Lower IQ scores have been shown to be associated with such things as missing breakfast, being poor, and posting on talkrational.org.
Quote from: Pavlovs Dog on March 27, 2018, 03:39:51 PMLower IQ scores have been shown to be associated with such things as missing breakfast, being poor, and reading teeth's posting on talkrational.org.
Lower IQ scores have been shown to be associated with such things as missing breakfast, being poor, and reading teeth's posting on talkrational.org.
Quote from: teeming brown mass on March 27, 2018, 03:42:11 PMQuote from: Pavlovs Dog on March 27, 2018, 03:39:51 PMLower IQ scores have been shown to be associated with such things as missing breakfast, being poor, and reading teeth's posting on talkrational.org.
Finishing that article, I'm reminded of what a giant goddamn baby Sam Harris is.
Quote from: Pavlovs Dog on March 27, 2018, 04:06:59 PMFinishing that article, I'm reminded of what a giant goddamn baby Sam Harris is.lol good timinghttps://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/978766308643778560
Not everyone knows this. Some people respect his opinions and think they are valid. I believe those people are dumb.
Quote from: linus on March 27, 2018, 01:14:49 PMIt's sad to see how some people become ever more radicalized.It's only going to get worse. Read a thingy the other day by Zeynep Tufekci, who is pretty great, about Youtube's algorithms with their suggested videos and autoplays and how it basically just leads you to more and more extreme, radicalized content: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/opinion/sunday/youtube-politics-radical.htmlEducated, generally smart people think they're immune to this shit, but no one is. Which is why everyone should pay attention to what they're consuming and stop thinking that your clever brain will successfully identify bullshit all the time and keep you from falling into a rabbit hole.
It's sad to see how some people become ever more radicalized.
Quote from: el jefeit's also true that average IQs of the general population, and of every specific racial grouping, have risen by a few points per decade throughout the history of IQ testing, for a cumulative total of like 30 points. and we don't know what is causing that, but it pretty much has to be environmental. compare that 30 points with the current racial average gap which is like 7 points, and it seems a little premature to say the blacks are doomed to be dumb by their genes.Yeah, the article Ksen posted makes that exact point, and it doesn't seem like Harris or Murray have an answer to it. They just believe what they want to believe, and that's kinda unsettling.
it's also true that average IQs of the general population, and of every specific racial grouping, have risen by a few points per decade throughout the history of IQ testing, for a cumulative total of like 30 points. and we don't know what is causing that, but it pretty much has to be environmental. compare that 30 points with the current racial average gap which is like 7 points, and it seems a little premature to say the blacks are doomed to be dumb by their genes.
Quote from: PeppermintButler on March 27, 2018, 01:33:54 PMSounds like your IQ just isn't high enough to prevent that, aren't you brownish?Yeah, I'm not of the right genetic stock. My kind of whiteness comes from the inferior southern Europeans and is tainted by the Moors, and also I have a uterus, so that's another couple points knocked off there. If I reproduce, it'll only contribute to dysgenesis.
Sounds like your IQ just isn't high enough to prevent that, aren't you brownish?
Weird how people that are for sure convinced that a genetic racial IQ gap exists for really real in real life also believe that the gender wage gap is pure hookum.Nah, I'm kidding . . . that's not weird at all.
Quote from: meepmeep on March 27, 2018, 04:51:58 PMQuote from: Pavlovs Dog on March 27, 2018, 04:06:59 PMFinishing that article, I'm reminded of what a giant goddamn baby Sam Harris is.lol good timinghttps://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/978766308643778560Wow. That e-mail exchange. He's not just an asshole, he's a fucking idiot with almost no reading comprehension. How does anyone think of him as an intellectual?
Judging from the response to this post on social media, my decision to publish these emails appears to have backfired. I was relying on readers to follow the plot and notice Ezra's evasiveness and gaslighting (e.g. his denial of misrepresentations and slurs that are in the very article he published). Many people seem to have judged from his politeness that Ezra was the one behaving honestly and ethically. This is frustrating, to say the least.
Quote from: Pavlovs Dog on March 27, 2018, 04:06:59 PMFinishing that article, I'm reminded of what a giant goddamn baby Sam Harris is.is this all basically just a redo of the time he tried to engage noam chomsky in gentlemanly debate and chompers just no-sold that shit and told him to fuck off and harris just whined and whined about it
When is the last time a stereotype popped into your mind? If you are like most people, the authors included, it happens all the time. That doesn't make you a racist, sexist, or whatever-ist. It just means your brain is working properly, noticing patterns, and making generalizations. But the same thought processes that make people smart can also make them biased. This tendency for stereotype-confirming thoughts to pass spontaneously through our minds is what psychologists call implicit bias. It sets people up to overgeneralize, sometimes leading to discrimination even when people feel they are being fair.Studies of implicit bias have recently drawn ire from both right and left. For the right, talk of implicit bias is just another instance of progressives seeing injustice under every bush. For the left, implicit bias diverts attention from more damaging instances of explicitbigotry. Debates have become heated, and leapt from scientific journals to the popular press. Along the way, some important points have been lost. We highlight two misunderstandings that anyone who wants to understand implicit bias should know about.First, much of the controversy centers on the most famous implicit bias test, the Implicit Association Test (IAT). A majority of people taking this test show evidence of implicit bias, suggesting that most people are implicitly biased even if they do not think of themselves as prejudiced. Like any measure, the test does have limitations. The stability of the test is low, meaning that if you take the same test a few weeks apart, you might score very differently. And the correlation between a person's IAT scores and discriminatory behavior is often small.The IAT is a measure, and it doesn't follow from a particular measure being flawed that the phenomenon we're attempting to measure is not real. Drawing that conclusion is to commit the Divining Rod Fallacy: just because a rod doesn't find water doesn't mean there's no such thing as water. A smarter move is to ask, "What does the other evidence show?"In fact, there is lots of other evidence. There are perceptual illusions, for example, in which white subjects perceive black faces as angrier than white faces with the same expression. Race can bias people to see harmless objects as weapons when they are in the hands of black men, and to dislike abstract images that are paired with black faces. And there are dozens of variants of laboratory tasks finding that most participants are faster to identify bad words paired with black faces than white faces. None of these measures is without limitations, but they show the same pattern of reliable bias as the IAT. There is a mountain of evidence--independent of any single test--that implicit bias is real.The second misunderstanding is about what scientists mean when they say a measure predicts behavior. It is frequently complained that an individual's IAT score doesn't tell you whether they will discriminate on a particular occasion. This is to commit the Palm Reading Fallacy: unlike palm readers, research psychologists aren't usually in the business of telling you, as an individual, what your life holds in store. Most measures in psychology, from aptitude tests to personality scales, are useful for predicting how groups will respond on average, not forecasting how particular individuals will behave.The difference is crucial. Knowing that an employee scored high on conscientiousness won't tell you much about whether her work will be careful or sloppy if you inspect it right now. But if a large company hires hundreds of employees who are all conscientious, this will likely pay off with a small but consistent increase in careful work on average.Implicit bias researchers have always warned against using the tests for predicting individual outcomes, like how a particular manager will behave in job interviews--they've never been in the palm-reading business. What the IAT does, and does well, is predict average outcomes across larger entities like counties, cities, or states. For example, metro areas with greater average implicit bias have larger racial disparities in police shootings. And counties with greater average implicit bias have larger racial disparities in infant health problems. These correlations are important: the lives of black citizens and newborn black babies depend on them.AdvertisementField experiments demonstrate that real-world discrimination continues, and is widespread. White applicants get about 50 percent more call-backs than black applicants with the same resumes; college professors are 26 percent more likely to respond to a student's email when it is signed by Brad rather than Lamar; and physicians recommend less pain medication for black patients than white patients with the same injury.Today, managers are unlikely to announce that white job applicants should be chosen over black applicants, and physicians don't declare that black people feel less pain than whites. Yet, the widespread pattern of discrimination and disparities seen in field studies persists. It bears a much closer resemblance to the widespread stereotypical thoughts seen on implicit tests than to the survey studies in which most people present themselves as unbiased.One reason people on both the right and the left are skeptical of implicit bias might be pretty simple: it isn't nice to think we aren't very nice. It would be comforting to conclude, when we don't consciously entertain impure intentions, that all of our intentions are pure. Unfortunately, we can't conclude that: many of us are more biased than we realize. And that is an important cause of injustice--whether you know it or not.
Sam HarrisAlmost exactly a year ago, I had Charles Murray on my podcast. Murray, as many of our listeners will know, is the author of the notorious book The Bell Curve. It has a chapter on raising IQ and differences between racial measures of IQ that was extremely controversial. Murray is a person who still get protested on college campuses more than 20 years later.While I have very little interest in IQ and actually zero interest in racial differences in IQ, I invited Murray on my podcast, because he had recently been de platformed at Middlebury College. He and his host were actually assaulted as they left the auditorium. In my view, this seemed yet another instance of kind of a moral panic that we were seeing on college campuses. It caused me to take an interest in Murray that I hadn't previously had. I had never read The Bell Curve, because I thought it was just ... It must be just racist trash, because I assumed that where there was all that smoke, there must be fire. I hadn't paid attention to Murray. When I did read the book and did some more research on him, I came to think that he was probably the most unfairly maligned person in my lifetime. That doesn't really run the risk of being much of an exaggeration there.
Ezra KleinI think there is what you would call confusion here. I do think it's just important to say this. I have not criticized you, and I continue to not, for having the conversation. I've criticized you for having the conversation without dealing with and separating it out and thinking through the context and the weight of American history on it.Sam HarrisThe weight of American history is completely irrelevant.