@KiwiGuy #62

Sorry didn’t notice your post until now.

While there is no such thing as a completely unbiased source, a source funded by anti-immigration hard liners and white nationalists warrants cynicism no matter how you would attempt to justify it.

I was primarily defending Pincher Martin for his excellent arguments. You can learn much from him. I prefer not to engage in a definitional battle over political terms right now. Iam sure, however, that equality is central to liberalism and misuse of that idea has created vast trouble in our society. We need to learn to live with human variability but to invite hordes of lesser IQ types is surely a questional policy for national progress.

http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/a-gaping-hole-in-the-masters-evolutionary-theory/
http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/more-evidence-uk-math-and-reading-achievement-gaps/
http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/race-class-and-cognition-in-the-uk/

I agree btw, that preference for the majority (collectivism NOT autocracy) is superior to liberalism (rights of the individual at the expense of the majority). The left vs right scale is completely economic… Giving preference to the few whether it be minorities or corporate oligarchs will come at the expense of the majority, national security and sovereignty.

Look at all the countries projected to be the top economies in 2050. Most guide their economies to benefit the majority as well as the state. Look at the nations in the EU with positive outlooks: Norway, Sweden etc. (I won’t get caught up in a debate about strict definitions of capitalism, communism, state capitalism, socialism etc… Suffice to say they are more middle ground, maybe just right or left of center while USA is autocratic laissez faire with a preference for the few ‘elites’ AKA crony capitalist.) Again, can’t argue with results.

What we have now in the US is liberal capitalism, what we need is ‘right-wing socialism’

http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/

It concerns African and Caribbean Blacks, British Whites, and in some cases various South Asian and other groups.

http://apesorangels.com/

Even a bright intellectual like Tom Sowell has trouble with genetics realities. Rare indeed is the black able to objectively assess the evidence from behavioral genetics. Thus, we find our friends primarily among Asians like Steve Hsu, a really sharp physicist able to outthink the best of the barbarian Left. Steve digested enough genetics to teach a basic course and he poses a formidable threat to the Left on that count.

Needless to say, Razib is another formidable thinker whose worldly sophistication can at times be downright scary. He seems to know more history and literature than most even as he demonstrates a knowledge of genetics far beyond most. If you go to http://www.apesorange ls.com you can read his review of my little book. Iam currently revising the book and hoping that Ed and others will become readers. White nationalists are not my audience but they readily join us in blogs, creating confusion and chaos at times. Whites do indeed have a battle for survival but a KKK solution is counterproductive. We have science on our side so if millions read my little book we can begin to turn the tide. Liberalism has virtues that helped make our democracy great but equality misconstrued can become downright evil. Will science defeat the forces of obscurantism??

The routine work of theoretical physicists is about the highest cognitive work there is. They have the highest IQ’s among scientists and must completely degrade their language in writing as Paul Davies does for the general public. While there may be “levels” of cogntive skill the term IQ covers the kinds of analytic thinking common to much science and engineering.

Standardized tests are pretty consistent with intelligence tests as well. (SAT especially)
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_n1cdSAim23E/SR8Tg2TOW5I/AAAAAAAAAO8/H_Cy-jG6j7U/s1600/PhyChemBio.jpg

Intel Talent Search 2012:
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/02tA7ChaIM43S/576x.jpg

70% of engineers with PhD’s who graduate from U.S. universities are foreign-born:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2011/01/20/danger-america-is-losing-its-edge-in-innovation/

Can’t argue with results I guess. Even if it is debatable whether it is cognitive levels rather than potential causing such results.

The reason for liberal resistance is the religiosity of the myth of equality. For Nisbett, Gould, Kaku, and even Matt Ridley, whose The Agile Gene is excellent, the myth is overpowering. Ridley cannot accept IQ differences even as he believes in enormous variation. This is a major impasse. Humans must be made equal! The late James F. Crow, the Father of American genetics, discussed diversity as a racial reality but he, too, realized that liberalism conflicts with biology. Darwin’s truth defies liberalism.

Regarding the Pioneer Fund it’s probably worth bearing in mind that at one point there was even hostility to twin studies because they might reveal significant genetic influence on behaviour. Thomas Bouchard had to go to them to get funding for his twins reared apart study. If there was easily available funding for studies looking at the genetic basis for group differences then your objection would carry more weight.

“Didn’t read the rest of your post. I think meaningful discussion ended long ago.”

For once, I suspect you’re right. But you missed a good post.

“Hmm I guess you could be right though. Maybe it’s just destiny that East Asians sit at the top of the pyramid. According to ‘unbiased’ science anyways.”

You refer to this fact as if I — or anyone else here knowledgeable about the findings of IQ and demography — would be surprised by it. But this is once again a case of you treating commonplace knowledge about IQ as if it’s revelatory or shocking.

I do wonder, though, what sort of cognitive dissonance you have to live with when you suggest that “white nationalists” are really the only sort of people who take to this stuff about IQ and demography, while at the same time you correctly state that whites trail not only East Asians, but Jews, in the hierarchy of IQ scores. Don’t you think white nationalists would be a little more careful in arranging their hierarchy? You know, as long as they were making shit up, anyway, why not just put mighty whitey up on top?

I think you would be surprised at the diversity of those who think there’s something to this science, as well as the whiteness of those who fight against its findings most vehemently.

I took a math entry test with no studying, just to see how much I really knew; the questions got harder the more you got right, and would stop from getting a just a few wrong. There were many questions I had to just figure out “a way” as I didn’t know the formulas. I eventually came to a question I had no idea how to wing. Lo and behold I completed up through Algebra 2.

I’d imagine I could wing that problem and possibly figure it out, but that would take time and the SAT is timed, so I’d likely not answer all the questions. As for my actual SAT score it was the lowest in my family, yet everyone thinks I am the smartest. I was having a shitty time around when tests were held – even that specific day no less – and didn’t plan on going to college, so no prep and a whatever mindset. I did worse than on the preSAT which was told back then we’d all do better than. Another thing to consider: people’s attitude.

Didn’t read the rest of your post. I think meaningful discussion ended long ago.

Hmm I guess you could be right though. Maybe it’s just destiny that East Asians sit at the top of the pyramid. According to ‘unbiased’ science anyways.

“I guess I should leave all the ‘hard thinking’ to such unbiased and oh-so-knowledgeable people like you?”

I’m not asking you to leave the hard thinking to other people. I’m saying you’re incapable of hard thinking. Note the critical difference between those two statements.

I’m also not claiming I’m unbiased or an expert on the research involving IQ. But then I don’t have to be an expert when discussing this subject with you because you quite obviously don’t even have a dilettante’s interest in the subject matter. In your land of the blind, Ed, I’m the one-eyed man who’s king.

Let’s take an obvious example from upthread where you mention the fact that a kid in the Oakland public school system would probably not get the same quality education that a kid in an elite San Francisco school would receive. Do you really believe, my dear Mister Ed, that most of what must be hundreds, possibly even thousands, of scholars who have studied IQ and education never bothered to consider, control for, and dismiss that fact? Do you think they were all waiting around for you to point out these educational discrepancies so that they could give themselves a collective slap on their collective forehead and exclaim in unison, “Of course, why didn’t I think of that?!”?

“Why don’t you tell me, since you’re obviously an expert, why the question above isn’t coachable. “

You don’t have to be an expert to know that ten years of a public education for what are mostly college-bound students is enough to show approximately what percentage of seventeen-year-old kids that question is coachable to. If they can’t figure out the answer to your question after ten years of “coaching” — even if it’s “coaching” you consider inferior — then they’re probably not going to figure it out with a little more coaching in the form of test prep or a student guide or a tutor.

“Implying that science isn’t capable of political bias or that abstracts don’t sometimes dress up what they actually have proven/found with sensationalist wordplay. Naive, dense or willfully ignorant.”

This statement is why, in my opinion, you’re not coachable, Ed. Despite my best efforts.

Nowhere have I ever claimed that scientists are unbiased. I have never claimed that the sources I linked are unbiased. I have not claimed I’m unbiased. If you think otherwise, show the proof.

What I stated in the very beginning was that ultimately it didn’t matter. The scientific results would either stand up to repeated tests to disprove them or not. That’s because biased scientists exist on both sides of this question. There are numerous scientists at work today trying to disprove everything I think I know about IQ. Those scientists would make their bones if they ever succeeded. You can instinctively distrust the motives of every scientist you ever meet and still trust the process.

#56

Oooh I’m in over my head.

I guess I should leave all the ‘hard thinking’ to such unbiased and oh-so-knowledgeable people like you? Please… Why don’t you tell me, since you’re obviously an expert, why the question above isn’t coachable. Why is it ~80% determined only by genes. Explain in layman’s terms please, wouldn’t want you to go over my head now. (Post # 54 in case you have trouble finding it.)

Implying that science isn’t capable of political bias or that abstracts don’t sometimes dress up what they actually have proven/found with sensationalist wordplay. Naive, dense or willfully ignorant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Fund#Political_and_legal_funding
White nationalist, anti-immigration funding for Rushton and Lynn (cited in here a few times). I knew it would be a tough crowd because even the idea of SATs being “partially” affected by nonhereditary factors drew massive flamer.

Exactly 1/3 of the human race has to die for the human race to be sustainable.. Black people we’re looking at you. Plz no attacks on my source.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/scientists-look-onethird-of-the-human-race-has-to,27166/

Post #55 should probably stand as the final rebuke to your efforts to make this subject all about you and your supposed keen sense of sniffing out the biases of others. Clearly, you’re in over your head on this topic and not entirely aware of your own biases. You believe your good horse sense and experience are more than a match for a science with a century of research behind it. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to you that many smart people have been studying IQ, from various angles, for a long time. Did you seriously believe you would come in here and upend their efforts with a few skeptical, commonsense observations?

The science of IQ has serious critics. You are not among them.

Please check my sources.

“This doesn’t reek at all of political bias.”

Please bite me.

A special lottery is to be held to select the student who will live in the only deluxe room in a dormitory. There are 100 seniors, 150 juniors, and 200 sophomores who applied. Each senior’s name is placed in the lottery 3 times; each junior’s name, 2 times; and each sophomore’s name, 1 time. What is the probability that a senior’s name will be chosen?

There is no way a superior education or top of the line tutors would change the outcome of a test loaded with such questions, I apologize sir. There’s no way income is in any way a predictor variable. Someone with more credentials than me said so, it must be true.

It was mainly just laziness on my part, Ed. Most political hacks don’t bother to link to scholarly sources when making a point, especially when that point is abstruse and buried in a long piece. It’s dangerous to your credibility if you don’t succeed in passing it off, and not helpful to your general argument if you do. So I assumed he was on the level. It would also cost $32 for me to access the paper at home, which seems excessive to ease my mind about the certainty of a fact I’m not that committed to.

Like a hound dog, you have zeroed in on the 5% of the blog entry that’s over-the-top. Most of the commentary is well-written, well-sourced, and intelligently argued.

It must be hard being the only objective man in the country, having to put up with the politics and prejudices of others.