?

    Replies: @James Speaks, @ic1000, @Anonymouse, @Paperback Writer, @Bill Jones, @jon

    > [Is it difficult] to edit Wikipedia to make its article on Steve more complete? Do they allow that?

    [408], it’s super-easy to correct or expand almost any Wikipedia article. You just do it — you don’t even have to sign up for an account.

    The system works great when the topic is obscure and doesn’t attract passions. Wikipedia has good and reliable descriptions of the opening of the proto-Atlantic, the Battle of the Somme, and Ice Cube’s career(s).

    However.

    Wikipedia is designed to be resilient to the vandalism that this structure invites. When you edit Ice Cube’s article to state that his first hit was in 1916, the system automatically notifies those Ice-Cube-interested editors who have asked to be kept current with changes. One of them will “revert” the article to its prior, correct condition, often within seconds. This can lead to “edit wars,” and Wiki has policies for that, too. Vandals get beaten down.

    Most Wikipedia editors are leftists. At every step up the chain through more-committed editors to admins and above, the progressivism and wokism becomes more pronounced. So almost all edit wars end with politically correct text holding the field.

    To the Wikirati, editing the Steve Sailer to paint a truer portrait of the man and his writings is indistinguishable from vandalism, and they handle it the same way.

    Now and then, a well-meaning person will start a journey through the looking glass by submitting a Narrative-nonconforming edit. Occasionally, the edit war ends with a correction to a falsehood or misinterpretation. By design, the cost is always high.

    • Replies: @anon
    @ic1000

    So since people tend to age out of leftism and Wikipedia does not tend to attract younger (or new) internet users as editors, this would imply that over time this bias would become less strong.
    Nice!

    Replies: @pirelli

    , @Bardon Kaldian
    @ic1000

    Some years ago I had been editing a few controversial articles. Evidently, there are powerful cliques when it c0mes to hot stuff.

    I don't care about conspiracy theories, but Wikipedia is susceptible to organized groupthink manipulated by dedicated/politicized groups, which leads to contradictory texts where one sentence is clearly contradicting the previous one.

    , @Lot
    @ic1000

    You should never edit wikipedia without creating an account, which takes 10 seconds and can be done with a throwaway email.

    Otherwise your IP address is listed as the edit author.

    , @Anonymouse
    @ic1000

    >[408], it’s super-easy to correct or expand almost any Wikipedia article. You just do it — you don’t even have to sign up for an account.

    This is incorrect. You must enroll to edit entries.

    Otherwise post accurately describes Wikipedia wars. I wouldn't be so sure that the uber-editors are all or predominantly woke. I understand that the uber-editors can and do freeze entries that have succumbed to Wikipedia warfare.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @ic1000


    This can lead to “edit wars...”
     
    Pi Day 2019 was particularly active for Steve's page.
    , @Curle
    @ic1000

    Seems most everyone is getting doxed these days. What’s so hard about determining identity of wiki editors?

  12. You can find the full article on Sci-Hub. Interestingly, I got that link from Scott Alexander’s new blog. Scott seems quite conflicted about it. He also has a few carefully chosen words about The Bell Curve.

  13. @Anon

    That said, why isn’t this survey even mentioned in the Wikipedia article about me?
     
    Would it be difficult for one of us to edit Wikipedia to make its article on Steve more complete? Do they allow that?

    Replies: @James Speaks, @ic1000, @Anonymouse, @Paperback Writer, @Bill Jones, @jon

    Anybody can become a Wikipedia editor. I have been a Wikipedia editor for years. My editing has consisted mainly of minor edits correcting grammatical errors and adding details personally known to me to improve an article. I looked at the Wikipedia entry for Steve and found a number of arbitrary labels of his views that I could edit out. All my edits have been of uncontroversial subjects. In the case of highly partisan articles, which get edited back and forth, the uber-editors can step in and freeze an article from being re-edited ad infinitum.

    I am at a loss as to what is patently unfair in the Steve Wikipedia entry and what is accurate. For example, it states that Steve’s writings are hosted in a blog owned and edited by a nut-job who publishes over-the-top anti-jewish and anti-Israel diatribes.

    I have an idea. How ’bout if we copy Steve’s Wikipedia entry to the comments section here and propose reasonable edits?

    My next post will paste in Steve’s Wikipedia entry. Then we can go at it and hopefully arrive at a reasonable re-edit.

  14. anon[279] • Disclaimer says:

    “That said, why isn’t this survey even mentioned in the Wikipedia article about me?”

    Because wiki editors might believe that “Intelligence” is not considered a reputable journal?

    In the comments in the latest astralcodexten-article I read this from Thrks:
    “You’re a lot more interesting and engaging when you talk about your personal experiences than when you wriggle on and around the IQ of black people, and I was pleasantly surprised by this sincere turn at the end. FYI, Intelligence isn’t a real journal – they’ve been known to publish absolute trash papers, and for all its ‘predominance’ in the field of ‘intelligence research’ its impact factor is < 3 which is a joke. Generally speaking, the entire field of 'intelligence research' is a joke and you shouldn't listen to their 'specialists' (listen to geneticists instead)."

    I'm too bored to check what an impact factor is, but I figured you would know what to make of that.

  15. That said, why isn’t this survey even mentioned in the Wikipedia article about me?

    Like all real super-villains you need minions , Steve. Maybe next fundraiser you can substitute minions for Bitcoin or something?

  16. Past the top two sources, both blogs, the next five are all mainstream German newspapers, the top of which happens to be my daily driver. And I do think that this research is showing is age.

    • Replies: @Henry's Cat
    @countenance

    When Steve posted this awhile back I queried then its strange methodology. Why compare just these 2 blogs with MSM outlets?

  17. Here is the introductory paragraph to Steve’s Wikipedia entry plus the table of contents.

    Steven Ernest Sailer (born December 20, 1958) is an American paleoconservative journalist, movie critic, blogger, and columnist. He is a former correspondent for UPI and a columnist for Taki’s Magazine and VDARE, a website associated with white supremacy,[1][2] white nationalism,[3][4][5] and the alt-right.[6][7][8] He has a history of making racist statements[9] and has been described as a white supremacist by the Southern Poverty Law Center[10] and the Columbia Journalism Review[11] and writes about race relations, gender issues, politics, immigration, IQ, genetics, movies, and sports. As of 2014, Sailer ceased publishing his personal blog on his own website and shifted it to the Unz Review,[12] an online publication founded by former businessman Ron Unz that promotes anti-semitism, Holocaust denial, conspiracy theories, and white supremacist material.[13][14][15]

    Sailer is known for promoting racist bigotry and anti-immigrant theories[16] and has been credited with coining the pseudoscientific race theory known as “human biodiversity” in the 1990s, with the term later being used among the alt-right as a euphemism for scientific racism.[17][18][19][20] In his writing for VDARE, Sailer has described black people as tending to lack “native judgment”.[21]
    Contents

    1 Personal life
    2 Writing career
    3 Influence
    4 Views and criticism
    4.1 The “Sailer Strategy”
    5 See also
    6 References
    7 External links

    I believe terms like “racist bigotry” contravene Wikipedia’s guidelines. Likewise “white supremacy,” “pseudo-scientific race theory.” Here are Wikipedia’s guidelines for biographies of living persons in a nutshell –

    Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research.

    As I said, anybody can enroll themselves as a Wikipedia editor. Personally I do not propose to participate in this project due to lack of energy based on extreme old age. For those with (relative) youth and time on their hands, it might be an entertaining project to become Wikipedia editors and re-edit problematic statements. For example, the article reads “He has a history of making racist statements[9]” which is a tendentious smear. One may re-edit to read “He has argued for contrarian views on American racial issues.” On the other hand, Steve in fact does publish in VDare which avows a white nationalist stance. It may be an unfair prejudicial remark to point that out in that a contributor to a publication should not be inferred to hold all or any of the views of the publication’s editor. The remark could be just struck out. I don’t know whether anyone would even notice our re-edits. The original author of the entry may be retired or dead. On the other hand, it could become a battle-royal like entries on Palestine or Israel or the Armenian genocide. So one would have to re-edit with a light and judicious touch.

    The mechanics of re-editing on Wikipedia are easily mastered.

    • Replies: @Anonymouse
    @Anonymouse

    In an idle moment, I changed a few phrases in the Wikipedia entry on Steve. I immediately got a series of emails from someone with an anonymizing handle who I assume is the author of the entry saying I shouldn't have done the edit. He cites the SPLC as the justification for calling Steve a racist. Interestingly, the Wikipedia SPLC entry itself reports that many have questioned the objectivity of that organization. The entry also mentions their checkered financial and management history. I don't remember whether it was noted that the SPLC holds $500 million dollars in off-shore banks. The author of the entry on Steve did a hatchet job and broke the Wikipedia guidelines that stipulate that biographies of living persons should be neutral.

    , @GeneralRipper
    @Anonymouse


    He has a history of making racist statements and has been described as a white supremacist by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
     
    That's pretty much the "litmus test" of good patriotic white American man, for my money...lol

    Replies: @Anonymouse

  18. @ic1000
    @Anon

    > [Is it difficult] to edit Wikipedia to make its article on Steve more complete? Do they allow that?

    [408], it's super-easy to correct or expand almost any Wikipedia article. You just do it -- you don't even have to sign up for an account.

    The system works great when the topic is obscure and doesn't attract passions. Wikipedia has good and reliable descriptions of the opening of the proto-Atlantic, the Battle of the Somme, and Ice Cube's career(s).

    However.

    Wikipedia is designed to be resilient to the vandalism that this structure invites. When you edit Ice Cube's article to state that his first hit was in 1916, the system automatically notifies those Ice-Cube-interested editors who have asked to be kept current with changes. One of them will "revert" the article to its prior, correct condition, often within seconds. This can lead to "edit wars," and Wiki has policies for that, too. Vandals get beaten down.

    Most Wikipedia editors are leftists. At every step up the chain through more-committed editors to admins and above, the progressivism and wokism becomes more pronounced. So almost all edit wars end with politically correct text holding the field.

    To the Wikirati, editing the Steve Sailer to paint a truer portrait of the man and his writings is indistinguishable from vandalism, and they handle it the same way.

    Now and then, a well-meaning person will start a journey through the looking glass by submitting a Narrative-nonconforming edit. Occasionally, the edit war ends with a correction to a falsehood or misinterpretation. By design, the cost is always high.

    Replies: @anon, @Bardon Kaldian, @Lot, @Anonymouse, @Reg Cæsar, @Curle

    So since people tend to age out of leftism and Wikipedia does not tend to attract younger (or new) internet users as editors, this would imply that over time this bias would become less strong.
    Nice!

    • Replies: @pirelli
    @anon

    People do not age out of leftism. Most people maintain throughout life roughly the same political views they held as young people. They only become more conservative in a relative sense, as the new crop of young people gets progressively more ... progressive, or whatever, over time.

    We’ll see if the latter trend ever reverses, ie, Victorian social mores become cool among young people again, but I’m not holding my breath.

  19. Excellent work Steve, and interesting to most.

    Of course for the savages without the ability to read the literature and do the work, your conclusions ?

    Thats jus ignorant !

  20. Speaking of Wikipedia, the New York Times thinks you really ought to just accept its wisdom and move on:

    Don’t Go Down the Rabbit Hole

  21. When I saw the headline…

    “Who is the most accurate media source on intelligence?”

    …my reaction was “besides you?”

    Congratulations on your consistency on this issue. The cliche is “touching the third rail”. You have grasped it with both hands and held on.

  22. @PhysicistDave
    Anonymous[476] wrote:

    Robotics is just one very important example that receives essentially zero focus.
     
    Hmmm.... Are you trying to say that robots will replace humans at tasks requiring higher human intelligence?

    I have a family member involved in academic research relevant to robotics -- and let's just say that progress in the field is a lot harder than you might think from the popular media. Computer vision alone is not as advanced as you might think: computer vision tends to have real problems with reflections (e.g., from nice shiny new cars). And simple tasks like folding laundry or cooking in a kitchen are surprisingly difficult.

    The hardest things to replace are simple manual work that requires human-level awareness of the environment and high-level intellectual work. The easiest to replace is low-level white-collar work that involves looking at a computer screen and entering results according to well-defined rules.

    And "deep learning" is not all it is cracked up to be: I worked through an online course on this and really know something about it. One of the standard texts on the subject refers to the coming "AI winter": that is, a period of disappointment as people come to realize its limits.

    Of course, most of all, increasingly stupid people mean increasingly bad policy decisions, assuming at least that we continue to allow people to make those decisions.

    There is a reason for Schiller's famous quip: " Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens."

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Anonymous

    AI is overrated in sci fi milieu.

    Actually, nothing truly NEW can come out of AI.

  23. @ic1000
    @Anon

    > [Is it difficult] to edit Wikipedia to make its article on Steve more complete? Do they allow that?

    [408], it's super-easy to correct or expand almost any Wikipedia article. You just do it -- you don't even have to sign up for an account.

    The system works great when the topic is obscure and doesn't attract passions. Wikipedia has good and reliable descriptions of the opening of the proto-Atlantic, the Battle of the Somme, and Ice Cube's career(s).

    However.

    Wikipedia is designed to be resilient to the vandalism that this structure invites. When you edit Ice Cube's article to state that his first hit was in 1916, the system automatically notifies those Ice-Cube-interested editors who have asked to be kept current with changes. One of them will "revert" the article to its prior, correct condition, often within seconds. This can lead to "edit wars," and Wiki has policies for that, too. Vandals get beaten down.

    Most Wikipedia editors are leftists. At every step up the chain through more-committed editors to admins and above, the progressivism and wokism becomes more pronounced. So almost all edit wars end with politically correct text holding the field.

    To the Wikirati, editing the Steve Sailer to paint a truer portrait of the man and his writings is indistinguishable from vandalism, and they handle it the same way.

    Now and then, a well-meaning person will start a journey through the looking glass by submitting a Narrative-nonconforming edit. Occasionally, the edit war ends with a correction to a falsehood or misinterpretation. By design, the cost is always high.

    Replies: @anon, @Bardon Kaldian, @Lot, @Anonymouse, @Reg Cæsar, @Curle

    Some years ago I had been editing a few controversial articles. Evidently, there are powerful cliques when it c0mes to hot stuff.

    I don’t care about conspiracy theories, but Wikipedia is susceptible to organized groupthink manipulated by dedicated/politicized groups, which leads to contradictory texts where one sentence is clearly contradicting the previous one.

  24. Actually, it is strange that German newspapers are so highly placed because German intellectual culture doesn’t care much about IQ controversies.

    Or maybe it is so because Germans do not take this all too seriously…..

  25. Anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:
    @PhysicistDave
    Anonymous[476] wrote:

    Robotics is just one very important example that receives essentially zero focus.
     
    Hmmm.... Are you trying to say that robots will replace humans at tasks requiring higher human intelligence?

    I have a family member involved in academic research relevant to robotics -- and let's just say that progress in the field is a lot harder than you might think from the popular media. Computer vision alone is not as advanced as you might think: computer vision tends to have real problems with reflections (e.g., from nice shiny new cars). And simple tasks like folding laundry or cooking in a kitchen are surprisingly difficult.

    The hardest things to replace are simple manual work that requires human-level awareness of the environment and high-level intellectual work. The easiest to replace is low-level white-collar work that involves looking at a computer screen and entering results according to well-defined rules.

    And "deep learning" is not all it is cracked up to be: I worked through an online course on this and really know something about it. One of the standard texts on the subject refers to the coming "AI winter": that is, a period of disappointment as people come to realize its limits.

    Of course, most of all, increasingly stupid people mean increasingly bad policy decisions, assuming at least that we continue to allow people to make those decisions.

    There is a reason for Schiller's famous quip: " Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens."

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Anonymous

    Increasingly stupid people have been making increasingly bad policy decisions for a while now, at least on the surface level. Has it created any real opportunities to reshape the world in a way that is closer to your liking? Do we really think this is a bug and not a feature?

    Most here probably know on some level that the people who actually shape policy and culture are pretty well aware of these dynamics, and many criticisms and concerns in this sphere explicitly touch on this (I.E. the effects of mass immigration). But when it comes down to charting the specifics of what this means and how broadly deleterious trends might be counteracted, there is a general refusal or inability to acknowledge the enormity of the situation, where things are, and where they are actually heading. Maybe this is called hope, if we are being generous.

    [MORE]

    One way I’d frame this is in reference to the Flight 93 Election article. I think this cohort found a lot to agree with in that article, and it captured a real feeling and thought process at the time. Well, we had our F93 Election and the subsequent F93 presidency. We have come out the other end of it, and the thinkers and ideological energy that helped make that possible have been rendered directionless. The avenues are closed, and no one serious has really tried to come up with answers because there aren’t actually any good ideas that interface with situation as it actually is. We had the Flight 93 election. We did that.

    Documenting The Collapse has some level of intrinsic value, but engaging with the reality of the system and its victory is unpleasant, and detours into its contradictions or briefly touting the verboten realities of intelligence research or x or y or xx and xy are just hobbies or intellectual masturbation at this point.

    It doesn’t matter if Lori Lightfoot (as an individual or a D&D character class) is not high IQ. Lori Lightfoot is the mayor of Chicago. You and I are not. She is also just a single facet of many-multi-trillion, many-multi-national global apparatus. We can gloat that she is not high IQ or point to this intelligence study or that intelligence study, but this is just something most of us do to feel better or occupy spare time for our simultaneously understimulated and overstimulated minds.

    There is a fantasy that our elites are divorced from reality. It should be understood that this is a fantasy. Reality will not come for them. Reality, as it is, will come for you.

    What I’m saying is that people getting dumber (in many respects) and politicians getting slimier and less interested in representing the populace as it may have traditionally been conceived is a trend that has been going on for a long time. Has that created many great opportunities for victory? It created the opening for Trump, but in retrospect we should all be able to look at that for what it was, and more importantly, where we are now. The system is effective for many reasons, and while many will look at Lori Lightfootism as an operational facet of this system, people are ignoring its efficacy in the broader operational scheme because there is some satisfaction in pointing out that she is not high IQ and then charting idealistic outcomes based on past paradigms. This is not “the old days.”

    With regards to robotics and machine learning, the current shortcomings are largely irrelevant in the context of Who, Whomism. Lori Lightfoot (the individual and the idea) already has an army of virtual machines at her disposal. It does not matter that they are imperfect. Soon, there will be very real machines walking around at her disposal. If it sounds stupid or the current shortcomings of these technologies are the object of fixation, I suspect it is largely because the implications are unpleasant. Stupid humans are currently cheaper than stupid robots, but the point at which that is no longer true is fast approaching. And if it is low level white color jobs and functions which are the first to be outmoded, we might ask: Who will this hit first and hardest? And if we answer that question honestly while holding to that initial premise, we might then ask: Where is the error in elite initiatives to fill countries with New Citizens who may be, on average, lower IQ? Surely they have considered these things. Some of our elites may in fact be quite stupid. Broadly speaking, however, they are not.

    I’ve gotten longwinded at this point and apologize to a degree for the tone. I’d like to think that I mean well and that it is out of justified frustration. To sum it up, pointing out the flaws in the system is a (often irresistible) distraction if you have no system of your own or way of building one. That is the present reality.

    It doesn’t matter if machine learning has limitations. Simply within the realm of political expression, we should be able to see that it can be and has been very effective. It doesn’t matter if their robot dogs will be imperfect when people who might actually represent opposition to the system will never come close to sniffing ownership of their own robot factory.

    If this ideological sphere is honest with regards to circumstances and specifics, it would have to routinely confront the significance of barely being able to “own” a Twitter account or maintain a payment processor. This happens on some level, but it is mostly surface or shortsighted. It’s currently very difficult to address these things in the context of system’s enormity and momentum without losing hope, and I do not want anyone to be hopeless.

    At the same time, I think it’s important to realize that pointing out the system’s contradictions, factual distortions, and blind spots will not score enough points to win the game at this point. Do I have any suggestions? Not really. I’m in the same boat as everyone else and possess no extraordinary insights or talent. If there’s continued value in intelligence debates or dunking on Lori Lightfoot or AOC or whoever, these things have to made cohesive again. We got a more accurate picture of the system because these types of things were briefly cohesive and ahead of the curve, but the reality of that picture and its implications and consequences has also made this sphere stagnant, outdated, and without a clear (practical, beneficial) way forward.

    • Replies: @vhrm
    @Anonymous


    pointing out the flaws in the system is a (often irresistible) distraction if you have no system of your own or way of building one. That is the present reality.
     

    We got a more accurate picture of the system because these types of things were briefly cohesive and ahead of the curve, but the reality of that picture and its implications and consequences has also made this sphere stagnant, outdated, and without a clear (practical, beneficial) way forward.
     
    The facts that
    socially relevant HBD race avg differences exist
    AND are valid
    AND explain the bulk of the performance gaps that SJWs and Dems. peg on racism
    are simply not known by the vast majority of Americans, even intelligent ones.

    i know little about social movements, but if politics is downstream of culture we just need to red pill as many people as possible. yes, just pointing and shaking our heads absolutely is useless except as it motivates is and provides fodder for us to (tactfully and wisely) inform people around us / counter the narrative whenever possible, appropriate , and relatively safe to do so.

    Under that motivation rubric is also that this stream is a reminder that, yes the blank slatist are still pushing their arguments and they're still just as wrong. Having recent examples as well as older ones helps stiffen my spine AND provides material.

    (though, yes, I too liked the older iq stuff and magic/tragic dirt stuff then the 5 a day mostly "ha ha they're at it again!" but the Taki's pieces play some of that role. i prob just spend too much time here most days. it would be nice if there was maybe more split between the substantial pieces and the brickbats)

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @Kratoklastes
    @Anonymous

    This is so short-sighted, which is strange.

    While it's true that individual Lightfoots are largely protected from the deleterious effects of their behaviour, reality will come for them qua class eventually.

    It has always happened: the parasitoids expand their power until they over-reach, and shortly (in historical terms) after they build a Versailles to bask in self-glorification funded by parasitoidism, there's a bloodbath when reality very definitely comes for them.

    This is not an episode of the Big Bang Theory, wherein people pretending to be smart 'zinger' their way to solutions in 21 minutes (plus ads). Things of great social moment do not resolve themselves according to the timetable of the least patient.

    The intellectual heavyweights of the Left have collectively understood this for a very long time; the big end of town in the finance sector, likewise. They identified what they believed were the "commanding heights" that were relevant to their objectives, and they developed an implemented a multigenerational plan to plant their flag on those heights. (The finance guys got their way so rapidly that 'generational' is more apt than multigenerational).

    I've long believed that the Left's global leadership does actually have humanity's best interests as an objective, but that they fail to grasp that the means they decided on were incorrect (and remain incorrect).

    That in turn is because the means were decided on, in an age where quantitative analyses were poorly performed - and that continues to this day, because of institutional rigidities: the Left is still overtly hostile to economic quant. That is quite funny considering their evangelical obsession with climate modelling, which is several orders of magnitude more uncertain.

    Given their hostility to actually trying to pin down the numbers, for most of the last century the Left made their 'targeting decisions' based on "duelling essays", where verbosity can be deployed to mask bullshit.

    So it's no surprise that they picked the wrong means, and wound up interfering in things far too broadly (which is inefficient, and slows economic progress... which is critical to the longevity of power, because peple do not like going backwards).

    That was true of the Left everywhere - i.e., in the West, in the Soviet Union, and in China - until Deng Xiaoping: his reforms, and the stellar performance of China as an economy since those reforms 'bit', should really be the focus on the attention of strategists from all sides of politics.

    It has to be accepted that in the transitional stages, Deng had to do some standard "Third World strongman" stuff - like making an example of the Gang of Four - but that was mostly to signal seriousness to the existing power structure to prevent them from undermining Deng's plans.

    There are very strong parallels to US foreign policy - where it was impossible to separate smart analysts from bullshit-artists and grifters for a century, and the bullshit-artists wound up in the ascendant (and are still there). Serious quant-based foreign-policy analysis is still in its infancy, but it's now at non-zero levels and has some institutional heft. (To be fair: most foreign policy analysis is just part of general political grift and graft; it's not clear that the major institutional players are remotely interested in the 'right' answer for a nation, because it might reduce the flow of funds).

    Quant-based strategy generally wins, because it's much easier to spot the holes in an argument and to assess the how 'deviations' from key premises affect the core argument: in other words, it's possible to do a coherent and systematic sensitivity analysis. If everyone has the same objective (i.e., to find the best answer), quant converges to that answer very quickly. That's not possible with essays.

    Galbraith's drivel the other day was a case in point - it was classic "hand-waving essay-writer" nonsense that purported to show that a quant analysis was wrong... with literally zero objective evidence (and certainly no decent quantified evidence): the entire essay was like a 3rd quintile undergraduate saying "Well it's all based on assumptions" as if that's an end to the argument.

    Contrast that with financialisation. The finance guys got more achieved between 1990 and 2008 (when it was made absolutely clear that the entire system now existed for their pleasure), than the Left achieved during the entire Long March Through The Institutions.

    That's because the finance guys made their targeting decisions quantitatively - they didn't give a fuck about placing "like minds" in primary-school teaching, because it was completely peripheral to their main goal. Unfortunately their main goal had - and has - fuck-all to do with what is socially optimal: their main goal is to enrich themselves. That's fair enough, because they don't pretend otherwise - but the Western political class has the same goal but pretends it doesn't.

    Replies: @anon, @AnonymousNameChange

  26. I’ve modified the wikipedia page. Let’s see how long it lasts.

    • Replies: @astrolabe
    @astrolabe

    57 minutes. 'Nah, those changes aren't improvements'.

    Replies: @anon

  27. @Arclight
    This is one of those subjects where a lot of people are just resistant to the idea that nature is at least as strong as nurture and there are significant group differences, since it goes against the egalitarian ethos of our culture. I also think that as the social classes get more ossified an increasing share of people in positions of influence/authority really don't have any experience of living or working with others whose backgrounds and native abilities are substantially different from their own, and cannot grasp just how different these can be.

    It's also not a subject either political party wants to face. Democrats would have to accept that we reached the limit of what social interventions/programs could do a long time ago and the inequalities we see today are largely a product of differences in ability. Republicans would have to come to grips with the fact that the bootstrap theory of self improvement has a natural limit on it and a significant portion of our population is never going to climb out of the bottom 3rd no matter what, which includes a healthy share of the hourly immigrant laborers they have let in legally or otherwise.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    I also think that as the social classes get more ossified an increasing share of people in positions of influence/authority really don’t have any experience of living or working with others whose backgrounds and native abilities are substantially different from their own, and cannot grasp just how different these can be.

    Ackshualllllllly … This phenomenon has existed for a long time, and some of us have experienced it.

    I believe Charles Murray mentions something like it: We here, for example, tend to live, work and mix with people who can read and understand this here stuff, like what we are reading and writing right here now. He correctly points out that people live inside bubbles populated by people of similar intellectual ability and socio-economic status.

    Now, say, for example, you happen to drop out of the upper middle class world of professionals that your parents brought you into. You find yourself in a world of average Americans (in this American’s true-from-life example.) You discover, to your dismay, that there really are a lot of stupid, crazy, mean, dirty, sick people out there. You find it hard to believe.

    Just in the “average” world, there are a surprising number of nut jobs, weirdos and disgusting people — even of your own, vaunted race!

    If you haven’t lived this, then you don’t know it, but it’s true. We here at this moment are insulated from this fact, and I daresay most here have never come close to seeing this truth.

    It is almost as if what we here think are clean, “normal,” intelligent humans are the exception rather than the rule.

    The fact that a vastly under-appreciated writer of a blog — who works in a closet for a fraction of what he is worth being paid — is the highest-rated writer on human intelligence (!) — seems to support this observation: People, on average, are stupid, dirty and crazy. We sane and semi-sane, clean people are the exception, not the rule.

    We should be preserved and protected. Instead, we are being shamed and eliminated.

    • Thanks: vhrm
    • Replies: @Mike Tre
    @Buzz Mohawk

    "The fact that a vastly under-appreciated writer of a blog — who works in a closet for a fraction of what he is worth being paid — is the highest-rated writer on human intelligence (!) — seems to support this observation: People, on average, are stupid, dirty and crazy. We sane and semi-sane, clean people are the exception, not the rule."

    Kind of like Ted Kaczynski, but without, you know, the desire to bomb people and stuff.

    , @Dieter Kief
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Social psychologists Erich Fromm and - recently - Jordan B. Peterson point this out just like Freud or Schopenhauer or Goethe did point it out before them: It is not easy to be a decent person.

    The reason that this simple truth is not widely accepted (or appreciated or understood) is, that it is no simple truth. Ok - this - thesis - might be a bit too dense.

    I try one more time: The reason for that is, that we all are prone to our prejudices and our (biologically sound!) self-preferences (our egoism).

    The tricky job is to balance your egoism and your self-love and all that (your narcissism, your laziness) in such a way that they do not hurt your judgments nor your humor or productiveness or your ability to love too badly.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    , @rebel yell
    @Buzz Mohawk

    I think there are three components here:
    1. People in the lower half of society because they do manual labor. Elites don't understand and have contempt for these people. Tech industry dismisses these people as obsolete parts. When Rob Reiner needs them to mow his lawn he wants to use cheaper Mexican imports.
    But most people in society will ALWAYS need to make a living working with their hands, because that is human nature. And these are good people. Carpenters and landscapers and truck drivers often have better, not worse, character than Harvard graduates. We need ample employment at good wages for these people.
    2. People in the lower half because they are dysfunctional, but harmless. These people are slightly retarded or slightly "off" and can't really support themselves, but they are good natured and mean no harm. Give them a broom to sweep the street and then supplement their income with welfare. Call it charity or safety net or whatever.
    3. People in the lower half who are criminals. Get rid of them.

    , @vhrm
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Agree with most of that, though the line is different on different variables even if I don't know where.
    For example, the large majority are relatively sane like 95+%

    clean: 80%
    intelligent: 50%?? (perception of this depends on one's own level and what purpose ones talking about; )

    nice: ??
    reasonable: ??
    reasonably rational: ??


    We should be preserved and protected. Instead, we are being shamed and eliminated.
     
    Forgive them for they know not what they do, at least most of them.

    empirically informed rationalism, with tolerance for different views and not hating people who hate you, etc. is in short supply many places, including very often in these comments pages. Yeah, it's frustrating, but just like with "terrorists", if we let them demoralize us or become overly harsh ourselves in our response then they win.

    Other than the trans people, most on the other side who write papers and articles are also smart, sane and clean as much as we roll out eyes at them. They just hold different views. Does that matter when they or someone they motivate punches me in the face of gets me fired for pregnant reasons? idk, but just saying they're "idiots" doesn't reflect reality. Neither that they're "evil". The cast majority of them simply don't know the facts.

    On HBD "we" have the advantage that it is true. Science has been confirming it for decades and there's no indication that that will (or can) change in the future.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    , @Bill Jones
    @Buzz Mohawk


    The fact that a vastly under-appreciated writer of a blog — who works in a closet for a fraction of what he is worth being paid — is the highest-rated writer on human intelligence (!) — seems to support this observation: People, on average, are stupid, dirty and crazy. We sane and semi-sane, clean people are the exception, not the rule.
     
    Agree. Yet it sadly hardly seems surprising.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    , @Bill Jones
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Thinking again about this, one of the lessons I've tried to drum into my son is that the reason you should tell the truth, apart from simple morality is that life is complicated enough without reality working against you which is what happens when you lie.

    In this respect Sailer has an advantage the vast majority of the others do not enjoy: He can tell the truth as he see's it without it being a fireable offense.

  28. Off topic, but this is the kind of stuff that Sailer would probably be interested in.

    https://www.rt.com/news/515845-covid-dna-neanderthals-genes/

  29. “Experts with a left (liberal, progressive) political orientation were more likely to have positive views of the media (around r = |.30|).”

    A correlation coefficient r is a number between -1 and 1. So “r = |.30|” should be “|r|=.30”; that is, r is either .30 or -.30. Right?

  30. Why don’t we try to edit the article ourselves? Isn’t that what Wikipedia is for??

  31. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Arclight


    I also think that as the social classes get more ossified an increasing share of people in positions of influence/authority really don’t have any experience of living or working with others whose backgrounds and native abilities are substantially different from their own, and cannot grasp just how different these can be.
     
    Ackshualllllllly … This phenomenon has existed for a long time, and some of us have experienced it.

    I believe Charles Murray mentions something like it: We here, for example, tend to live, work and mix with people who can read and understand this here stuff, like what we are reading and writing right here now. He correctly points out that people live inside bubbles populated by people of similar intellectual ability and socio-economic status.

    Now, say, for example, you happen to drop out of the upper middle class world of professionals that your parents brought you into. You find yourself in a world of average Americans (in this American's true-from-life example.) You discover, to your dismay, that there really are a lot of stupid, crazy, mean, dirty, sick people out there. You find it hard to believe.

    Just in the "average" world, there are a surprising number of nut jobs, weirdos and disgusting people -- even of your own, vaunted race!

    If you haven't lived this, then you don't know it, but it's true. We here at this moment are insulated from this fact, and I daresay most here have never come close to seeing this truth.

    It is almost as if what we here think are clean, "normal," intelligent humans are the exception rather than the rule.

    The fact that a vastly under-appreciated writer of a blog -- who works in a closet for a fraction of what he is worth being paid -- is the highest-rated writer on human intelligence (!) -- seems to support this observation: People, on average, are stupid, dirty and crazy. We sane and semi-sane, clean people are the exception, not the rule.

    We should be preserved and protected. Instead, we are being shamed and eliminated.

    Replies: @Mike Tre, @Dieter Kief, @rebel yell, @vhrm, @Bill Jones, @Bill Jones

    “The fact that a vastly under-appreciated writer of a blog — who works in a closet for a fraction of what he is worth being paid — is the highest-rated writer on human intelligence (!) — seems to support this observation: People, on average, are stupid, dirty and crazy. We sane and semi-sane, clean people are the exception, not the rule.”

    Kind of like Ted Kaczynski, but without, you know, the desire to bomb people and stuff.

  32. @countenance
    Past the top two sources, both blogs, the next five are all mainstream German newspapers, the top of which happens to be my daily driver. And I do think that this research is showing is age.

    Replies: @Henry's Cat

    When Steve posted this awhile back I queried then its strange methodology. Why compare just these 2 blogs with MSM outlets?

  33. @astrolabe
    I've modified the wikipedia page. Let's see how long it lasts.

    Replies: @astrolabe

    57 minutes. ‘Nah, those changes aren’t improvements’.

    • LOL: ic1000
    • Replies: @anon
    @astrolabe

    A somewhat controversial Wiki edit that lasts almost an hour during North America daylight?

    Pretty good work, actually. Congrats for making the effort and thus providing a test.

  34. OT: a plea for that mailbox money – for criminals.

    ‘Shooters want money’: Baltimore convict turned anti-crime activist suggests PAYING killers not to kill people to lower the city’s murder rate

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9274451/Baltimore-convict-says-city-pay-killers-stop-shooting-people-lower-crime-rate.html

  35. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Arclight


    I also think that as the social classes get more ossified an increasing share of people in positions of influence/authority really don’t have any experience of living or working with others whose backgrounds and native abilities are substantially different from their own, and cannot grasp just how different these can be.
     
    Ackshualllllllly … This phenomenon has existed for a long time, and some of us have experienced it.

    I believe Charles Murray mentions something like it: We here, for example, tend to live, work and mix with people who can read and understand this here stuff, like what we are reading and writing right here now. He correctly points out that people live inside bubbles populated by people of similar intellectual ability and socio-economic status.

    Now, say, for example, you happen to drop out of the upper middle class world of professionals that your parents brought you into. You find yourself in a world of average Americans (in this American's true-from-life example.) You discover, to your dismay, that there really are a lot of stupid, crazy, mean, dirty, sick people out there. You find it hard to believe.

    Just in the "average" world, there are a surprising number of nut jobs, weirdos and disgusting people -- even of your own, vaunted race!

    If you haven't lived this, then you don't know it, but it's true. We here at this moment are insulated from this fact, and I daresay most here have never come close to seeing this truth.

    It is almost as if what we here think are clean, "normal," intelligent humans are the exception rather than the rule.

    The fact that a vastly under-appreciated writer of a blog -- who works in a closet for a fraction of what he is worth being paid -- is the highest-rated writer on human intelligence (!) -- seems to support this observation: People, on average, are stupid, dirty and crazy. We sane and semi-sane, clean people are the exception, not the rule.

    We should be preserved and protected. Instead, we are being shamed and eliminated.

    Replies: @Mike Tre, @Dieter Kief, @rebel yell, @vhrm, @Bill Jones, @Bill Jones

    Social psychologists Erich Fromm and – recently – Jordan B. Peterson point this out just like Freud or Schopenhauer or Goethe did point it out before them: It is not easy to be a decent person.

    The reason that this simple truth is not widely accepted (or appreciated or understood) is, that it is no simple truth. Ok – this – thesis – might be a bit too dense.

    I try one more time: The reason for that is, that we all are prone to our prejudices and our (biologically sound!) self-preferences (our egoism).

    The tricky job is to balance your egoism and your self-love and all that (your narcissism, your laziness) in such a way that they do not hurt your judgments nor your humor or productiveness or your ability to love too badly.

    • Agree: Inquiring Mind, vhrm
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Dieter Kief

    Is it decent to run away from Solzhenitsyn? It's not easy to be a decent person when being decent will cost you, possibly causing violence. That woman whose neck or collar bone was broken by a mob outraged by the existence of Charles Murray was not a Charles Murray fan, but she was a decent person and thought that Charles Murray should be allowed to speak.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

  36. Last night Tucker used (introduced?) a euphemism for IQ: “Math” knowledge. The context was an assertion by a liberal that Texas needs more diversity in its power-grid employment to prevent future power outages. Tucker repudiated that by saying the U.S. should not let anyone near the power grid or an airline cockpit who can’t do “math.”

    Anyone who has seen videos of the continuously changing, complex, multiple displays in a cockpit, and listened to the rapid-fire interchanges with air traffic control, knows that the requisite aptitude is not “math.” (Even “math” is incorrect because it’s really “arithmetic”; “arithmetic” has become “math.”) I suppose this “math” euphemism is a canny, realistic way of presenting the low-IQ argument obliquely and acceptably.

  37. By comparison, let’s look at how the maximally honest “uncancelled” commentator, Scott Alexander, approaches the unmentionable topic of Race and IQ.

    I’m not sure if this is Straussian signaling of a secret meaning, or if he is genuinely tormented about acknowledging HateFacts. But it is a remarkable document of the kind of intellectual contortions needed if one wants to be 1. Smart 2. Intellectually honest 3. Speak in public without a pseudonym 4. Avoid persecution by the $PLC

    emphasis added

    https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-the-cult-of-smart

    [MORE]

    Earlier this week, I objected when a journalist dishonestly spliced my words to imply I supported Charles Murray’s The Bell Curve. Some people wrote me to complain that I handled this in a cowardly way – I showed that the specific thing the journalist quoted wasn’t a reference to The Bell Curve, but I never answered the broader question of what I thought of the book. They demanded I come out and give my opinion openly. Well, the most direct answer is that I’ve never read it. But that’s kind of cowardly too – I’ve read papers and articles making what I assume is the same case. So what do I think of them?

  38. As for people with a LARGE PLATFORM, the only one that is worth listening to is Tucker Carlson, but even Tucker doesn’t tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He doesn’t address the JQ, he worships at the MLK shrine for example. Imagine if the KKK, Russians, Iranians, or David Duke were running a sex ring full of teen age girls, do you think it would be mentioned that the culprits were “White Supremacists,” Russkies or Iranians. Imagine IF George Soros was a White civil rights activist from Louisiana and not a Jewish Supremciast? Do you think the gay guys over at CNN or Tucker would have a problem identifying the guy’s ethnic background? Tucker tells about 80% of the truth and ignores the HUGE 20% which is about as best as we can hope for at the moment.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    @Trinity

    He doesn’t address the JQ

    Can you blame him? Those guys have Space Lasers!

    Replies: @Trinity, @The Alarmist

  39. @Anonymous
    All of this (non-mainstream, non-Woke coverage) was a lot more engaging before the genre was exclusively relegated to Documenting the Collapse. This sphere of the internet/ideology has yet to catch up with reality and no one has been able to articulate where anything should go because all avenues are essentially closed and the game is over. The discussions have gotten stupid and stale, and most of them won't even engage with the reality of what is but years away. Robotics is just one very important example that receives essentially zero focus. The Collapse in so far as it exists or will exist does not and will not look anything like what this sphere is currently visualizing, and the concentration on the flaws and hypocrisies of the system has veered into hobbyism and Dungeons & Dragons. It's discouraging, and least of all from an entertainment perspective, but collectives that were briefly ahead of the curve have been quickly rendered woefully out of date.

    Replies: @TWS, @vinteuil, @J.Ross

    D&D?

  40. Lots of German sources at the top of the list. Interesting. Germans are mocked in Europe, even by other Germans, for being formal, correct, serious, precise, and even OCD in pursuit of accuracy. Despite their collective kneejerk guilt leading to lots of political correctness, and horror of the American Hoi polloi, it seems they remain generally competent and reliable on things that matter.

  41. . . . why isn’t this survey even mentioned in the Wikipedia article about me?

    You should do what leftist intellectuals do. Get yourself a group of volunteers to constantly monitor the article, add (or restore) the good stuff, and scrub the bias and slime.

  42. Wikipedia = autistic Minitrue

    • Agree: Kratoklastes
  43. C’mon, man. Everyone reads you.

  44. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Arclight


    I also think that as the social classes get more ossified an increasing share of people in positions of influence/authority really don’t have any experience of living or working with others whose backgrounds and native abilities are substantially different from their own, and cannot grasp just how different these can be.
     
    Ackshualllllllly … This phenomenon has existed for a long time, and some of us have experienced it.

    I believe Charles Murray mentions something like it: We here, for example, tend to live, work and mix with people who can read and understand this here stuff, like what we are reading and writing right here now. He correctly points out that people live inside bubbles populated by people of similar intellectual ability and socio-economic status.

    Now, say, for example, you happen to drop out of the upper middle class world of professionals that your parents brought you into. You find yourself in a world of average Americans (in this American's true-from-life example.) You discover, to your dismay, that there really are a lot of stupid, crazy, mean, dirty, sick people out there. You find it hard to believe.

    Just in the "average" world, there are a surprising number of nut jobs, weirdos and disgusting people -- even of your own, vaunted race!

    If you haven't lived this, then you don't know it, but it's true. We here at this moment are insulated from this fact, and I daresay most here have never come close to seeing this truth.

    It is almost as if what we here think are clean, "normal," intelligent humans are the exception rather than the rule.

    The fact that a vastly under-appreciated writer of a blog -- who works in a closet for a fraction of what he is worth being paid -- is the highest-rated writer on human intelligence (!) -- seems to support this observation: People, on average, are stupid, dirty and crazy. We sane and semi-sane, clean people are the exception, not the rule.

    We should be preserved and protected. Instead, we are being shamed and eliminated.

    Replies: @Mike Tre, @Dieter Kief, @rebel yell, @vhrm, @Bill Jones, @Bill Jones

    I think there are three components here:
    1. People in the lower half of society because they do manual labor. Elites don’t understand and have contempt for these people. Tech industry dismisses these people as obsolete parts. When Rob Reiner needs them to mow his lawn he wants to use cheaper Mexican imports.
    But most people in society will ALWAYS need to make a living working with their hands, because that is human nature. And these are good people. Carpenters and landscapers and truck drivers often have better, not worse, character than Harvard graduates. We need ample employment at good wages for these people.
    2. People in the lower half because they are dysfunctional, but harmless. These people are slightly retarded or slightly “off” and can’t really support themselves, but they are good natured and mean no harm. Give them a broom to sweep the street and then supplement their income with welfare. Call it charity or safety net or whatever.
    3. People in the lower half who are criminals. Get rid of them.

    • Thanks: Cortes
  45. All three blogs are currently hosted by The Unz Review.

    That feeling when you suspect there may be a great big target on your back

  46. @ic1000
    @Anon

    > [Is it difficult] to edit Wikipedia to make its article on Steve more complete? Do they allow that?

    [408], it's super-easy to correct or expand almost any Wikipedia article. You just do it -- you don't even have to sign up for an account.

    The system works great when the topic is obscure and doesn't attract passions. Wikipedia has good and reliable descriptions of the opening of the proto-Atlantic, the Battle of the Somme, and Ice Cube's career(s).

    However.

    Wikipedia is designed to be resilient to the vandalism that this structure invites. When you edit Ice Cube's article to state that his first hit was in 1916, the system automatically notifies those Ice-Cube-interested editors who have asked to be kept current with changes. One of them will "revert" the article to its prior, correct condition, often within seconds. This can lead to "edit wars," and Wiki has policies for that, too. Vandals get beaten down.

    Most Wikipedia editors are leftists. At every step up the chain through more-committed editors to admins and above, the progressivism and wokism becomes more pronounced. So almost all edit wars end with politically correct text holding the field.

    To the Wikirati, editing the Steve Sailer to paint a truer portrait of the man and his writings is indistinguishable from vandalism, and they handle it the same way.

    Now and then, a well-meaning person will start a journey through the looking glass by submitting a Narrative-nonconforming edit. Occasionally, the edit war ends with a correction to a falsehood or misinterpretation. By design, the cost is always high.

    Replies: @anon, @Bardon Kaldian, @Lot, @Anonymouse, @Reg Cæsar, @Curle

    You should never edit wikipedia without creating an account, which takes 10 seconds and can be done with a throwaway email.

    Otherwise your IP address is listed as the edit author.

    • Thanks: ic1000
  47. Congratulations. Well earned.

  48. @Anon

    That said, why isn’t this survey even mentioned in the Wikipedia article about me?
     
    Would it be difficult for one of us to edit Wikipedia to make its article on Steve more complete? Do they allow that?

    Replies: @James Speaks, @ic1000, @Anonymouse, @Paperback Writer, @Bill Jones, @jon

    You cannot be serious.

    • LOL: Unladen Swallow
  49. That said, why isn’t this survey even mentioned in the Wikipedia article about me?

    Isn’t that obvious? Because the commenters here either don’t care to, or don’t know how to.

    PS – Congratulations! You deserve the honor. This is the best source on the internet for honest reporting about human intelligence.

  50. @Anon

    That said, why isn’t this survey even mentioned in the Wikipedia article about me?
     
    Would it be difficult for one of us to edit Wikipedia to make its article on Steve more complete? Do they allow that?

    Replies: @James Speaks, @ic1000, @Anonymouse, @Paperback Writer, @Bill Jones, @jon

    Would it be difficult for one of us to edit Wikipedia to make its article on Steve more complete? Do they allow that?

    Are you Jewish?

  51. The top five legacy media sources are all German language.

  52. Anon[393] • Disclaimer says:

    OT:
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9271999/Pfizer-says-South-African-variant-significantly-reduce-vaccine-protection.html

    So? When are they going to approved repurposed drugs as treatment?

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9273943/Why-Covid-retreat-world-Global-cases-fell-16-week.html

    And as ditzy Cher in Clueless said: “As if!” Don’t they recognize the normal epidemiological two-year curve in temperate countries.. say like the 1918-1919 Spanish Flu, the 1957-1958 Asian grippe, the 1968-1970 Hong Kong grippe, the 2002-2003 SARS Cov 2, the 2009-2010 Swine Flu..

    In this satanic panic to get us all vaccinated —which is why they suppressed timely treatment— they have the deaths of hundreds of thousands in their hands.

    • Replies: @Polistra
    @Anon

    At this point, it's becoming clear that the more virtuous you are, the more masks you'll wear--at once. It's how we fight covid!


    New York City’s Health Department is now recommending that Big Apple residents wear two face masks instead of one to fight back against the spread of COVID-19.

    “We know that even as the vaccine is here, the need to keep wearing a mask is paramount, it’s crucial. It’s amazing of how all the things that we’ve learned in this crisis, maybe the most profound is the power of a mask,” Mayor Bill de Blasio said during a City Hall press briefing Thursday as the new mask guidance was announced.

    “Even one of these paper masks makes a huge difference, but what we’re saying today is, time to double up,” Hizzoner said.

    “Two masks are better than one. Make it a double.”
     

    City Health Commissioner Dr. Dave Chokshi said the department’s double-mask guidance is based on the guidance from the CDC.

    “The single most important thing remains — wearing a face covering consistently and properly so that it covers both your nose and mouth and you wear it both indoors and outdoors,” Chokshi said Thursday as he spoke alongside de Blasio.

    But, Chokshi added, “Using two masks is more effective at stopping the spread of the virus.”

    https://nypost.com/2021/02/18/nyc-health-department-recommends-double-masking-to-fight-covid/
     

    Wear them outdoors as well? Do people now wear them while asleep too?

    Minority Nurse: Black Men and the Dilemma of Wearing Masks
    https://minoritynurse.com/black-men-and-the-dilemma-of-wearing-masks-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/

     

    , @J.Ross
    @Anon

    And they will never be punished in any way. The lockdown served its real purpose. The United States is no longer capable of posing any kind of threat to China.

  53. I’m now past my prime in covering intelligence-related issues

    That’s OK

    Probably best to stay sober for now and leave Joe Biden’s medicine cabinet alone.

  54. @Anonymous
    All of this (non-mainstream, non-Woke coverage) was a lot more engaging before the genre was exclusively relegated to Documenting the Collapse. This sphere of the internet/ideology has yet to catch up with reality and no one has been able to articulate where anything should go because all avenues are essentially closed and the game is over. The discussions have gotten stupid and stale, and most of them won't even engage with the reality of what is but years away. Robotics is just one very important example that receives essentially zero focus. The Collapse in so far as it exists or will exist does not and will not look anything like what this sphere is currently visualizing, and the concentration on the flaws and hypocrisies of the system has veered into hobbyism and Dungeons & Dragons. It's discouraging, and least of all from an entertainment perspective, but collectives that were briefly ahead of the curve have been quickly rendered woefully out of date.

    Replies: @TWS, @vinteuil, @J.Ross

    Can someone please translate this interesting post into English?

    • LOL: SafeNow
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @vinteuil

    We should stop moping and get to work reporting The Disaster as though we were The Newsmedia, because maybe that way we can stumble across The Answer.

    , @jon
    @vinteuil

    In the beginning, iSteve was a redpill - waking people up to the reality that they weren't being allowed to see. It felt like there was still time, and that we knew the answers, so we could all point and laugh at the silliness.
    Now, it's a blackpill - each new post is another piece of an endless series of demoralizing psychological beat downs. It feels like it's too late, and nobody has any good answers, so we just engage in infighting over who is at fault, or debate whether we should quietly disengage and walk away or burn the whole fucking thing down on our way out.

    Replies: @very very old statistician, @vinteuil

  55. @Anonymous
    All of this (non-mainstream, non-Woke coverage) was a lot more engaging before the genre was exclusively relegated to Documenting the Collapse. This sphere of the internet/ideology has yet to catch up with reality and no one has been able to articulate where anything should go because all avenues are essentially closed and the game is over. The discussions have gotten stupid and stale, and most of them won't even engage with the reality of what is but years away. Robotics is just one very important example that receives essentially zero focus. The Collapse in so far as it exists or will exist does not and will not look anything like what this sphere is currently visualizing, and the concentration on the flaws and hypocrisies of the system has veered into hobbyism and Dungeons & Dragons. It's discouraging, and least of all from an entertainment perspective, but collectives that were briefly ahead of the curve have been quickly rendered woefully out of date.

    Replies: @TWS, @vinteuil, @J.Ross

    Y’know what I think it’s going to be like is this episode in my middle school career where I did schoolwork for less industrious schoolchildren who had no respect for me. It ended when I misread social reality and went wrecker out of resentment.
    You will do all the work, for people who cannot do that work, but instead of gratitude you will be hated, and you will have to participate in the official lie of your own inability. A lot of people will react to that position by ditching. The ones with the most commitment to social reality have already signed on and are accelerating the process. It used to be that China was backward because Henry Ford was born a thousand times there, but took a look around and realized he enjoyed breathing, and resolved to not be disruptive. Now we will be backward for that reason.

    • Thanks: ic1000
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @J.Ross

    I really like the Henry Ford example. Part of the horror of the future (my estimation of it) is that there will be an almost endless supply of people jockeying for positions that uphold productivity and social reality. Just take what sucks about that element of the current situation and extrapolate it further and further out.

  56. @vinteuil
    @Anonymous

    Can someone please translate this interesting post into English?

    Replies: @J.Ross, @jon

    We should stop moping and get to work reporting The Disaster as though we were The Newsmedia, because maybe that way we can stumble across The Answer.

    • Agree: jon
  57. @Dieter Kief
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Social psychologists Erich Fromm and - recently - Jordan B. Peterson point this out just like Freud or Schopenhauer or Goethe did point it out before them: It is not easy to be a decent person.

    The reason that this simple truth is not widely accepted (or appreciated or understood) is, that it is no simple truth. Ok - this - thesis - might be a bit too dense.

    I try one more time: The reason for that is, that we all are prone to our prejudices and our (biologically sound!) self-preferences (our egoism).

    The tricky job is to balance your egoism and your self-love and all that (your narcissism, your laziness) in such a way that they do not hurt your judgments nor your humor or productiveness or your ability to love too badly.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    Is it decent to run away from Solzhenitsyn? It’s not easy to be a decent person when being decent will cost you, possibly causing violence. That woman whose neck or collar bone was broken by a mob outraged by the existence of Charles Murray was not a Charles Murray fan, but she was a decent person and thought that Charles Murray should be allowed to speak.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @J.Ross

    I agree. There is a - distant - echo of Solschenizyn here, and it does not sound good.

    Interesting: Prominent German ex-Banker and Sozial Democrat & Murray reader & immigration critic Thilo Sarrazin has trouble finding rooms where he can speak undisturbed in Germany - but not in Switzerland. For the Swiss police, there is no doubt: It is a major goal of the Swiss society to defend free speech - and they do their job and - nothing bad ever happens. - Be it in the public sphere or in institutions. - Markus Schär gives lectures at Basel university about both Murrays (Charles and Douglas) et. al. - with no problems whatsoever. The woke in Basel are rather in a defensive mood, or at least not openly aggressive. - Could well be that they'd be ridiculed at the Basel Fasnacht if they'd behaved otherwise...

  58. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Arclight


    I also think that as the social classes get more ossified an increasing share of people in positions of influence/authority really don’t have any experience of living or working with others whose backgrounds and native abilities are substantially different from their own, and cannot grasp just how different these can be.
     
    Ackshualllllllly … This phenomenon has existed for a long time, and some of us have experienced it.

    I believe Charles Murray mentions something like it: We here, for example, tend to live, work and mix with people who can read and understand this here stuff, like what we are reading and writing right here now. He correctly points out that people live inside bubbles populated by people of similar intellectual ability and socio-economic status.

    Now, say, for example, you happen to drop out of the upper middle class world of professionals that your parents brought you into. You find yourself in a world of average Americans (in this American's true-from-life example.) You discover, to your dismay, that there really are a lot of stupid, crazy, mean, dirty, sick people out there. You find it hard to believe.

    Just in the "average" world, there are a surprising number of nut jobs, weirdos and disgusting people -- even of your own, vaunted race!

    If you haven't lived this, then you don't know it, but it's true. We here at this moment are insulated from this fact, and I daresay most here have never come close to seeing this truth.

    It is almost as if what we here think are clean, "normal," intelligent humans are the exception rather than the rule.

    The fact that a vastly under-appreciated writer of a blog -- who works in a closet for a fraction of what he is worth being paid -- is the highest-rated writer on human intelligence (!) -- seems to support this observation: People, on average, are stupid, dirty and crazy. We sane and semi-sane, clean people are the exception, not the rule.

    We should be preserved and protected. Instead, we are being shamed and eliminated.

    Replies: @Mike Tre, @Dieter Kief, @rebel yell, @vhrm, @Bill Jones, @Bill Jones

    Agree with most of that, though the line is different on different variables even if I don’t know where.
    For example, the large majority are relatively sane like 95+%

    clean: 80%
    intelligent: 50%?? (perception of this depends on one’s own level and what purpose ones talking about; )

    nice: ??
    reasonable: ??
    reasonably rational: ??

    We should be preserved and protected. Instead, we are being shamed and eliminated.

    Forgive them for they know not what they do, at least most of them.

    empirically informed rationalism, with tolerance for different views and not hating people who hate you, etc. is in short supply many places, including very often in these comments pages. Yeah, it’s frustrating, but just like with “terrorists”, if we let them demoralize us or become overly harsh ourselves in our response then they win.

    Other than the trans people, most on the other side who write papers and articles are also smart, sane and clean as much as we roll out eyes at them. They just hold different views. Does that matter when they or someone they motivate punches me in the face of gets me fired for pregnant reasons? idk, but just saying they’re “idiots” doesn’t reflect reality. Neither that they’re “evil”. The cast majority of them simply don’t know the facts.

    On HBD “we” have the advantage that it is true. Science has been confirming it for decades and there’s no indication that that will (or can) change in the future.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @vhrm


    Does that matter when they or someone they motivate punches me in the face of gets me fired for pregnant reasons? idk, but just saying they’re “idiots” doesn’t reflect reality. Neither that they’re “evil”. The cast majority of them simply don’t know the facts.
     
    Starting with the fact of laws against assault and battery. There's more here than "They just hold different views."

    Unless the view you refer to is "The end justifies the means."
  59. Sailer, I missed when you covered intelligence research and immigration. Knowing that the currently ascendant are woke, and they believe some untrue things is somewhat interesting, but snark is not your highest value-added activity.

  60. No mention of Razib Khan: ZZZZ… oops I mean GNXP?

  61. @Trinity
    As for people with a LARGE PLATFORM, the only one that is worth listening to is Tucker Carlson, but even Tucker doesn't tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He doesn't address the JQ, he worships at the MLK shrine for example. Imagine if the KKK, Russians, Iranians, or David Duke were running a sex ring full of teen age girls, do you think it would be mentioned that the culprits were "White Supremacists," Russkies or Iranians. Imagine IF George Soros was a White civil rights activist from Louisiana and not a Jewish Supremciast? Do you think the gay guys over at CNN or Tucker would have a problem identifying the guy's ethnic background? Tucker tells about 80% of the truth and ignores the HUGE 20% which is about as best as we can hope for at the moment.

    Replies: @kaganovitch

    He doesn’t address the JQ

    Can you blame him? Those guys have Space Lasers!

    • Replies: @Trinity
    @kaganovitch

    lololol. I hear ya, breh.

    , @The Alarmist
    @kaganovitch



    He doesn’t address the JQ
     
    Can you blame him? Those guys have Space Lasers!
     
    They’re also Shape-shifters.
  62. Anonymous[476] • Disclaimer says:
    @J.Ross
    @Anonymous

    Y'know what I think it's going to be like is this episode in my middle school career where I did schoolwork for less industrious schoolchildren who had no respect for me. It ended when I misread social reality and went wrecker out of resentment.
    You will do all the work, for people who cannot do that work, but instead of gratitude you will be hated, and you will have to participate in the official lie of your own inability. A lot of people will react to that position by ditching. The ones with the most commitment to social reality have already signed on and are accelerating the process. It used to be that China was backward because Henry Ford was born a thousand times there, but took a look around and realized he enjoyed breathing, and resolved to not be disruptive. Now we will be backward for that reason.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    I really like the Henry Ford example. Part of the horror of the future (my estimation of it) is that there will be an almost endless supply of people jockeying for positions that uphold productivity and social reality. Just take what sucks about that element of the current situation and extrapolate it further and further out.

  63. @J.Ross
    @Dieter Kief

    Is it decent to run away from Solzhenitsyn? It's not easy to be a decent person when being decent will cost you, possibly causing violence. That woman whose neck or collar bone was broken by a mob outraged by the existence of Charles Murray was not a Charles Murray fan, but she was a decent person and thought that Charles Murray should be allowed to speak.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    I agree. There is a – distant – echo of Solschenizyn here, and it does not sound good.

    Interesting: Prominent German ex-Banker and Sozial Democrat & Murray reader & immigration critic Thilo Sarrazin has trouble finding rooms where he can speak undisturbed in Germany – but not in Switzerland. For the Swiss police, there is no doubt: It is a major goal of the Swiss society to defend free speech – and they do their job and – nothing bad ever happens. – Be it in the public sphere or in institutions. – Markus Schär gives lectures at Basel university about both Murrays (Charles and Douglas) et. al. – with no problems whatsoever. The woke in Basel are rather in a defensive mood, or at least not openly aggressive. – Could well be that they’d be ridiculed at the Basel Fasnacht if they’d behaved otherwise…

    • Thanks: vhrm
  64. @Anon
    OT:
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9271999/Pfizer-says-South-African-variant-significantly-reduce-vaccine-protection.html

    So? When are they going to approved repurposed drugs as treatment?

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9273943/Why-Covid-retreat-world-Global-cases-fell-16-week.html

    And as ditzy Cher in Clueless said: “As if!” Don’t they recognize the normal epidemiological two-year curve in temperate countries.. say like the 1918-1919 Spanish Flu, the 1957-1958 Asian grippe, the 1968-1970 Hong Kong grippe, the 2002-2003 SARS Cov 2, the 2009-2010 Swine Flu..

    In this satanic panic to get us all vaccinated —which is why they suppressed timely treatment— they have the deaths of hundreds of thousands in their hands.

    Replies: @Polistra, @J.Ross

    At this point, it’s becoming clear that the more virtuous you are, the more masks you’ll wear–at once. It’s how we fight covid!

    New York City’s Health Department is now recommending that Big Apple residents wear two face masks instead of one to fight back against the spread of COVID-19.

    “We know that even as the vaccine is here, the need to keep wearing a mask is paramount, it’s crucial. It’s amazing of how all the things that we’ve learned in this crisis, maybe the most profound is the power of a mask,” Mayor Bill de Blasio said during a City Hall press briefing Thursday as the new mask guidance was announced.

    “Even one of these paper masks makes a huge difference, but what we’re saying today is, time to double up,” Hizzoner said.

    “Two masks are better than one. Make it a double.”

    [MORE]

    City Health Commissioner Dr. Dave Chokshi said the department’s double-mask guidance is based on the guidance from the CDC.

    “The single most important thing remains — wearing a face covering consistently and properly so that it covers both your nose and mouth and you wear it both indoors and outdoors,” Chokshi said Thursday as he spoke alongside de Blasio.

    But, Chokshi added, “Using two masks is more effective at stopping the spread of the virus.”

    https://nypost.com/2021/02/18/nyc-health-department-recommends-double-masking-to-fight-covid/

    Wear them outdoors as well? Do people now wear them while asleep too?

    Minority Nurse: Black Men and the Dilemma of Wearing Masks
    https://minoritynurse.com/black-men-and-the-dilemma-of-wearing-masks-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/

  65. @Anonymouse
    Here is the introductory paragraph to Steve's Wikipedia entry plus the table of contents.

    Steven Ernest Sailer (born December 20, 1958) is an American paleoconservative journalist, movie critic, blogger, and columnist. He is a former correspondent for UPI and a columnist for Taki's Magazine and VDARE, a website associated with white supremacy,[1][2] white nationalism,[3][4][5] and the alt-right.[6][7][8] He has a history of making racist statements[9] and has been described as a white supremacist by the Southern Poverty Law Center[10] and the Columbia Journalism Review[11] and writes about race relations, gender issues, politics, immigration, IQ, genetics, movies, and sports. As of 2014, Sailer ceased publishing his personal blog on his own website and shifted it to the Unz Review,[12] an online publication founded by former businessman Ron Unz that promotes anti-semitism, Holocaust denial, conspiracy theories, and white supremacist material.[13][14][15]

    Sailer is known for promoting racist bigotry and anti-immigrant theories[16] and has been credited with coining the pseudoscientific race theory known as "human biodiversity" in the 1990s, with the term later being used among the alt-right as a euphemism for scientific racism.[17][18][19][20] In his writing for VDARE, Sailer has described black people as tending to lack "native judgment".[21]
    Contents

    1 Personal life
    2 Writing career
    3 Influence
    4 Views and criticism
    4.1 The "Sailer Strategy"
    5 See also
    6 References
    7 External links

    I believe terms like "racist bigotry" contravene Wikipedia's guidelines. Likewise "white supremacy," "pseudo-scientific race theory." Here are Wikipedia's guidelines for biographies of living persons in a nutshell -

    Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research.

    As I said, anybody can enroll themselves as a Wikipedia editor. Personally I do not propose to participate in this project due to lack of energy based on extreme old age. For those with (relative) youth and time on their hands, it might be an entertaining project to become Wikipedia editors and re-edit problematic statements. For example, the article reads "He has a history of making racist statements[9]" which is a tendentious smear. One may re-edit to read "He has argued for contrarian views on American racial issues." On the other hand, Steve in fact does publish in VDare which avows a white nationalist stance. It may be an unfair prejudicial remark to point that out in that a contributor to a publication should not be inferred to hold all or any of the views of the publication's editor. The remark could be just struck out. I don't know whether anyone would even notice our re-edits. The original author of the entry may be retired or dead. On the other hand, it could become a battle-royal like entries on Palestine or Israel or the Armenian genocide. So one would have to re-edit with a light and judicious touch.

    The mechanics of re-editing on Wikipedia are easily mastered.

    Replies: @Anonymouse, @GeneralRipper

    In an idle moment, I changed a few phrases in the Wikipedia entry on Steve. I immediately got a series of emails from someone with an anonymizing handle who I assume is the author of the entry saying I shouldn’t have done the edit. He cites the SPLC as the justification for calling Steve a racist. Interestingly, the Wikipedia SPLC entry itself reports that many have questioned the objectivity of that organization. The entry also mentions their checkered financial and management history. I don’t remember whether it was noted that the SPLC holds $500 million dollars in off-shore banks. The author of the entry on Steve did a hatchet job and broke the Wikipedia guidelines that stipulate that biographies of living persons should be neutral.

  66. @kaganovitch
    @Trinity

    He doesn’t address the JQ

    Can you blame him? Those guys have Space Lasers!

    Replies: @Trinity, @The Alarmist

    lololol. I hear ya, breh.

  67. @ic1000
    @Anon

    > [Is it difficult] to edit Wikipedia to make its article on Steve more complete? Do they allow that?

    [408], it's super-easy to correct or expand almost any Wikipedia article. You just do it -- you don't even have to sign up for an account.

    The system works great when the topic is obscure and doesn't attract passions. Wikipedia has good and reliable descriptions of the opening of the proto-Atlantic, the Battle of the Somme, and Ice Cube's career(s).

    However.

    Wikipedia is designed to be resilient to the vandalism that this structure invites. When you edit Ice Cube's article to state that his first hit was in 1916, the system automatically notifies those Ice-Cube-interested editors who have asked to be kept current with changes. One of them will "revert" the article to its prior, correct condition, often within seconds. This can lead to "edit wars," and Wiki has policies for that, too. Vandals get beaten down.

    Most Wikipedia editors are leftists. At every step up the chain through more-committed editors to admins and above, the progressivism and wokism becomes more pronounced. So almost all edit wars end with politically correct text holding the field.

    To the Wikirati, editing the Steve Sailer to paint a truer portrait of the man and his writings is indistinguishable from vandalism, and they handle it the same way.

    Now and then, a well-meaning person will start a journey through the looking glass by submitting a Narrative-nonconforming edit. Occasionally, the edit war ends with a correction to a falsehood or misinterpretation. By design, the cost is always high.

    Replies: @anon, @Bardon Kaldian, @Lot, @Anonymouse, @Reg Cæsar, @Curle

    >[408], it’s super-easy to correct or expand almost any Wikipedia article. You just do it — you don’t even have to sign up for an account.

    This is incorrect. You must enroll to edit entries.

    Otherwise post accurately describes Wikipedia wars. I wouldn’t be so sure that the uber-editors are all or predominantly woke. I understand that the uber-editors can and do freeze entries that have succumbed to Wikipedia warfare.

    • Thanks: ic1000
  68. I just went back to the Wikipedia entry on Steve. An editor removed my corrections and reverted the text to the smear job that it was. I assume that that editor originally authored the entry. I presume I could re-install my corrections but that seems like a fool’s errand as it will just be reverted to the status quo ante.

  69. @Anonymous
    @PhysicistDave

    Increasingly stupid people have been making increasingly bad policy decisions for a while now, at least on the surface level. Has it created any real opportunities to reshape the world in a way that is closer to your liking? Do we really think this is a bug and not a feature?

    Most here probably know on some level that the people who actually shape policy and culture are pretty well aware of these dynamics, and many criticisms and concerns in this sphere explicitly touch on this (I.E. the effects of mass immigration). But when it comes down to charting the specifics of what this means and how broadly deleterious trends might be counteracted, there is a general refusal or inability to acknowledge the enormity of the situation, where things are, and where they are actually heading. Maybe this is called hope, if we are being generous.

    One way I'd frame this is in reference to the Flight 93 Election article. I think this cohort found a lot to agree with in that article, and it captured a real feeling and thought process at the time. Well, we had our F93 Election and the subsequent F93 presidency. We have come out the other end of it, and the thinkers and ideological energy that helped make that possible have been rendered directionless. The avenues are closed, and no one serious has really tried to come up with answers because there aren't actually any good ideas that interface with situation as it actually is. We had the Flight 93 election. We did that.

    Documenting The Collapse has some level of intrinsic value, but engaging with the reality of the system and its victory is unpleasant, and detours into its contradictions or briefly touting the verboten realities of intelligence research or x or y or xx and xy are just hobbies or intellectual masturbation at this point.

    It doesn't matter if Lori Lightfoot (as an individual or a D&D character class) is not high IQ. Lori Lightfoot is the mayor of Chicago. You and I are not. She is also just a single facet of many-multi-trillion, many-multi-national global apparatus. We can gloat that she is not high IQ or point to this intelligence study or that intelligence study, but this is just something most of us do to feel better or occupy spare time for our simultaneously understimulated and overstimulated minds.

    There is a fantasy that our elites are divorced from reality. It should be understood that this is a fantasy. Reality will not come for them. Reality, as it is, will come for you.

    What I'm saying is that people getting dumber (in many respects) and politicians getting slimier and less interested in representing the populace as it may have traditionally been conceived is a trend that has been going on for a long time. Has that created many great opportunities for victory? It created the opening for Trump, but in retrospect we should all be able to look at that for what it was, and more importantly, where we are now. The system is effective for many reasons, and while many will look at Lori Lightfootism as an operational facet of this system, people are ignoring its efficacy in the broader operational scheme because there is some satisfaction in pointing out that she is not high IQ and then charting idealistic outcomes based on past paradigms. This is not "the old days."

    With regards to robotics and machine learning, the current shortcomings are largely irrelevant in the context of Who, Whomism. Lori Lightfoot (the individual and the idea) already has an army of virtual machines at her disposal. It does not matter that they are imperfect. Soon, there will be very real machines walking around at her disposal. If it sounds stupid or the current shortcomings of these technologies are the object of fixation, I suspect it is largely because the implications are unpleasant. Stupid humans are currently cheaper than stupid robots, but the point at which that is no longer true is fast approaching. And if it is low level white color jobs and functions which are the first to be outmoded, we might ask: Who will this hit first and hardest? And if we answer that question honestly while holding to that initial premise, we might then ask: Where is the error in elite initiatives to fill countries with New Citizens who may be, on average, lower IQ? Surely they have considered these things. Some of our elites may in fact be quite stupid. Broadly speaking, however, they are not.

    I've gotten longwinded at this point and apologize to a degree for the tone. I'd like to think that I mean well and that it is out of justified frustration. To sum it up, pointing out the flaws in the system is a (often irresistible) distraction if you have no system of your own or way of building one. That is the present reality.

    It doesn't matter if machine learning has limitations. Simply within the realm of political expression, we should be able to see that it can be and has been very effective. It doesn't matter if their robot dogs will be imperfect when people who might actually represent opposition to the system will never come close to sniffing ownership of their own robot factory.

    If this ideological sphere is honest with regards to circumstances and specifics, it would have to routinely confront the significance of barely being able to "own" a Twitter account or maintain a payment processor. This happens on some level, but it is mostly surface or shortsighted. It's currently very difficult to address these things in the context of system's enormity and momentum without losing hope, and I do not want anyone to be hopeless.

    At the same time, I think it's important to realize that pointing out the system's contradictions, factual distortions, and blind spots will not score enough points to win the game at this point. Do I have any suggestions? Not really. I'm in the same boat as everyone else and possess no extraordinary insights or talent. If there's continued value in intelligence debates or dunking on Lori Lightfoot or AOC or whoever, these things have to made cohesive again. We got a more accurate picture of the system because these types of things were briefly cohesive and ahead of the curve, but the reality of that picture and its implications and consequences has also made this sphere stagnant, outdated, and without a clear (practical, beneficial) way forward.

    Replies: @vhrm, @Kratoklastes

    pointing out the flaws in the system is a (often irresistible) distraction if you have no system of your own or way of building one. That is the present reality.

    We got a more accurate picture of the system because these types of things were briefly cohesive and ahead of the curve, but the reality of that picture and its implications and consequences has also made this sphere stagnant, outdated, and without a clear (practical, beneficial) way forward.

    The facts that
    socially relevant HBD race avg differences exist
    AND are valid
    AND explain the bulk of the performance gaps that SJWs and Dems. peg on racism
    are simply not known by the vast majority of Americans, even intelligent ones.

    i know little about social movements, but if politics is downstream of culture we just need to red pill as many people as possible. yes, just pointing and shaking our heads absolutely is useless except as it motivates is and provides fodder for us to (tactfully and wisely) inform people around us / counter the narrative whenever possible, appropriate , and relatively safe to do so.

    Under that motivation rubric is also that this stream is a reminder that, yes the blank slatist are still pushing their arguments and they’re still just as wrong. Having recent examples as well as older ones helps stiffen my spine AND provides material.

    (though, yes, I too liked the older iq stuff and magic/tragic dirt stuff then the 5 a day mostly “ha ha they’re at it again!” but the Taki’s pieces play some of that role. i prob just spend too much time here most days. it would be nice if there was maybe more split between the substantial pieces and the brickbats)

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @vhrm

    Thanks for the response. I think a big part of the issue is that people in positions of influence do not want to be redpilled. In general, most people do not want to be redpilled. What possible motivations do they have to be? What are the rewards and what are the punishments?

    I've had these conversations and debates with goodthinking people from all walks of life. In the vast majority of cases, it does not matter how irrefutable your evidence is, how convincing your rhetoric, or how many times you repeat the process. This fits into the politics being downstream from culture thing. The reality is that pretty much all aspects of culture are dominated by your ideological adversaries, and there are vanishingly few ways to gain or maintain cultural influence if you are going to say something that is actually controversial.

    The facts have always been what they are, and yet the losses keep on piling up. I think this side of the ideological sphere actually won many arguments from 2010 to 2016. Lots of people who were willing to be redpilled were redpilled, mildly at least. Getting Trump elected was an impressive feat, but we saw what happened next. He was always a flawed vehicle, and the system dropped the mask a bit more to reveal how Power actually works. Power is flexing really hard right now, but it will probably come to look soft in time.

    There are plenty of people who understand that the system is not playing around anymore. Plenty of smart, well-meaning people are rightfully worried and do not see solutions to these issues that have positive outcomes. People are just talking in circles because no one has any idea what to do, and missing or intentionally ignoring where certain trends are heading is one consequence of that.

    Replies: @Anon, @vhrm, @anonymous

  70. @astrolabe
    @astrolabe

    57 minutes. 'Nah, those changes aren't improvements'.

    Replies: @anon

    A somewhat controversial Wiki edit that lasts almost an hour during North America daylight?

    Pretty good work, actually. Congrats for making the effort and thus providing a test.

  71. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Arclight


    I also think that as the social classes get more ossified an increasing share of people in positions of influence/authority really don’t have any experience of living or working with others whose backgrounds and native abilities are substantially different from their own, and cannot grasp just how different these can be.
     
    Ackshualllllllly … This phenomenon has existed for a long time, and some of us have experienced it.

    I believe Charles Murray mentions something like it: We here, for example, tend to live, work and mix with people who can read and understand this here stuff, like what we are reading and writing right here now. He correctly points out that people live inside bubbles populated by people of similar intellectual ability and socio-economic status.

    Now, say, for example, you happen to drop out of the upper middle class world of professionals that your parents brought you into. You find yourself in a world of average Americans (in this American's true-from-life example.) You discover, to your dismay, that there really are a lot of stupid, crazy, mean, dirty, sick people out there. You find it hard to believe.

    Just in the "average" world, there are a surprising number of nut jobs, weirdos and disgusting people -- even of your own, vaunted race!

    If you haven't lived this, then you don't know it, but it's true. We here at this moment are insulated from this fact, and I daresay most here have never come close to seeing this truth.

    It is almost as if what we here think are clean, "normal," intelligent humans are the exception rather than the rule.

    The fact that a vastly under-appreciated writer of a blog -- who works in a closet for a fraction of what he is worth being paid -- is the highest-rated writer on human intelligence (!) -- seems to support this observation: People, on average, are stupid, dirty and crazy. We sane and semi-sane, clean people are the exception, not the rule.

    We should be preserved and protected. Instead, we are being shamed and eliminated.

    Replies: @Mike Tre, @Dieter Kief, @rebel yell, @vhrm, @Bill Jones, @Bill Jones

    The fact that a vastly under-appreciated writer of a blog — who works in a closet for a fraction of what he is worth being paid — is the highest-rated writer on human intelligence (!) — seems to support this observation: People, on average, are stupid, dirty and crazy. We sane and semi-sane, clean people are the exception, not the rule.

    Agree. Yet it sadly hardly seems surprising.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Bill Jones

    To this point: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation For Kids Who Math Gooder.
    https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/bill-and-melinda-gates-foundation-behind-anti-racist-math-push/

  72. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Arclight


    I also think that as the social classes get more ossified an increasing share of people in positions of influence/authority really don’t have any experience of living or working with others whose backgrounds and native abilities are substantially different from their own, and cannot grasp just how different these can be.
     
    Ackshualllllllly … This phenomenon has existed for a long time, and some of us have experienced it.

    I believe Charles Murray mentions something like it: We here, for example, tend to live, work and mix with people who can read and understand this here stuff, like what we are reading and writing right here now. He correctly points out that people live inside bubbles populated by people of similar intellectual ability and socio-economic status.

    Now, say, for example, you happen to drop out of the upper middle class world of professionals that your parents brought you into. You find yourself in a world of average Americans (in this American's true-from-life example.) You discover, to your dismay, that there really are a lot of stupid, crazy, mean, dirty, sick people out there. You find it hard to believe.

    Just in the "average" world, there are a surprising number of nut jobs, weirdos and disgusting people -- even of your own, vaunted race!

    If you haven't lived this, then you don't know it, but it's true. We here at this moment are insulated from this fact, and I daresay most here have never come close to seeing this truth.

    It is almost as if what we here think are clean, "normal," intelligent humans are the exception rather than the rule.

    The fact that a vastly under-appreciated writer of a blog -- who works in a closet for a fraction of what he is worth being paid -- is the highest-rated writer on human intelligence (!) -- seems to support this observation: People, on average, are stupid, dirty and crazy. We sane and semi-sane, clean people are the exception, not the rule.

    We should be preserved and protected. Instead, we are being shamed and eliminated.

    Replies: @Mike Tre, @Dieter Kief, @rebel yell, @vhrm, @Bill Jones, @Bill Jones

    Thinking again about this, one of the lessons I’ve tried to drum into my son is that the reason you should tell the truth, apart from simple morality is that life is complicated enough without reality working against you which is what happens when you lie.

    In this respect Sailer has an advantage the vast majority of the others do not enjoy: He can tell the truth as he see’s it without it being a fireable offense.

  73. Anonymous[476] • Disclaimer says:
    @vhrm
    @Anonymous


    pointing out the flaws in the system is a (often irresistible) distraction if you have no system of your own or way of building one. That is the present reality.
     

    We got a more accurate picture of the system because these types of things were briefly cohesive and ahead of the curve, but the reality of that picture and its implications and consequences has also made this sphere stagnant, outdated, and without a clear (practical, beneficial) way forward.
     
    The facts that
    socially relevant HBD race avg differences exist
    AND are valid
    AND explain the bulk of the performance gaps that SJWs and Dems. peg on racism
    are simply not known by the vast majority of Americans, even intelligent ones.

    i know little about social movements, but if politics is downstream of culture we just need to red pill as many people as possible. yes, just pointing and shaking our heads absolutely is useless except as it motivates is and provides fodder for us to (tactfully and wisely) inform people around us / counter the narrative whenever possible, appropriate , and relatively safe to do so.

    Under that motivation rubric is also that this stream is a reminder that, yes the blank slatist are still pushing their arguments and they're still just as wrong. Having recent examples as well as older ones helps stiffen my spine AND provides material.

    (though, yes, I too liked the older iq stuff and magic/tragic dirt stuff then the 5 a day mostly "ha ha they're at it again!" but the Taki's pieces play some of that role. i prob just spend too much time here most days. it would be nice if there was maybe more split between the substantial pieces and the brickbats)

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Thanks for the response. I think a big part of the issue is that people in positions of influence do not want to be redpilled. In general, most people do not want to be redpilled. What possible motivations do they have to be? What are the rewards and what are the punishments?

    I’ve had these conversations and debates with goodthinking people from all walks of life. In the vast majority of cases, it does not matter how irrefutable your evidence is, how convincing your rhetoric, or how many times you repeat the process. This fits into the politics being downstream from culture thing. The reality is that pretty much all aspects of culture are dominated by your ideological adversaries, and there are vanishingly few ways to gain or maintain cultural influence if you are going to say something that is actually controversial.

    The facts have always been what they are, and yet the losses keep on piling up. I think this side of the ideological sphere actually won many arguments from 2010 to 2016. Lots of people who were willing to be redpilled were redpilled, mildly at least. Getting Trump elected was an impressive feat, but we saw what happened next. He was always a flawed vehicle, and the system dropped the mask a bit more to reveal how Power actually works. Power is flexing really hard right now, but it will probably come to look soft in time.

    There are plenty of people who understand that the system is not playing around anymore. Plenty of smart, well-meaning people are rightfully worried and do not see solutions to these issues that have positive outcomes. People are just talking in circles because no one has any idea what to do, and missing or intentionally ignoring where certain trends are heading is one consequence of that.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Anonymous


    People are just talking in circles because no one has any idea what to do, and missing or intentionally ignoring where certain trends are heading is one consequence of that.
     
    What trends are you referring to and where would you say they are heading? Do you have any idea what to do?

    Replies: @AnonymousNameChange

    , @vhrm
    @Anonymous


    I think a big part of the issue is that people in positions of influence do not want to be redpilled. In general, most people do not want to be redpilled. What possible motivations do they have to be? What are the rewards and what are the punishments?
     
    I'm not talking about people in positions of influence, I'm talking about "think globally, act locally" as the environmentalists used to say.

    Make sure your friends (at least those you deem to have a capacity to understand) know that the science exists for the hbd stuff so that next time there's a diversity browbeating at work they can notice the misinformation. Maybe if they're pushed to make a poor hire "for diversity" they'll act on their reservations instead of blame their reservations on their own hidden racism.

    Same when they get some insane policy proposal from their kid's school or deal with their teachers etc.

    Also, especially for people in tech/science/history/law being red-pilled is not really optional because their brains can't entirely reject compelling true arguments even if they want to. That doesn't mean that they'll immediately (or ever) turn into crusaders for the cause, but if you point someone to the US PISA test performance broken down by race, or the analogy of intelligence and height differences between populations (while assuring them that g-factor and iq are fairly robust and we'll accepted by even mainstream psychology and have been for decades) , or the whole thing about finalists in the 100m in the Olympics... their brains won't be able to reject these examples. And if/when they go look into it they'll see that it all generally checks out.

    Basically once they see it, they can't easily unsee it and it will affect their thinking and, eventually, their choices.

    Replies: @AnonymousNameChange

    , @anonymous
    @Anonymous

    "I think a big part of the issue is that people in positions of influence do not want to be redpilled."

    The people in positions of influence are overwhelmingly Boomers, by their sheer numbers. First, you need to admit that.

    They are the first generation in American history -- actually world history -- that derives its consciousness overwhelmingly from pop culture -- music, movies, celebrities, sports, etc. Pre-Boomer generations defined their consciousness largely by their relationships -- family, church, ethnic kin and local community -- which helped inoculate them against pop-culture propaganda.

    The clay of the Boomer mind has been molded by Jewish hands for 60+ years. The clay has now set. Even among Boomer conservatives, they will tout people like Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand and Barry Goldwater as their intellectual forebearers. Lol. I'm pretty sure a statue of Barry Goldwater won't be torn down anytime soon. Wonder why?

    The best thing to do is plan for a post-Boomer world. Nick Fuentes is probably the closest to doing it right. Organize among young people. That is where the scramble for the future is. The Boomers will die. Their Asashkenazi intellectual sculpters are at a demographic dead end as well.

    Build the institutions now in the 2020's, that will bare fruit when the Boomers are gone. Among people 55+, we simply need to cut our losses. Unfortunate but realistic. Even if they read Unz, they aren't going to act.

  74. @Anonymous
    @PhysicistDave

    Increasingly stupid people have been making increasingly bad policy decisions for a while now, at least on the surface level. Has it created any real opportunities to reshape the world in a way that is closer to your liking? Do we really think this is a bug and not a feature?

    Most here probably know on some level that the people who actually shape policy and culture are pretty well aware of these dynamics, and many criticisms and concerns in this sphere explicitly touch on this (I.E. the effects of mass immigration). But when it comes down to charting the specifics of what this means and how broadly deleterious trends might be counteracted, there is a general refusal or inability to acknowledge the enormity of the situation, where things are, and where they are actually heading. Maybe this is called hope, if we are being generous.

    One way I'd frame this is in reference to the Flight 93 Election article. I think this cohort found a lot to agree with in that article, and it captured a real feeling and thought process at the time. Well, we had our F93 Election and the subsequent F93 presidency. We have come out the other end of it, and the thinkers and ideological energy that helped make that possible have been rendered directionless. The avenues are closed, and no one serious has really tried to come up with answers because there aren't actually any good ideas that interface with situation as it actually is. We had the Flight 93 election. We did that.

    Documenting The Collapse has some level of intrinsic value, but engaging with the reality of the system and its victory is unpleasant, and detours into its contradictions or briefly touting the verboten realities of intelligence research or x or y or xx and xy are just hobbies or intellectual masturbation at this point.

    It doesn't matter if Lori Lightfoot (as an individual or a D&D character class) is not high IQ. Lori Lightfoot is the mayor of Chicago. You and I are not. She is also just a single facet of many-multi-trillion, many-multi-national global apparatus. We can gloat that she is not high IQ or point to this intelligence study or that intelligence study, but this is just something most of us do to feel better or occupy spare time for our simultaneously understimulated and overstimulated minds.

    There is a fantasy that our elites are divorced from reality. It should be understood that this is a fantasy. Reality will not come for them. Reality, as it is, will come for you.

    What I'm saying is that people getting dumber (in many respects) and politicians getting slimier and less interested in representing the populace as it may have traditionally been conceived is a trend that has been going on for a long time. Has that created many great opportunities for victory? It created the opening for Trump, but in retrospect we should all be able to look at that for what it was, and more importantly, where we are now. The system is effective for many reasons, and while many will look at Lori Lightfootism as an operational facet of this system, people are ignoring its efficacy in the broader operational scheme because there is some satisfaction in pointing out that she is not high IQ and then charting idealistic outcomes based on past paradigms. This is not "the old days."

    With regards to robotics and machine learning, the current shortcomings are largely irrelevant in the context of Who, Whomism. Lori Lightfoot (the individual and the idea) already has an army of virtual machines at her disposal. It does not matter that they are imperfect. Soon, there will be very real machines walking around at her disposal. If it sounds stupid or the current shortcomings of these technologies are the object of fixation, I suspect it is largely because the implications are unpleasant. Stupid humans are currently cheaper than stupid robots, but the point at which that is no longer true is fast approaching. And if it is low level white color jobs and functions which are the first to be outmoded, we might ask: Who will this hit first and hardest? And if we answer that question honestly while holding to that initial premise, we might then ask: Where is the error in elite initiatives to fill countries with New Citizens who may be, on average, lower IQ? Surely they have considered these things. Some of our elites may in fact be quite stupid. Broadly speaking, however, they are not.

    I've gotten longwinded at this point and apologize to a degree for the tone. I'd like to think that I mean well and that it is out of justified frustration. To sum it up, pointing out the flaws in the system is a (often irresistible) distraction if you have no system of your own or way of building one. That is the present reality.

    It doesn't matter if machine learning has limitations. Simply within the realm of political expression, we should be able to see that it can be and has been very effective. It doesn't matter if their robot dogs will be imperfect when people who might actually represent opposition to the system will never come close to sniffing ownership of their own robot factory.

    If this ideological sphere is honest with regards to circumstances and specifics, it would have to routinely confront the significance of barely being able to "own" a Twitter account or maintain a payment processor. This happens on some level, but it is mostly surface or shortsighted. It's currently very difficult to address these things in the context of system's enormity and momentum without losing hope, and I do not want anyone to be hopeless.

    At the same time, I think it's important to realize that pointing out the system's contradictions, factual distortions, and blind spots will not score enough points to win the game at this point. Do I have any suggestions? Not really. I'm in the same boat as everyone else and possess no extraordinary insights or talent. If there's continued value in intelligence debates or dunking on Lori Lightfoot or AOC or whoever, these things have to made cohesive again. We got a more accurate picture of the system because these types of things were briefly cohesive and ahead of the curve, but the reality of that picture and its implications and consequences has also made this sphere stagnant, outdated, and without a clear (practical, beneficial) way forward.

    Replies: @vhrm, @Kratoklastes

    This is so short-sighted, which is strange.

    While it’s true that individual Lightfoots are largely protected from the deleterious effects of their behaviour, reality will come for them qua class eventually.

    It has always happened: the parasitoids expand their power until they over-reach, and shortly (in historical terms) after they build a Versailles to bask in self-glorification funded by parasitoidism, there’s a bloodbath when reality very definitely comes for them.

    This is not an episode of the Big Bang Theory, wherein people pretending to be smart ‘zinger’ their way to solutions in 21 minutes (plus ads). Things of great social moment do not resolve themselves according to the timetable of the least patient.

    The intellectual heavyweights of the Left have collectively understood this for a very long time; the big end of town in the finance sector, likewise. They identified what they believed were the “commanding heights” that were relevant to their objectives, and they developed an implemented a multigenerational plan to plant their flag on those heights. (The finance guys got their way so rapidly that ‘generational’ is more apt than multigenerational).

    I’ve long believed that the Left’s global leadership does actually have humanity’s best interests as an objective, but that they fail to grasp that the means they decided on were incorrect (and remain incorrect).

    That in turn is because the means were decided on, in an age where quantitative analyses were poorly performed – and that continues to this day, because of institutional rigidities: the Left is still overtly hostile to economic quant. That is quite funny considering their evangelical obsession with climate modelling, which is several orders of magnitude more uncertain.

    Given their hostility to actually trying to pin down the numbers, for most of the last century the Left made their ‘targeting decisions’ based on “duelling essays”, where verbosity can be deployed to mask bullshit.

    So it’s no surprise that they picked the wrong means, and wound up interfering in things far too broadly (which is inefficient, and slows economic progress… which is critical to the longevity of power, because peple do not like going backwards).

    That was true of the Left everywhere – i.e., in the West, in the Soviet Union, and in China – until Deng Xiaoping: his reforms, and the stellar performance of China as an economy since those reforms ‘bit’, should really be the focus on the attention of strategists from all sides of politics.

    It has to be accepted that in the transitional stages, Deng had to do some standard “Third World strongman” stuff – like making an example of the Gang of Four – but that was mostly to signal seriousness to the existing power structure to prevent them from undermining Deng’s plans.

    There are very strong parallels to US foreign policy – where it was impossible to separate smart analysts from bullshit-artists and grifters for a century, and the bullshit-artists wound up in the ascendant (and are still there). Serious quant-based foreign-policy analysis is still in its infancy, but it’s now at non-zero levels and has some institutional heft. (To be fair: most foreign policy analysis is just part of general political grift and graft; it’s not clear that the major institutional players are remotely interested in the ‘right’ answer for a nation, because it might reduce the flow of funds).

    Quant-based strategy generally wins, because it’s much easier to spot the holes in an argument and to assess the how ‘deviations’ from key premises affect the core argument: in other words, it’s possible to do a coherent and systematic sensitivity analysis. If everyone has the same objective (i.e., to find the best answer), quant converges to that answer very quickly. That’s not possible with essays.

    Galbraith’s drivel the other day was a case in point – it was classic “hand-waving essay-writer” nonsense that purported to show that a quant analysis was wrong… with literally zero objective evidence (and certainly no decent quantified evidence): the entire essay was like a 3rd quintile undergraduate saying “Well it’s all based on assumptions” as if that’s an end to the argument.

    Contrast that with financialisation. The finance guys got more achieved between 1990 and 2008 (when it was made absolutely clear that the entire system now existed for their pleasure), than the Left achieved during the entire Long March Through The Institutions.

    That’s because the finance guys made their targeting decisions quantitatively – they didn’t give a fuck about placing “like minds” in primary-school teaching, because it was completely peripheral to their main goal. Unfortunately their main goal had – and has – fuck-all to do with what is socially optimal: their main goal is to enrich themselves. That’s fair enough, because they don’t pretend otherwise – but the Western political class has the same goal but pretends it doesn’t.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Kratoklastes

    I’ve long believed that the Left’s global leadership does actually have humanity’s best interests as an objective,

    Please elucidate on this point. Thanks.

    , @AnonymousNameChange
    @Kratoklastes

    I appreciate the response and think you've made a lot of good points, though I don't think you adequately explained why my position is shortsighted. My general takeaway there is pendulum theory + increased prominence of quant analysis in politics, social ordering, and general problem solving.

    I think that the pendulum theory is basically irrelevant at this point and especially so for people in this political sphere. It's more shortsighted to think that Team A or Team B can never reach a win state, particularly if that position is largely founded on a past that was very different.

    If we want to look at history as our basis, yes there have been plenty of swings and power is difficult to hold on to. However, there have also been more than enough instances of what basically amounts to total victory if we assess things in meaningful terms. If the U.S. collapses, for instance, I do not foresee a great reemergence of Native Americanism -- its peoples or their respective ideas and cultures.

    In so far as overreach and realignments will happen and problems and conditions will inevitably change on an inter-generational timeline, I think that's something that we all pretty much take as a given. That does not mean your goals, desires, and ideology will be advanced, in your own lifetime or far after it.

    I also think it's a mistake to assume that quant-based strategy presents some kind of way out or isn't already winning right now, being leveraged by the elites of course. Just because it's dressed in the veneer of feelings, oppression, and primary school politics doesn't mean that it isn't happening. Again, the idea that the real elites are dangerously (to them) out of touch with reality is a fantasy. Things and people that look really stupid often serve their purpose, and it's easy to miss that because there is a bigger a picture that plays out on a longer timeline. Sometimes they're just stupid of course, but I think there is a temptation to fixate on that stupidity because the situation is worse than we'd like to admit.

  75. I try to avoid the topic for 2 very strong reasons…..1 being even if Steve is right it is basically a zero sum thing. Nobody rewards you for being right except the guys in the comments who agree with you anyhow…..

    The people who disagree just get more loud and emotional and incoherent…..

    And 2…..some of the nicest & coolest people I’ve ever met are low iq or otherwise slow…..and some of the most lazy, obnoxious and otherwise insufferable people you can’t even be in a room with longer than half a minute are crazy stupid smart…..

    But their high iq makes them so anti social you can’t stand being around them…..several members of my family are like that…..theyre smart but really selfish or they’re the biggest pricks on the planet who like to pick fights with you about basically nothing…..they just have a chip on their shoulder & can’t otherwise function right.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Neoconned

    Character is orthogonal to IQ.

    Replies: @Anon

    , @Anon
    @Neoconned


    I try to avoid the topic for 2 very strong reasons…..1 being even if Steve is right it is basically a zero sum thing. Nobody rewards you for being right
     
    The reward for being right is:

    (1) Prevention of a false accusation against you and your people.

    (2) Prevention of violence against you and your people and dispossession/theft of you and your people.

    (3) Prevention (via #2 and also via better informed people of reproductive age in your people’s population) of genocide against your people.
  76. @kaganovitch
    @Trinity

    He doesn’t address the JQ

    Can you blame him? Those guys have Space Lasers!

    Replies: @Trinity, @The Alarmist

    He doesn’t address the JQ

    Can you blame him? Those guys have Space Lasers!

    They’re also Shape-shifters.

  77. @Neoconned
    I try to avoid the topic for 2 very strong reasons.....1 being even if Steve is right it is basically a zero sum thing. Nobody rewards you for being right except the guys in the comments who agree with you anyhow.....

    The people who disagree just get more loud and emotional and incoherent.....

    And 2.....some of the nicest & coolest people I've ever met are low iq or otherwise slow.....and some of the most lazy, obnoxious and otherwise insufferable people you can't even be in a room with longer than half a minute are crazy stupid smart.....

    But their high iq makes them so anti social you can't stand being around them.....several members of my family are like that.....theyre smart but really selfish or they're the biggest pricks on the planet who like to pick fights with you about basically nothing.....they just have a chip on their shoulder & can't otherwise function right.

    Replies: @anon, @Anon

    Character is orthogonal to IQ.

    • Agree: ic1000
    • Replies: @Anon
    @anon


    Character is orthogonal to IQ.
     
    Haha.

    But seriously, this is not true. There's a weak positive correlation. This has been studied since the 1930s.

    Most of the "smart people are ..." stereotypes have turned out not to be true. Smart people tend, more than would happen randomly, to be socially adept and likeable, attractive, good leaders, creative, taller, and so on.

    Of course, some smart people have low character. That at least is true.

    Replies: @anon, @pirelli

  78. @anon
    @ic1000

    So since people tend to age out of leftism and Wikipedia does not tend to attract younger (or new) internet users as editors, this would imply that over time this bias would become less strong.
    Nice!

    Replies: @pirelli

    People do not age out of leftism. Most people maintain throughout life roughly the same political views they held as young people. They only become more conservative in a relative sense, as the new crop of young people gets progressively more … progressive, or whatever, over time.

    We’ll see if the latter trend ever reverses, ie, Victorian social mores become cool among young people again, but I’m not holding my breath.

  79. Newspapers from Germany or German speaking countries do on average far better than Anglo newspapers. Even German liberal newspapers like Süddeutsche or Die Zeit do better than American conservative ones like WSJ.

  80. Anonymous[194] • Disclaimer says:

    Meanwhile, White Men are STILL LITERALLY AWESOME!

    EVIDENCE: We can land a space rover on Mars again and again, while making it look like non-whites from third world countries–and white women–cooked up and initiated the whole idea themselves!

    That… is AWESOME!!

    We know we should be proud of ourselves. Nobody needs to tell us. It’s simply that our brand of pride carries a measure of grace in it.

    That is, it’s a White thing, that many of you… just wouldn’t understand.

    That said, let’s watch the peripheral shills congratulate themselves thanks to our grace.

  81. @Bill Jones
    @Buzz Mohawk


    The fact that a vastly under-appreciated writer of a blog — who works in a closet for a fraction of what he is worth being paid — is the highest-rated writer on human intelligence (!) — seems to support this observation: People, on average, are stupid, dirty and crazy. We sane and semi-sane, clean people are the exception, not the rule.
     
    Agree. Yet it sadly hardly seems surprising.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    To this point: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation For Kids Who Math Gooder.
    https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/bill-and-melinda-gates-foundation-behind-anti-racist-math-push/

  82. Anon[149] • Disclaimer says:
    @Neoconned
    I try to avoid the topic for 2 very strong reasons.....1 being even if Steve is right it is basically a zero sum thing. Nobody rewards you for being right except the guys in the comments who agree with you anyhow.....

    The people who disagree just get more loud and emotional and incoherent.....

    And 2.....some of the nicest & coolest people I've ever met are low iq or otherwise slow.....and some of the most lazy, obnoxious and otherwise insufferable people you can't even be in a room with longer than half a minute are crazy stupid smart.....

    But their high iq makes them so anti social you can't stand being around them.....several members of my family are like that.....theyre smart but really selfish or they're the biggest pricks on the planet who like to pick fights with you about basically nothing.....they just have a chip on their shoulder & can't otherwise function right.

    Replies: @anon, @Anon

    I try to avoid the topic for 2 very strong reasons…..1 being even if Steve is right it is basically a zero sum thing. Nobody rewards you for being right

    The reward for being right is:

    (1) Prevention of a false accusation against you and your people.

    (2) Prevention of violence against you and your people and dispossession/theft of you and your people.

    (3) Prevention (via #2 and also via better informed people of reproductive age in your people’s population) of genocide against your people.

  83. Anon[149] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    @vhrm

    Thanks for the response. I think a big part of the issue is that people in positions of influence do not want to be redpilled. In general, most people do not want to be redpilled. What possible motivations do they have to be? What are the rewards and what are the punishments?

    I've had these conversations and debates with goodthinking people from all walks of life. In the vast majority of cases, it does not matter how irrefutable your evidence is, how convincing your rhetoric, or how many times you repeat the process. This fits into the politics being downstream from culture thing. The reality is that pretty much all aspects of culture are dominated by your ideological adversaries, and there are vanishingly few ways to gain or maintain cultural influence if you are going to say something that is actually controversial.

    The facts have always been what they are, and yet the losses keep on piling up. I think this side of the ideological sphere actually won many arguments from 2010 to 2016. Lots of people who were willing to be redpilled were redpilled, mildly at least. Getting Trump elected was an impressive feat, but we saw what happened next. He was always a flawed vehicle, and the system dropped the mask a bit more to reveal how Power actually works. Power is flexing really hard right now, but it will probably come to look soft in time.

    There are plenty of people who understand that the system is not playing around anymore. Plenty of smart, well-meaning people are rightfully worried and do not see solutions to these issues that have positive outcomes. People are just talking in circles because no one has any idea what to do, and missing or intentionally ignoring where certain trends are heading is one consequence of that.

    Replies: @Anon, @vhrm, @anonymous

    People are just talking in circles because no one has any idea what to do, and missing or intentionally ignoring where certain trends are heading is one consequence of that.

    What trends are you referring to and where would you say they are heading? Do you have any idea what to do?

    • Replies: @AnonymousNameChange
    @Anon

    For one, the significance of technological progression and consolidation with the uniparty is something that is being seriously underestimated. Many people realize that this is happening and may discuss it on some level, but the current extent and its seemingly inevitable evolution (and faster than you'd think) and implications don't receive the attention they should. Maybe too unpleasant or steeped in sci-fi. And no, I really don't have any idea what to do about that or other challenging aspects of our current situation. I'm just making some observations and critiques about the state of discussion in these spheres. Not particularly helpful probably, and I think that Steve and the commenters here are generally great, just throwing stuff out there.

  84. @Anon
    OT:
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9271999/Pfizer-says-South-African-variant-significantly-reduce-vaccine-protection.html

    So? When are they going to approved repurposed drugs as treatment?

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9273943/Why-Covid-retreat-world-Global-cases-fell-16-week.html

    And as ditzy Cher in Clueless said: “As if!” Don’t they recognize the normal epidemiological two-year curve in temperate countries.. say like the 1918-1919 Spanish Flu, the 1957-1958 Asian grippe, the 1968-1970 Hong Kong grippe, the 2002-2003 SARS Cov 2, the 2009-2010 Swine Flu..

    In this satanic panic to get us all vaccinated —which is why they suppressed timely treatment— they have the deaths of hundreds of thousands in their hands.

    Replies: @Polistra, @J.Ross

    And they will never be punished in any way. The lockdown served its real purpose. The United States is no longer capable of posing any kind of threat to China.

  85. @Anonymouse
    Here is the introductory paragraph to Steve's Wikipedia entry plus the table of contents.

    Steven Ernest Sailer (born December 20, 1958) is an American paleoconservative journalist, movie critic, blogger, and columnist. He is a former correspondent for UPI and a columnist for Taki's Magazine and VDARE, a website associated with white supremacy,[1][2] white nationalism,[3][4][5] and the alt-right.[6][7][8] He has a history of making racist statements[9] and has been described as a white supremacist by the Southern Poverty Law Center[10] and the Columbia Journalism Review[11] and writes about race relations, gender issues, politics, immigration, IQ, genetics, movies, and sports. As of 2014, Sailer ceased publishing his personal blog on his own website and shifted it to the Unz Review,[12] an online publication founded by former businessman Ron Unz that promotes anti-semitism, Holocaust denial, conspiracy theories, and white supremacist material.[13][14][15]

    Sailer is known for promoting racist bigotry and anti-immigrant theories[16] and has been credited with coining the pseudoscientific race theory known as "human biodiversity" in the 1990s, with the term later being used among the alt-right as a euphemism for scientific racism.[17][18][19][20] In his writing for VDARE, Sailer has described black people as tending to lack "native judgment".[21]
    Contents

    1 Personal life
    2 Writing career
    3 Influence
    4 Views and criticism
    4.1 The "Sailer Strategy"
    5 See also
    6 References
    7 External links

    I believe terms like "racist bigotry" contravene Wikipedia's guidelines. Likewise "white supremacy," "pseudo-scientific race theory." Here are Wikipedia's guidelines for biographies of living persons in a nutshell -

    Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research.

    As I said, anybody can enroll themselves as a Wikipedia editor. Personally I do not propose to participate in this project due to lack of energy based on extreme old age. For those with (relative) youth and time on their hands, it might be an entertaining project to become Wikipedia editors and re-edit problematic statements. For example, the article reads "He has a history of making racist statements[9]" which is a tendentious smear. One may re-edit to read "He has argued for contrarian views on American racial issues." On the other hand, Steve in fact does publish in VDare which avows a white nationalist stance. It may be an unfair prejudicial remark to point that out in that a contributor to a publication should not be inferred to hold all or any of the views of the publication's editor. The remark could be just struck out. I don't know whether anyone would even notice our re-edits. The original author of the entry may be retired or dead. On the other hand, it could become a battle-royal like entries on Palestine or Israel or the Armenian genocide. So one would have to re-edit with a light and judicious touch.

    The mechanics of re-editing on Wikipedia are easily mastered.

    Replies: @Anonymouse, @GeneralRipper

    He has a history of making racist statements and has been described as a white supremacist by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

    That’s pretty much the “litmus test” of good patriotic white American man, for my money…lol

    • Replies: @Anonymouse
    @GeneralRipper

    It is virtually impossible to sue the Wikipedia Foundation for libel or defamation.

    Replies: @Curle

  86. @Anon
    @Anonymous


    People are just talking in circles because no one has any idea what to do, and missing or intentionally ignoring where certain trends are heading is one consequence of that.
     
    What trends are you referring to and where would you say they are heading? Do you have any idea what to do?

    Replies: @AnonymousNameChange

    For one, the significance of technological progression and consolidation with the uniparty is something that is being seriously underestimated. Many people realize that this is happening and may discuss it on some level, but the current extent and its seemingly inevitable evolution (and faster than you’d think) and implications don’t receive the attention they should. Maybe too unpleasant or steeped in sci-fi. And no, I really don’t have any idea what to do about that or other challenging aspects of our current situation. I’m just making some observations and critiques about the state of discussion in these spheres. Not particularly helpful probably, and I think that Steve and the commenters here are generally great, just throwing stuff out there.

  87. @vinteuil
    @Anonymous

    Can someone please translate this interesting post into English?

    Replies: @J.Ross, @jon

    In the beginning, iSteve was a redpill – waking people up to the reality that they weren’t being allowed to see. It felt like there was still time, and that we knew the answers, so we could all point and laugh at the silliness.
    Now, it’s a blackpill – each new post is another piece of an endless series of demoralizing psychological beat downs. It feels like it’s too late, and nobody has any good answers, so we just engage in infighting over who is at fault, or debate whether we should quietly disengage and walk away or burn the whole fucking thing down on our way out.

    • Replies: @very very old statistician
    @jon

    Every 100 years the world is an entirely different place. The nerds of the 50s had to work out and buy expensive clothes to be cool in the 70s, but the nerds of the 70s only had to buy a turtleneck sweater to be cool in the 90s. Those are 20 year gaps - now imagine what a 100 year gap can do ....

    The average Nigerian 20 something female can be almost as cute, today in the 2020s (better cosmetics, and lots of other specific changes in the visual arts) as the average American 20 something female in the 70s ---- if you don't get that, you are low T.

    If Trump had fired Fauci, he would have had 2 terms. Trump has a lot more going for him in the leadership department than I do, but if I were on Patton's staff before and during the beginning of the Battle of the Bulge, and had our princely little Olympic equestrian listened to me, there actually would not have been a "battle" of the Bulge -

    and don't get me started on other small mistakes by great men (Grant could have shaved 6 months off the Virginia campaign if only ..... but hey I am not getting paid for this.....)

    Let not your heart be troubled -

    the world belongs to people who know how to do what is right. It always has and always will. Do what you can to make the world a better place. There is room in this world for everyone to be happy with the gifts God gave them. And if there isn't, there are people who know how to make sure there is ---- human biology is sort of hard to understand, but once you understand it, the world is your oyster, and lots of things that seemed to be hard to live with no longer are all that hard to live with.

    If I were in a good mood tonight I would give you a few stock picks, but ....

    what has anyone here ever done for me here that I should be so kind (just kidding, I was thrilled the first time Sailer asked for bitcoin contributions --- it was his idea, and I was glad to see that)

    look for people who, like me, are the opposite of black pillers. Be nice to them.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @anonymous, @vinteuil

    , @vinteuil
    @jon


    In the beginning, iSteve was a redpill – waking people up to the reality that they weren’t being allowed to see. It felt like there was still time, and that we knew the answers, so we could all point and laugh at the silliness.

    Now, it’s a blackpill – each new post is another piece of an endless series of demoralizing psychological beat downs. It feels like it’s too late, and nobody has any good answers, so we just engage in infighting over who is at fault, or debate whether we should quietly disengage and walk away or burn the whole fucking thing down on our way out.
     

    OK, thanks.

    I think that's more or less what Curtis Yarvin is saying, now, on his Substack.

  88. @Anon

    That said, why isn’t this survey even mentioned in the Wikipedia article about me?
     
    Would it be difficult for one of us to edit Wikipedia to make its article on Steve more complete? Do they allow that?

    Replies: @James Speaks, @ic1000, @Anonymouse, @Paperback Writer, @Bill Jones, @jon

    There is an alternative to wikipedia – infogalactic.com. It’s not much now, but it could be if more people got involved.

  89. @vhrm
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Agree with most of that, though the line is different on different variables even if I don't know where.
    For example, the large majority are relatively sane like 95+%

    clean: 80%
    intelligent: 50%?? (perception of this depends on one's own level and what purpose ones talking about; )

    nice: ??
    reasonable: ??
    reasonably rational: ??


    We should be preserved and protected. Instead, we are being shamed and eliminated.
     
    Forgive them for they know not what they do, at least most of them.

    empirically informed rationalism, with tolerance for different views and not hating people who hate you, etc. is in short supply many places, including very often in these comments pages. Yeah, it's frustrating, but just like with "terrorists", if we let them demoralize us or become overly harsh ourselves in our response then they win.

    Other than the trans people, most on the other side who write papers and articles are also smart, sane and clean as much as we roll out eyes at them. They just hold different views. Does that matter when they or someone they motivate punches me in the face of gets me fired for pregnant reasons? idk, but just saying they're "idiots" doesn't reflect reality. Neither that they're "evil". The cast majority of them simply don't know the facts.

    On HBD "we" have the advantage that it is true. Science has been confirming it for decades and there's no indication that that will (or can) change in the future.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Does that matter when they or someone they motivate punches me in the face of gets me fired for pregnant reasons? idk, but just saying they’re “idiots” doesn’t reflect reality. Neither that they’re “evil”. The cast majority of them simply don’t know the facts.

    Starting with the fact of laws against assault and battery. There’s more here than “They just hold different views.”

    Unless the view you refer to is “The end justifies the means.”

  90. @ic1000
    @Anon

    > [Is it difficult] to edit Wikipedia to make its article on Steve more complete? Do they allow that?

    [408], it's super-easy to correct or expand almost any Wikipedia article. You just do it -- you don't even have to sign up for an account.

    The system works great when the topic is obscure and doesn't attract passions. Wikipedia has good and reliable descriptions of the opening of the proto-Atlantic, the Battle of the Somme, and Ice Cube's career(s).

    However.

    Wikipedia is designed to be resilient to the vandalism that this structure invites. When you edit Ice Cube's article to state that his first hit was in 1916, the system automatically notifies those Ice-Cube-interested editors who have asked to be kept current with changes. One of them will "revert" the article to its prior, correct condition, often within seconds. This can lead to "edit wars," and Wiki has policies for that, too. Vandals get beaten down.

    Most Wikipedia editors are leftists. At every step up the chain through more-committed editors to admins and above, the progressivism and wokism becomes more pronounced. So almost all edit wars end with politically correct text holding the field.

    To the Wikirati, editing the Steve Sailer to paint a truer portrait of the man and his writings is indistinguishable from vandalism, and they handle it the same way.

    Now and then, a well-meaning person will start a journey through the looking glass by submitting a Narrative-nonconforming edit. Occasionally, the edit war ends with a correction to a falsehood or misinterpretation. By design, the cost is always high.

    Replies: @anon, @Bardon Kaldian, @Lot, @Anonymouse, @Reg Cæsar, @Curle

    This can lead to “edit wars…”

    Pi Day 2019 was particularly active for Steve’s page.

  91. @Anonymous
    @vhrm

    Thanks for the response. I think a big part of the issue is that people in positions of influence do not want to be redpilled. In general, most people do not want to be redpilled. What possible motivations do they have to be? What are the rewards and what are the punishments?

    I've had these conversations and debates with goodthinking people from all walks of life. In the vast majority of cases, it does not matter how irrefutable your evidence is, how convincing your rhetoric, or how many times you repeat the process. This fits into the politics being downstream from culture thing. The reality is that pretty much all aspects of culture are dominated by your ideological adversaries, and there are vanishingly few ways to gain or maintain cultural influence if you are going to say something that is actually controversial.

    The facts have always been what they are, and yet the losses keep on piling up. I think this side of the ideological sphere actually won many arguments from 2010 to 2016. Lots of people who were willing to be redpilled were redpilled, mildly at least. Getting Trump elected was an impressive feat, but we saw what happened next. He was always a flawed vehicle, and the system dropped the mask a bit more to reveal how Power actually works. Power is flexing really hard right now, but it will probably come to look soft in time.

    There are plenty of people who understand that the system is not playing around anymore. Plenty of smart, well-meaning people are rightfully worried and do not see solutions to these issues that have positive outcomes. People are just talking in circles because no one has any idea what to do, and missing or intentionally ignoring where certain trends are heading is one consequence of that.

    Replies: @Anon, @vhrm, @anonymous

    I think a big part of the issue is that people in positions of influence do not want to be redpilled. In general, most people do not want to be redpilled. What possible motivations do they have to be? What are the rewards and what are the punishments?

    I’m not talking about people in positions of influence, I’m talking about “think globally, act locally” as the environmentalists used to say.

    Make sure your friends (at least those you deem to have a capacity to understand) know that the science exists for the hbd stuff so that next time there’s a diversity browbeating at work they can notice the misinformation. Maybe if they’re pushed to make a poor hire “for diversity” they’ll act on their reservations instead of blame their reservations on their own hidden racism.

    Same when they get some insane policy proposal from their kid’s school or deal with their teachers etc.

    Also, especially for people in tech/science/history/law being red-pilled is not really optional because their brains can’t entirely reject compelling true arguments even if they want to. That doesn’t mean that they’ll immediately (or ever) turn into crusaders for the cause, but if you point someone to the US PISA test performance broken down by race, or the analogy of intelligence and height differences between populations (while assuring them that g-factor and iq are fairly robust and we’ll accepted by even mainstream psychology and have been for decades) , or the whole thing about finalists in the 100m in the Olympics… their brains won’t be able to reject these examples. And if/when they go look into it they’ll see that it all generally checks out.

    Basically once they see it, they can’t easily unsee it and it will affect their thinking and, eventually, their choices.

    • Replies: @AnonymousNameChange
    @vhrm

    I think you're right that building strength at the local level is the best thing that can be done right now. Having those valuable connections is really important just on a maintaining-humanity basis. I would raise the concern that the system is also thinking globally and acting locally, meaning: there is a real effort to destroy localism by globally minded thinkers and that effort is showing itself to be very effective. That actually increases the value of these local bonds and initiatives, but they are difficult to achieve and orchestrate amid the power and continued evolution of the globo corporate techno media finance apparatus. Just as an example, pick a highly "conservative" part of the country, then find the nearest large college and take a sampling of the political ideological skew. We all understand that the impact of globos acting locally has been profound.

    As for people in the tech/science/history/law professions being at least tangentially red-pilled by virtue of constitution, I can say that my personal experience with those individuals is very different. I think the political evolutions in each of these fields and resultant effects provide pretty good counterevidence that these people are broadly inclined to some degree of redpillism. It's something that probably doesn't get near enough attention, but even most people who are high IQ do not come close to being "deep thinkers" or otherwise inclined to critical thinking beyond surface or preapproved levels. Most of the high IQ people in these fields tend to be pretty singleminded. They are careerists with above-average problem solving skills and an almost reptilian predisposition to self interest in the face of anything that might jeopardize even some small element of their preservation.

    I have, in my own estimation, done an excellent job of presenting controversial information to high IQ people in these fields. I have presented essentially irrefutable collections of evidence (after going through the course and various branches of the arguments) and done so with a real penchant for rhetoric. It may not come across here because I am being a bit wanky and even self satirizing a bit, but I am typically very persuasive in person. Generally speaking, it does not matter. I have gotten people to admit the reality of controversial premises and pushed the conversation to the point of discussing the practical implications and how certain realities might be addressed to create reasonably fair and beneficial societal outcomes. It does not matter. Inevitably, their positions snap back to being whatever they were before because there is a quality inherent to their constitutions that supersedes being high IQ.

    As far as they see it, they have nothing to gain and everything to lose from being redpilled. For most I do not think it is even a conscious decision. It is simply effective functioning of the lizard brain. To the extent it's possible to briefly shake these high IQ professionals into confronting things they'd rather avoid, there is often evidence of clear physical discomfort. They solve the problem by ignoring it again as soon as possible, and they snap right back to doing what feels intuitively necessary to improve their station.

    Replies: @vhrm

  92. Numbers are far too low to take serious as a measure of accuracy. n = 10 for Karlin and n = 26 for Sailer. What this survey actually shows is very few experts read this website which isn’t a surprise. I think there are also issues with what the paper considers ‘expert’, was apparently not based on PhD

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Oliver D. Smith

    27 experts had an opinion on my accuracy (mean rating 7.4 on a 1 to 9 scale, 2.25 standard deviation), while 58 had an opinion on the New York Times' accuracy (mean 3.8, s.d. of 2.19).

    Replies: @Anon Chief, @Oliver D. Smith

  93. @Oliver D. Smith
    Numbers are far too low to take serious as a measure of accuracy. n = 10 for Karlin and n = 26 for Sailer. What this survey actually shows is very few experts read this website which isn't a surprise. I think there are also issues with what the paper considers 'expert', was apparently not based on PhD

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    27 experts had an opinion on my accuracy (mean rating 7.4 on a 1 to 9 scale, 2.25 standard deviation), while 58 had an opinion on the New York Times’ accuracy (mean 3.8, s.d. of 2.19).

    • Replies: @Anon Chief
    @Steve Sailer

    Both English and Russian Wikipedia articles have the reference now, at the bottom of "Writing Career" section. Let's see which will last longer.

    , @Oliver D. Smith
    @Steve Sailer

    My mistake, 27 not 26.

    I'm not much familiar with your IQ writings only your posts on the categorisation of race where my disagreement becomes a splitter v lumper debate.

    Around 10-15 years ago I used the Stanley Marion Garn racial classification (= 9 races) and I used to debate even back then the people using the Rushton 3 race scheme (Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid) which I always thought was problematic; dumb in fact. Garn for example did not force Indians into Caucasoids, while he also had Polynesians and Micronesians as separate races. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Marion_Garn#Race

    It was then about 10 years back I realised 9 races still lump together too heterogenous populations. I wouldn't now cluster populations into sub-continental populations like Garn did. Since I only now recognise much smaller population divisions it then becomes a semantics issue whether to call those 'races' which traditionally came to only mean continental or broad divisions, however the latter is disputed. 'Micro race realism'?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @mikemikev

  94. @Steve Sailer
    @Oliver D. Smith

    27 experts had an opinion on my accuracy (mean rating 7.4 on a 1 to 9 scale, 2.25 standard deviation), while 58 had an opinion on the New York Times' accuracy (mean 3.8, s.d. of 2.19).

    Replies: @Anon Chief, @Oliver D. Smith

    Both English and Russian Wikipedia articles have the reference now, at the bottom of “Writing Career” section. Let’s see which will last longer.

  95. Oliver D. Smith says:
    @Steve Sailer
    @Oliver D. Smith

    27 experts had an opinion on my accuracy (mean rating 7.4 on a 1 to 9 scale, 2.25 standard deviation), while 58 had an opinion on the New York Times' accuracy (mean 3.8, s.d. of 2.19).

    Replies: @Anon Chief, @Oliver D. Smith

    My mistake, 27 not 26.

    I’m not much familiar with your IQ writings only your posts on the categorisation of race where my disagreement becomes a splitter v lumper debate.

    Around 10-15 years ago I used the Stanley Marion Garn racial classification (= 9 races) and I used to debate even back then the people using the Rushton 3 race scheme (Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid) which I always thought was problematic; dumb in fact. Garn for example did not force Indians into Caucasoids, while he also had Polynesians and Micronesians as separate races. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Marion_Garn#Race

    It was then about 10 years back I realised 9 races still lump together too heterogenous populations. I wouldn’t now cluster populations into sub-continental populations like Garn did. Since I only now recognise much smaller population divisions it then becomes a semantics issue whether to call those ‘races’ which traditionally came to only mean continental or broad divisions, however the latter is disputed. ‘Micro race realism’?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Splitting and lumping both have their uses.

    I mostly just use how the federal government asks Americans to self-identify in terms of race/ethnicity, not because it's inarguably ideal but because

    A. There is vastly more data organized this way than other ways
    B. How the government categorizes race usually has a big effect in the long run on how people think (i.e., social constructionism).

    , @mikemikev
    @Oliver D. Smith

    The fault lines between major races are more significant than those within them.

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

  96. Anon[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon
    @Neoconned

    Character is orthogonal to IQ.

    Replies: @Anon

    Character is orthogonal to IQ.

    Haha.

    But seriously, this is not true. There’s a weak positive correlation. This has been studied since the 1930s.

    Most of the “smart people are …” stereotypes have turned out not to be true. Smart people tend, more than would happen randomly, to be socially adept and likeable, attractive, good leaders, creative, taller, and so on.

    Of course, some smart people have low character. That at least is true.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Anon

    But seriously, this is not true. There’s a weak positive correlation. This has been studied since the 1930s.

    Do you have a reference?

    Smart people tend, more than would happen randomly, to be socially adept and likeable, attractive, good leaders, creative, taller, and so on.

    None of those things are character.

    Replies: @res

    , @pirelli
    @Anon

    I think there’s a selection bias at work. Say you’re a person of below average IQ. The high IQ people *that you know* may indeed have, on average, worse character than the people of your own IQ. But you have to remember that these are just the high IQ people who happen to interact with you, meaning they’re more likely to be on your social level, so it’s not really surprising they’d have poor character traits dragging down their social status, which might otherwise be higher in light of their high IQ.

    Same thing for people at the upper end of the bell curve. The average-to-below-average IQ people *that they know* are probably more likely than the high IQ people to possess admirable character traits — again, that’s how they got to that level.

  97. @jon
    @vinteuil

    In the beginning, iSteve was a redpill - waking people up to the reality that they weren't being allowed to see. It felt like there was still time, and that we knew the answers, so we could all point and laugh at the silliness.
    Now, it's a blackpill - each new post is another piece of an endless series of demoralizing psychological beat downs. It feels like it's too late, and nobody has any good answers, so we just engage in infighting over who is at fault, or debate whether we should quietly disengage and walk away or burn the whole fucking thing down on our way out.

    Replies: @very very old statistician, @vinteuil

    Every 100 years the world is an entirely different place. The nerds of the 50s had to work out and buy expensive clothes to be cool in the 70s, but the nerds of the 70s only had to buy a turtleneck sweater to be cool in the 90s. Those are 20 year gaps – now imagine what a 100 year gap can do ….

    The average Nigerian 20 something female can be almost as cute, today in the 2020s (better cosmetics, and lots of other specific changes in the visual arts) as the average American 20 something female in the 70s —- if you don’t get that, you are low T.

    If Trump had fired Fauci, he would have had 2 terms. Trump has a lot more going for him in the leadership department than I do, but if I were on Patton’s staff before and during the beginning of the Battle of the Bulge, and had our princely little Olympic equestrian listened to me, there actually would not have been a “battle” of the Bulge –

    and don’t get me started on other small mistakes by great men (Grant could have shaved 6 months off the Virginia campaign if only ….. but hey I am not getting paid for this…..)

    Let not your heart be troubled –

    the world belongs to people who know how to do what is right. It always has and always will. Do what you can to make the world a better place. There is room in this world for everyone to be happy with the gifts God gave them. And if there isn’t, there are people who know how to make sure there is —- human biology is sort of hard to understand, but once you understand it, the world is your oyster, and lots of things that seemed to be hard to live with no longer are all that hard to live with.

    If I were in a good mood tonight I would give you a few stock picks, but ….

    what has anyone here ever done for me here that I should be so kind (just kidding, I was thrilled the first time Sailer asked for bitcoin contributions — it was his idea, and I was glad to see that)

    look for people who, like me, are the opposite of black pillers. Be nice to them.

    • LOL: Buzz Mohawk, vinteuil
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @very very old statistician


    I was thrilled the first time Sailer asked for bitcoin contributions — it was his idea, and I was glad to see that
     
    How big is Bitcoin's gold reserve?

    Replies: @very old statistician

    , @anonymous
    @very very old statistician


    and don’t get me started on other small mistakes by great men (Grant could have shaved 6 months off the Virginia campaign if only ….. but hey I am not getting paid for this…..)

    Let not your heart be troubled –

    the world belongs to people who know how to do what is right. It always has and always will. Do what you can to make the world a better place. There is room in this world for everyone to be happy with the gifts God gave them. And if there isn’t, there are people who know how to make sure there is —- human biology is sort of hard to understand, but once you understand it, the world is your oyster, and lots of things that seemed to be hard to live with no longer are all that hard to live with.

    If I were in a good mood tonight I would give you a few stock picks, but ….

    what has anyone here ever done for me here that I should be so kind (just kidding, I was thrilled the first time Sailer asked for bitcoin contributions — it was his idea, and I was glad to see that)

    look for people who, like me, are the opposite of black pillers. Be nice to them.
     
    Be nice to people with clear borderline narcissistic personality disorder?

    That's not how I roll. I'm rarely rude to you, but I will ignore you more often than not. It's the only strategy that works. Being nice to you folks is always a bad idea. It only prolongs the inevitable.

    Replies: @very old statistician

    , @vinteuil
    @very very old statistician


    what has anyone here ever done for me
     
    Well, I subscribed to your substack, for a year.
  98. @Kratoklastes
    @Anonymous

    This is so short-sighted, which is strange.

    While it's true that individual Lightfoots are largely protected from the deleterious effects of their behaviour, reality will come for them qua class eventually.

    It has always happened: the parasitoids expand their power until they over-reach, and shortly (in historical terms) after they build a Versailles to bask in self-glorification funded by parasitoidism, there's a bloodbath when reality very definitely comes for them.

    This is not an episode of the Big Bang Theory, wherein people pretending to be smart 'zinger' their way to solutions in 21 minutes (plus ads). Things of great social moment do not resolve themselves according to the timetable of the least patient.

    The intellectual heavyweights of the Left have collectively understood this for a very long time; the big end of town in the finance sector, likewise. They identified what they believed were the "commanding heights" that were relevant to their objectives, and they developed an implemented a multigenerational plan to plant their flag on those heights. (The finance guys got their way so rapidly that 'generational' is more apt than multigenerational).

    I've long believed that the Left's global leadership does actually have humanity's best interests as an objective, but that they fail to grasp that the means they decided on were incorrect (and remain incorrect).

    That in turn is because the means were decided on, in an age where quantitative analyses were poorly performed - and that continues to this day, because of institutional rigidities: the Left is still overtly hostile to economic quant. That is quite funny considering their evangelical obsession with climate modelling, which is several orders of magnitude more uncertain.

    Given their hostility to actually trying to pin down the numbers, for most of the last century the Left made their 'targeting decisions' based on "duelling essays", where verbosity can be deployed to mask bullshit.

    So it's no surprise that they picked the wrong means, and wound up interfering in things far too broadly (which is inefficient, and slows economic progress... which is critical to the longevity of power, because peple do not like going backwards).

    That was true of the Left everywhere - i.e., in the West, in the Soviet Union, and in China - until Deng Xiaoping: his reforms, and the stellar performance of China as an economy since those reforms 'bit', should really be the focus on the attention of strategists from all sides of politics.

    It has to be accepted that in the transitional stages, Deng had to do some standard "Third World strongman" stuff - like making an example of the Gang of Four - but that was mostly to signal seriousness to the existing power structure to prevent them from undermining Deng's plans.

    There are very strong parallels to US foreign policy - where it was impossible to separate smart analysts from bullshit-artists and grifters for a century, and the bullshit-artists wound up in the ascendant (and are still there). Serious quant-based foreign-policy analysis is still in its infancy, but it's now at non-zero levels and has some institutional heft. (To be fair: most foreign policy analysis is just part of general political grift and graft; it's not clear that the major institutional players are remotely interested in the 'right' answer for a nation, because it might reduce the flow of funds).

    Quant-based strategy generally wins, because it's much easier to spot the holes in an argument and to assess the how 'deviations' from key premises affect the core argument: in other words, it's possible to do a coherent and systematic sensitivity analysis. If everyone has the same objective (i.e., to find the best answer), quant converges to that answer very quickly. That's not possible with essays.

    Galbraith's drivel the other day was a case in point - it was classic "hand-waving essay-writer" nonsense that purported to show that a quant analysis was wrong... with literally zero objective evidence (and certainly no decent quantified evidence): the entire essay was like a 3rd quintile undergraduate saying "Well it's all based on assumptions" as if that's an end to the argument.

    Contrast that with financialisation. The finance guys got more achieved between 1990 and 2008 (when it was made absolutely clear that the entire system now existed for their pleasure), than the Left achieved during the entire Long March Through The Institutions.

    That's because the finance guys made their targeting decisions quantitatively - they didn't give a fuck about placing "like minds" in primary-school teaching, because it was completely peripheral to their main goal. Unfortunately their main goal had - and has - fuck-all to do with what is socially optimal: their main goal is to enrich themselves. That's fair enough, because they don't pretend otherwise - but the Western political class has the same goal but pretends it doesn't.

    Replies: @anon, @AnonymousNameChange

    I’ve long believed that the Left’s global leadership does actually have humanity’s best interests as an objective,

    Please elucidate on this point. Thanks.

  99. @Oliver D. Smith
    @Steve Sailer

    My mistake, 27 not 26.

    I'm not much familiar with your IQ writings only your posts on the categorisation of race where my disagreement becomes a splitter v lumper debate.

    Around 10-15 years ago I used the Stanley Marion Garn racial classification (= 9 races) and I used to debate even back then the people using the Rushton 3 race scheme (Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid) which I always thought was problematic; dumb in fact. Garn for example did not force Indians into Caucasoids, while he also had Polynesians and Micronesians as separate races. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Marion_Garn#Race

    It was then about 10 years back I realised 9 races still lump together too heterogenous populations. I wouldn't now cluster populations into sub-continental populations like Garn did. Since I only now recognise much smaller population divisions it then becomes a semantics issue whether to call those 'races' which traditionally came to only mean continental or broad divisions, however the latter is disputed. 'Micro race realism'?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @mikemikev

    Splitting and lumping both have their uses.

    I mostly just use how the federal government asks Americans to self-identify in terms of race/ethnicity, not because it’s inarguably ideal but because

    A. There is vastly more data organized this way than other ways
    B. How the government categorizes race usually has a big effect in the long run on how people think (i.e., social constructionism).

  100. anon[446] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    @anon


    Character is orthogonal to IQ.
     
    Haha.

    But seriously, this is not true. There's a weak positive correlation. This has been studied since the 1930s.

    Most of the "smart people are ..." stereotypes have turned out not to be true. Smart people tend, more than would happen randomly, to be socially adept and likeable, attractive, good leaders, creative, taller, and so on.

    Of course, some smart people have low character. That at least is true.

    Replies: @anon, @pirelli

    But seriously, this is not true. There’s a weak positive correlation. This has been studied since the 1930s.

    Do you have a reference?

    Smart people tend, more than would happen randomly, to be socially adept and likeable, attractive, good leaders, creative, taller, and so on.

    None of those things are character.

    • Replies: @res
    @anon

    How about criminality? (if you don't like that as a character correlate, please suggest a better measure) From pp. 569-572 of Arthur Jensen's The g Factor. (I think that section is worth reading in full)


    There is a negative correlation ( - .3 to - .5 in various studies, slightly more so for verbal than for nonverbal tests) between IQ and measures of delinquency and criminality, such as police and court records and self-reports of criminal activity. Delinquents and adult criminals typically average ten to twelve IQ points below law-abiding persons living in similar circumstances. Juvenile delinquents who become adult criminals have lower IQs than delinquents who do not become criminals. Recidivists have lower IQs than one-time offenders. In home environments or in neighborhoods that are conducive to delinquent or criminal behavior, an above-average IQ acts as a protective factor against the influences toward antisocial behavior.
     
    Some details of the relationship.

    The above-mentioned correlation between crime and IQ is clearly nonlinear. That is, the rate of serious crimes against persons, such as robbery, assault, rape, and homicide, is very low and nearly constant across IQ levels above IQ 100, but below IQ 100 the rate rises steeply, and then declines rapidly below IQ 70. The peak crime rate occurs in the IQ range from 75 to 90, with the highest rate for violent crime in the IQ range from 80 to 90. The vast majority of both petty crimes and violent crimes are committed by the segment of the population ranging from IQ 60 to 100. (So- called white-collar criminals and leaders of organized crime generally have IQs above 100.)
     
    Worth noting IMHO:

    sociologist Robert Gordon has coined the term IQ-commensurability for his discovery that nearly all of the mean black-white differences in delinquency and crime rates can be accounted for in terms of the mean black-white difference in IQ.36 Within any given segment of the IQ distribution, the black and white crime rates are approximately the same, so much so as to leave little, if any, variance needing to be explained by any other variables.
     
    Gordon gives IQ-commensurability details for the following items in his 1997 paper: juvenile delinquency, adult crime, single parenthood, HIV infection, poverty, belief in conspiracy rumors, and key opinions from polls about the O.J. Simpson trial and the earlier Tawana Brawley case.
    Everyday Life as an Intelligence Test: Effects of Intelligence and Intelligence Context
    https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-38920-007
    Full text at https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.372.8122&rep=rep1&type=pdf
    Emil gives an overview of Gordon's model here: https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2012/03/2752/

    Some possible causes of the IQ-criminality relationship (back to The g Factor).

    One hypothesis is that low IQ causes difficulty in school and in failure to receive the rewards of scholastic success, which, in turn, lowers both self-esteem and the respect of one’s peers;
    ...
    Another hypothesis posits a more direct causal relationship between low IQ and most forms of criminal behavior. It claims that low IQ individuals have a short time horizon', that is, they are more present-oriented and more lacking in foresight than most people. Persons with low IQ fail to adequately and realistically imagine the future consequences of their actions.
    ...
    A certain level of mental maturity is necessary for the kind of reasoning that underlies moral and ethical behavior.
     
    The whole of Chapter 14 The g Nexus is worth a look if you are interested in this sort of thing. Much more in the rest of the book as well. It is pretty much the best single source for in-depth information about IQ.

    Replies: @anon

  101. @Anon
    @anon


    Character is orthogonal to IQ.
     
    Haha.

    But seriously, this is not true. There's a weak positive correlation. This has been studied since the 1930s.

    Most of the "smart people are ..." stereotypes have turned out not to be true. Smart people tend, more than would happen randomly, to be socially adept and likeable, attractive, good leaders, creative, taller, and so on.

    Of course, some smart people have low character. That at least is true.

    Replies: @anon, @pirelli

    I think there’s a selection bias at work. Say you’re a person of below average IQ. The high IQ people *that you know* may indeed have, on average, worse character than the people of your own IQ. But you have to remember that these are just the high IQ people who happen to interact with you, meaning they’re more likely to be on your social level, so it’s not really surprising they’d have poor character traits dragging down their social status, which might otherwise be higher in light of their high IQ.

    Same thing for people at the upper end of the bell curve. The average-to-below-average IQ people *that they know* are probably more likely than the high IQ people to possess admirable character traits — again, that’s how they got to that level.

    • Agree: res
  102. @very very old statistician
    @jon

    Every 100 years the world is an entirely different place. The nerds of the 50s had to work out and buy expensive clothes to be cool in the 70s, but the nerds of the 70s only had to buy a turtleneck sweater to be cool in the 90s. Those are 20 year gaps - now imagine what a 100 year gap can do ....

    The average Nigerian 20 something female can be almost as cute, today in the 2020s (better cosmetics, and lots of other specific changes in the visual arts) as the average American 20 something female in the 70s ---- if you don't get that, you are low T.

    If Trump had fired Fauci, he would have had 2 terms. Trump has a lot more going for him in the leadership department than I do, but if I were on Patton's staff before and during the beginning of the Battle of the Bulge, and had our princely little Olympic equestrian listened to me, there actually would not have been a "battle" of the Bulge -

    and don't get me started on other small mistakes by great men (Grant could have shaved 6 months off the Virginia campaign if only ..... but hey I am not getting paid for this.....)

    Let not your heart be troubled -

    the world belongs to people who know how to do what is right. It always has and always will. Do what you can to make the world a better place. There is room in this world for everyone to be happy with the gifts God gave them. And if there isn't, there are people who know how to make sure there is ---- human biology is sort of hard to understand, but once you understand it, the world is your oyster, and lots of things that seemed to be hard to live with no longer are all that hard to live with.

    If I were in a good mood tonight I would give you a few stock picks, but ....

    what has anyone here ever done for me here that I should be so kind (just kidding, I was thrilled the first time Sailer asked for bitcoin contributions --- it was his idea, and I was glad to see that)

    look for people who, like me, are the opposite of black pillers. Be nice to them.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @anonymous, @vinteuil

    I was thrilled the first time Sailer asked for bitcoin contributions — it was his idea, and I was glad to see that

    How big is Bitcoin’s gold reserve?

    • Replies: @very old statistician
    @Reg Cæsar

    the question you want to ask is actually this --- NOT how big is such and such a gold reserve, but rather:

    given a certain amount of equivalent gold reserve, held in another substance, how many minutes would it take your faithful minions to switch from one to the other if the need arises?

    and, of course, if you have no faithful minions, well, find some.

    Free advice. Not sure why I am being so helpful tonight (the Utz site has not actually been all that kind to me over the years, all things considered), but it is what it is ---- just saying.

  103. @Reg Cæsar
    @very very old statistician


    I was thrilled the first time Sailer asked for bitcoin contributions — it was his idea, and I was glad to see that
     
    How big is Bitcoin's gold reserve?

    Replies: @very old statistician

    the question you want to ask is actually this — NOT how big is such and such a gold reserve, but rather:

    given a certain amount of equivalent gold reserve, held in another substance, how many minutes would it take your faithful minions to switch from one to the other if the need arises?

    and, of course, if you have no faithful minions, well, find some.

    Free advice. Not sure why I am being so helpful tonight (the Utz site has not actually been all that kind to me over the years, all things considered), but it is what it is —- just saying.

  104. @GeneralRipper
    @Anonymouse


    He has a history of making racist statements and has been described as a white supremacist by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
     
    That's pretty much the "litmus test" of good patriotic white American man, for my money...lol

    Replies: @Anonymouse

    It is virtually impossible to sue the Wikipedia Foundation for libel or defamation.

    • Replies: @Curle
    @Anonymouse

    Care to elaborate?

  105. Who Is the Most Accurate Media Source on Intelligence?

  106. anonymous[194] • Disclaimer says:
    @very very old statistician
    @jon

    Every 100 years the world is an entirely different place. The nerds of the 50s had to work out and buy expensive clothes to be cool in the 70s, but the nerds of the 70s only had to buy a turtleneck sweater to be cool in the 90s. Those are 20 year gaps - now imagine what a 100 year gap can do ....

    The average Nigerian 20 something female can be almost as cute, today in the 2020s (better cosmetics, and lots of other specific changes in the visual arts) as the average American 20 something female in the 70s ---- if you don't get that, you are low T.

    If Trump had fired Fauci, he would have had 2 terms. Trump has a lot more going for him in the leadership department than I do, but if I were on Patton's staff before and during the beginning of the Battle of the Bulge, and had our princely little Olympic equestrian listened to me, there actually would not have been a "battle" of the Bulge -

    and don't get me started on other small mistakes by great men (Grant could have shaved 6 months off the Virginia campaign if only ..... but hey I am not getting paid for this.....)

    Let not your heart be troubled -

    the world belongs to people who know how to do what is right. It always has and always will. Do what you can to make the world a better place. There is room in this world for everyone to be happy with the gifts God gave them. And if there isn't, there are people who know how to make sure there is ---- human biology is sort of hard to understand, but once you understand it, the world is your oyster, and lots of things that seemed to be hard to live with no longer are all that hard to live with.

    If I were in a good mood tonight I would give you a few stock picks, but ....

    what has anyone here ever done for me here that I should be so kind (just kidding, I was thrilled the first time Sailer asked for bitcoin contributions --- it was his idea, and I was glad to see that)

    look for people who, like me, are the opposite of black pillers. Be nice to them.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @anonymous, @vinteuil

    and don’t get me started on other small mistakes by great men (Grant could have shaved 6 months off the Virginia campaign if only ….. but hey I am not getting paid for this…..)

    Let not your heart be troubled –

    the world belongs to people who know how to do what is right. It always has and always will. Do what you can to make the world a better place. There is room in this world for everyone to be happy with the gifts God gave them. And if there isn’t, there are people who know how to make sure there is —- human biology is sort of hard to understand, but once you understand it, the world is your oyster, and lots of things that seemed to be hard to live with no longer are all that hard to live with.

    If I were in a good mood tonight I would give you a few stock picks, but ….

    what has anyone here ever done for me here that I should be so kind (just kidding, I was thrilled the first time Sailer asked for bitcoin contributions — it was his idea, and I was glad to see that)

    look for people who, like me, are the opposite of black pillers. Be nice to them.

    Be nice to people with clear borderline narcissistic personality disorder?

    That’s not how I roll. I’m rarely rude to you, but I will ignore you more often than not. It’s the only strategy that works. Being nice to you folks is always a bad idea. It only prolongs the inevitable.

    • Replies: @very old statistician
    @anonymous

    Look up "Falstaffian pastiche", Mister Amateur Psychologist.

  107. @Oliver D. Smith
    @Steve Sailer

    My mistake, 27 not 26.

    I'm not much familiar with your IQ writings only your posts on the categorisation of race where my disagreement becomes a splitter v lumper debate.

    Around 10-15 years ago I used the Stanley Marion Garn racial classification (= 9 races) and I used to debate even back then the people using the Rushton 3 race scheme (Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid) which I always thought was problematic; dumb in fact. Garn for example did not force Indians into Caucasoids, while he also had Polynesians and Micronesians as separate races. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Marion_Garn#Race

    It was then about 10 years back I realised 9 races still lump together too heterogenous populations. I wouldn't now cluster populations into sub-continental populations like Garn did. Since I only now recognise much smaller population divisions it then becomes a semantics issue whether to call those 'races' which traditionally came to only mean continental or broad divisions, however the latter is disputed. 'Micro race realism'?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @mikemikev

    The fault lines between major races are more significant than those within them.

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    @mikemikev

    No. You've made that erroneous claim for many years; PRATT (point refuted a thousand times). Human genetic variation is continuous across geographic space; there are no 'fault lines'.

    https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/155454/fgene-07-00022-HTML/image_m/fgene-07-00022-g001.jpg


    Figure 1. (A) The effect of sampling strategies (adopted from Handley et al. 2007) [“Heterogeneous sampling can reveal genetic clusters that are biologically meaningless. The gradation in color from blue to orange represents a hypothetical situation of strictly continuous variation in allele frequencies. If sampling is heterogeneous (population samples represented here by circles) then the pattern of clinal variation can be mistaken for genetically distinct clusters (black ellipses)”] (Handley et al., 2007). (B) Global genetic diversity in humans are distributed in gradients among and within continents, emphasizes intercontinental variation
     
    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2016.00022/full#B114

    You then come back posting the same fallacy in an endless loop (explained in Fig. 1 above).

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

  108. @Kratoklastes
    @Anonymous

    This is so short-sighted, which is strange.

    While it's true that individual Lightfoots are largely protected from the deleterious effects of their behaviour, reality will come for them qua class eventually.

    It has always happened: the parasitoids expand their power until they over-reach, and shortly (in historical terms) after they build a Versailles to bask in self-glorification funded by parasitoidism, there's a bloodbath when reality very definitely comes for them.

    This is not an episode of the Big Bang Theory, wherein people pretending to be smart 'zinger' their way to solutions in 21 minutes (plus ads). Things of great social moment do not resolve themselves according to the timetable of the least patient.

    The intellectual heavyweights of the Left have collectively understood this for a very long time; the big end of town in the finance sector, likewise. They identified what they believed were the "commanding heights" that were relevant to their objectives, and they developed an implemented a multigenerational plan to plant their flag on those heights. (The finance guys got their way so rapidly that 'generational' is more apt than multigenerational).

    I've long believed that the Left's global leadership does actually have humanity's best interests as an objective, but that they fail to grasp that the means they decided on were incorrect (and remain incorrect).

    That in turn is because the means were decided on, in an age where quantitative analyses were poorly performed - and that continues to this day, because of institutional rigidities: the Left is still overtly hostile to economic quant. That is quite funny considering their evangelical obsession with climate modelling, which is several orders of magnitude more uncertain.

    Given their hostility to actually trying to pin down the numbers, for most of the last century the Left made their 'targeting decisions' based on "duelling essays", where verbosity can be deployed to mask bullshit.

    So it's no surprise that they picked the wrong means, and wound up interfering in things far too broadly (which is inefficient, and slows economic progress... which is critical to the longevity of power, because peple do not like going backwards).

    That was true of the Left everywhere - i.e., in the West, in the Soviet Union, and in China - until Deng Xiaoping: his reforms, and the stellar performance of China as an economy since those reforms 'bit', should really be the focus on the attention of strategists from all sides of politics.

    It has to be accepted that in the transitional stages, Deng had to do some standard "Third World strongman" stuff - like making an example of the Gang of Four - but that was mostly to signal seriousness to the existing power structure to prevent them from undermining Deng's plans.

    There are very strong parallels to US foreign policy - where it was impossible to separate smart analysts from bullshit-artists and grifters for a century, and the bullshit-artists wound up in the ascendant (and are still there). Serious quant-based foreign-policy analysis is still in its infancy, but it's now at non-zero levels and has some institutional heft. (To be fair: most foreign policy analysis is just part of general political grift and graft; it's not clear that the major institutional players are remotely interested in the 'right' answer for a nation, because it might reduce the flow of funds).

    Quant-based strategy generally wins, because it's much easier to spot the holes in an argument and to assess the how 'deviations' from key premises affect the core argument: in other words, it's possible to do a coherent and systematic sensitivity analysis. If everyone has the same objective (i.e., to find the best answer), quant converges to that answer very quickly. That's not possible with essays.

    Galbraith's drivel the other day was a case in point - it was classic "hand-waving essay-writer" nonsense that purported to show that a quant analysis was wrong... with literally zero objective evidence (and certainly no decent quantified evidence): the entire essay was like a 3rd quintile undergraduate saying "Well it's all based on assumptions" as if that's an end to the argument.

    Contrast that with financialisation. The finance guys got more achieved between 1990 and 2008 (when it was made absolutely clear that the entire system now existed for their pleasure), than the Left achieved during the entire Long March Through The Institutions.

    That's because the finance guys made their targeting decisions quantitatively - they didn't give a fuck about placing "like minds" in primary-school teaching, because it was completely peripheral to their main goal. Unfortunately their main goal had - and has - fuck-all to do with what is socially optimal: their main goal is to enrich themselves. That's fair enough, because they don't pretend otherwise - but the Western political class has the same goal but pretends it doesn't.

    Replies: @anon, @AnonymousNameChange

    I appreciate the response and think you’ve made a lot of good points, though I don’t think you adequately explained why my position is shortsighted. My general takeaway there is pendulum theory + increased prominence of quant analysis in politics, social ordering, and general problem solving.

    I think that the pendulum theory is basically irrelevant at this point and especially so for people in this political sphere. It’s more shortsighted to think that Team A or Team B can never reach a win state, particularly if that position is largely founded on a past that was very different.

    If we want to look at history as our basis, yes there have been plenty of swings and power is difficult to hold on to. However, there have also been more than enough instances of what basically amounts to total victory if we assess things in meaningful terms. If the U.S. collapses, for instance, I do not foresee a great reemergence of Native Americanism — its peoples or their respective ideas and cultures.

    In so far as overreach and realignments will happen and problems and conditions will inevitably change on an inter-generational timeline, I think that’s something that we all pretty much take as a given. That does not mean your goals, desires, and ideology will be advanced, in your own lifetime or far after it.

    I also think it’s a mistake to assume that quant-based strategy presents some kind of way out or isn’t already winning right now, being leveraged by the elites of course. Just because it’s dressed in the veneer of feelings, oppression, and primary school politics doesn’t mean that it isn’t happening. Again, the idea that the real elites are dangerously (to them) out of touch with reality is a fantasy. Things and people that look really stupid often serve their purpose, and it’s easy to miss that because there is a bigger a picture that plays out on a longer timeline. Sometimes they’re just stupid of course, but I think there is a temptation to fixate on that stupidity because the situation is worse than we’d like to admit.

  109. There’s a lengthy Talk page where editors and readers discuss potential changes. A lot of people think the page is unfair. And the History page shows there are people watching for edits as well as bots doing automated reverts.

  110. @vhrm
    @Anonymous


    I think a big part of the issue is that people in positions of influence do not want to be redpilled. In general, most people do not want to be redpilled. What possible motivations do they have to be? What are the rewards and what are the punishments?
     
    I'm not talking about people in positions of influence, I'm talking about "think globally, act locally" as the environmentalists used to say.

    Make sure your friends (at least those you deem to have a capacity to understand) know that the science exists for the hbd stuff so that next time there's a diversity browbeating at work they can notice the misinformation. Maybe if they're pushed to make a poor hire "for diversity" they'll act on their reservations instead of blame their reservations on their own hidden racism.

    Same when they get some insane policy proposal from their kid's school or deal with their teachers etc.

    Also, especially for people in tech/science/history/law being red-pilled is not really optional because their brains can't entirely reject compelling true arguments even if they want to. That doesn't mean that they'll immediately (or ever) turn into crusaders for the cause, but if you point someone to the US PISA test performance broken down by race, or the analogy of intelligence and height differences between populations (while assuring them that g-factor and iq are fairly robust and we'll accepted by even mainstream psychology and have been for decades) , or the whole thing about finalists in the 100m in the Olympics... their brains won't be able to reject these examples. And if/when they go look into it they'll see that it all generally checks out.

    Basically once they see it, they can't easily unsee it and it will affect their thinking and, eventually, their choices.

    Replies: @AnonymousNameChange

    I think you’re right that building strength at the local level is the best thing that can be done right now. Having those valuable connections is really important just on a maintaining-humanity basis. I would raise the concern that the system is also thinking globally and acting locally, meaning: there is a real effort to destroy localism by globally minded thinkers and that effort is showing itself to be very effective. That actually increases the value of these local bonds and initiatives, but they are difficult to achieve and orchestrate amid the power and continued evolution of the globo corporate techno media finance apparatus. Just as an example, pick a highly “conservative” part of the country, then find the nearest large college and take a sampling of the political ideological skew. We all understand that the impact of globos acting locally has been profound.

    [MORE]

    As for people in the tech/science/history/law professions being at least tangentially red-pilled by virtue of constitution, I can say that my personal experience with those individuals is very different. I think the political evolutions in each of these fields and resultant effects provide pretty good counterevidence that these people are broadly inclined to some degree of redpillism. It’s something that probably doesn’t get near enough attention, but even most people who are high IQ do not come close to being “deep thinkers” or otherwise inclined to critical thinking beyond surface or preapproved levels. Most of the high IQ people in these fields tend to be pretty singleminded. They are careerists with above-average problem solving skills and an almost reptilian predisposition to self interest in the face of anything that might jeopardize even some small element of their preservation.

    I have, in my own estimation, done an excellent job of presenting controversial information to high IQ people in these fields. I have presented essentially irrefutable collections of evidence (after going through the course and various branches of the arguments) and done so with a real penchant for rhetoric. It may not come across here because I am being a bit wanky and even self satirizing a bit, but I am typically very persuasive in person. Generally speaking, it does not matter. I have gotten people to admit the reality of controversial premises and pushed the conversation to the point of discussing the practical implications and how certain realities might be addressed to create reasonably fair and beneficial societal outcomes. It does not matter. Inevitably, their positions snap back to being whatever they were before because there is a quality inherent to their constitutions that supersedes being high IQ.

    As far as they see it, they have nothing to gain and everything to lose from being redpilled. For most I do not think it is even a conscious decision. It is simply effective functioning of the lizard brain. To the extent it’s possible to briefly shake these high IQ professionals into confronting things they’d rather avoid, there is often evidence of clear physical discomfort. They solve the problem by ignoring it again as soon as possible, and they snap right back to doing what feels intuitively necessary to improve their station.

    • Thanks: vhrm
    • Replies: @vhrm
    @AnonymousNameChange

    Sounds like you're doing excellent work and I hope you keep it up.

    You never know when these seeds will bear fruit or what incremental changes they'll cause even if these people won't cede the argument.

    I've been surprised to hear friends bring up stuff I've said YEARS ago (on different topics) though they seemed totally disengaged at the time.

    Replies: @AnonymousNameChange

  111. The number of respondents scoring Steve Sailer Blog (27) is significantly higher than the next six highest-rated publications, suggesting that among intelligence researchers, Steve’s blog is widely read and respected. Every other publication that had over 25 respondents is a major national or global publication.

    It would also be interesting to scatter plot all of these on a chart with the media on a Left-Right political scale on the X axis (Pew has some data here), and their scores on the Y axis. Then compare that plot with the respondents’ stated political affiliations on a bar chart. The relationship is likely strongly inverse, demonstrating that the largest and most influential media sources (all Left-wing) are deliberately obfuscating what the experts are saying and ignoring their own holy mantra of being “Pro-Science” when it comes time to put their money where their mouthpiece is.

  112. And I thought they were writing about the CIA.

    No such luck. Wonder why.

  113. @anon
    @Anon

    But seriously, this is not true. There’s a weak positive correlation. This has been studied since the 1930s.

    Do you have a reference?

    Smart people tend, more than would happen randomly, to be socially adept and likeable, attractive, good leaders, creative, taller, and so on.

    None of those things are character.

    Replies: @res

    How about criminality? (if you don’t like that as a character correlate, please suggest a better measure) From pp. 569-572 of Arthur Jensen’s The g Factor. (I think that section is worth reading in full)

    There is a negative correlation ( – .3 to – .5 in various studies, slightly more so for verbal than for nonverbal tests) between IQ and measures of delinquency and criminality, such as police and court records and self-reports of criminal activity. Delinquents and adult criminals typically average ten to twelve IQ points below law-abiding persons living in similar circumstances. Juvenile delinquents who become adult criminals have lower IQs than delinquents who do not become criminals. Recidivists have lower IQs than one-time offenders. In home environments or in neighborhoods that are conducive to delinquent or criminal behavior, an above-average IQ acts as a protective factor against the influences toward antisocial behavior.

    Some details of the relationship.

    The above-mentioned correlation between crime and IQ is clearly nonlinear. That is, the rate of serious crimes against persons, such as robbery, assault, rape, and homicide, is very low and nearly constant across IQ levels above IQ 100, but below IQ 100 the rate rises steeply, and then declines rapidly below IQ 70. The peak crime rate occurs in the IQ range from 75 to 90, with the highest rate for violent crime in the IQ range from 80 to 90. The vast majority of both petty crimes and violent crimes are committed by the segment of the population ranging from IQ 60 to 100. (So- called white-collar criminals and leaders of organized crime generally have IQs above 100.)

    Worth noting IMHO:

    sociologist Robert Gordon has coined the term IQ-commensurability for his discovery that nearly all of the mean black-white differences in delinquency and crime rates can be accounted for in terms of the mean black-white difference in IQ.36 Within any given segment of the IQ distribution, the black and white crime rates are approximately the same, so much so as to leave little, if any, variance needing to be explained by any other variables.

    Gordon gives IQ-commensurability details for the following items in his 1997 paper: juvenile delinquency, adult crime, single parenthood, HIV infection, poverty, belief in conspiracy rumors, and key opinions from polls about the O.J. Simpson trial and the earlier Tawana Brawley case.
    Everyday Life as an Intelligence Test: Effects of Intelligence and Intelligence Context
    https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-38920-007
    Full text at https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.372.8122&rep=rep1&type=pdf
    Emil gives an overview of Gordon’s model here: https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2012/03/2752/

    Some possible causes of the IQ-criminality relationship (back to The g Factor).

    One hypothesis is that low IQ causes difficulty in school and in failure to receive the rewards of scholastic success, which, in turn, lowers both self-esteem and the respect of one’s peers;

    Another hypothesis posits a more direct causal relationship between low IQ and most forms of criminal behavior. It claims that low IQ individuals have a short time horizon’, that is, they are more present-oriented and more lacking in foresight than most people. Persons with low IQ fail to adequately and realistically imagine the future consequences of their actions.

    A certain level of mental maturity is necessary for the kind of reasoning that underlies moral and ethical behavior.

    The whole of Chapter 14 The g Nexus is worth a look if you are interested in this sort of thing. Much more in the rest of the book as well. It is pretty much the best single source for in-depth information about IQ.

    • Replies: @anon
    @res

    Two points up front:

    First, a working definition: character is demonstrated by what we do when no one is watching. Or, at least we think no one is watching.

    I'm open to another definition, but not some word torrent from a German philosoph. Because "do the right thing" is pretty simple, even if it can be very difficult at times...speaking from personal experience.

    Second, the US does not have a justice system, it has a legal system. There is a big difference between what is "just" and what is "legal", and that plays out to some degree in who winds up in jail vs. who winds up paying a fine vs. who winds up skating.

    People with low IQ and poor impulse control and a short time horizon often wind up in prison, agreed. People with high IQ and poor impulse control and a short time horizon can up wind there, too. Although it may take longer for them to get caught, to be sure.

    At least that's what some guys who do prison counseling / half way house work tell me. It correlates with some personal experiences.


    A certain level of mental maturity is necessary for the kind of reasoning that underlies moral and ethical behavior.
     
    Above average intelligence is not a guarantee of mental maturity, if you've ever been around university faculty fighting over the corner office or something equally trivial you would be aware of that.

    Also, people of mental immaturity can follow rule sets. That's what some of the not-so-bright people I've worked with did. Rule sets like "Don't steal" and "don't lie", things like that.

    When a tenured college professor with a PhD pads his or her expense account and gets all huffy about a call from the accounting department is that character or lack of character? When the not too bright busboy at the diner goes out of his way to make sure something you left on the table by accident gets returned to you, follows you out the door waving it, is that character?

    Thanks for the references, I need to read them. However in my own experience, intelligence is orthogonal to character. If there's a correlation maybe it just involves people who were better at getting away with stuff.

    Replies: @res

  114. anon[890] • Disclaimer says:
    @res
    @anon

    How about criminality? (if you don't like that as a character correlate, please suggest a better measure) From pp. 569-572 of Arthur Jensen's The g Factor. (I think that section is worth reading in full)


    There is a negative correlation ( - .3 to - .5 in various studies, slightly more so for verbal than for nonverbal tests) between IQ and measures of delinquency and criminality, such as police and court records and self-reports of criminal activity. Delinquents and adult criminals typically average ten to twelve IQ points below law-abiding persons living in similar circumstances. Juvenile delinquents who become adult criminals have lower IQs than delinquents who do not become criminals. Recidivists have lower IQs than one-time offenders. In home environments or in neighborhoods that are conducive to delinquent or criminal behavior, an above-average IQ acts as a protective factor against the influences toward antisocial behavior.
     
    Some details of the relationship.

    The above-mentioned correlation between crime and IQ is clearly nonlinear. That is, the rate of serious crimes against persons, such as robbery, assault, rape, and homicide, is very low and nearly constant across IQ levels above IQ 100, but below IQ 100 the rate rises steeply, and then declines rapidly below IQ 70. The peak crime rate occurs in the IQ range from 75 to 90, with the highest rate for violent crime in the IQ range from 80 to 90. The vast majority of both petty crimes and violent crimes are committed by the segment of the population ranging from IQ 60 to 100. (So- called white-collar criminals and leaders of organized crime generally have IQs above 100.)
     
    Worth noting IMHO:

    sociologist Robert Gordon has coined the term IQ-commensurability for his discovery that nearly all of the mean black-white differences in delinquency and crime rates can be accounted for in terms of the mean black-white difference in IQ.36 Within any given segment of the IQ distribution, the black and white crime rates are approximately the same, so much so as to leave little, if any, variance needing to be explained by any other variables.
     
    Gordon gives IQ-commensurability details for the following items in his 1997 paper: juvenile delinquency, adult crime, single parenthood, HIV infection, poverty, belief in conspiracy rumors, and key opinions from polls about the O.J. Simpson trial and the earlier Tawana Brawley case.
    Everyday Life as an Intelligence Test: Effects of Intelligence and Intelligence Context
    https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-38920-007
    Full text at https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.372.8122&rep=rep1&type=pdf
    Emil gives an overview of Gordon's model here: https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2012/03/2752/

    Some possible causes of the IQ-criminality relationship (back to The g Factor).

    One hypothesis is that low IQ causes difficulty in school and in failure to receive the rewards of scholastic success, which, in turn, lowers both self-esteem and the respect of one’s peers;
    ...
    Another hypothesis posits a more direct causal relationship between low IQ and most forms of criminal behavior. It claims that low IQ individuals have a short time horizon', that is, they are more present-oriented and more lacking in foresight than most people. Persons with low IQ fail to adequately and realistically imagine the future consequences of their actions.
    ...
    A certain level of mental maturity is necessary for the kind of reasoning that underlies moral and ethical behavior.
     
    The whole of Chapter 14 The g Nexus is worth a look if you are interested in this sort of thing. Much more in the rest of the book as well. It is pretty much the best single source for in-depth information about IQ.

    Replies: @anon

    Two points up front:

    First, a working definition: character is demonstrated by what we do when no one is watching. Or, at least we think no one is watching.

    I’m open to another definition, but not some word torrent from a German philosoph. Because “do the right thing” is pretty simple, even if it can be very difficult at times…speaking from personal experience.

    Second, the US does not have a justice system, it has a legal system. There is a big difference between what is “just” and what is “legal”, and that plays out to some degree in who winds up in jail vs. who winds up paying a fine vs. who winds up skating.

    People with low IQ and poor impulse control and a short time horizon often wind up in prison, agreed. People with high IQ and poor impulse control and a short time horizon can up wind there, too. Although it may take longer for them to get caught, to be sure.

    At least that’s what some guys who do prison counseling / half way house work tell me. It correlates with some personal experiences.

    A certain level of mental maturity is necessary for the kind of reasoning that underlies moral and ethical behavior.

    Above average intelligence is not a guarantee of mental maturity, if you’ve ever been around university faculty fighting over the corner office or something equally trivial you would be aware of that.

    Also, people of mental immaturity can follow rule sets. That’s what some of the not-so-bright people I’ve worked with did. Rule sets like “Don’t steal” and “don’t lie”, things like that.

    When a tenured college professor with a PhD pads his or her expense account and gets all huffy about a call from the accounting department is that character or lack of character? When the not too bright busboy at the diner goes out of his way to make sure something you left on the table by accident gets returned to you, follows you out the door waving it, is that character?

    Thanks for the references, I need to read them. However in my own experience, intelligence is orthogonal to character. If there’s a correlation maybe it just involves people who were better at getting away with stuff.

    • Replies: @res
    @anon

    There was a reason I wrote the parenthetical comment below (you might ponder how I managed to so aptly reply to your response in advance). The request still stands.


    How about criminality? (if you don’t like that as a character correlate, please suggest a better measure)
     
    Your whole comment reeks of feelings trumping data. That does not mean there is not truth in what you say, but I hope you see how it is impossible to have a serious conversation about the reality of the relationship (or not) of IQ to character without using some measure of character. "Orthogonal" is a very strong word. Are you unwilling to admit even a small relationship exists? I find it hard to see how you read my excerpts and still believe that.

    Regarding all of your anecdotes, how representative do you think your examples are? I am not saying the relationship is absolute (far from it, and high IQ and poor character are a nasty combination), but it seems clear there is some correlation of character and IQ.

    P.S. You might consider reading pirelli's comment (immediately following your original comment) regarding selection bias.

    Replies: @anon

  115. @AnonymousNameChange
    @vhrm

    I think you're right that building strength at the local level is the best thing that can be done right now. Having those valuable connections is really important just on a maintaining-humanity basis. I would raise the concern that the system is also thinking globally and acting locally, meaning: there is a real effort to destroy localism by globally minded thinkers and that effort is showing itself to be very effective. That actually increases the value of these local bonds and initiatives, but they are difficult to achieve and orchestrate amid the power and continued evolution of the globo corporate techno media finance apparatus. Just as an example, pick a highly "conservative" part of the country, then find the nearest large college and take a sampling of the political ideological skew. We all understand that the impact of globos acting locally has been profound.

    As for people in the tech/science/history/law professions being at least tangentially red-pilled by virtue of constitution, I can say that my personal experience with those individuals is very different. I think the political evolutions in each of these fields and resultant effects provide pretty good counterevidence that these people are broadly inclined to some degree of redpillism. It's something that probably doesn't get near enough attention, but even most people who are high IQ do not come close to being "deep thinkers" or otherwise inclined to critical thinking beyond surface or preapproved levels. Most of the high IQ people in these fields tend to be pretty singleminded. They are careerists with above-average problem solving skills and an almost reptilian predisposition to self interest in the face of anything that might jeopardize even some small element of their preservation.

    I have, in my own estimation, done an excellent job of presenting controversial information to high IQ people in these fields. I have presented essentially irrefutable collections of evidence (after going through the course and various branches of the arguments) and done so with a real penchant for rhetoric. It may not come across here because I am being a bit wanky and even self satirizing a bit, but I am typically very persuasive in person. Generally speaking, it does not matter. I have gotten people to admit the reality of controversial premises and pushed the conversation to the point of discussing the practical implications and how certain realities might be addressed to create reasonably fair and beneficial societal outcomes. It does not matter. Inevitably, their positions snap back to being whatever they were before because there is a quality inherent to their constitutions that supersedes being high IQ.

    As far as they see it, they have nothing to gain and everything to lose from being redpilled. For most I do not think it is even a conscious decision. It is simply effective functioning of the lizard brain. To the extent it's possible to briefly shake these high IQ professionals into confronting things they'd rather avoid, there is often evidence of clear physical discomfort. They solve the problem by ignoring it again as soon as possible, and they snap right back to doing what feels intuitively necessary to improve their station.

    Replies: @vhrm

    Sounds like you’re doing excellent work and I hope you keep it up.

    You never know when these seeds will bear fruit or what incremental changes they’ll cause even if these people won’t cede the argument.

    I’ve been surprised to hear friends bring up stuff I’ve said YEARS ago (on different topics) though they seemed totally disengaged at the time.

    • Replies: @AnonymousNameChange
    @vhrm

    Thanks very much. Wishing you luck with your endeavors as well.

  116. @anon
    @res

    Two points up front:

    First, a working definition: character is demonstrated by what we do when no one is watching. Or, at least we think no one is watching.

    I'm open to another definition, but not some word torrent from a German philosoph. Because "do the right thing" is pretty simple, even if it can be very difficult at times...speaking from personal experience.

    Second, the US does not have a justice system, it has a legal system. There is a big difference between what is "just" and what is "legal", and that plays out to some degree in who winds up in jail vs. who winds up paying a fine vs. who winds up skating.

    People with low IQ and poor impulse control and a short time horizon often wind up in prison, agreed. People with high IQ and poor impulse control and a short time horizon can up wind there, too. Although it may take longer for them to get caught, to be sure.

    At least that's what some guys who do prison counseling / half way house work tell me. It correlates with some personal experiences.


    A certain level of mental maturity is necessary for the kind of reasoning that underlies moral and ethical behavior.
     
    Above average intelligence is not a guarantee of mental maturity, if you've ever been around university faculty fighting over the corner office or something equally trivial you would be aware of that.

    Also, people of mental immaturity can follow rule sets. That's what some of the not-so-bright people I've worked with did. Rule sets like "Don't steal" and "don't lie", things like that.

    When a tenured college professor with a PhD pads his or her expense account and gets all huffy about a call from the accounting department is that character or lack of character? When the not too bright busboy at the diner goes out of his way to make sure something you left on the table by accident gets returned to you, follows you out the door waving it, is that character?

    Thanks for the references, I need to read them. However in my own experience, intelligence is orthogonal to character. If there's a correlation maybe it just involves people who were better at getting away with stuff.

    Replies: @res

    There was a reason I wrote the parenthetical comment below (you might ponder how I managed to so aptly reply to your response in advance). The request still stands.

    How about criminality? (if you don’t like that as a character correlate, please suggest a better measure)

    Your whole comment reeks of feelings trumping data. That does not mean there is not truth in what you say, but I hope you see how it is impossible to have a serious conversation about the reality of the relationship (or not) of IQ to character without using some measure of character. “Orthogonal” is a very strong word. Are you unwilling to admit even a small relationship exists? I find it hard to see how you read my excerpts and still believe that.

    Regarding all of your anecdotes, how representative do you think your examples are? I am not saying the relationship is absolute (far from it, and high IQ and poor character are a nasty combination), but it seems clear there is some correlation of character and IQ.

    P.S. You might consider reading pirelli’s comment (immediately following your original comment) regarding selection bias.

    • Agree: vhrm
    • Replies: @anon
    @res

    How about criminality? (if you don’t like that as a character correlate, please suggest a better measure)

    "Criminality" is not as strong a type as you apparently believe it to be. I'm assuming you know the diff between malum prohibitum and malum in se, if not please do look up the terms.

    I repeat, the US does not have a justice system, although that word is used in org charts. It has a legal system. Whether one is a "criminal" or not can depend on a lot of variables, including how fast a talker you are, how much money you have, who your friends and family are...this should not be controversial. If "in jail" is your primary metric for character, I suggest you read the book "Three Felonies a Day" and skim this interview.

    http://ulrichboser.com/how-many-felonies-did-you-commit-today-an-interview-with-harvey-silverglate/

    "Three Felonies a Day" has been in print for over 10 years, kind of surprised you apparently have not read it.

    Your whole comment reeks of feelings trumping data.

    Could be true, given the fact that the amygdala is connected to the limbic system and we all learn to some extent from negative experiences; the more intense the experience, the more impression it may make on neuroplasticity.

    On the other hand, given you have a higher IQ than average, there might just be a bit of "talking your book" in your comments. "Me and my friends are smart, smarter people have better character, therefore me and my friends have better character than those unwashed plebes" is one way to read your text..and there are some feelings in there, too, y'know.

    That does not mean there is not truth in what you say, but I hope you see how it is impossible to have a serious conversation about the reality of the relationship (or not) of IQ to character without using some measure of character.

    I offered a working definition to you. Do you reject it? If so, why?

    “Orthogonal” is a very strong word.

    Yes. Observed reality can be a very strong teacher, too.

    Are you unwilling to admit even a small relationship exists?

    C'mon, is correlation really causation in a false beard?

    I find it hard to see how you read my excerpts and still believe that.

    I have not made time to read an entire book in the last couple of hours, sorry.
    But since we are still not using common terms, communication is going to be difficult.

    I offered a working, first order definition of "character". Apparently you reject it, and prefer legalisms. Let's follow the legalistic approach a bit. Was Alexander Solzhenitsyn a man of no character? He did wind up in prison, therefore by your metric he was...what? Do I have to drag Pastor Neimoller in next? Or can you concede that legalism might not be the best metric of "character" despite the fact that it is quantifiable?


    “Well, I used to be bad when I was a kid, but ever since then I've gone straight, as has been proved by my record: Thirty-three arrests and no convictions!"

    -Big Jule in Guys and Dolls
     

    Replies: @res

  117. Oliver D. Smith says:
    @mikemikev
    @Oliver D. Smith

    The fault lines between major races are more significant than those within them.

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

    No. You’ve made that erroneous claim for many years; PRATT (point refuted a thousand times). Human genetic variation is continuous across geographic space; there are no ‘fault lines’.

    Figure 1. (A) The effect of sampling strategies (adopted from Handley et al. 2007) [“Heterogeneous sampling can reveal genetic clusters that are biologically meaningless. The gradation in color from blue to orange represents a hypothetical situation of strictly continuous variation in allele frequencies. If sampling is heterogeneous (population samples represented here by circles) then the pattern of clinal variation can be mistaken for genetically distinct clusters (black ellipses)”] (Handley et al., 2007). (B) Global genetic diversity in humans are distributed in gradients among and within continents, emphasizes intercontinental variation

    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2016.00022/full#B114

    You then come back posting the same fallacy in an endless loop (explained in Fig. 1 above).

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Oliver D. Smith

    "Human genetic variation is continuous across geographic space; there are no ‘fault lines’."

    For example, consider how in 1400 how continuously genetic variation was spread across the Atlantic Ocean.

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

  118. anon[632] • Disclaimer says:
    @res
    @anon

    There was a reason I wrote the parenthetical comment below (you might ponder how I managed to so aptly reply to your response in advance). The request still stands.


    How about criminality? (if you don’t like that as a character correlate, please suggest a better measure)
     
    Your whole comment reeks of feelings trumping data. That does not mean there is not truth in what you say, but I hope you see how it is impossible to have a serious conversation about the reality of the relationship (or not) of IQ to character without using some measure of character. "Orthogonal" is a very strong word. Are you unwilling to admit even a small relationship exists? I find it hard to see how you read my excerpts and still believe that.

    Regarding all of your anecdotes, how representative do you think your examples are? I am not saying the relationship is absolute (far from it, and high IQ and poor character are a nasty combination), but it seems clear there is some correlation of character and IQ.

    P.S. You might consider reading pirelli's comment (immediately following your original comment) regarding selection bias.

    Replies: @anon

    How about criminality? (if you don’t like that as a character correlate, please suggest a better measure)

    “Criminality” is not as strong a type as you apparently believe it to be. I’m assuming you know the diff between malum prohibitum and malum in se, if not please do look up the terms.

    I repeat, the US does not have a justice system, although that word is used in org charts. It has a legal system. Whether one is a “criminal” or not can depend on a lot of variables, including how fast a talker you are, how much money you have, who your friends and family are…this should not be controversial. If “in jail” is your primary metric for character, I suggest you read the book “Three Felonies a Day” and skim this interview.

    http://ulrichboser.com/how-many-felonies-did-you-commit-today-an-interview-with-harvey-silverglate/

    “Three Felonies a Day” has been in print for over 10 years, kind of surprised you apparently have not read it.

    Your whole comment reeks of feelings trumping data.

    Could be true, given the fact that the amygdala is connected to the limbic system and we all learn to some extent from negative experiences; the more intense the experience, the more impression it may make on neuroplasticity.

    On the other hand, given you have a higher IQ than average, there might just be a bit of “talking your book” in your comments. “Me and my friends are smart, smarter people have better character, therefore me and my friends have better character than those unwashed plebes” is one way to read your text..and there are some feelings in there, too, y’know.

    That does not mean there is not truth in what you say, but I hope you see how it is impossible to have a serious conversation about the reality of the relationship (or not) of IQ to character without using some measure of character.

    I offered a working definition to you. Do you reject it? If so, why?

    “Orthogonal” is a very strong word.

    Yes. Observed reality can be a very strong teacher, too.

    Are you unwilling to admit even a small relationship exists?

    C’mon, is correlation really causation in a false beard?

    I find it hard to see how you read my excerpts and still believe that.

    I have not made time to read an entire book in the last couple of hours, sorry.
    But since we are still not using common terms, communication is going to be difficult.

    I offered a working, first order definition of “character”. Apparently you reject it, and prefer legalisms. Let’s follow the legalistic approach a bit. Was Alexander Solzhenitsyn a man of no character? He did wind up in prison, therefore by your metric he was…what? Do I have to drag Pastor Neimoller in next? Or can you concede that legalism might not be the best metric of “character” despite the fact that it is quantifiable?

    “Well, I used to be bad when I was a kid, but ever since then I’ve gone straight, as has been proved by my record: Thirty-three arrests and no convictions!”

    -Big Jule in Guys and Dolls

    • Replies: @res
    @anon


    How about criminality? (if you don’t like that as a character correlate, please suggest a better measure)

    “Criminality” is not as strong a type as you apparently believe it to be. I’m assuming you know the diff between malum prohibitum and malum in se, if not please do look up the terms.
     
    Understood. I will just note that once again you failed to respond to my request. Even after quoting it.

    BTW, please don't be so quick to assume you understand what I believe. I have made clear I consider criminality an imperfect measure. Yet it remains the best measure of character I can find. Are you familiar with the saying "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good"?

    Are you unwilling to admit even a small relationship exists?

    C’mon, is correlation really causation in a false beard?
     
    What causal chain do you propose? Just mouthing "correlation is not causation" (even if you do it in a creative fashion) is not enough.

    I find it hard to see how you read my excerpts and still believe that.

    I have not made time to read an entire book in the last couple of hours, sorry.
     
    Could you at least try reading a single sentence correctly then? Especially after I went to the trouble of abstracting the most salient points for you in my excerpts.

    I offered a working, first order definition of “character”. Apparently you reject it
     
    As I said, give me something which is measurable.

    I hope I have made it clear how much contempt I have for this kind of wordplay (and argument by anecdote) coupled with a complete unwillingness to engage with what data is available. High V low M people are tiresome. Especially when statistical arguments are involved.

    Replies: @very old statistician

  119. @vhrm
    @AnonymousNameChange

    Sounds like you're doing excellent work and I hope you keep it up.

    You never know when these seeds will bear fruit or what incremental changes they'll cause even if these people won't cede the argument.

    I've been surprised to hear friends bring up stuff I've said YEARS ago (on different topics) though they seemed totally disengaged at the time.

    Replies: @AnonymousNameChange

    Thanks very much. Wishing you luck with your endeavors as well.

    • Thanks: vhrm
  120. anon[331] • Disclaimer says:

    Addendum: in addition to Three Felonies a Day I also recommend this book. Although it was last updated in 2009 it’s still relevant:

    Boston T. Party’s “You and the Police” demonstrates how one may not always be able to talk oneself out of trouble but it is disturbingly easy to talk oneself into it.

    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/997891.You_The_Police_

    tl;dr
    Res, “Has been arrested / convicted” is not nearly as good a metric for “character” as you apparently believe.

    • Replies: @res
    @anon


    Res, “Has been arrested / convicted” is not nearly as good a metric for “character” as you apparently believe.
     
    I get tired of how quickly people assume they understand what I believe based on a few short comments.

    As I said to the other anon, if you don't like that metric then suggest a better one.

    Do you fail to understand how looking at metrics like that statistically over a large population helps average out all of the exceptions and special cases? Obviously systematic biases are still important, but when we are looking at a correlation as high as 0.3 to 0.5 (those numbers are generally considered to represent moderate and large correlations in the social sciences) there is substantial margin for error.

    Let's try a restatement. Criminality is a useful metric for character at the population level. It is much less useful at the individual level. In both cases it is clearly imperfect, while still being the best population level metric I know of.

    Replies: @vhrm

  121. @anonymous
    @very very old statistician


    and don’t get me started on other small mistakes by great men (Grant could have shaved 6 months off the Virginia campaign if only ….. but hey I am not getting paid for this…..)

    Let not your heart be troubled –

    the world belongs to people who know how to do what is right. It always has and always will. Do what you can to make the world a better place. There is room in this world for everyone to be happy with the gifts God gave them. And if there isn’t, there are people who know how to make sure there is —- human biology is sort of hard to understand, but once you understand it, the world is your oyster, and lots of things that seemed to be hard to live with no longer are all that hard to live with.

    If I were in a good mood tonight I would give you a few stock picks, but ….

    what has anyone here ever done for me here that I should be so kind (just kidding, I was thrilled the first time Sailer asked for bitcoin contributions — it was his idea, and I was glad to see that)

    look for people who, like me, are the opposite of black pillers. Be nice to them.
     
    Be nice to people with clear borderline narcissistic personality disorder?

    That's not how I roll. I'm rarely rude to you, but I will ignore you more often than not. It's the only strategy that works. Being nice to you folks is always a bad idea. It only prolongs the inevitable.

    Replies: @very old statistician

    Look up “Falstaffian pastiche”, Mister Amateur Psychologist.

  122. @Oliver D. Smith
    @mikemikev

    No. You've made that erroneous claim for many years; PRATT (point refuted a thousand times). Human genetic variation is continuous across geographic space; there are no 'fault lines'.

    https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/155454/fgene-07-00022-HTML/image_m/fgene-07-00022-g001.jpg


    Figure 1. (A) The effect of sampling strategies (adopted from Handley et al. 2007) [“Heterogeneous sampling can reveal genetic clusters that are biologically meaningless. The gradation in color from blue to orange represents a hypothetical situation of strictly continuous variation in allele frequencies. If sampling is heterogeneous (population samples represented here by circles) then the pattern of clinal variation can be mistaken for genetically distinct clusters (black ellipses)”] (Handley et al., 2007). (B) Global genetic diversity in humans are distributed in gradients among and within continents, emphasizes intercontinental variation
     
    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2016.00022/full#B114

    You then come back posting the same fallacy in an endless loop (explained in Fig. 1 above).

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    “Human genetic variation is continuous across geographic space; there are no ‘fault lines’.”

    For example, consider how in 1400 how continuously genetic variation was spread across the Atlantic Ocean.

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    @Steve Sailer

    IBD still applies to the Americas in terms of the native populations there - where you find a north - south gradient. Hasn't this been known since Cavalli-Sforza et al 1994? Anyway the fallacy I really meant is the Old World claimed barriers to gene flow like the Sahara and Himalayas. Typically what happens is studies use a very low amount of population samples from these deserts and mountains (usually only the HGDP populations), creating the illusion they are genetic barriers, when in fact they're not:


    A second important geographic barrier that has been suggested to be a barrier to gene flow is the Himalaya mountain range (Rosenberg et al. 2005; Gayden et al. 2007; Wang et al. 2012). However, the paucity of the HGDP populations around the Himalayas makes it difficult to investigate the role of the Himalayas in shaping the pattern of Asiatic genetic differentiation. Reassuringly, the E–W pattern of Asiatic genetic differentiation fits well with the major division of Asia into an Eastern and Western Asiatic genetic clusters (Rosenberg et al. 2002) with the restriction that both conclusions are drawn from the same HGDP populations, which are biased toward population isolates and are not representative of the present day population density (Cavalli-Sforza 2005).
     
    https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/30/3/513/1039898

    Rosenberg et al. 2005 made this fallacy. And most 'HBD'-type people repeat it... for example it's found in Nicholas Wade's book and even made by someone like David Reich. And it's probably made by Edward Dutton in his recent book on race as well.

    Replies: @res

  123. Oliver D. Smith says:
    @Steve Sailer
    @Oliver D. Smith

    "Human genetic variation is continuous across geographic space; there are no ‘fault lines’."

    For example, consider how in 1400 how continuously genetic variation was spread across the Atlantic Ocean.

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

    IBD still applies to the Americas in terms of the native populations there – where you find a north – south gradient. Hasn’t this been known since Cavalli-Sforza et al 1994? Anyway the fallacy I really meant is the Old World claimed barriers to gene flow like the Sahara and Himalayas. Typically what happens is studies use a very low amount of population samples from these deserts and mountains (usually only the HGDP populations), creating the illusion they are genetic barriers, when in fact they’re not:

    A second important geographic barrier that has been suggested to be a barrier to gene flow is the Himalaya mountain range (Rosenberg et al. 2005; Gayden et al. 2007; Wang et al. 2012). However, the paucity of the HGDP populations around the Himalayas makes it difficult to investigate the role of the Himalayas in shaping the pattern of Asiatic genetic differentiation. Reassuringly, the E–W pattern of Asiatic genetic differentiation fits well with the major division of Asia into an Eastern and Western Asiatic genetic clusters (Rosenberg et al. 2002) with the restriction that both conclusions are drawn from the same HGDP populations, which are biased toward population isolates and are not representative of the present day population density (Cavalli-Sforza 2005).

    https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/30/3/513/1039898

    Rosenberg et al. 2005 made this fallacy. And most ‘HBD’-type people repeat it… for example it’s found in Nicholas Wade’s book and even made by someone like David Reich. And it’s probably made by Edward Dutton in his recent book on race as well.

    • Replies: @res
    @Oliver D. Smith


    Typically what happens is studies use a very low amount of population samples from these deserts and mountains (usually only the HGDP populations), creating the illusion they are genetic barriers, when in fact they’re not
     
    From your link.

    The Sahara barrier causes the N–S major orientation of African genetic differentiation since no anisotropic patterns were detected when restricting the analysis to the north or to the south of the Sahara desert
     
    Do you actually read these papers you cite? That was in the same section as your quote. Section title: Continental Barriers to Gene Flow

    So of the two proposed barriers we have one validated (the Sahara) and the other "difficult to investigate" due to lack of data. Some pretty feeble support for your assertion there.

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

  124. @anon
    @res

    How about criminality? (if you don’t like that as a character correlate, please suggest a better measure)

    "Criminality" is not as strong a type as you apparently believe it to be. I'm assuming you know the diff between malum prohibitum and malum in se, if not please do look up the terms.

    I repeat, the US does not have a justice system, although that word is used in org charts. It has a legal system. Whether one is a "criminal" or not can depend on a lot of variables, including how fast a talker you are, how much money you have, who your friends and family are...this should not be controversial. If "in jail" is your primary metric for character, I suggest you read the book "Three Felonies a Day" and skim this interview.

    http://ulrichboser.com/how-many-felonies-did-you-commit-today-an-interview-with-harvey-silverglate/

    "Three Felonies a Day" has been in print for over 10 years, kind of surprised you apparently have not read it.

    Your whole comment reeks of feelings trumping data.

    Could be true, given the fact that the amygdala is connected to the limbic system and we all learn to some extent from negative experiences; the more intense the experience, the more impression it may make on neuroplasticity.

    On the other hand, given you have a higher IQ than average, there might just be a bit of "talking your book" in your comments. "Me and my friends are smart, smarter people have better character, therefore me and my friends have better character than those unwashed plebes" is one way to read your text..and there are some feelings in there, too, y'know.

    That does not mean there is not truth in what you say, but I hope you see how it is impossible to have a serious conversation about the reality of the relationship (or not) of IQ to character without using some measure of character.

    I offered a working definition to you. Do you reject it? If so, why?

    “Orthogonal” is a very strong word.

    Yes. Observed reality can be a very strong teacher, too.

    Are you unwilling to admit even a small relationship exists?

    C'mon, is correlation really causation in a false beard?

    I find it hard to see how you read my excerpts and still believe that.

    I have not made time to read an entire book in the last couple of hours, sorry.
    But since we are still not using common terms, communication is going to be difficult.

    I offered a working, first order definition of "character". Apparently you reject it, and prefer legalisms. Let's follow the legalistic approach a bit. Was Alexander Solzhenitsyn a man of no character? He did wind up in prison, therefore by your metric he was...what? Do I have to drag Pastor Neimoller in next? Or can you concede that legalism might not be the best metric of "character" despite the fact that it is quantifiable?


    “Well, I used to be bad when I was a kid, but ever since then I've gone straight, as has been proved by my record: Thirty-three arrests and no convictions!"

    -Big Jule in Guys and Dolls
     

    Replies: @res

    How about criminality? (if you don’t like that as a character correlate, please suggest a better measure)

    “Criminality” is not as strong a type as you apparently believe it to be. I’m assuming you know the diff between malum prohibitum and malum in se, if not please do look up the terms.

    Understood. I will just note that once again you failed to respond to my request. Even after quoting it.

    BTW, please don’t be so quick to assume you understand what I believe. I have made clear I consider criminality an imperfect measure. Yet it remains the best measure of character I can find. Are you familiar with the saying “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”?

    Are you unwilling to admit even a small relationship exists?

    C’mon, is correlation really causation in a false beard?

    What causal chain do you propose? Just mouthing “correlation is not causation” (even if you do it in a creative fashion) is not enough.

    I find it hard to see how you read my excerpts and still believe that.

    I have not made time to read an entire book in the last couple of hours, sorry.

    Could you at least try reading a single sentence correctly then? Especially after I went to the trouble of abstracting the most salient points for you in my excerpts.

    I offered a working, first order definition of “character”. Apparently you reject it

    As I said, give me something which is measurable.

    I hope I have made it clear how much contempt I have for this kind of wordplay (and argument by anecdote) coupled with a complete unwillingness to engage with what data is available. High V low M people are tiresome. Especially when statistical arguments are involved.

    • Agree: vhrm
    • Replies: @very old statistician
    @res

    with the exception of von Neumann and Ramanujan, every well-known mathematician whose life could have been coterminous with yours was low M high V. (poor little recreational mathematicians like Tao and Urrdoshe (yes, that is how to pronounce it) are not really considered high M. Recreational mathematics is not the same as mathematics. Groethendieck, perhaps the most admired of my (and yours, unless you are very very young) mathematical contemporaries, was a poet at heart (and a big fan of Paul Klee, which is a good tell for someone who is out of his depths....))....

    I am not saying that that high V is easier than High M, I am just saying that human beings are really really bad at common sense understanding of numbers. A high V human being is very admirable and adapted to the challenges of Life, a high M human being is a freak of nature (leaving aside whether they are interesting in other ways)

    Look at it this way ---- there are about ten thousand notes to memorize in an average classical piano concerto, and on the day when the human population reached five billion, maybe 2 or 3 humans, on any given day, were able to perform that average classical piano concerto in an artistic way.


    Look at it this way, if you prefer ---- in England, in 1821, about 1 billion lines of prose or poetry were either published or written down for later publication ------ tens of thousands of those lines still matter.

    In England in 2021, the average "Brit" (dread word) who is on line (about ten million of them) , or who is a journalist (tens of thosands) ---- the vast majority of them high V, low M ----- produces enough lines of prose to double the 1821 production every three hours, every day of the year.

    High V or not, I suggest to you that, 200 years from now, nobody will claim tens of thousands of those lines still matter.

    Now be nicer, going forward, and please don't try and promote this "high-M" nonsense, as if you had any claim to being high-M. You might be, but the odds are a billion to one against it.

    (sorry if I am in a bad mood but I have been recently researching the "coding youth" of poor Bill Gates)

    Replies: @res, @anonymous

  125. @anon
    Addendum: in addition to Three Felonies a Day I also recommend this book. Although it was last updated in 2009 it's still relevant:

    Boston T. Party's "You and the Police" demonstrates how one may not always be able to talk oneself out of trouble but it is disturbingly easy to talk oneself into it.

    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/997891.You_The_Police_

    tl;dr
    Res, "Has been arrested / convicted" is not nearly as good a metric for "character" as you apparently believe.

    Replies: @res

    Res, “Has been arrested / convicted” is not nearly as good a metric for “character” as you apparently believe.

    I get tired of how quickly people assume they understand what I believe based on a few short comments.

    As I said to the other anon, if you don’t like that metric then suggest a better one.

    Do you fail to understand how looking at metrics like that statistically over a large population helps average out all of the exceptions and special cases? Obviously systematic biases are still important, but when we are looking at a correlation as high as 0.3 to 0.5 (those numbers are generally considered to represent moderate and large correlations in the social sciences) there is substantial margin for error.

    Let’s try a restatement. Criminality is a useful metric for character at the population level. It is much less useful at the individual level. In both cases it is clearly imperfect, while still being the best population level metric I know of.

    • Replies: @vhrm
    @res

    Please Hammer, don't hurt em. Don't let the "High V low M" type responses get your blood pressure up. Like water off a duck's back!

    I had the same reaction as you when reading the discussion about 18 hours ago and started responding, but then my motivation flagged and i didn't post. Below is as far as i got:


    Your thought experiments and anecdotes about a salt of the earth busboys and bastard professors and the limitations of the US legal system don't provide a convincing counterargument because nobody here claimed that the correlation was particularly strong, let alone absolute. That is, your examples and statements are fully consistent w/ the claims you're arguing against.

    "Character is orthogonal to IQ." is a strong claim that is hard to provide evidence for.

    "that which people do when they think nobody's watching" is interesting, but it's not a "working definition". You'd have to break it down to some specific measurable things and then show some data that shows that there's no correlation with IQ for those specific measurable examples.

     

    I post it generally to demonstrate solidarity with and moral support for your more in-depth critique and response.

    (note: I think the @anons near the end of this conversation are all the same person that is just showing up on the site as separate numbers due to some underlying tech reason.)

    Replies: @res

  126. anonymous[401] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    @vhrm

    Thanks for the response. I think a big part of the issue is that people in positions of influence do not want to be redpilled. In general, most people do not want to be redpilled. What possible motivations do they have to be? What are the rewards and what are the punishments?

    I've had these conversations and debates with goodthinking people from all walks of life. In the vast majority of cases, it does not matter how irrefutable your evidence is, how convincing your rhetoric, or how many times you repeat the process. This fits into the politics being downstream from culture thing. The reality is that pretty much all aspects of culture are dominated by your ideological adversaries, and there are vanishingly few ways to gain or maintain cultural influence if you are going to say something that is actually controversial.

    The facts have always been what they are, and yet the losses keep on piling up. I think this side of the ideological sphere actually won many arguments from 2010 to 2016. Lots of people who were willing to be redpilled were redpilled, mildly at least. Getting Trump elected was an impressive feat, but we saw what happened next. He was always a flawed vehicle, and the system dropped the mask a bit more to reveal how Power actually works. Power is flexing really hard right now, but it will probably come to look soft in time.

    There are plenty of people who understand that the system is not playing around anymore. Plenty of smart, well-meaning people are rightfully worried and do not see solutions to these issues that have positive outcomes. People are just talking in circles because no one has any idea what to do, and missing or intentionally ignoring where certain trends are heading is one consequence of that.

    Replies: @Anon, @vhrm, @anonymous

    “I think a big part of the issue is that people in positions of influence do not want to be redpilled.”

    The people in positions of influence are overwhelmingly Boomers, by their sheer numbers. First, you need to admit that.

    They are the first generation in American history — actually world history — that derives its consciousness overwhelmingly from pop culture — music, movies, celebrities, sports, etc. Pre-Boomer generations defined their consciousness largely by their relationships — family, church, ethnic kin and local community — which helped inoculate them against pop-culture propaganda.

    The clay of the Boomer mind has been molded by Jewish hands for 60+ years. The clay has now set. Even among Boomer conservatives, they will tout people like Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand and Barry Goldwater as their intellectual forebearers. Lol. I’m pretty sure a statue of Barry Goldwater won’t be torn down anytime soon. Wonder why?

    The best thing to do is plan for a post-Boomer world. Nick Fuentes is probably the closest to doing it right. Organize among young people. That is where the scramble for the future is. The Boomers will die. Their Asashkenazi intellectual sculpters are at a demographic dead end as well.

    Build the institutions now in the 2020’s, that will bare fruit when the Boomers are gone. Among people 55+, we simply need to cut our losses. Unfortunate but realistic. Even if they read Unz, they aren’t going to act.

  127. @jon
    @vinteuil

    In the beginning, iSteve was a redpill - waking people up to the reality that they weren't being allowed to see. It felt like there was still time, and that we knew the answers, so we could all point and laugh at the silliness.
    Now, it's a blackpill - each new post is another piece of an endless series of demoralizing psychological beat downs. It feels like it's too late, and nobody has any good answers, so we just engage in infighting over who is at fault, or debate whether we should quietly disengage and walk away or burn the whole fucking thing down on our way out.

    Replies: @very very old statistician, @vinteuil

    In the beginning, iSteve was a redpill – waking people up to the reality that they weren’t being allowed to see. It felt like there was still time, and that we knew the answers, so we could all point and laugh at the silliness.

    Now, it’s a blackpill – each new post is another piece of an endless series of demoralizing psychological beat downs. It feels like it’s too late, and nobody has any good answers, so we just engage in infighting over who is at fault, or debate whether we should quietly disengage and walk away or burn the whole fucking thing down on our way out.

    OK, thanks.

    I think that’s more or less what Curtis Yarvin is saying, now, on his Substack.

  128. @res
    @anon


    How about criminality? (if you don’t like that as a character correlate, please suggest a better measure)

    “Criminality” is not as strong a type as you apparently believe it to be. I’m assuming you know the diff between malum prohibitum and malum in se, if not please do look up the terms.
     
    Understood. I will just note that once again you failed to respond to my request. Even after quoting it.

    BTW, please don't be so quick to assume you understand what I believe. I have made clear I consider criminality an imperfect measure. Yet it remains the best measure of character I can find. Are you familiar with the saying "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good"?

    Are you unwilling to admit even a small relationship exists?

    C’mon, is correlation really causation in a false beard?
     
    What causal chain do you propose? Just mouthing "correlation is not causation" (even if you do it in a creative fashion) is not enough.

    I find it hard to see how you read my excerpts and still believe that.

    I have not made time to read an entire book in the last couple of hours, sorry.
     
    Could you at least try reading a single sentence correctly then? Especially after I went to the trouble of abstracting the most salient points for you in my excerpts.

    I offered a working, first order definition of “character”. Apparently you reject it
     
    As I said, give me something which is measurable.

    I hope I have made it clear how much contempt I have for this kind of wordplay (and argument by anecdote) coupled with a complete unwillingness to engage with what data is available. High V low M people are tiresome. Especially when statistical arguments are involved.

    Replies: @very old statistician

    with the exception of von Neumann and Ramanujan, every well-known mathematician whose life could have been coterminous with yours was low M high V. (poor little recreational mathematicians like Tao and Urrdoshe (yes, that is how to pronounce it) are not really considered high M. Recreational mathematics is not the same as mathematics. Groethendieck, perhaps the most admired of my (and yours, unless you are very very young) mathematical contemporaries, was a poet at heart (and a big fan of Paul Klee, which is a good tell for someone who is out of his depths….))….

    I am not saying that that high V is easier than High M, I am just saying that human beings are really really bad at common sense understanding of numbers. A high V human being is very admirable and adapted to the challenges of Life, a high M human being is a freak of nature (leaving aside whether they are interesting in other ways)

    Look at it this way —- there are about ten thousand notes to memorize in an average classical piano concerto, and on the day when the human population reached five billion, maybe 2 or 3 humans, on any given day, were able to perform that average classical piano concerto in an artistic way.

    Look at it this way, if you prefer —- in England, in 1821, about 1 billion lines of prose or poetry were either published or written down for later publication —— tens of thousands of those lines still matter.

    In England in 2021, the average “Brit” (dread word) who is on line (about ten million of them) , or who is a journalist (tens of thosands) —- the vast majority of them high V, low M —– produces enough lines of prose to double the 1821 production every three hours, every day of the year.

    High V or not, I suggest to you that, 200 years from now, nobody will claim tens of thousands of those lines still matter.

    Now be nicer, going forward, and please don’t try and promote this “high-M” nonsense, as if you had any claim to being high-M. You might be, but the odds are a billion to one against it.

    (sorry if I am in a bad mood but I have been recently researching the “coding youth” of poor Bill Gates)

    • Replies: @res
    @very old statistician

    Surely you understand enough statistics to understand my usage of high and low as being relative to population averages? More accurately stated, my usage tends to be for the relative M/V balance at a given IQ. (I can be sloppy about which of those definitions I am using at a given moment though)

    FWIW, I tend to be fan of balanced competence. Both high/low extremes have their pathologies IMHO.


    Now be nicer, going forward, and please don’t try and promote this “high-M” nonsense, as if you had any claim to being high-M.
     
    I have no interest in being nice to people who respond to data based arguments with (essentially) well, that is my opinion and since your metric has exceptions I will ignore it. Especially when those people both misread and misunderstand my comments. And fail to respond to my quite reasonable request to suggest a better measure. The evasive wordplay is just the cherry on top.

    I don't understand what you mean below. Are you honestly trying to say that those mathematicians are better at verbal skills than mathematical skills? Using my usage defined above?!

    every well-known mathematician whose life could have been coterminous with yours was low M high V
     
    Regarding this:

    A high V human being is very admirable and adapted to the challenges of Life, a high M human being is a freak of nature
     
    There is some truth there, but I don't have much respect or appreciation for those who use their high V to shout down important (or just useful) mathematical facts. I am especially peevish about that right now because the Covidiocy of the last year has that tendency on full display. When it is done with what seems like dishonest motivation (COVID, not this thread) it is MANY times worse.

    (sorry if I am in a bad mood but I have been recently researching the “coding youth” of poor Bill Gates)
     
    Bad mood or not, at least you have interesting things to say. I just get tired of innumerate responses where people try to justify their opinions in the face of contrary data with lame argument by assertion, opinion, nebulous reference to experience, and nitpicking about exceptions. In case you have not noticed, there is a great deal of that here.

    I'm in a bit of a bad mood as well. Hopefully my comments at least remain interesting (signal) despite the grumpiness (noise).
    , @anonymous
    @very old statistician


    In England in 2021, the average “Brit” (dread word) who is on line
     
    Why is “Brit” a dread word? I don’t necessarily disagree, but I am unsure why.

    (sorry if I am in a bad mood but I have been recently researching the “coding youth” of poor Bill Gates)
     
    Do you mean the code Bill Gates wrote when he was in grade school?
  129. and I am not that sure about Ramanujan – more of a poet, in his way, than you would think when you first start trying to follow his flights of mathematical fancy (I am however, sad to say, pretty sure about Bill Gates.)

  130. @res
    @anon


    Res, “Has been arrested / convicted” is not nearly as good a metric for “character” as you apparently believe.
     
    I get tired of how quickly people assume they understand what I believe based on a few short comments.

    As I said to the other anon, if you don't like that metric then suggest a better one.

    Do you fail to understand how looking at metrics like that statistically over a large population helps average out all of the exceptions and special cases? Obviously systematic biases are still important, but when we are looking at a correlation as high as 0.3 to 0.5 (those numbers are generally considered to represent moderate and large correlations in the social sciences) there is substantial margin for error.

    Let's try a restatement. Criminality is a useful metric for character at the population level. It is much less useful at the individual level. In both cases it is clearly imperfect, while still being the best population level metric I know of.

    Replies: @vhrm

    Please Hammer, don’t hurt em. Don’t let the “High V low M” type responses get your blood pressure up. Like water off a duck’s back!

    I had the same reaction as you when reading the discussion about 18 hours ago and started responding, but then my motivation flagged and i didn’t post. Below is as far as i got:

    Your thought experiments and anecdotes about a salt of the earth busboys and bastard professors and the limitations of the US legal system don’t provide a convincing counterargument because nobody here claimed that the correlation was particularly strong, let alone absolute. That is, your examples and statements are fully consistent w/ the claims you’re arguing against.

    “Character is orthogonal to IQ.” is a strong claim that is hard to provide evidence for.

    “that which people do when they think nobody’s watching” is interesting, but it’s not a “working definition”. You’d have to break it down to some specific measurable things and then show some data that shows that there’s no correlation with IQ for those specific measurable examples.

    I post it generally to demonstrate solidarity with and moral support for your more in-depth critique and response.

    (note: I think the s near the end of this conversation are all the same person that is just showing up on the site as separate numbers due to some underlying tech reason.)

    • Replies: @res
    @vhrm


    (note: I think the @anons near the end of this conversation are all the same person that is just showing up on the site as separate numbers due to some underlying tech reason.)
     
    It's possible. Occasionally you encounter people who do things like that intentionally to circumvent posting limitations (or various other "reasons"). The best example was Anti-HBD and his 7 (!) Anon accounts:
    https://www.unz.com/jthompson/explaining-race-and-genetics-no-need-to-despair/?showcomments#comment-3531459

    I post it generally to demonstrate solidarity with and moral support for your more in-depth critique and response.
     
    Thank you. It gets a bit lonely being the only one responding to multiple people making ridiculous pseudo-arguments. There were some Chanda Chisala threads which were rather epic in that regard--two high volume commenters and the blogger himself all attempting to argue with me. I was fortunate that none of them were very good at reasoned argument. Those situations also tend to make me question the intelligence of other fellow readers/commenters--which is not a good thing for me.

    Replies: @anonymous

  131. Another way to look at it (I have been studying this sort of thing since the 70s) is to look at Italian Renaissance painters.
    On the one hand you have Leonardo da Vinci, Massaccio, and Giotto , and Titian —- each of whom were incapable of going wrong with a single stroke of the brush – (those are the very very rare art equivalents of von Neumann – in other words, the indisputably high-art talent equivalents of high-M von Neumann) — but they are vastly outnumbered, even among the finite number of great Italian painters, by the painters who were conceptually amazing (Raphael and his groups of saints against Platonically perfect skies, Michelangelo and his lifelong and failed quest to apotheosize the human body as an image of God, Veronese and Tintoretto with their vertigo-inducing and more than realistic visions of great moments in mythological and spiritual history) but who often flubbed simple tasks.

    Another comparison (which might speak to the high-V people reading this) is the rarity, among writers, of the ability to communicate actual truth to nature (taking truth to nature among writers as the equivalent of truth to math among blog commenters) — so that even many of the best of writers, say Dickens or Austen, are incapable of making us believe that they are describing real natural humans, rather than rhetorical fairyland versions of the sort of people we meet —- (thus, high-V low-M in their sphere) – which would seem normal among great geniuses, until you read, for example, anything Shakespeare wrote, in whose writings truth to nature is exactly what he perfectly did.

    High-M (and its equivalents in the technical arts) just is not a real thing among non-supreme-geniuses in any given field, non-supreme-non-high-M geniuses are all simply high-V equivalents with more or less efforts to keep track of numbers (or technical details). (For the record, Raphael and Michelangelo and Austen and Dickens were supreme geniuses, but their art simply did not measure up, from the simple point of view of supreme technique in painting, sculpture, and creation of fictional characters, to the technique of da Vinci, Massaccio, Giotto, Titian, and Shakespeare). (For readers of Russian and Greek, I would add in Pushkin, Tolstoy, Horace, Homer and Sappho).

    In other words, we are all human, we are more or less high-V by virtue of speaking languages since our youth, and almost none of us are anywhere near good enough at math to be even close to being higher-M than high-V.

    If you are interested, Otto Rank (just read excerpts), Matthew Arnold (his essay on translating Homer), and an obscure German scholar (Curtius, explaining the difference between Dante and other Italian poets of the amazing middle ages) explained many of the details much better than I just did (I would skip Emerson’s Representative Men – well written, but … not that useful).

    • Replies: @vhrm
    @very old statistician


    so that even many of the best of writers, say Dickens or Austen, are incapable of making us believe that they are describing real natural humans, rather than rhetorical fairyland versions of the sort of people we meet
     
    Maybe for you. My brain seems very lenient in accepting characters as plausible. Characters have to do pretty non-sensical or inconsistent things before they seem obviously wrong to me. Maybe i have the "emotional intelligence" version of innumeracy.

    You're waxing poetic here about "high-M" and the pinnacle of achievement (and, to be honest, i don't fully follow it), but the complaint @res is raising about @anon's argument is at much much more achievable levels. Just that providing two anecdotal data-points from your life doesn't disprove a few studies with data series that claim and show only a moderate correlation between two variables.

    Nowadays, with the web and all... for stuff for which there exists some data... one has to use it or at least address it if someone deploys it against them.
  132. @very old statistician
    Another way to look at it (I have been studying this sort of thing since the 70s) is to look at Italian Renaissance painters.
    On the one hand you have Leonardo da Vinci, Massaccio, and Giotto , and Titian ---- each of whom were incapable of going wrong with a single stroke of the brush - (those are the very very rare art equivalents of von Neumann - in other words, the indisputably high-art talent equivalents of high-M von Neumann) --- but they are vastly outnumbered, even among the finite number of great Italian painters, by the painters who were conceptually amazing (Raphael and his groups of saints against Platonically perfect skies, Michelangelo and his lifelong and failed quest to apotheosize the human body as an image of God, Veronese and Tintoretto with their vertigo-inducing and more than realistic visions of great moments in mythological and spiritual history) but who often flubbed simple tasks.

    Another comparison (which might speak to the high-V people reading this) is the rarity, among writers, of the ability to communicate actual truth to nature (taking truth to nature among writers as the equivalent of truth to math among blog commenters) --- so that even many of the best of writers, say Dickens or Austen, are incapable of making us believe that they are describing real natural humans, rather than rhetorical fairyland versions of the sort of people we meet ---- (thus, high-V low-M in their sphere) - which would seem normal among great geniuses, until you read, for example, anything Shakespeare wrote, in whose writings truth to nature is exactly what he perfectly did.

    High-M (and its equivalents in the technical arts) just is not a real thing among non-supreme-geniuses in any given field, non-supreme-non-high-M geniuses are all simply high-V equivalents with more or less efforts to keep track of numbers (or technical details). (For the record, Raphael and Michelangelo and Austen and Dickens were supreme geniuses, but their art simply did not measure up, from the simple point of view of supreme technique in painting, sculpture, and creation of fictional characters, to the technique of da Vinci, Massaccio, Giotto, Titian, and Shakespeare). (For readers of Russian and Greek, I would add in Pushkin, Tolstoy, Horace, Homer and Sappho).

    In other words, we are all human, we are more or less high-V by virtue of speaking languages since our youth, and almost none of us are anywhere near good enough at math to be even close to being higher-M than high-V.

    If you are interested, Otto Rank (just read excerpts), Matthew Arnold (his essay on translating Homer), and an obscure German scholar (Curtius, explaining the difference between Dante and other Italian poets of the amazing middle ages) explained many of the details much better than I just did (I would skip Emerson's Representative Men - well written, but ... not that useful).

    Replies: @vhrm

    so that even many of the best of writers, say Dickens or Austen, are incapable of making us believe that they are describing real natural humans, rather than rhetorical fairyland versions of the sort of people we meet

    Maybe for you. My brain seems very lenient in accepting characters as plausible. Characters have to do pretty non-sensical or inconsistent things before they seem obviously wrong to me. Maybe i have the “emotional intelligence” version of innumeracy.

    You’re waxing poetic here about “high-M” and the pinnacle of achievement (and, to be honest, i don’t fully follow it), but the complaint is raising about ’s argument is at much much more achievable levels. Just that providing two anecdotal data-points from your life doesn’t disprove a few studies with data series that claim and show only a moderate correlation between two variables.

    Nowadays, with the web and all… for stuff for which there exists some data… one has to use it or at least address it if someone deploys it against them.

  133. @Oliver D. Smith
    @Steve Sailer

    IBD still applies to the Americas in terms of the native populations there - where you find a north - south gradient. Hasn't this been known since Cavalli-Sforza et al 1994? Anyway the fallacy I really meant is the Old World claimed barriers to gene flow like the Sahara and Himalayas. Typically what happens is studies use a very low amount of population samples from these deserts and mountains (usually only the HGDP populations), creating the illusion they are genetic barriers, when in fact they're not:


    A second important geographic barrier that has been suggested to be a barrier to gene flow is the Himalaya mountain range (Rosenberg et al. 2005; Gayden et al. 2007; Wang et al. 2012). However, the paucity of the HGDP populations around the Himalayas makes it difficult to investigate the role of the Himalayas in shaping the pattern of Asiatic genetic differentiation. Reassuringly, the E–W pattern of Asiatic genetic differentiation fits well with the major division of Asia into an Eastern and Western Asiatic genetic clusters (Rosenberg et al. 2002) with the restriction that both conclusions are drawn from the same HGDP populations, which are biased toward population isolates and are not representative of the present day population density (Cavalli-Sforza 2005).
     
    https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/30/3/513/1039898

    Rosenberg et al. 2005 made this fallacy. And most 'HBD'-type people repeat it... for example it's found in Nicholas Wade's book and even made by someone like David Reich. And it's probably made by Edward Dutton in his recent book on race as well.

    Replies: @res

    Typically what happens is studies use a very low amount of population samples from these deserts and mountains (usually only the HGDP populations), creating the illusion they are genetic barriers, when in fact they’re not

    From your link.

    The Sahara barrier causes the N–S major orientation of African genetic differentiation since no anisotropic patterns were detected when restricting the analysis to the north or to the south of the Sahara desert

    Do you actually read these papers you cite? That was in the same section as your quote. Section title: Continental Barriers to Gene Flow

    So of the two proposed barriers we have one validated (the Sahara) and the other “difficult to investigate” due to lack of data. Some pretty feeble support for your assertion there.

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    @res


    Do you actually read these papers you cite? That was in the same section as your quote. Section title: Continental Barriers to Gene Flow

    So of the two proposed barriers we have one validated (the Sahara) and the other “difficult to investigate” due to lack of data. Some pretty feeble support for your assertion there.
     
    Yes I'm well aware; predictable response. If you bothered to look at the population samples you would realise the same flaw applies to this study i.e. look at the limited African population samples:

    Algeria (19), Bamoun (18), Biaka Pygmy (22), Brong (8), Bulala (15), Egypt (19), Fang (15), Fulani (12), Hadza (17), Hausa (12), Igbo (15), Kaba (17), Kongo (9), Libya (17), Luhya (36), Maasai (30), Mada (12), Mandenka (22), Mbuti Pygmy (13), Morocco N (18), Morocco S (16), Mozabite (29), Sahara OCC (18), San NB (17), San SA (31), Sandawe (28), Tunisia (18), Xhosa (11), Yoruba (47)
     
    And looking at SSA the authors of the paper even concede:

    In Sub-Sahara, the absence of correlation between FST and geographical distances (supplementary table S3 and Supplementary Data, Supplementary Material online) can be explained by the presence of strongly diverged populations (e.g., San and Bantu speaking populations in southern Africa) sampled in nearby areas, and the relatively sparse population-sampling [we note that Schlebusch et al. (2012) recently provided a denser sample of sub-Saharan populations and a correlation was in fact detected]
     
    It's always the same problem - sparse population sampling.

    Are there studies that include hundreds of samples in Africa? I'm only aware of Tishkoff et al. 2009. And that study showed the Sahara is not a genetic barrier:

    https://i2.wp.com/www.molecularecologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Tishkoff2009_fig02.png

    You've been debunked on this countless times before like Mikemikev.

    Replies: @res, @mikemikev

  134. @very old statistician
    @res

    with the exception of von Neumann and Ramanujan, every well-known mathematician whose life could have been coterminous with yours was low M high V. (poor little recreational mathematicians like Tao and Urrdoshe (yes, that is how to pronounce it) are not really considered high M. Recreational mathematics is not the same as mathematics. Groethendieck, perhaps the most admired of my (and yours, unless you are very very young) mathematical contemporaries, was a poet at heart (and a big fan of Paul Klee, which is a good tell for someone who is out of his depths....))....

    I am not saying that that high V is easier than High M, I am just saying that human beings are really really bad at common sense understanding of numbers. A high V human being is very admirable and adapted to the challenges of Life, a high M human being is a freak of nature (leaving aside whether they are interesting in other ways)

    Look at it this way ---- there are about ten thousand notes to memorize in an average classical piano concerto, and on the day when the human population reached five billion, maybe 2 or 3 humans, on any given day, were able to perform that average classical piano concerto in an artistic way.


    Look at it this way, if you prefer ---- in England, in 1821, about 1 billion lines of prose or poetry were either published or written down for later publication ------ tens of thousands of those lines still matter.

    In England in 2021, the average "Brit" (dread word) who is on line (about ten million of them) , or who is a journalist (tens of thosands) ---- the vast majority of them high V, low M ----- produces enough lines of prose to double the 1821 production every three hours, every day of the year.

    High V or not, I suggest to you that, 200 years from now, nobody will claim tens of thousands of those lines still matter.

    Now be nicer, going forward, and please don't try and promote this "high-M" nonsense, as if you had any claim to being high-M. You might be, but the odds are a billion to one against it.

    (sorry if I am in a bad mood but I have been recently researching the "coding youth" of poor Bill Gates)

    Replies: @res, @anonymous

    Surely you understand enough statistics to understand my usage of high and low as being relative to population averages? More accurately stated, my usage tends to be for the relative M/V balance at a given IQ. (I can be sloppy about which of those definitions I am using at a given moment though)

    FWIW, I tend to be fan of balanced competence. Both high/low extremes have their pathologies IMHO.

    Now be nicer, going forward, and please don’t try and promote this “high-M” nonsense, as if you had any claim to being high-M.

    I have no interest in being nice to people who respond to data based arguments with (essentially) well, that is my opinion and since your metric has exceptions I will ignore it. Especially when those people both misread and misunderstand my comments. And fail to respond to my quite reasonable request to suggest a better measure. The evasive wordplay is just the cherry on top.

    I don’t understand what you mean below. Are you honestly trying to say that those mathematicians are better at verbal skills than mathematical skills? Using my usage defined above?!

    every well-known mathematician whose life could have been coterminous with yours was low M high V

    Regarding this:

    A high V human being is very admirable and adapted to the challenges of Life, a high M human being is a freak of nature

    There is some truth there, but I don’t have much respect or appreciation for those who use their high V to shout down important (or just useful) mathematical facts. I am especially peevish about that right now because the Covidiocy of the last year has that tendency on full display. When it is done with what seems like dishonest motivation (COVID, not this thread) it is MANY times worse.

    (sorry if I am in a bad mood but I have been recently researching the “coding youth” of poor Bill Gates)

    Bad mood or not, at least you have interesting things to say. I just get tired of innumerate responses where people try to justify their opinions in the face of contrary data with lame argument by assertion, opinion, nebulous reference to experience, and nitpicking about exceptions. In case you have not noticed, there is a great deal of that here.

    I’m in a bit of a bad mood as well. Hopefully my comments at least remain interesting (signal) despite the grumpiness (noise).

  135. @vhrm
    @res

    Please Hammer, don't hurt em. Don't let the "High V low M" type responses get your blood pressure up. Like water off a duck's back!

    I had the same reaction as you when reading the discussion about 18 hours ago and started responding, but then my motivation flagged and i didn't post. Below is as far as i got:


    Your thought experiments and anecdotes about a salt of the earth busboys and bastard professors and the limitations of the US legal system don't provide a convincing counterargument because nobody here claimed that the correlation was particularly strong, let alone absolute. That is, your examples and statements are fully consistent w/ the claims you're arguing against.

    "Character is orthogonal to IQ." is a strong claim that is hard to provide evidence for.

    "that which people do when they think nobody's watching" is interesting, but it's not a "working definition". You'd have to break it down to some specific measurable things and then show some data that shows that there's no correlation with IQ for those specific measurable examples.

     

    I post it generally to demonstrate solidarity with and moral support for your more in-depth critique and response.

    (note: I think the @anons near the end of this conversation are all the same person that is just showing up on the site as separate numbers due to some underlying tech reason.)

    Replies: @res

    (note: I think the s near the end of this conversation are all the same person that is just showing up on the site as separate numbers due to some underlying tech reason.)

    It’s possible. Occasionally you encounter people who do things like that intentionally to circumvent posting limitations (or various other “reasons”). The best example was Anti-HBD and his 7 (!) Anon accounts:
    https://www.unz.com/jthompson/explaining-race-and-genetics-no-need-to-despair/?showcomments#comment-3531459

    I post it generally to demonstrate solidarity with and moral support for your more in-depth critique and response.

    Thank you. It gets a bit lonely being the only one responding to multiple people making ridiculous pseudo-arguments. There were some Chanda Chisala threads which were rather epic in that regard–two high volume commenters and the blogger himself all attempting to argue with me. I was fortunate that none of them were very good at reasoned argument. Those situations also tend to make me question the intelligence of other fellow readers/commenters–which is not a good thing for me.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    @res


    Thank you. It gets a bit lonely being the only...
     
    You are not alone.
  136. Where is this “Table 4” coming from?

    • Replies: @res
    @Jon Claerbout

    Table 4 (data) and the block quoted portion of Steve's post are from the referenced 2020 Intelligence paper. The paper is available at Sci-Hub. Search for the DOI 10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406

    The paper's Table 4 was reformatted into the Table 4 shown here (Steve notes his version as adapted). The original version has more information (SDs for responses and some additional questions). What strikes me is how negative the intelligence researchers were about all questions under "Treatment of intelligence by media."

    For completeness, here are some links to information about this paper.

    Articles from other bloggers on the Unz Review.
    https://www.unz.com/jthompson/experts-intelligence-race/
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/poll-intelligence-experts/

    PlumX Metrics--probably most useful for links to references to the paper on Twitter.
    https://plu.mx/a?doi=10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406
    Note they link to this Wikipedia reference (the page on Stephen Jay Gould ; )
    https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=27875
    They also have a link to a since disappeared question on the Psychology and Neuroscience Stack Exchange (sadly, no copy on the Internet Archive).

    Semantic Scholar has a page on the paper with mentions and citations as well. What is interesting there is they include James Thompson's article on the Unz Review, but not the articles from iSteve and Anatoly Karlin. I'm not a fan of including links with long alphanumeric ids so you'll have to search for that page yourself.

    I believe this is the presentation from the original 2013 time of the survey.
    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.695.3163&rep=rep1&type=pdf
    It has some additional information and is more conversational in tone.
    It is worth noting that they compared their results with this 1984 paper from Snyderman and Rothman.

    Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence and Aptitude Testing
    https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1987-17587-001
    http://lepo.it.da.ut.ee/~spihlap/snyderman%40rothman.pdf

  137. anonymous[197] • Disclaimer says:
    @very old statistician
    @res

    with the exception of von Neumann and Ramanujan, every well-known mathematician whose life could have been coterminous with yours was low M high V. (poor little recreational mathematicians like Tao and Urrdoshe (yes, that is how to pronounce it) are not really considered high M. Recreational mathematics is not the same as mathematics. Groethendieck, perhaps the most admired of my (and yours, unless you are very very young) mathematical contemporaries, was a poet at heart (and a big fan of Paul Klee, which is a good tell for someone who is out of his depths....))....

    I am not saying that that high V is easier than High M, I am just saying that human beings are really really bad at common sense understanding of numbers. A high V human being is very admirable and adapted to the challenges of Life, a high M human being is a freak of nature (leaving aside whether they are interesting in other ways)

    Look at it this way ---- there are about ten thousand notes to memorize in an average classical piano concerto, and on the day when the human population reached five billion, maybe 2 or 3 humans, on any given day, were able to perform that average classical piano concerto in an artistic way.


    Look at it this way, if you prefer ---- in England, in 1821, about 1 billion lines of prose or poetry were either published or written down for later publication ------ tens of thousands of those lines still matter.

    In England in 2021, the average "Brit" (dread word) who is on line (about ten million of them) , or who is a journalist (tens of thosands) ---- the vast majority of them high V, low M ----- produces enough lines of prose to double the 1821 production every three hours, every day of the year.

    High V or not, I suggest to you that, 200 years from now, nobody will claim tens of thousands of those lines still matter.

    Now be nicer, going forward, and please don't try and promote this "high-M" nonsense, as if you had any claim to being high-M. You might be, but the odds are a billion to one against it.

    (sorry if I am in a bad mood but I have been recently researching the "coding youth" of poor Bill Gates)

    Replies: @res, @anonymous

    In England in 2021, the average “Brit” (dread word) who is on line

    Why is “Brit” a dread word? I don’t necessarily disagree, but I am unsure why.

    (sorry if I am in a bad mood but I have been recently researching the “coding youth” of poor Bill Gates)

    Do you mean the code Bill Gates wrote when he was in grade school?

  138. @res
    @vhrm


    (note: I think the @anons near the end of this conversation are all the same person that is just showing up on the site as separate numbers due to some underlying tech reason.)
     
    It's possible. Occasionally you encounter people who do things like that intentionally to circumvent posting limitations (or various other "reasons"). The best example was Anti-HBD and his 7 (!) Anon accounts:
    https://www.unz.com/jthompson/explaining-race-and-genetics-no-need-to-despair/?showcomments#comment-3531459

    I post it generally to demonstrate solidarity with and moral support for your more in-depth critique and response.
     
    Thank you. It gets a bit lonely being the only one responding to multiple people making ridiculous pseudo-arguments. There were some Chanda Chisala threads which were rather epic in that regard--two high volume commenters and the blogger himself all attempting to argue with me. I was fortunate that none of them were very good at reasoned argument. Those situations also tend to make me question the intelligence of other fellow readers/commenters--which is not a good thing for me.

    Replies: @anonymous

    Thank you. It gets a bit lonely being the only…

    You are not alone.

  139. Oliver D. Smith says:
    @res
    @Oliver D. Smith


    Typically what happens is studies use a very low amount of population samples from these deserts and mountains (usually only the HGDP populations), creating the illusion they are genetic barriers, when in fact they’re not
     
    From your link.

    The Sahara barrier causes the N–S major orientation of African genetic differentiation since no anisotropic patterns were detected when restricting the analysis to the north or to the south of the Sahara desert
     
    Do you actually read these papers you cite? That was in the same section as your quote. Section title: Continental Barriers to Gene Flow

    So of the two proposed barriers we have one validated (the Sahara) and the other "difficult to investigate" due to lack of data. Some pretty feeble support for your assertion there.

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

    Do you actually read these papers you cite? That was in the same section as your quote. Section title: Continental Barriers to Gene Flow

    So of the two proposed barriers we have one validated (the Sahara) and the other “difficult to investigate” due to lack of data. Some pretty feeble support for your assertion there.

    Yes I’m well aware; predictable response. If you bothered to look at the population samples you would realise the same flaw applies to this study i.e. look at the limited African population samples:

    Algeria (19), Bamoun (18), Biaka Pygmy (22), Brong (8), Bulala (15), Egypt (19), Fang (15), Fulani (12), Hadza (17), Hausa (12), Igbo (15), Kaba (17), Kongo (9), Libya (17), Luhya (36), Maasai (30), Mada (12), Mandenka (22), Mbuti Pygmy (13), Morocco N (18), Morocco S (16), Mozabite (29), Sahara OCC (18), San NB (17), San SA (31), Sandawe (28), Tunisia (18), Xhosa (11), Yoruba (47)

    And looking at SSA the authors of the paper even concede:

    In Sub-Sahara, the absence of correlation between FST and geographical distances (supplementary table S3 and Supplementary Data, Supplementary Material online) can be explained by the presence of strongly diverged populations (e.g., San and Bantu speaking populations in southern Africa) sampled in nearby areas, and the relatively sparse population-sampling [we note that Schlebusch et al. (2012) recently provided a denser sample of sub-Saharan populations and a correlation was in fact detected]

    It’s always the same problem – sparse population sampling.

    Are there studies that include hundreds of samples in Africa? I’m only aware of Tishkoff et al. 2009. And that study showed the Sahara is not a genetic barrier:

    You’ve been debunked on this countless times before like Mikemikev.

    • Replies: @res
    @Oliver D. Smith


    Yes I’m well aware
     
    So you intentionally cite references which you know barely support your thesis then quote selectively from them. Good to know.

    It's funny that you give that graphic as evidence for your point. You realize that most of the people in the intermediate region represent admixed populations, right? (for anyone new to this conversation, those would be the African American and Cape Mixed Ancestry groups)

    To be clear.
    1. Much of genetic variation is by distance.
    2. Barriers impact that. Sometimes dramatically.

    One way to think about it is that barriers (geographic, cultural, etc.) affect the slope of genetic variation with distance (visualize the frequency distribution of alleles for a specific SNP). If the barrier is sufficiently strong the slope approaches infinity (i.e. your strawman discontinuity), but any admixture at all means that won't happen.

    Even if you sample the populations more finely I would expect the gradient that paper observed across the Sahara to persist. The slope is steep, but not discontinuous. You would just fill in intermediate points.

    P.S. Regarding your final SSA excerpt, you realize that they are talking about variation below the Sahara (i.e. SSA) and not variation across the Sahara, right?

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

    , @mikemikev
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Oh look the mentally ill troll is seeking attention again with his ad nauseam lies. Hilariously even the overplotted 2009 graph he always cherry picks after having it refuted thousands of times and then posting it again and lying it hasn't been addressed, rotates in PC space at the Sahara. What a total moron.

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

  140. @Anonymouse
    @GeneralRipper

    It is virtually impossible to sue the Wikipedia Foundation for libel or defamation.

    Replies: @Curle

    Care to elaborate?

  141. @ic1000
    @Anon

    > [Is it difficult] to edit Wikipedia to make its article on Steve more complete? Do they allow that?

    [408], it's super-easy to correct or expand almost any Wikipedia article. You just do it -- you don't even have to sign up for an account.

    The system works great when the topic is obscure and doesn't attract passions. Wikipedia has good and reliable descriptions of the opening of the proto-Atlantic, the Battle of the Somme, and Ice Cube's career(s).

    However.

    Wikipedia is designed to be resilient to the vandalism that this structure invites. When you edit Ice Cube's article to state that his first hit was in 1916, the system automatically notifies those Ice-Cube-interested editors who have asked to be kept current with changes. One of them will "revert" the article to its prior, correct condition, often within seconds. This can lead to "edit wars," and Wiki has policies for that, too. Vandals get beaten down.

    Most Wikipedia editors are leftists. At every step up the chain through more-committed editors to admins and above, the progressivism and wokism becomes more pronounced. So almost all edit wars end with politically correct text holding the field.

    To the Wikirati, editing the Steve Sailer to paint a truer portrait of the man and his writings is indistinguishable from vandalism, and they handle it the same way.

    Now and then, a well-meaning person will start a journey through the looking glass by submitting a Narrative-nonconforming edit. Occasionally, the edit war ends with a correction to a falsehood or misinterpretation. By design, the cost is always high.

    Replies: @anon, @Bardon Kaldian, @Lot, @Anonymouse, @Reg Cæsar, @Curle

    Seems most everyone is getting doxed these days. What’s so hard about determining identity of wiki editors?

  142. @Oliver D. Smith
    @res


    Do you actually read these papers you cite? That was in the same section as your quote. Section title: Continental Barriers to Gene Flow

    So of the two proposed barriers we have one validated (the Sahara) and the other “difficult to investigate” due to lack of data. Some pretty feeble support for your assertion there.
     
    Yes I'm well aware; predictable response. If you bothered to look at the population samples you would realise the same flaw applies to this study i.e. look at the limited African population samples:

    Algeria (19), Bamoun (18), Biaka Pygmy (22), Brong (8), Bulala (15), Egypt (19), Fang (15), Fulani (12), Hadza (17), Hausa (12), Igbo (15), Kaba (17), Kongo (9), Libya (17), Luhya (36), Maasai (30), Mada (12), Mandenka (22), Mbuti Pygmy (13), Morocco N (18), Morocco S (16), Mozabite (29), Sahara OCC (18), San NB (17), San SA (31), Sandawe (28), Tunisia (18), Xhosa (11), Yoruba (47)
     
    And looking at SSA the authors of the paper even concede:

    In Sub-Sahara, the absence of correlation between FST and geographical distances (supplementary table S3 and Supplementary Data, Supplementary Material online) can be explained by the presence of strongly diverged populations (e.g., San and Bantu speaking populations in southern Africa) sampled in nearby areas, and the relatively sparse population-sampling [we note that Schlebusch et al. (2012) recently provided a denser sample of sub-Saharan populations and a correlation was in fact detected]
     
    It's always the same problem - sparse population sampling.

    Are there studies that include hundreds of samples in Africa? I'm only aware of Tishkoff et al. 2009. And that study showed the Sahara is not a genetic barrier:

    https://i2.wp.com/www.molecularecologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Tishkoff2009_fig02.png

    You've been debunked on this countless times before like Mikemikev.

    Replies: @res, @mikemikev

    Yes I’m well aware

    So you intentionally cite references which you know barely support your thesis then quote selectively from them. Good to know.

    It’s funny that you give that graphic as evidence for your point. You realize that most of the people in the intermediate region represent admixed populations, right? (for anyone new to this conversation, those would be the African American and Cape Mixed Ancestry groups)

    To be clear.
    1. Much of genetic variation is by distance.
    2. Barriers impact that. Sometimes dramatically.

    One way to think about it is that barriers (geographic, cultural, etc.) affect the slope of genetic variation with distance (visualize the frequency distribution of alleles for a specific SNP). If the barrier is sufficiently strong the slope approaches infinity (i.e. your strawman discontinuity), but any admixture at all means that won’t happen.

    Even if you sample the populations more finely I would expect the gradient that paper observed across the Sahara to persist. The slope is steep, but not discontinuous. You would just fill in intermediate points.

    P.S. Regarding your final SSA excerpt, you realize that they are talking about variation below the Sahara (i.e. SSA) and not variation across the Sahara, right?

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    @res


    So you intentionally cite references which you know barely support your thesis then quote selectively from them. Good to know.

    It’s funny that you give that graphic as evidence for your point. You realize that most of the people in the intermediate region represent admixed populations, right? (for anyone new to this conversation, those would be the African American and Cape Mixed Ancestry groups)

     

    I've made the same point about sparse population sampling you continue to ignore. In fact, even the Tishkoff et al. 2009 study includes no population samples from large regions across Africa see (Figure s1) particularly the Sahara (their study only uses two North Africa/Saharan samples - Beja and Mozabites, talk about sparse...) But since they include dozens of samples from the Sahel not normally included in studies on African population genetics - you can still see the blue-orange smooth continuum in the PCA which disproves your claims.

    1. Much of genetic variation is by distance.
    2. Barriers impact that. Sometimes dramatically.
     

    If you could find an actual barrier. I'm confused why you think the Sahara is - you are aware people live in the Saharan desert? I'm not only talking about the Egyptian population(s) and peoples of north Sudan but the Tuareg people (why are they excluded from virtually every study?) If you have a continuous stretch of land occupied from Sahara through to Sahel, why do you think this is a genetic barrier of some kind? Bizarre.

    Even if you sample the populations more finely I would expect the gradient that paper observed across the Sahara to persist. The slope is steep, but not discontinuous. You would just fill in intermediate points.
     
    Wrong.

    P.S. Regarding your final SSA excerpt, you realize that they are talking about variation below the Sahara (i.e. SSA) and not variation across the Sahara, right?
     
    Yes. I mentioned that to prove my point about sparse population sampling. One study in SSA did not detect a correlation (or it was negligible) between genetic distance and geographical distance - when more populations were sampled, another study detected a significant correlation. Not sure why you are having a difficulty with accepting this - its the same point made in a major study: Serre, D. and Paabo, S.P. (2004) Evidence for gradients of human genetic diversity within and among continents. Genome Res. 14,.

    Replies: @mikemikev, @res

  143. @Oliver D. Smith
    @res


    Do you actually read these papers you cite? That was in the same section as your quote. Section title: Continental Barriers to Gene Flow

    So of the two proposed barriers we have one validated (the Sahara) and the other “difficult to investigate” due to lack of data. Some pretty feeble support for your assertion there.
     
    Yes I'm well aware; predictable response. If you bothered to look at the population samples you would realise the same flaw applies to this study i.e. look at the limited African population samples:

    Algeria (19), Bamoun (18), Biaka Pygmy (22), Brong (8), Bulala (15), Egypt (19), Fang (15), Fulani (12), Hadza (17), Hausa (12), Igbo (15), Kaba (17), Kongo (9), Libya (17), Luhya (36), Maasai (30), Mada (12), Mandenka (22), Mbuti Pygmy (13), Morocco N (18), Morocco S (16), Mozabite (29), Sahara OCC (18), San NB (17), San SA (31), Sandawe (28), Tunisia (18), Xhosa (11), Yoruba (47)
     
    And looking at SSA the authors of the paper even concede:

    In Sub-Sahara, the absence of correlation between FST and geographical distances (supplementary table S3 and Supplementary Data, Supplementary Material online) can be explained by the presence of strongly diverged populations (e.g., San and Bantu speaking populations in southern Africa) sampled in nearby areas, and the relatively sparse population-sampling [we note that Schlebusch et al. (2012) recently provided a denser sample of sub-Saharan populations and a correlation was in fact detected]
     
    It's always the same problem - sparse population sampling.

    Are there studies that include hundreds of samples in Africa? I'm only aware of Tishkoff et al. 2009. And that study showed the Sahara is not a genetic barrier:

    https://i2.wp.com/www.molecularecologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Tishkoff2009_fig02.png

    You've been debunked on this countless times before like Mikemikev.

    Replies: @res, @mikemikev

    Oh look the mentally ill troll is seeking attention again with his ad nauseam lies. Hilariously even the overplotted 2009 graph he always cherry picks after having it refuted thousands of times and then posting it again and lying it hasn’t been addressed, rotates in PC space at the Sahara. What a total moron.

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    @mikemikev

    No need to project again Michael. I'm not the deranged person currently under police investigation for sending the geneticist Adam Rutherford 5000+ tweets of abuse.

    https://trollpedia.miraheze.org/wiki/Michael_Coombs

    https://twitter.com/AdamRutherford/status/1347178416446066690

    Replies: @res

  144. @Jon Claerbout
    Where is this "Table 4" coming from?

    Replies: @res

    Table 4 (data) and the block quoted portion of Steve’s post are from the referenced 2020 Intelligence paper. The paper is available at Sci-Hub. Search for the DOI 10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406

    The paper’s Table 4 was reformatted into the Table 4 shown here (Steve notes his version as adapted). The original version has more information (SDs for responses and some additional questions). What strikes me is how negative the intelligence researchers were about all questions under “Treatment of intelligence by media.”

    For completeness, here are some links to information about this paper.

    Articles from other bloggers on the Unz Review.
    https://www.unz.com/jthompson/experts-intelligence-race/
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/poll-intelligence-experts/

    PlumX Metrics–probably most useful for links to references to the paper on Twitter.
    https://plu.mx/a?doi=10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406
    Note they link to this Wikipedia reference (the page on Stephen Jay Gould ; )
    https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=27875
    They also have a link to a since disappeared question on the Psychology and Neuroscience Stack Exchange (sadly, no copy on the Internet Archive).

    Semantic Scholar has a page on the paper with mentions and citations as well. What is interesting there is they include James Thompson’s article on the Unz Review, but not the articles from iSteve and Anatoly Karlin. I’m not a fan of including links with long alphanumeric ids so you’ll have to search for that page yourself.

    I believe this is the presentation from the original 2013 time of the survey.
    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.695.3163&rep=rep1&type=pdf
    It has some additional information and is more conversational in tone.
    It is worth noting that they compared their results with this 1984 paper from Snyderman and Rothman.

    Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence and Aptitude Testing
    https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1987-17587-001
    http://lepo.it.da.ut.ee/~spihlap/snyderman%40rothman.pdf

  145. Oliver D. Smith says:
    @res
    @Oliver D. Smith


    Yes I’m well aware
     
    So you intentionally cite references which you know barely support your thesis then quote selectively from them. Good to know.

    It's funny that you give that graphic as evidence for your point. You realize that most of the people in the intermediate region represent admixed populations, right? (for anyone new to this conversation, those would be the African American and Cape Mixed Ancestry groups)

    To be clear.
    1. Much of genetic variation is by distance.
    2. Barriers impact that. Sometimes dramatically.

    One way to think about it is that barriers (geographic, cultural, etc.) affect the slope of genetic variation with distance (visualize the frequency distribution of alleles for a specific SNP). If the barrier is sufficiently strong the slope approaches infinity (i.e. your strawman discontinuity), but any admixture at all means that won't happen.

    Even if you sample the populations more finely I would expect the gradient that paper observed across the Sahara to persist. The slope is steep, but not discontinuous. You would just fill in intermediate points.

    P.S. Regarding your final SSA excerpt, you realize that they are talking about variation below the Sahara (i.e. SSA) and not variation across the Sahara, right?

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

    So you intentionally cite references which you know barely support your thesis then quote selectively from them. Good to know.

    It’s funny that you give that graphic as evidence for your point. You realize that most of the people in the intermediate region represent admixed populations, right? (for anyone new to this conversation, those would be the African American and Cape Mixed Ancestry groups)

    I’ve made the same point about sparse population sampling you continue to ignore. In fact, even the Tishkoff et al. 2009 study includes no population samples from large regions across Africa see (Figure s1) particularly the Sahara (their study only uses two North Africa/Saharan samples – Beja and Mozabites, talk about sparse…) But since they include dozens of samples from the Sahel not normally included in studies on African population genetics – you can still see the blue-orange smooth continuum in the PCA which disproves your claims.

    1. Much of genetic variation is by distance.
    2. Barriers impact that. Sometimes dramatically.

    If you could find an actual barrier. I’m confused why you think the Sahara is – you are aware people live in the Saharan desert? I’m not only talking about the Egyptian population(s) and peoples of north Sudan but the Tuareg people (why are they excluded from virtually every study?) If you have a continuous stretch of land occupied from Sahara through to Sahel, why do you think this is a genetic barrier of some kind? Bizarre.

    Even if you sample the populations more finely I would expect the gradient that paper observed across the Sahara to persist. The slope is steep, but not discontinuous. You would just fill in intermediate points.

    Wrong.

    P.S. Regarding your final SSA excerpt, you realize that they are talking about variation below the Sahara (i.e. SSA) and not variation across the Sahara, right?

    Yes. I mentioned that to prove my point about sparse population sampling. One study in SSA did not detect a correlation (or it was negligible) between genetic distance and geographical distance – when more populations were sampled, another study detected a significant correlation. Not sure why you are having a difficulty with accepting this – its the same point made in a major study: Serre, D. and Paabo, S.P. (2004) Evidence for gradients of human genetic diversity within and among continents. Genome Res. 14,.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    @Oliver D. Smith

    So therefore Egyptians should be more closely related to Kenyans than Bangladeshis. Except they're not. So shut up.

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

    , @res
    @Oliver D. Smith

    I can't figure out whether you truly don't understand what I am saying or are simply being disingenuous. In either case, going further with this is clearly a waste of time. I have made my points and you have not refuted them.

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

  146. @mikemikev
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Oh look the mentally ill troll is seeking attention again with his ad nauseam lies. Hilariously even the overplotted 2009 graph he always cherry picks after having it refuted thousands of times and then posting it again and lying it hasn't been addressed, rotates in PC space at the Sahara. What a total moron.

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

    No need to project again Michael. I’m not the deranged person currently under police investigation for sending the geneticist Adam Rutherford 5000+ tweets of abuse.

    https://trollpedia.miraheze.org/wiki/Michael_Coombs

    • Replies: @res
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Rutherford clearly shows his expertise in arguing with racists there. Pretty funny that he literally wrote a book on the topic. I guess he forgot to write up the part where if you can't refute their arguments you call the police.

    But what is really fun here is that Felicity is making the same point that I am and you don't seem to realize it. LOL!

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

  147. @Oliver D. Smith
    @res


    So you intentionally cite references which you know barely support your thesis then quote selectively from them. Good to know.

    It’s funny that you give that graphic as evidence for your point. You realize that most of the people in the intermediate region represent admixed populations, right? (for anyone new to this conversation, those would be the African American and Cape Mixed Ancestry groups)

     

    I've made the same point about sparse population sampling you continue to ignore. In fact, even the Tishkoff et al. 2009 study includes no population samples from large regions across Africa see (Figure s1) particularly the Sahara (their study only uses two North Africa/Saharan samples - Beja and Mozabites, talk about sparse...) But since they include dozens of samples from the Sahel not normally included in studies on African population genetics - you can still see the blue-orange smooth continuum in the PCA which disproves your claims.

    1. Much of genetic variation is by distance.
    2. Barriers impact that. Sometimes dramatically.
     

    If you could find an actual barrier. I'm confused why you think the Sahara is - you are aware people live in the Saharan desert? I'm not only talking about the Egyptian population(s) and peoples of north Sudan but the Tuareg people (why are they excluded from virtually every study?) If you have a continuous stretch of land occupied from Sahara through to Sahel, why do you think this is a genetic barrier of some kind? Bizarre.

    Even if you sample the populations more finely I would expect the gradient that paper observed across the Sahara to persist. The slope is steep, but not discontinuous. You would just fill in intermediate points.
     
    Wrong.

    P.S. Regarding your final SSA excerpt, you realize that they are talking about variation below the Sahara (i.e. SSA) and not variation across the Sahara, right?
     
    Yes. I mentioned that to prove my point about sparse population sampling. One study in SSA did not detect a correlation (or it was negligible) between genetic distance and geographical distance - when more populations were sampled, another study detected a significant correlation. Not sure why you are having a difficulty with accepting this - its the same point made in a major study: Serre, D. and Paabo, S.P. (2004) Evidence for gradients of human genetic diversity within and among continents. Genome Res. 14,.

    Replies: @mikemikev, @res

    So therefore Egyptians should be more closely related to Kenyans than Bangladeshis. Except they’re not. So shut up.

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    @mikemikev


    So therefore Egyptians should be more closely related to Kenyans than Bangladeshis.
     
    Of course IBD doesn't apply to recent replacement migrations. Sample the pre-Bantu & pre-Nilotic Cushitic population in Kenya and that will support IBD. Nearly all of the Cushitic population in Kenya was replaced within past 1000 years to the extent there are very few speakers left in the country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahalo_language

    Kenya's pre-Bantu/Nilotic (Cushitic) population would have strongly genetically and phenotypically resembled Horn African populations and if you look at a bunch of old physical anthropological studies you see ancient Egyptians (especially Upper Egyptians) plot fairly close to Horn Africans such as Somalis.

    Do you ever know what you're talking about?

    Replies: @mikemikev

  148. Oliver D. Smith says:
    @mikemikev
    @Oliver D. Smith

    So therefore Egyptians should be more closely related to Kenyans than Bangladeshis. Except they're not. So shut up.

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

    So therefore Egyptians should be more closely related to Kenyans than Bangladeshis.

    Of course IBD doesn’t apply to recent replacement migrations. Sample the pre-Bantu & pre-Nilotic Cushitic population in Kenya and that will support IBD. Nearly all of the Cushitic population in Kenya was replaced within past 1000 years to the extent there are very few speakers left in the country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahalo_language

    Kenya’s pre-Bantu/Nilotic (Cushitic) population would have strongly genetically and phenotypically resembled Horn African populations and if you look at a bunch of old physical anthropological studies you see ancient Egyptians (especially Upper Egyptians) plot fairly close to Horn Africans such as Somalis.

    Do you ever know what you’re talking about?

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Oh so now IBD applies if we sample people from a thousand years ago, allegedly. Have you finished making a fool of yourself yet?

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

  149. @Oliver D. Smith
    @res


    So you intentionally cite references which you know barely support your thesis then quote selectively from them. Good to know.

    It’s funny that you give that graphic as evidence for your point. You realize that most of the people in the intermediate region represent admixed populations, right? (for anyone new to this conversation, those would be the African American and Cape Mixed Ancestry groups)

     

    I've made the same point about sparse population sampling you continue to ignore. In fact, even the Tishkoff et al. 2009 study includes no population samples from large regions across Africa see (Figure s1) particularly the Sahara (their study only uses two North Africa/Saharan samples - Beja and Mozabites, talk about sparse...) But since they include dozens of samples from the Sahel not normally included in studies on African population genetics - you can still see the blue-orange smooth continuum in the PCA which disproves your claims.

    1. Much of genetic variation is by distance.
    2. Barriers impact that. Sometimes dramatically.
     

    If you could find an actual barrier. I'm confused why you think the Sahara is - you are aware people live in the Saharan desert? I'm not only talking about the Egyptian population(s) and peoples of north Sudan but the Tuareg people (why are they excluded from virtually every study?) If you have a continuous stretch of land occupied from Sahara through to Sahel, why do you think this is a genetic barrier of some kind? Bizarre.

    Even if you sample the populations more finely I would expect the gradient that paper observed across the Sahara to persist. The slope is steep, but not discontinuous. You would just fill in intermediate points.
     
    Wrong.

    P.S. Regarding your final SSA excerpt, you realize that they are talking about variation below the Sahara (i.e. SSA) and not variation across the Sahara, right?
     
    Yes. I mentioned that to prove my point about sparse population sampling. One study in SSA did not detect a correlation (or it was negligible) between genetic distance and geographical distance - when more populations were sampled, another study detected a significant correlation. Not sure why you are having a difficulty with accepting this - its the same point made in a major study: Serre, D. and Paabo, S.P. (2004) Evidence for gradients of human genetic diversity within and among continents. Genome Res. 14,.

    Replies: @mikemikev, @res

    I can’t figure out whether you truly don’t understand what I am saying or are simply being disingenuous. In either case, going further with this is clearly a waste of time. I have made my points and you have not refuted them.

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    @res

    Do you accept geographical distance globally explains ~70-80% of genetic variation between populations? This has been consistently demonstrated in many studies.


    Human genetic variation is mainly clinal. Several groups have confirmed that the genetic differentiation between pairs of populations correlates exceptionally well with the geographic distance separating them (e.g. Refs [10,11,13,17,18]). Relethford [17] demonstrated a remarkably strong pattern of isolation by distance when correlating geographic distance.
     

    Figure 1. Human genetic variation is mainly clinal. (a) Pairwise genetic distance (FST) between populations in the HGDP-CEPH cell line panel is plotted against pairwise geographic distance. There is a strong, positive, linear relationship between genetic differentiation and geographic distance between populations, which is consistent with IBD. 77% of the variance [r2 = 0.7679] can be explained by geographic distance between populations
     
    - Handley LJL, Manica A, Goudet J, Balloux F. Going the distance: human population genetics in a clinal world. Trends Genet 23: 432-439

    Even the Rosenberg et al study calculates 69%:


    linear regression on geographic distance for the points in Figure 6 has R2 =0.690.
     
    Now go take a look at these same studies and see what they calculate the barriers you mention... quote from Maglo (2016) discussing the infamous Rosenberg study:

    This equation suggests that the Sahara, Himalayas and oceans introduce genetic discontinuities between pairs of populations on the opposite side (R2 = 0.0153).
     
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756148/

    1.53% (!)

    Of course I dispute this figure based on sparse population sampling - I think it is zero. But do you realise your own position is saying only ~2% of genetic variation is caused by geographical barriers? It's pretty much trivial but you base your racialist view on this.

  150. @Oliver D. Smith
    @mikemikev

    No need to project again Michael. I'm not the deranged person currently under police investigation for sending the geneticist Adam Rutherford 5000+ tweets of abuse.

    https://trollpedia.miraheze.org/wiki/Michael_Coombs

    https://twitter.com/AdamRutherford/status/1347178416446066690

    Replies: @res

    Rutherford clearly shows his expertise in arguing with racists there. Pretty funny that he literally wrote a book on the topic. I guess he forgot to write up the part where if you can’t refute their arguments you call the police.

    But what is really fun here is that Felicity is making the same point that I am and you don’t seem to realize it. LOL!

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    @res

    Debate is one thing, but sending someone 5000+ messages of abuse is another. Mikemikev also did that on over a dozen different Twitter accounts (all suspended) when Rutherford repeatedly told him to stop messaging him, as well as spammed abuse in Rutherford's livestreams, plus created fake accounts in Rutherford's name on various websites. That's undeniably harassment. Btw, if Mikemikev did nothing wrong why is he lying about not being Felicity? He knows he has broken laws with the harassment and is fearful of the legal consequences, so won't admit in writing he's Michael Coombs.

    Plenty of evidence though Mikemikev/Michael Coombs is Felicity-
    https://trollpedia.miraheze.org/wiki/Michael_Coombs/Felicit52636930
    https://trollpedia.miraheze.org/wiki/Michael_Coombs#Adam_Rutherford

    Seriously, are you really defending this? Click the video. Mikemikev literally spends 24/7 online harassing Rutherford on social media, look at the extent of the abusive tweets.
    https://twitter.com/AdamRutherford/status/1346441961968988169

  151. Oliver D. Smith says:
    @res
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Rutherford clearly shows his expertise in arguing with racists there. Pretty funny that he literally wrote a book on the topic. I guess he forgot to write up the part where if you can't refute their arguments you call the police.

    But what is really fun here is that Felicity is making the same point that I am and you don't seem to realize it. LOL!

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

    Debate is one thing, but sending someone 5000+ messages of abuse is another. Mikemikev also did that on over a dozen different Twitter accounts (all suspended) when Rutherford repeatedly told him to stop messaging him, as well as spammed abuse in Rutherford’s livestreams, plus created fake accounts in Rutherford’s name on various websites. That’s undeniably harassment. Btw, if Mikemikev did nothing wrong why is he lying about not being Felicity? He knows he has broken laws with the harassment and is fearful of the legal consequences, so won’t admit in writing he’s Michael Coombs.

    Plenty of evidence though Mikemikev/Michael Coombs is Felicity-
    https://trollpedia.miraheze.org/wiki/Michael_Coombs/Felicit52636930
    https://trollpedia.miraheze.org/wiki/Michael_Coombs#Adam_Rutherford

    Seriously, are you really defending this? Click the video. Mikemikev literally spends 24/7 online harassing Rutherford on social media, look at the extent of the abusive tweets.

  152. Oliver D. Smith says:
    @res
    @Oliver D. Smith

    I can't figure out whether you truly don't understand what I am saying or are simply being disingenuous. In either case, going further with this is clearly a waste of time. I have made my points and you have not refuted them.

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

    Do you accept geographical distance globally explains ~70-80% of genetic variation between populations? This has been consistently demonstrated in many studies.

    Human genetic variation is mainly clinal. Several groups have confirmed that the genetic differentiation between pairs of populations correlates exceptionally well with the geographic distance separating them (e.g. Refs [10,11,13,17,18]). Relethford [17] demonstrated a remarkably strong pattern of isolation by distance when correlating geographic distance.

    Figure 1. Human genetic variation is mainly clinal. (a) Pairwise genetic distance (FST) between populations in the HGDP-CEPH cell line panel is plotted against pairwise geographic distance. There is a strong, positive, linear relationship between genetic differentiation and geographic distance between populations, which is consistent with IBD. 77% of the variance [r2 = 0.7679] can be explained by geographic distance between populations

    – Handley LJL, Manica A, Goudet J, Balloux F. Going the distance: human population genetics in a clinal world. Trends Genet 23: 432-439

    Even the Rosenberg et al study calculates 69%:

    linear regression on geographic distance for the points in Figure 6 has R2 =0.690.

    Now go take a look at these same studies and see what they calculate the barriers you mention… quote from Maglo (2016) discussing the infamous Rosenberg study:

    This equation suggests that the Sahara, Himalayas and oceans introduce genetic discontinuities between pairs of populations on the opposite side (R2 = 0.0153).

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756148/

    1.53% (!)

    Of course I dispute this figure based on sparse population sampling – I think it is zero. But do you realise your own position is saying only ~2% of genetic variation is caused by geographical barriers? It’s pretty much trivial but you base your racialist view on this.

  153. @Oliver D. Smith
    @mikemikev


    So therefore Egyptians should be more closely related to Kenyans than Bangladeshis.
     
    Of course IBD doesn't apply to recent replacement migrations. Sample the pre-Bantu & pre-Nilotic Cushitic population in Kenya and that will support IBD. Nearly all of the Cushitic population in Kenya was replaced within past 1000 years to the extent there are very few speakers left in the country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahalo_language

    Kenya's pre-Bantu/Nilotic (Cushitic) population would have strongly genetically and phenotypically resembled Horn African populations and if you look at a bunch of old physical anthropological studies you see ancient Egyptians (especially Upper Egyptians) plot fairly close to Horn Africans such as Somalis.

    Do you ever know what you're talking about?

    Replies: @mikemikev

    Oh so now IBD applies if we sample people from a thousand years ago, allegedly. Have you finished making a fool of yourself yet?

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    @mikemikev

    So according to you - IBD in say northwestern Europe between native populations is invalidated because of recent migration and cosmopolitan cities like London.. You're now using an SJW Saini-like argument. No consistency whatsoever in your posts.

    Of course IBD doesn't apply to historic replacement migration where a native population was entirely or largely replaced or modern cosmopolitan cities where you don't sample the natives. You're now using an SJW argument to deny indigenous populations exist which directly contradicts your tweets. I always said you were a troll - you have multiple personas with contradictory views. Stop wasting people's time here.

    Replies: @mikemikev

  154. Oliver D. Smith says:
    @mikemikev
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Oh so now IBD applies if we sample people from a thousand years ago, allegedly. Have you finished making a fool of yourself yet?

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

    So according to you – IBD in say northwestern Europe between native populations is invalidated because of recent migration and cosmopolitan cities like London.. You’re now using an SJW Saini-like argument. No consistency whatsoever in your posts.

    Of course IBD doesn’t apply to historic replacement migration where a native population was entirely or largely replaced or modern cosmopolitan cities where you don’t sample the natives. You’re now using an SJW argument to deny indigenous populations exist which directly contradicts your tweets. I always said you were a troll – you have multiple personas with contradictory views. Stop wasting people’s time here.

    • Disagree: mikemikev
    • Replies: @mikemikev
    @Oliver D. Smith

    https://i.ibb.co/0QR8RTP/cathy-newman-meme.jpg

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

  155. @Oliver D. Smith
    @mikemikev

    So according to you - IBD in say northwestern Europe between native populations is invalidated because of recent migration and cosmopolitan cities like London.. You're now using an SJW Saini-like argument. No consistency whatsoever in your posts.

    Of course IBD doesn't apply to historic replacement migration where a native population was entirely or largely replaced or modern cosmopolitan cities where you don't sample the natives. You're now using an SJW argument to deny indigenous populations exist which directly contradicts your tweets. I always said you were a troll - you have multiple personas with contradictory views. Stop wasting people's time here.

    Replies: @mikemikev

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    @mikemikev

    IBD population structure has been in place in most areas since the Neolithic. You cherry-picked an exception where the native* Cushitic inhabitants of Kenya (who had been living there since at least 5000 BP: the Savanna Pastoral Neolithic aka Stone Bowl Culture) were displaced during the recent Bantu expansion (mostly within last thousand years). *There were pre-Cushitic hunter gatherers of course but they very sparse.

    Replies: @mikemikev

  156. Oliver D. Smith says:
    @mikemikev
    @Oliver D. Smith

    https://i.ibb.co/0QR8RTP/cathy-newman-meme.jpg

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

    IBD population structure has been in place in most areas since the Neolithic. You cherry-picked an exception where the native* Cushitic inhabitants of Kenya (who had been living there since at least 5000 BP: the Savanna Pastoral Neolithic aka Stone Bowl Culture) were displaced during the recent Bantu expansion (mostly within last thousand years). *There were pre-Cushitic hunter gatherers of course but they very sparse.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    @Oliver D. Smith

    It's great you finally admitted IBD doesn't apply to extant populations.

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

  157. @Oliver D. Smith
    @mikemikev

    IBD population structure has been in place in most areas since the Neolithic. You cherry-picked an exception where the native* Cushitic inhabitants of Kenya (who had been living there since at least 5000 BP: the Savanna Pastoral Neolithic aka Stone Bowl Culture) were displaced during the recent Bantu expansion (mostly within last thousand years). *There were pre-Cushitic hunter gatherers of course but they very sparse.

    Replies: @mikemikev

    It’s great you finally admitted IBD doesn’t apply to extant populations.

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    @mikemikev

    Incorrect. You're lying as usual.

    IBD still applies to the vast majority of contemporary populations (a few cherry-picked exceptions doesn't invalidate IBD). Look at the correlations in Tishkoff et al.

    Geographic distances (great circle routes) and genetic distances (dm) 2 between population
    pairs were significantly correlated, consistent with an isolation-by-distance model (figs. S9 to S11 and table S4) (13). A heterogeneous pattern of correlations across global regions was observed, consistent with a previous study (16); the strongest correlations were in Europe and
    the Middle East (Spearman’s ρ = 0.88 and 0.83, respectively;
    P ≤ 0.0001 for both), followed by Africa (Spearman’s ρ = 0.40; P < 0.0001).

    Europe ρ = 0.88
    Middle east ρ = 0.83
    Africa ρ = 0.40

    Now what dumbass?

    And why is the correlation between genetic & geographical distance lower in Africa? Bantu expansion.

    If you look at areas the Bantu expansion didn't affect you find Saharan Africa ρ = 0. 76

    Replies: @mikemikev

  158. Oliver D. Smith says:
    @mikemikev
    @Oliver D. Smith

    It's great you finally admitted IBD doesn't apply to extant populations.

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

    Incorrect. You’re lying as usual.

    IBD still applies to the vast majority of contemporary populations (a few cherry-picked exceptions doesn’t invalidate IBD). Look at the correlations in Tishkoff et al.

    Geographic distances (great circle routes) and genetic distances (dm) 2 between population
    pairs were significantly correlated, consistent with an isolation-by-distance model (figs. S9 to S11 and table S4) (13). A heterogeneous pattern of correlations across global regions was observed, consistent with a previous study (16); the strongest correlations were in Europe and
    the Middle East (Spearman’s ρ = 0.88 and 0.83, respectively;
    P ≤ 0.0001 for both), followed by Africa (Spearman’s ρ = 0.40; P < 0.0001).

    Europe ρ = 0.88
    Middle east ρ = 0.83
    Africa ρ = 0.40

    Now what dumbass?

    And why is the correlation between genetic & geographical distance lower in Africa? Bantu expansion.

    If you look at areas the Bantu expansion didn't affect you find Saharan Africa ρ = 0. 76

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    @Oliver D. Smith

    You don't seem to understand the point under discussion. Or maybe you deliberately post irrelevance and nonsense to waste people's time.

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

  159. @Oliver D. Smith
    @mikemikev

    Incorrect. You're lying as usual.

    IBD still applies to the vast majority of contemporary populations (a few cherry-picked exceptions doesn't invalidate IBD). Look at the correlations in Tishkoff et al.

    Geographic distances (great circle routes) and genetic distances (dm) 2 between population
    pairs were significantly correlated, consistent with an isolation-by-distance model (figs. S9 to S11 and table S4) (13). A heterogeneous pattern of correlations across global regions was observed, consistent with a previous study (16); the strongest correlations were in Europe and
    the Middle East (Spearman’s ρ = 0.88 and 0.83, respectively;
    P ≤ 0.0001 for both), followed by Africa (Spearman’s ρ = 0.40; P < 0.0001).

    Europe ρ = 0.88
    Middle east ρ = 0.83
    Africa ρ = 0.40

    Now what dumbass?

    And why is the correlation between genetic & geographical distance lower in Africa? Bantu expansion.

    If you look at areas the Bantu expansion didn't affect you find Saharan Africa ρ = 0. 76

    Replies: @mikemikev

    You don’t seem to understand the point under discussion. Or maybe you deliberately post irrelevance and nonsense to waste people’s time.

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    @mikemikev

    My first comment was on topic. It went off-topic with the population genetics discussion.

    In my first comment I pointed out that the survey is not reliable because n = 26 for Sailer and n = 10 for Karlin. There is not enough people to get a reliable rating.

    I've not read any of Sailer's IQ articles, but I've read Karlin's. One has to be joking if someone takes him serious - he is on record - calling a black guy he debated on race and IQ as a 'spearchucker'. An IP editor on RationalWiki recently dug these up:

    https://twitter.com/okechukwu_01/status/1240850603636555776

    Karlin has also described black people as 'violence-ridden underclasses':


    I am quite happy that few blacks associate with Russia, considering the type of violence-ridden underclasses they tend to create in countries that open their doors to them. Not to mention the extreme chutzpah and aggressive sense of racial grievance they tend to act out towards their host countries. So yes, I'm racist and very happy with that. If /r/europe SJWs or Islamists such as yourself have a problem with that, oh well. Don't care, really.
     
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Anatoly_Karlin#Found_Karlin_still_whining_about_his_article

    This is Daily Stormer lowbrow racism.

    I was even speaking to a moderate HBD proponent and they called Karlin a neo-Nazi. I therefore laugh when I see Karlin trying to label himself this:

    https://rationalwiki.org/w/images/2/28/Anatoly_Karlin_race_realist.png

    lol.

    In reality he should be lumped with the lower-IQ racists and Stormfront forums. Calling black people 'spearchuckers', 'violence-ridden underclasses' and supporting an ethno-state isn't racism?

    It looks like Mr. Karlin forgot his medication. I still find it hilarious how he thinks he's a non-racist 'racial realist'.
  160. Oliver D. Smith says:
    @mikemikev
    @Oliver D. Smith

    You don't seem to understand the point under discussion. Or maybe you deliberately post irrelevance and nonsense to waste people's time.

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

    My first comment was on topic. It went off-topic with the population genetics discussion.

    In my first comment I pointed out that the survey is not reliable because n = 26 for Sailer and n = 10 for Karlin. There is not enough people to get a reliable rating.

    I’ve not read any of Sailer’s IQ articles, but I’ve read Karlin’s. One has to be joking if someone takes him serious – he is on record – calling a black guy he debated on race and IQ as a ‘spearchucker’. An IP editor on RationalWiki recently dug these up:

    Karlin has also described black people as ‘violence-ridden underclasses’:

    I am quite happy that few blacks associate with Russia, considering the type of violence-ridden underclasses they tend to create in countries that open their doors to them. Not to mention the extreme chutzpah and aggressive sense of racial grievance they tend to act out towards their host countries. So yes, I’m racist and very happy with that. If /r/europe SJWs or Islamists such as yourself have a problem with that, oh well. Don’t care, really.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Anatoly_Karlin#Found_Karlin_still_whining_about_his_article

    This is Daily Stormer lowbrow racism.

    I was even speaking to a moderate HBD proponent and they called Karlin a neo-Nazi. I therefore laugh when I see Karlin trying to label himself this:

    lol.

    In reality he should be lumped with the lower-IQ racists and Stormfront forums. Calling black people ‘spearchuckers’, ‘violence-ridden underclasses’ and supporting an ethno-state isn’t racism?

    It looks like Mr. Karlin forgot his medication. I still find it hilarious how he thinks he’s a non-racist ‘racial realist’.

  161. @very very old statistician
    @jon

    Every 100 years the world is an entirely different place. The nerds of the 50s had to work out and buy expensive clothes to be cool in the 70s, but the nerds of the 70s only had to buy a turtleneck sweater to be cool in the 90s. Those are 20 year gaps - now imagine what a 100 year gap can do ....

    The average Nigerian 20 something female can be almost as cute, today in the 2020s (better cosmetics, and lots of other specific changes in the visual arts) as the average American 20 something female in the 70s ---- if you don't get that, you are low T.

    If Trump had fired Fauci, he would have had 2 terms. Trump has a lot more going for him in the leadership department than I do, but if I were on Patton's staff before and during the beginning of the Battle of the Bulge, and had our princely little Olympic equestrian listened to me, there actually would not have been a "battle" of the Bulge -

    and don't get me started on other small mistakes by great men (Grant could have shaved 6 months off the Virginia campaign if only ..... but hey I am not getting paid for this.....)

    Let not your heart be troubled -

    the world belongs to people who know how to do what is right. It always has and always will. Do what you can to make the world a better place. There is room in this world for everyone to be happy with the gifts God gave them. And if there isn't, there are people who know how to make sure there is ---- human biology is sort of hard to understand, but once you understand it, the world is your oyster, and lots of things that seemed to be hard to live with no longer are all that hard to live with.

    If I were in a good mood tonight I would give you a few stock picks, but ....

    what has anyone here ever done for me here that I should be so kind (just kidding, I was thrilled the first time Sailer asked for bitcoin contributions --- it was his idea, and I was glad to see that)

    look for people who, like me, are the opposite of black pillers. Be nice to them.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @anonymous, @vinteuil

    what has anyone here ever done for me

    Well, I subscribed to your substack, for a year.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The JFK Assassination and the 9/11 Attacks?
Becker update V1.3.2