Fascinating conversation.

Excellent. Razib needs a weekly show interviewing scientists.

I'd second that! Better yet - Biology! Why should the physicists and AI geeks get all the glory!

Great diavlog. Thanks to both Razib and David for a really interesting conversation. This bit bears frequent repetition.

Quoting bjkeefe: This bit bears frequent repetition.

Would you care to elaborate?

This is without any doubt the best diavlog I’ve heard since I first learned about bloggingheads. Please come back! I agree the Razib is a great interviewer and David is a great interviewee. Symmetry. Some many interesting subjects were explored. I loved the portion which described the difference between science and social science, describing social science as almost unscientific. In the same vein, it was said that society guides science and both made the assertion that scientists often try to square what they already believe with what science is telling them, sometimes favoring what they already believe. Ah! human nature. I loved the discussion about liberalism and conservatism (no surprise because this is one of my main interests). David says that evolutionary theory provides a level playing field for both predilections, as I think Thomas Sowell describes in Conflict of Visions. He also went on to say that beliefs are held because of their survival value, not because of their truth value but seems to believe that we can go beyond this paradigm and should. He also said that just because a group functions well doesn’t mean the group functions morally. I wonder if

Razib is one of my favorite heads. Thanks to him and Mr. Wilson for a fascinating vlog.

Quoting look: Razib is one of my favorite heads. Thanks to him and Mr. Wilson for a fascinating vlog.

Wilson is a great explainer.

Excellent diavlog, thanks to the participants and organizers! Razib's question at 25:28 as to whether there is a chemical way for simple organisms to identify "who's altruistic and who's selfish" is pretty revealing as to his scientific perspective. Classical and operant conditioning explain the behavior of simple organisms and even most mammals pretty straightforwardly. The harder problem is explaining how the behavior of more complex organisms such as humans is controlled by environmental variables. It seems that a lot of biologists interested in social behavior and evolutionary psychologists completely skip the behavioral level of analysis in trying to explain behavior. As Dr. Wilson indicates, "behaviors speak for themselves." The particular behavior of an organism in a given context is a function of both its genetics (e.g. the structure of its nervous system, sensory organs) and its learning history. That said, I can't easily see how behavioral principles might work in a multi-level selectionist framework. On the matter of why certain theories are preferred by scientists for what appear to be aesthetic reasons, interested folks might check out David L. Hull on cultural selection of scientific theories by scientists.

I agree with you badhat. It was a great diavlog between two highly intelligent individuals. As for the point that "a group functions well doesn’t mean the group functions morally," it almost seemed to me that Wilson was searching for a strategy that would "be good for the species." That is, eliminate parasitic and predatory group behavior in favor of competitive and cooperative behavior that redounds to the benefit of all individuals regardless of their group affiliation or lack thereof. On the controversial issue of Jusaism as a "group evolutionary strategy" that is parasitic within the larger "gentile sea" of competing non-Jewish groups, I would note that Wilson failed to mention the possibility of an "anti-parasitic strategy" (for the lack of a better term). For instance, pilot fish live off the parasites that live off of sharks, and are in that sense anti-parasitic so far as the sharks are concerned. Using that metaphor, why can't Jewish groups in liberal democracies identify their group interest with the interests of the non-elite voting majorities (working class people of all ethnicities) who otherwise are poorly represented among our political class? In this

They need to apply the evolutionary framework to school/class design. As was mentioned, not all kids are the same in their abilities, some need more time and others less. We need to sample many different techniques to see what works best for different populations. The "smart" kids are going to be ok for the most part in whatever system, but the rest will often need more time and focus to get similar results. In fact it would be nice to have a detailed profile on different types of students to see how different schemes of teaching and learning effect them. It is likely the case that some profiles are inherently harder to foster learning in, but at least we can find more effective ways to make some kind of bridge.
I knew a guy in high school who was incredibly bright, barely passed his classes. Picked up things very fast, but got easily bored, encountered other kids who had the attention spans of fruit flies. And people wonder why the results are so different. The inputs matter (to be explicit, the "inputs" = the kids you are working with), and how you

Choosing the sure 1 million over a 50% chance of 2.1 million seems like it might actually be rational due to the diminishing returns of having more and more money.

David says that kin-altruism and reciprocal altruism assume the existence of multiple groups. That's contrary to my understanding. I guess I'll check out his posts to see if he elaborates on that. I can say with more confidence that his claim that preferring a 100% chance of 1 million dollars to 50% chance of 2.1 million violates neoclassical assumptions is wrong. Declining marginal utility plays a big role in neoclassical economics. Most economists would be surprised if people actually did assign twice as much utility to 2 million as they did to 1 million. That's why such paradoxes MUST be framed in terms of utility rather than dollars. A better example of violation of neoclassical axioms is the effect of time. You might say you'd prefer getting $3 a week and a day from now to $1 a week from now, but a week later you might prefer $1 now to $3 tomorrow. That's inconsistent and most conceptions of rationality in economics, so as not to arbitrarily define certain preferences as irrational, are mostly based on consistency. That's why Scott Sumner, for example, thinks "rational expectations" should be called "consistence expectations". Speaking of Herb Gintis and behavioural finance, his review of Animal

Quoting Fsharp: Choosing the sure 1 million over a 50% chance of 2.1 million seems like it might actually be rational due to the diminishing returns of having more and more money.

Is that option transferrable? Because it shouldn't be too hard to sell that 50% chance of $2.1m for more than $1m.

Just want to concur that this was a fascinating interview. Razib is always really well-prepared with the right questions and establishes a respectful rapport with the guests. I also thought he Razib did a good job at not getting stuck on fringe anti-Semite Kevin MacDonald; and whoever kicked his name off the topics list this morning also acted intelligently. That was a magnet for loons.

Quoting T.G.G.P: A better example of violation of neoclassical axioms is the effect of time. You might say you'd prefer getting $3 a week and a day from now to $1 a week from now, but a week later you might prefer $1 now to $3 tomorrow. That's inconsistent and most conceptions of rationality in economics, so as not to arbitrarily define certain preferences as irrational, are mostly based on consistency. That's why Scott Sumner, for example, thinks "rational expectations" should be called "consistence expectations".

Back in college a friend of mine and I used to joke about this stuff all the time (we were both econ majors). We figured that for ourselves at least we were internalizing heuristics about a hassle factor. Part of your brain is thinking "how am I getting this $3 next week? Do I have to mail off a rebate coupon? Am I really going to make a trip to the post office for this, even in a thought experiment? There's a catch, right? Do I even trust the other side in this thought experiment? Thought experiments only last a minute. My thought experiment isn't going to pay up next week."

Much food for thought..... but I think investors might want to think twice before investing in the "toolkit" of evolutionary biology, let alone in the theory of group selection, if they really want to make big profits. Around 21.20 David Sloan Wilson says, "Evolutionists talk mostly about the evolution of traits, not species." How true, alas. If they actually had something to say about the evolution of species they might have something interesting to say.

Quoting Baltimoron: I'd second that! Better yet - Biology! Why should the physicists and AI geeks get all the glory!

This isn't pure biology. I'd like to hear a real biology diavlog. Something relating to genetically modified animals, perhaps.

Group selection's a great topic, but... 2 weeks into one of the biggest scandals in science in the last, oh, decade or more, I'd hoped for (even expected) a little BHTV Science Saturday time thrown its way. So far *nothing* on either of the two Science Saturdays in that time, and *nothing* on the regular daily BHTV segments? And with Copenhagen about start? That's really disappointing. How is that even possible? Bob, what's up with that? (You don't have to use the name "ClimateGate" if that's the hang up!) (Nothing on Public Radio's "Science Friday" either btw...) What's the topic going to be next Saturday? String theory? LHC? The fifth iteration of the bi-annual (re)discovery of ice on the moon? Online dating? I can get my "nothing" on this topic from the MSM, but expect BHTV to be a little more on the ball.

I think they should have a climategate episode, but if they get two honest interlocutors--say, Jim Manzi and Tim Lambert--I think they'd agree that overall it's not the biggest science scandal of the last decade, unless this decade has been relatively free of scandals. EDIT: I should rephrase things: I don't think people who are skeptical of global warming, or think climategate disproves it, are necessarily dishonest, but I'm skeptical of their ability to interpret data. Still, having a global warming skeptic with someone like Lambert or someone from realclimate would be interesting, to say the least.

I was disappointed last week when Horgan/Johnson didn't tackle Climategate. Online dating is fine for a segment, and it was a good topic to reac out to first-time viewers. But, don't listen to me: I'm always bitching about the 'heads and other housekeeping issues. And, look how much good that does! I've probably caused many a staffer to be promoted because I've picked on them! From The Economist:

Only half of man-made global warming comes from CO2. The rest comes from a variety of sources, including hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), black carbon (soot), methane and nitrogen compounds. Packing them all up together gives the Kyoto protocol an elegant framework which in theory should solve the problem with a single set of numbers—the national caps that are designed to cut the whole range of greenhouse gases.

Critics point out that the Kyoto protocol has achieved a great deal less than the Montreal protocol, which was designed to prevent the use of ozone-depleting CFCs. Montreal, implemented in 1987, was originally expected to cut half of its gases in 12 years. In the event it got rid of all of them in ten years. It has had a huge

One would expect tendencies to form beliefs (eg. "group loyalty is paramount") that have had survival value in the conditions pertaining over the majority of the timespan in which these tendencies were formed. Consider an example from the range of cases related to my example belief (group loyalty over truth). A member of one's identified group is killed. Assigning blame to an outside group might enhance survival probability by maintaining cohesion of the group and cooperation in the face of competition for resources, regardless of the truth of the assignment. This was likely in many cases a useful reaction in a hunter-gatherer tribe. Not to suggest that exploitation of such tendencies isn't useful in contemporary society on the basis of individual, rather than group, survival. Both edges of the sword of sentience are rather sharp.

Quoting Wonderment: Just want to concur that this was a fascinating interview. Razib is always really well-prepared with the right questions and establishes a respectful rapport with the guests.

I also thought he Razib did a good job at not getting stuck on fringe anti-Semite Kevin MacDonald; and whoever kicked his name off the topics list this morning also acted intelligently. That was a magnet for loons.

Now we know where Razib Khan draws the line: anti-jew is too much, anti-black is just right.

Quoting Bobby G: I think they should have a climategate episode, but if they get two honest interlocutors--say, Jim Manzi and Tim Lambert--I think they'd agree that overall it's not the biggest science scandal of the last decade, unless this decade has been relatively free of scandals.

EDIT: I should rephrase things: I don't think people who are skeptical of global warming, or think climategate disproves it, are necessarily dishonest, but I'm skeptical of their ability to interpret data. Still, having a global warming skeptic with someone like Lambert or someone from realclimate would be interesting, to say the least.

I agree with this.

A member of one's identified group is killed. Assigning blame to an outside group might enhance survival probability by maintaining cohesion of the group and cooperation in the face of competition for resources, regardless of the truth of the assignment.

Doesn't have to be killed. Just has to get sick or die. Then sorcerers from a neighboring group can be blamed.

This was likely in many cases a useful reaction in a hunter-gatherer tribe.

It is still a "useful" reaction in modern society and a central mechanism of interpersonal psychology. Blaming (scapegoating) always has payoffs to individuals and groups. Whether blaming can ever be rational is debatable. It seems to me that assigning blame is basically a narrative technique. Story-telling is at the core of group identity; that's where we learn who's who and what's what.

Ugh. This is going to be in every thread from now until forever.

Quoting claymisher: Now we know where Razib Khan draws the line: anti-jew is too much, anti-black is just right.

clay, I think you're one of the best, most insightful posters here; but I've never seen Razib take a stand that I'd be willing to characterize that way.

Quoting claymisher: Ugh. This is going to be in every thread from now until forever.

I really hope not. But, I'd rather see what Bobby suggested than the current flood of uninformed and lazy triumphalism that has characterized most of what I have seen on this from some segments of the right.

Quoting AemJeff: clay, I think you're one of the best, most insightful posters here; but I've never seen Razib take a stand that I'd be willing to characterize that way.

Khan's not cool with MacDonald (anti-jew) but he's pals with Sailer (anti-black). That's all. (And thanks for the compliment!)

Khan's not cool with MacDonald (anti-jew) but he's pals with Sailer (anti-black). That's all.

I am unaware of any Khan-Sailer connection, which, of course is not to say it doesn't exist. Just for the record, Sailer is not just an anti-black racist; he is also an anti-Mexican racist. In any case, Khan was right to bring up the dark side of group selection theories; it's interesting (and highly toxic) stuff.

Quoting Wonderment: I am unaware of any Khan-Sailer connection, which, of course is not to say it doesn't exist.

Just for the record, Sailer is not just an anti-black racist; he is also an anti-Mexican racist.

In any case, Khan was right to bring up the dark side of group selection theories; it's interesting (and highly toxic) stuff.

He was right to bring it up, but wrong to be so tentative about it. I didn't know anything about MacDonald before this conversation. Now, I know hardly anything about him. Frankly, this is the thing that irritates me about Khan: he's a well-informed guy, but deferential to the point of making 80% of his statements in the tone of an interrogative. The whole point of the MacDonald exercise seemed to be nothing more than to determine whether Wilson was okay talking about MacDonald. Result: he wasn't, really.

Francoamerican, why do you find the evolution of traits so uninteresting? As Wilson noted, a species is just a bundle of traits. claymisher: I don't think the MacDonald:jews::Sailer:blacks analogy quite fits. Sailer has said some rather politically incorrect things about jews, and while he talks more about blacks it's not a huge difference in treatment. As Razib implied, there are white nationalists who have no problems with jews (Ian Jobling and some others associated with American Renaissance, for example) and even Jews who are white nationalists. Sailer has explicitly promoted something he calls "citizenism" instead of white nationalism. To that end Sailer often boosts the integrative powers of the military, sports and religion (I'm sure it's just a coincidence that all three are more popular with conservatives than liberals). Integrating Jews and gentiles is not a big concern for anti-semites like MacDonald. If anything, Sailer might be more concerned with Hispanics than blacks nowadays due to their larger numbers and growth, which is why he has proposed shoring up affirmative action benefits for blacks in exchange for denying them to everyone else. Sailer has proposed a similar grand compromise for Jews, so

Quoting Wonderment: It is still a "useful" reaction in modern society and a central mechanism of interpersonal psychology. Blaming (scapegoating) always has payoffs to individuals and groups. Whether blaming can ever be rational is debatable. It seems to me that assigning blame is basically a narrative technique. Story-telling is at the core of group identity; that's where we learn who's who and what's what.

excellent comments, all.

Quoting T.G.G.P: I can say with more confidence that his claim that preferring a 100% chance of 1 million dollars to 50% chance of 2.1 million violates neoclassical assumptions is wrong. Declining marginal utility plays a big role in neoclassical economics. Most economists would be surprised if people actually did assign twice as much utility to 2 million as they did to 1 million. That's why such paradoxes MUST be framed in terms of utility rather than dollars. A better example of violation of neoclassical axioms is the effect of time. You might say you'd prefer getting $3 a week and a day from now to $1 a week from now, but a week later you might prefer $1 now to $3 tomorrow. That's inconsistent and most conceptions of rationality in economics, so as not to arbitrarily define certain preferences as irrational, are mostly based on consistency. That's why Scott Sumner, for example, thinks "rational expectations" should be called "consistence expectations".

I was wondering about this example too, but having no background in the subject simply took Wilson's word for it. So it seems that in addition to a rational agent, there is a consistent agent? Also, who would be considered a neoclassical economist?

Quoting cragger: One would expect tendencies to form beliefs (eg. "group loyalty is paramount") that have had survival value in the conditions pertaining over the majority of the timespan in which these tendencies were formed.

Consider an example from the range of cases related to my example belief (group loyalty over truth). A member of one's identified group is killed. Assigning blame to an outside group might enhance survival probability by maintaining cohesion of the group and cooperation in the face of competition for resources, regardless of the truth of the assignment. This was likely in many cases a useful reaction in a hunter-gatherer tribe. Not to suggest that exploitation of such tendencies isn't useful in contemporary society on the basis of individual, rather than group, survival. Both edges of the sword of sentience are rather sharp.

Thank you for your response. I found the topic very interesting. I had assumed that group selection was more widely accepted. I read Wilson's "Truth and Reconciliation" series and it became obvious how this position has been deeply rejected for decades. It looks like there's been a comeback recently. Wilson argues how scientists hold on to their

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: It almost seemed to me that Wilson was searching for a strategy that would "be good for the species." That is, eliminate parasitic and predatory group behavior in favor of competitive and cooperative behavior that redounds to the benefit of all individuals regardless of their group affiliation or lack thereof.

I'm not sure Wilson was saying that. I think he wouldn't presume that parasitic or predatory group behavior was necessarily bad (although we certainly don't like the sound of either of those terms). Also, I don't think he would think that these features of human nature could ever be entirely eliminated.

Using that metaphor, why can't Jewish groups in liberal democracies identify their group interest with the interests of the non-elite voting majorities (working class people of all ethnicities) who otherwise are poorly represented among our political class? In this way they might solidify American popular support for the future security of the state of Israel as well as their own place among competing domestic elites, to choose two important examples.

I think this in some ways describes exactly what Jews have done historically. Look at

Quoting T.G.G.P: Eliezer Yudkowsky's Tragedy of Group Selection focuses heavily on the overly sunny theorists of the old naive group selection.

I wonder whether Eliezer has become familiar with Wilson's work. He was harshly critical of (naive) group selection in his writings in 2007.

i mooted the issue of group selection with e.y. in early 2008 face to face. he didn't seem too familiar with newer theories, but i could be misjudging him.

badhatharry:
I was trying to say that "rational agent" mostly boils down to "consistent agent". Economists don't want to say that any particular goal is good or bad, so their standard is mostly to consistently pursue whichever goals you have without making errors. Even that can be acceptable in the case of rational ignorance, because there are costs to gathering information and having correct beliefs. And then Bryan Caplan has a notion of "rational irrationality" which includes having irrational beliefs that make you feel good but don't cost much (being a creationist car mechanic is less costly than being a flat-earther sea captain). Another example: it can be rational to be "risk-loving" or "risk-avoiding", but behavioral economists argue that people flip between one or the other depending on how questions are phrased which indicates inconsistency and vulnerability to irrelevant changes ("priming" effects are another example). The term "neoclassical" was originally used to distinguish the pre-marginal economists (such as Smith and Ricardo) from their successors. Ironically, one of the founders of marginalism, Menger, was also the founder of the Austrian school which is often contrasted with neo-classical economics. The Austrians are considered "right-wing" heterodox

Quoting T.G.G.P: badhatharry:
I was trying to say that "rational agent" mostly boils down to "consistent agent"........

Wow, thanks for such an in-depth response. I recognize a few names. Smith, Keynes and Friedman. Interesting about behavioral economists. They sound like evolutionary psychologists and game theorists. I like the idea of Caplan’s rational irrationality and the examples which accompanied it. I guess in some ways that’s the way I feel about not buying into AWG. It doesn’t really matter what I believe about it, so I go with what makes sense to me, however limited my scientific knowledge is. Besides, Al Gore makes my skin crawl. Not sure why you warn not to equate Washington Consensus with right wing. To me anything which contains Washington in the name means left wing. Interesting that the sweetwater schools were grouped primarily in the Midwest. What is it about the Great Lakes??? Interesting that sociology criticizes economics. Philosophers don’t have much use for evo-psychology as though there was some stepping on toes going on. And lastly, pretty amazing impressions for a layman. You must just love this stuff.

Quoting Ray: He was right to bring it up, but wrong to be so tentative about it.

I didn't know anything about MacDonald before this conversation. Now, I know hardly anything about him.

Frankly, this is the thing that irritates me about Khan: he's a well-informed guy, but deferential to the point of making 80% of his statements in the tone of an interrogative. The whole point of the MacDonald exercise seemed to be nothing more than to determine whether Wilson was okay talking about MacDonald. Result: he wasn't, really.

I think he is probably right to approach it so tentatively. It is a toxic subject, and it is a courtesy to allow the person you are speaking with publicly the option of not diving too deeply into those messy, carrion infested weeds. People do not want to talk about group differences, or about the people who believe they exist and are open about it, even if not them directly. It is not so much about what they believe, but about what others will make of their beliefs about the world, for good or ill. Watson got in trouble for being too loose. Most people worth their salt looking at

This is going to make me sound like a broken record but Hayek did actually become extremely curious about group selection more than 60 years ago and his approach to law is very much influenced by ideas in evolution. I'm surprised that no one has mentioned him so far and I wonder if Wilson has ever read him.

Quoting T.G.G.P: badhatharry:
I was trying to say that "rational agent" mostly boils down to "consistent agent". Economists don't want to say that any particular goal is good or bad, so their standard is mostly to consistently pursue whichever goals you have without making errors. Even that can be acceptable in the case of rational ignorance, because there are costs to gathering information and having correct beliefs. And then Bryan Caplan has a notion of "rational irrationality" which includes having irrational beliefs that make you feel good but don't cost much (being a creationist car mechanic is less costly than being a flat-earther sea captain). Another example: it can be rational to be "risk-loving" or "risk-avoiding", but behavioral economists argue that people flip between one or the other depending on how questions are phrased which indicates inconsistency and vulnerability to irrelevant changes ("priming" effects are another example).

The term "neoclassical" was originally used to distinguish the pre-marginal economists (such as Smith and Ricardo) from their successors. Ironically, one of the founders of marginalism, Menger, was also the founder of the Austrian school which is often contrasted with neo-classical economics. The Austrians are considered "right-wing" heterodox

Quoting JonIrenicus: It is a toxic subject, and it is a courtesy to allow the person you are speaking with publicly the option of not diving too deeply into those messy, carrion infested weeds.

It's a discourtesy. They're having a public discussion for us, not for themselves. Timidity wastes the public's time. Either educate us on the subject or don't bring it up.

Quoting JonIrenicus: Direct questions force peoples hand, either be honest, or face retribution from society for a position that cannot be held in the public eye and be considered a good standing member of society.

Well, no. Or, at least , not in this case. You're being tentative here, too. You're offering the wrong question. The question is: do some people have a genetic makeup that justifies bad treatment of them? Be serious. The debate is not abstract.

I seem to recall an exchange in the comments of Less Wrong that suggested a potential diavlog between you and Yudkowsky. Is that still a possibility?

Quoting badhatharry: To me anything which contains Washington in the name means left wing.

Sides are splitting all over Wasilla!
P.S. 'that', not 'which' here.

Quoting Ray: They're having a public discussion for us, not for themselves. Timidity wastes the public's time. Either educate us on the subject or don't bring it up.

Oh please. It's not as if their statements to the public are not without potential consequences. There's a good amount to lose if you come out with an opinion that significantly deviates from what is considered acceptable by right-thinking individuals.

Quoting Ray: Or, at least , not in this case. You're being tentative here, too. You're offering the wrong question. The question is: do some people have a genetic makeup that justifies bad treatment of them?

That question is of a fundamentally different nature than the one that JonIrenicus offered up.

Quoting Ray: It's a discourtesy.

They're having a public discussion for us, not for themselves. Timidity wastes the public's time. Either educate us on the subject or don't bring it up.

Well, no.

Or, at least , not in this case. You're being tentative here, too. You're offering the wrong question. The question is: do some people have a genetic makeup that justifies bad treatment of them?

Be serious. The debate is not abstract.

The answer to the last question is no. The problem is that many people think that if there are differences between groups, it would follow that groups ought to be treated differently. We should treat people as individuals, independent of the characteristics of any group. (how I reconcile that ideal with practical concerns is a harder question I do not have a perfect answer to at this time.) It does not follow. An understandable worry seeing how white nationalists and the like latch onto certain ideas and make their case for separation, but no reason to shy away from the truth of things because some people have shown they can't make good decisions based on that information.

Quoting Ray: It's a discourtesy.

They're having a public discussion for us, not for themselves. Timidity wastes the public's time. Either educate us on the subject or don't bring it up.

Well, no.

Or, at least , not in this case. You're being tentative here, too. You're offering the wrong question. The question is: do some people have a genetic makeup that justifies bad treatment of them?

Be serious. The debate is not abstract.

Give it up. You're not going to get a straight answer outta bigots.

Quoting claymisher: Give it up. You're not going to get a straight answer outta bigots.

This is an example of why this should not and cannot be discussed. It does not matter if he IS right, it matters that he thinks he is right. Taking the position that should be the case over what is the case. Anyone who refuses to play the game of squaring the circle to get from A to B of "what should be = what is" is a bigot.

Actually the mechanisms of ozone depletion and the "greenhouse effect" are quite dissimilar. You can physically test the effect of CFCs on ozone where as you can't really test the effects of CO2. At best you can try and model it but at this point in time our understanding of all the factors that effect the climate are not really known and are too complex to model on a small enough scale for the models to be accurate. Nor from what I have seen and read are the physical laws of thermal dynamics part of the modeling process. The modeling process is all about Radiative Forcing with some parametrization thrown in to simulate conduction, condensation and sublimation, as these would require much smaller units of volume than our current computational power would allow. Missing is any way to account for the forces of convection which in a non enclosed environment such as the earths atmosphere. For an understanding of "greenhouse effect' from a physics point of view try this link: Falsication Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics.

Quoting JonIrenicus: This is an example of why this should not and cannot be discussed. It does not matter if he IS right, it matters that he thinks he is right. Taking the position that should be the case over what is the case. Anyone who refuses to play the game of squaring the circle to get from A to B of "what should be = what is" is a bigot.

You know who else had unpopular opinions? Hitler! Was Hitler right? Sailer's a bigot 'cos he says teh blacks are dumb. That's literally what a bigot is. He and his lot don't deny they're bigots. And that makes you look really stupid when you defend them.

Quoting T.G.G.P: Francoamerican, why do you find the evolution of traits so uninteresting? As Wilson noted, a species is just a bundle of traits.

Because traits, or micromutations, are the easy stuff when it comes to natural selection. Indeed they seem to be the only evidence biologists ever offer for the operation of natural selection. Darwin and his birds in short. True evolutionary novelties, at the level of species and genera, are rather more difficult to explain on basis of the incremental step-by--step process of natural selection. One has to suppose so many implausible events! I find difficult questions more interesting.

Quoting Francoamerican: True evolutionary novelties, at the level of species and genera, are rather more difficult to explain on basis of the incremental step-by--step process of natural selection. One has to suppose so many implausible events!

Well they occur after a considerably longer frame of time and if we are dealing with humans--far beyond the scope of human history. Perhaps you can elaborate on what exactly you want them to be looking for.

Quoting claymisher: You know who else had unpopular opinions? Hitler! Was Hitler right?

Sailer's a bigot 'cos he says teh blacks are dumb. That's literally what a bigot is. He and his lot don't deny they're bigots. And that makes you look really stupid when you defend them.

I am not defending anyone. I don't even know who Sailer is. And no one is saying that is the right thing to say. In fact I think it is exceptionally sloppy statement to make. Sloppy because those statements imply a uniformity of a groups makeup that does not exist. So, does that mean that the notion of differences between groups is wrong? No, sorry, that doesn't follow. The similarities between human beings dwarf the differences, both between individuals and populations, but differences still exist. We are not carbon copies, clones cut from a single mold doling out identical allele frequencies between every individual on earth, let alone every population. Just through random mutation and genetic drift over tens of thousands of years of survival and isolation and migration and conquest etc. there will be slight differences in allele frequencies between individuals, and by extension, different populations. This is not to be contested, we all

I left out an entire special section and parts of the conclusion in the mag. Each discreet problem has its own solutions. The general point, though, is that selecting one problem at a time is a political boon for pols looking for a "quicker" victory with a tidy ending fit for a press conference. After two or three victories over smaller problems with marginal improvements, there might be more awareness and even a constituency for tackling CO2.

Nor from what I have seen and read are the physical laws of thermal dynamics part of the modeling process.

Why can't we stick to this, and lay off the name-calling? We can be informative and raucous, too! Thanks!

Another excellent diavlog! I don't want to curse Razib by tripping up his momentum. One concern with BU's Evolution and Religious Studies (sic) program. It's underwritten by Templeton - wishy-washy middle-of-the-road muddle? I like the idea of Evolution Institute, but like Meng Bomin I wonder what sources the program has for larger units. I wondered why there's little inclusion of social sciences, other than psychology. But, I'm getting buyer's remorse for not knowing about this grad program. I wonder what an evolutionary tree of think tanks in America would look like!

Or, how about a discussion between Dawkins and Wilson? If only there were a way to get Razib as a ref in a third pane on the screen!

I agree that a discussion between Wilson and Dawkins would be excellent- or between Wilson and any expert on social evolution/ multi-level selection for that matter. I thought this diavlog was great in that the topic was great. But even though I always enjoy Khan's diavlogs and learn from them, I feel Khan wasn't sufficiently knowledgeable in this area to challenge some of what Wilson was saying. As Wilson stated, the current conception of group selection or "new group selection" is not just compatible, but logically equivalent to the current conception of kin selection. The same relative phenotypic differences between groups that facilitate group selection necessitate higher relatedness within groups- (allowing kin selection). The two are mathematically equivalent. Wilson takes issue with the history of the development of these two formulations. To me, discussions of how similar what Wilson advocates is to "old group selection" (whether it makes sense to share the name 'group selection') or whether Hamilton's relatedness term has changed too much in its interpretation to be considered the same - are boring and more issues for philosophers/historians of science than scientists themselves. There's also the issue that different techniques can

Quoting JonIrenicus: ...
A radical I may be, not a bigot, and most of all, not a self deceiver.

You're not a bigot or a radical. I think you may have been deceived on that last point, however.

Quoting dannyc: ... And I don't see why Wilson is crusading to convince the general public of his perspective. If his framework is needed to solve current and future problems as he claims, public campaigns aren't necessary.

His point is that any framework has to pass through the filter of peer review in order to be publicly accepted. If his peers have been strongly, and unjustly, biased against group selection, the opportunity for this kind of theory to be advanced isn't there.

I do agree with your overall argument with one exception which I would suggest is given more consideration. You say:

This is not to be contested, we all accept this, and apply it to every known variation, average height, skin tone, hair color, resistance to certain pathogens. We completely acknowledge a variance in the allele frequencies between individuals and populations that relate to nearly every aspect of the human phenotype, EXCEPT aptitude and ability.

No, that ONE attribute magically remains constant across ALL individuals and populations. This is absurd on its face.

Height, skin tone, hair color, are all simple, concrete, objective traits that can be easily identified. However, when you talk about aptitude and ability, you are talking about much more complex functions that are relative and not so easily identified or measured if you take in consideration the multiple non-genetic variables that can affect them. That's what makes this aspect messy and not be taken lightly.

Quoting Ocean: His point is that any framework has to pass through the filter of peer review in order to be publicly accepted. If his peers have been strongly, and unjustly, biased against group selection, the opportunities for this kind of theory to be advanced isn't there.

You'd be far more likely to have a justifiable opinion on this than I am. Do you think the description "unjust" can be reasonably applied in this context often enough to justify raising it as a generic issue?

Quoting AemJeff: You'd be far more likely to have a justifiable opinion on this than I am. Do you think the description "unjust" can be reasonably applied in this context often enough to justify raising it as a generic issue?

Sorry, I don't understand your question. Are you asking whether there is a systemic problem with partiality? Or are you simply wondering about the use of the word unjust?

Quoting Ocean: Sorry, I don't understand your question. Are you asking whether there is a systemic problem with partiality? Or are you simply wondering about the use of the word unjust?

The latter. It seems like a possibly hyperbolic characterization; and if you meant it as such, I'd read your intent differently. (It's not an implicit criticism, I'm just seeking clarity.)

Quoting AemJeff: The latter. It seems like a possibly hyperbolic characterization; and if you meant it as such, I'd read your intent differently. (It's not an implicit criticism, I'm just seeking clarity.)

DannyC said:

... And I don't see why Wilson is crusading to convince the general public of his perspective. If his framework is needed to solve current and future problems as he claims, public campaigns aren't necessary.

He seems to imply that there is a basic fairness in the system, where a valid framework doesn't need to be defended, because it would naturally prove itself. My point is that there isn't always such fairness present in the system. Because there are 'gatekeepers' (peer review), if these are biased, the above referenced framework, may not pass and may not be accepted. I considered that to be 'unjust', as in

un·just (n-jst)
adj.
1. Violating principles of justice or fairness; unfair.

However, when you talk about aptitude and ability, you are talking about much more complex functions that are relative and not so easily identified or measured if you take in consideration the multiple non-genetic variables that can affect them. That's what makes this aspect messy and not be taken lightly.

Do you include athletic aptitude and ability in this? Sailer spends a lot of time pointing out what looks like obvious average genetic superiority in sprints:

In Sydney, for the fifth consecutive Olympics, the eight men who reached the finals of the Olympic 100 meter dash -- the race that determines the World's Fastest Man -- were all of predominantly West African origin. Going back to 1984, the last 40 finalists have all been blacks from West Africa or its Diaspora.

Amazing. Or...

The three million Kalenjin make up only one tenth of Kenya's population, and just 1/2,000th of the world's. Yet, these highlanders from the Great Rift Valley win about three-eighths of international men's distance running prizes.

Sailer's views are way more nuanced than most people here would claim. But they'd have to actually read a bunch of his archived articles to have a clue.

I responded to JonIrenicus' comment and arguments. I don't know anything about Sailer or his arguments. And for what I have read in this forum, it isn't likely that I'll become interested in reading him.

Quoting JonIrenicus: I am not defending anyone. I don't even know who Sailer is.

And no one is saying that is the right thing to say. In fact I think it is exceptionally sloppy statement to make. Sloppy because those statements imply a uniformity of a groups makeup that does not exist.

So, does that mean that the notion of differences between groups is wrong? No, sorry, that doesn't follow. The similarities between human beings dwarf the differences, both between individuals and populations, but differences still exist.

We are not carbon copies, clones cut from a single mold doling out identical allele frequencies between every individual on earth, let alone every population. Just through random mutation and genetic drift over tens of thousands of years of survival and isolation and migration and conquest etc. there will be slight differences in allele frequencies between individuals, and by extension, different populations.

This is not to be contested, we all accept this, and apply it to every known variation, average height, skin tone, hair color, resistance to certain pathogens. We completely acknowledge a variance in the allele frequencies between individuals and populations that relate to nearly every aspect of the human phenotype, EXCEPT aptitude and ability.

No, that ONE attribute

Quoting breadcrust: Do you include athletic aptitude and ability in this? Sailer spends a lot of time pointing out what looks like obvious average genetic superiority in sprints:

Amazing.

Or...

Sailer's views are way more nuanced than most people here would claim. But they'd have to actually read a bunch of his archived articles to have a clue.

Because of the distribution of the tiny fraction of the world's best sprinters Steve Sailer is correct about blacks being dumb? That's pretty fucking stupid. The guy's a straight-up white supremacist, and if you can't admit that you're either a liar or an imbecile.

The guy's a straight-up white supremacist, and if you can't admit that you're either a liar or an imbecile.

Sailer (like all of his cohort) claims that of the major racial groups, Asians have the highest average intelligence. Is it possible to be a white supremacist and to believe that Asians have the highest average intelligence?

Quoting breadcrust: Sailer (like all of his cohort) claims that of the major racial groups, Asians have the highest average intelligence. Is it possible to be a white supremacist and to believe that Asians have the highest average intelligence?

You're right. I forgot that he, like a lot of racists, has a boner for the asians.

Quoting breadcrust: Sailer (like all of his cohort) claims that of the major racial groups, Asians have the highest average intelligence. Is it possible to be a white supremacist and to believe that Asians have the highest average intelligence?

It's not that hard to imagine. Especially if your project is explicitly directed at establishing a particular order in regard to blacks and whites. Making the assertion about Asians gives you a measure of deniability, without materially affecting the main thrust of your argument. After clay responded to me earlier, I googled "Sailer Razib" to see what would pop out at me. Near the top was the following piece of shit posted by somebody who certainly thinks of himself as a member of Sailer's "cohort." Whether or not Sailer is himself a racist (I have little doubt), you don't have to go very far at all from his position to find rancid examples of the worst kind.

Quoting Meng Bomin: Oh please. It's not as if their statements to the public are not without potential consequences.

Why would anybody make public statements of no consequence? The consequences of public statements are the only reason to make public statements.

Quoting Meng Bomin: That question is of a fundamentally different nature than the one that JonIrenicus offered up.

No; it's the same, only expressed in terms of practical consequences. Studies in racial differences of the kind he's talking about always intend one and only one practical consequence: bad treatment of blacks and a few other minority groups.

You're right. I forgot that he, like a lot of racists, has a boner for the asians.

Now that it's up in the air whether I'm a liar, an imbecile, or something else, I recommend reading the running piece. I had the same reaction to Sailer that you did initially and I think he's wrong about a lot, but based on this short interaction it should be clear to you that you have no idea what you're talking about. At all. It's like calling someone an imbecile at RealClimate and not knowing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

It's not that hard to imagine. Especially if your project is explicitly directed at establishing a particular order in regard to blacks and whites.

Why would you think that? Every single g-loaded test puts Asians (of the major racial distinctions) at the top. Sailer isn't "establishing an order"; he's pointing to evidence of it, using data that are collected by the College Board, government funded groups, etc. One of the billion examples:

Making the assertion about Asians gives you a measure of deniability, without materially affecting the main thrust of your argument.

The main thrust of his argument is that genes affect intelligence and that groups that live in different environments will develop different average traits because of natural selection. It's why I linked to his piece on running. If you can get through this article (and the supporting links) you'll start to understand where he's headed.

After clay responded to me earlier, I googled "Sailer Razib" to see what would pop out at me. Near the top was the following piece of shit posted by somebody who certainly thinks of himself as a member of Sailer's "cohort."

This is the worst argument

Quoting breadcrust: Why would you think that? Every single g-loaded test puts Asians (of the major racial distinctions) at the top. Sailer isn't "establishing an order"; he's pointing to evidence of it, using data that are collected by the College Board, government funded groups, etc. One of the billion examples:

The main thrust of his argument is that genes affect intelligence and that groups that live in different environments will develop different average traits because of natural selection. It's why I linked to his piece on running. If you can get through this article (and the supporting links) you'll start to understand where he's headed.

This is the worst argument I've read in weeks. If you don't know why, go to Wikipedia and read up on argumentative fallacies.

What was my argument?

Quoting Ray: Why would anybody make public statements of no consequence?

The consequences of public statements are the only reason to make public statements.

Don't play word games with me. If I need to be blunt, I mean negative consequences for the speaker. People are reluctant to make public statements that result in negative consequences for themselves personally.

Quoting Ray: No; it's the same, only expressed in terms of practical consequences.

Studies in racial differences of the kind he's talking about always intend one and only one practical consequence: bad treatment of blacks and a few other minority groups.

I agree that those who most loudly approach the issue are of that type but surely you don't think that differences in ability would imply a license for mistreatment. I certainly don't. So, I would answer with a definite no to your question and would hedge on that of JonIrenicus (I don't think that there's enough information to answer it). So, since we are dealing in questions: Do you think that differences in ability justify bad treatment? If you think the answer is yes, then your attitude in the thread this far is justified, but otherwise I think that you need to

You didn't give an explicit argument. If you gave an argument, and you might not have, it was dependent on enthymemes (i.e., hidden premises). Presumably, breadcrust thought your argument was something like this: (1) Racists are bad. [Normative premise]
(2) People who like Steve Sailer are, by and large, racists. [Confirmed by experience]
(3) People who like Steve Sailer criticize Razib Kahn. [Confirmed by one example from the Internet]
(4) Therefore, the claim that Razib Kahn likes Steve Sailer, and is therefore bad, is false. [From (1), (2), and (3)] Obviously, if this is your argument, it's formally valid, but premise (3) is very weak. I presume you would deny that this is your argument. If so, though, then why did you write: "After clay responded to me earlier, I googled 'Sailer Razib' to see what would pop out at me. Near the top was the following piece of shit posted by somebody who certainly thinks of himself as a member of Sailer's 'cohort'"?

Quoting claymisher: Come on, that's a lot of waffle. That's what all nazis say. "I have to the courage to confront the hard facts! Blacks are stupid and jews are sneaky!"

Look, I'm not going to stand up for JonIrenicus' viewpoint...it's his viewpoint, but this line of argument is frankly quite annoying. There are a diversity of viewpoints in idea space and not everyone who disagrees with you is a Nazi sympathizer. If you want to argue this point, pick apart his arguments as they stand...don't tar the commenter by making references to Nazis and making other personal attacks.

Quoting Bobby G: You didn't give an explicit argument. If you gave an argument, and you might not have, it was dependent on enthymemes (i.e., hidden premises).

Presumably, breadcrust thought your argument was something like this:

(1) Racists are bad. [Normative premise]
(2) People who like Steve Sailer are, by and large, racists. [Confirmed by experience]
(3) People who like Steve Sailer criticize Razib Kahn. [Confirmed by one example from the Internet]
(4) Therefore, the claim that Razib Kahn likes Steve Sailer, and is therefore bad, is false. [From (1), (2), and (3)]

Obviously, if this is your argument, it's formally valid, but premise (3) is very weak.

I presume you would deny that this is your argument. If so, though, then why did you write: "After clay responded to me earlier, I googled 'Sailer Razib' to see what would pop out at me. Near the top was the following piece of shit posted by somebody who certainly thinks of himself as a member of Sailer's 'cohort'"?

All I argued is that I believe it's likely Sailer is a racist, and that it's not much of a leap from him to people who are unambiguous bigots. It's a tendentious premise, to be sure; but it wasn't intended as a proof. Added: I chose that particular example to imply a subtext demonstrating a degree of distance between Sailer and Khan - kind of a passive response

Bobby G, How do you define "racist?"

breadcrust, I don't have a definition to hand. I do think two things, though: (1) it's very difficult to give a definition of racist that doesn't lead to counterexamples
(2) I think we should have a broader negative vocabulary than just "racist". We could have racially insentive, racially unconcerned, etc. Lawrence Blum makes this claim in his I'm Not a Racist, But...: The Moral Quandry of Race. Going forward, though, I think that to count as a racist, you have to have some negative attitudes toward what you regard as a racial group. What counts as negative attitudes, though? Well, there's a lot of ways, but it gets very tricky. For instance, what if you think the typical young (25 or younger), black male is likelier than the typical old (65 or older) white female to commit a violent crime? I imagine that's obviously true...so it would be to hold what could plausibly count as a negative attitude towards a certain group, based partially on that group's race. But would that be racist? What if it's based on exhaustive statistical knowledge? Is that racist? No, I suspect not. I suspect instead that clear examples of racism will depend on _why_ you think the negative characteristics adhere to the members of a racial group you

Bobby G, Because of your precision earlier I really looked forward to your definition. You failed (because it seems to have no definition) but I wish the rest of the people on this blog so comfortable with calling someone "a racist" would define the word so I can offer my never-ending stream of counterexamples. Marginally relevant: Steve Sailer's pocket description of neo-con ideology is "invade the world, invite the world" and his definition of a race is "an extended family that is inbred to some degree."

Hi Breadcrust, I wouldn't say that racism has no definition. I would say that it's very hard to find one that admits of no counterexamples. This, however, is the way of philosophy: there are very few significant words that have exhaustively specifiable necessary and sufficient conditions for their application. That said, I think there are probably paradigm cases of racism--lynching, for example. And now, because I don't want to disappoint you, I'll offer a definition of a racist: a racist is someone who believes, either consciously or subconsciously, both (1) that there are biologically specifiable races, and (2) that some races are morally inferior to others. On this definition, many fewer people than are typically thought come out as racist. I don't know whether Sailer, for instance, comes out as racist. Michael Levin does, though.

Quoting Meng Bomin: Look, I'm not going to stand up for JonIrenicus' viewpoint...it's his viewpoint, but this line of argument is frankly quite annoying. There are a diversity of viewpoints in idea space and not everyone who disagrees with you is a Nazi sympathizer. If you want to argue this point, pick apart his arguments as they stand...don't tar the commenter by making references to Nazis and making other personal attacks.

Yeah, there's a diversity of opinions. Some people think black people are inferior. Those people are racists. If this annoys you then you're probably a racist.

Quoting Bobby G: breadcrust,

I don't have a definition to hand. I do think two things, though:

(1) it's very difficult to give a definition of racist that doesn't lead to counterexamples
(2) I think we should have a broader negative vocabulary than just "racist". We could have racially insentive, racially unconcerned, etc. Lawrence Blum makes this claim in his I'm Not a Racist, But...: The Moral Quandry of Race.

Going forward, though, I think that to count as a racist, you have to have some negative attitudes toward what you regard as a racial group. What counts as negative attitudes, though? Well, there's a lot of ways, but it gets very tricky. For instance, what if you think the typical young (25 or younger), black male is likelier than the typical old (65 or older) white female to commit a violent crime? I imagine that's obviously true...so it would be to hold what could plausibly count as a negative attitude towards a certain group, based partially on that group's race. But would that be racist? What if it's based on exhaustive statistical knowledge? Is that racist?

No, I suspect not. I suspect instead that clear examples of racism will depend on _why_ you think the negative characteristics adhere to the members of a racial group you

Quoting claymisher: Yeah, there's a diversity of opinions. Some people think black people are inferior. Those people are racists. If this annoys you then you're probably a racist.

Thanks for ignoring the point.

Quoting AemJeff: All I argued is that I believe it's likely Sailer is a racist, and that it's not much of a leap from him to people who are unambiguous bigots. It's a tendentious premise, to be sure; but it wasn't intended as a proof.

Added: I chose that particular example to imply a subtext demonstrating a degree of distance between Sailer and Khan - kind of a passive response to clay's assertion about Razib; and you're right, it's a less than perfect argument.

Back to my original point: Razib Khan thinks the anti-semite MacDonald goes too far but is perfectly happy to associate with (co-blog, blogroll, and frequently link to) the out and proud anti-black zealot Sailer. So now we know where Razib draws the line.

I think you need to add a third conditional; Judges the individual by the preconceptions of the larger group. Well, that's my two cents anyways.

I'm not sure I should add that third condition. Imagine you know someone who has black friends, and thinks they're just as smart as any white person he knows, but who also holds that blacks, on average, are morally inferior to non-blacks because of their biology. That person would still count as a racist, even if he treated individual black people perfectly decently, wouldn't he?

My problem with your definition that lacks my third conditional is that (1) and (2), could be true (Even if I don't think they are, or that the evidence points that way, I do have to admit that it is a possibility)

I don't know much about Charles Murray, but I've often heard it said that his statistical expertise is lacking. If so, then one reason to suspect he's racist is that he's too smart to make such mistakes by accident, so it is reasonable to infer that he has an underlying animus. What do you make, though, of Charles Murray's (hypothetical) seven-year daughter? If she says to her classmates that blacks are intellectually inferior, on average, to whites, is she a racist? If so, is she a racist in morally culpable sense? It seems hard to me to make this case, as most very young children take the apparently factual claims of their parents quite seriously, and so it seems hard to blame her for doing the same when repeating the claims of her father. If she is corrected, given good reason to change her mind, and persists, then obviously the label may at some point rightfully apply. Interestingly, I once said at a party that there is a biological predisposition to homosexuality, and for that I was called homophobic (of course, I was also told that it's sexist to be attracted to members of only one sex, too; upon asking my

Quoting claymisher: Back to my original point: Razib Khan thinks the anti-semite MacDonald goes too far but is perfectly happy to associate with (co-blog, blogroll, and frequently link to) the out and proud anti-black zealot Sailer. So now we know where Razib draws the line.

You and I draw a another line somewhat differently from one another. I see Razib, and a few others, making good faith choices that I don't agree with. You apparently don't grant them that assumption. I don't have a way to reconcile that, except to say that we make slightly different assumptions in this regard.

I'm not sure that (2) could be true as a matter of biological fact. Michael Levin has claimed that blacks have less impulse control than whites, and that, since impulse control is a necessary condition for being moral, blacks on average are less moral than whites. My response is that even if it were true that blacks had less impulse control than whites on average, it still wouldn't follow that blacks were morally inferior to whites on average, as this lack of impulse control wouldn't be up to them, and so not something for which they're properly blamed. Regardless, what seems to me to be uncontroversially racist is the belief that someone, merely because she is black, shouldn't have the same rights as someone who is not black. If you held this to be true of the average black person, but made an exception for your black friends, surely you'd still count as racist?

Quoting Bobby G: I don't know much about Charles Murray, but I've often heard it said that his statistical expertise is lacking. If so, then one reason to suspect he's racist is that he's too smart to make such mistakes by accident, so it is reasonable to infer that he has an underlying animus.

What do you make, though, of Charles Murray's (hypothetical) seven-year daughter? If she says to her classmates that blacks are intellectually inferior, on average, to whites, is she a racist? If so, is she a racist in morally culpable sense? It seems hard to me to make this case, as most very young children take the apparently factual claims of their parents quite seriously, and so it seems hard to blame her for doing the same when repeating the claims of her father. If she is corrected, given good reason to change her mind, and persists, then obviously the label may at some point rightfully apply.

Interestingly, I once said at a party that there is a biological predisposition to homosexuality, and for that I was called homophobic (of course, I was also told that it's sexist to be attracted to members of only one sex, too; upon asking my

It should also be pointed out, and perhaps claymisher would agree with this, that the very fact that you and I are even discussing these possibilities in a civil manner is itself possible evidence of our own racism. Perhaps the proper response to such considerations is simply one of condemnation. Even discussing the possibility that blacks may on average be morally or intellectually inferior to whites could be like coldly discussing whether or not the Holocaust was justified.

Quoting Bobby G: I'm not sure that (2) could be true as a matter of biological fact. Michael Levin has claimed that blacks have less impulse control than whites, and that, since impulse control is a necessary condition for being moral, blacks on average are less moral than whites.

My response is that even if it were true that blacks had less impulse control than whites on average, it still wouldn't follow that blacks were morally inferior to whites on average, as this lack of impulse control wouldn't be up to them, and so not something for which they're properly blamed.

Actually, no, I can't agree with this. You are your brain/body, there is nothing else there. Even if your brain/body causes you to act in a way that society perceives as negative, you are still responsible for your actions. Do you really think that some murderer that grew up in X environment has any more control over his/her actions then some guy that got hit in the head and lost his/her impulse control? Of courser not, every single attribute that defines you,me and everyone else is just an output from some function, and none

Thanks for that article, Jeff. Very interesting.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Actually, no, I can't agree with this. You are your brain/body, there is nothing else there. Even if your brain/body causes you to act in a way that society perceives as negative, you are still responsible for your actions.

I'm open to the possibility that you might be your brain, but it doesn't follow from that admission that the brain is merely a cog in a deterministic system. It could be that the brain as a system exercises uncaused downward causation. Moreover, if I thought that the brain were a fully determined cog, then I wouldn't think you were morally responsible.

Do you really think that some murderer that grew up in X environment has any more control over his/her actions then some guy that got hit in the head and lost his/her impulse control?

Yes.

Of courser not, every single attribute that defines you,me and everyone else is just an output from some function, and none of us have any control over the inputs.

I agree about the first part, but not about the second part.

I don't see how you could enact a law without meeting my third conditional, you would be judging what rights

That's just because people are squeamish about talking like this about black+jews because of slavery+Holocaust. I don't see any categorical difference between saying blacks are dumber then Europeans and saying Europeans are dumber then Asians. The latter seems to have a much less negative stigma then the former.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I don't see any categorical difference between saying blacks are dumber then Europeans and saying Europeans are dumber then Asians. The latter seems to have a much less negative stigma then the former.

I don't quite know what you mean by categorical difference, but I take it that people find one characterization more offensive than the other because the former characterization has been used to justify severe mistreatment of blacks whereas the latter one has not been so used, or at least not to the same extent, to justify mistreatment of Asians.

Bobby G,

And now, because I don't want to disappoint you, I'll offer a definition of a racist: a racist is someone who believes, either consciously or subconsciously, both (1) that there are biologically specifiable races, and (2) that some races are morally inferior to others.

Are you saying that you don't agree with (1) and would you be willing to read this to give your answer more context? What factors affect moral inferiority? So, I could say that men are on average morally inferior to women because men commit many more murders on average than do women. Or...

Quoting Bobby G: I'm open to the possibility that you might be your brain, but it doesn't follow from that admission that the brain is merely a cog in a deterministic system. It could be that the brain as a system exercises uncaused downward causation.

Could you explain further? This is something where people having different opinions from myself utterly baffles me. To me, it seems like every "you" in every timeframe, should be totally describable by the attributes of a previous "you" in a previous timeframe + what has happened to you since then and how it affected that previous you. This is true all the way back to inception. I realize at a certain point, randomness must be considered, but I don't see how that makes one any more responsible.

You might see your individual friends as rare exceptions to the general state of affairs that mandates the general law.

Hmmm....

Quoting breadcrust: Bobby G,

Are you saying that you don't agree with (1) and would you be willing to read this to give your answer more context?

What factors affect moral inferiority? So, I could say that men are on average morally inferior to women because men commit many more murders on average than do women. Or...

No, I'm not denying (1). I'm saying you need to believe both (1) and (2) to count as a racist. But I should have been more careful--it seems to me that if you believe (2), you have to believe (1), so I should have just limited my definition of racism to (2). As a matter of fact, I'm quite open to (1), but I think that there are probably more like 100 races than 4.

It should also be pointed out, and perhaps claymisher would agree with this, that the very fact that you and I are even discussing these possibilities in a civil manner is itself possible evidence of our own racism. Perhaps the proper response to such considerations is simply one of condemnation.

It's not the proper response (and this is one of Sailer's most consistent points) because if we never have this conversation, we'll keep doing amazingly stupid things. So, proponents of affirmative action always point to the statistics of Whites and Blacks/Hispanics regarding life span, education, and median wage as the reason we need quotas, etc. Sailer will then come along and say, wait! then why do Asians top Whites in these categories? How is it that Whites can dial in the institutional racism to keep down Blacks/Hispanics, but Asians always top Whites? There may be a different reason! Then, he points to things like the correlation between higher IQ and the improvement in these three factors and the fact that every IQ test shows the same racial averages, and along will come claymisher screaming that Sailer's a racist and we need quotas!

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Could you explain further? This is something where people having different opinions from myself utterly baffles me.

Heh. Yeah, a lot of people I know who see things the way you do feel the same way as you.

To me, it seems like every "you" in every timeframe, should be totally describable by the attributes of a previous "you" in a previous timeframe + what has happened to you since then and how it affected that previous you. This is true all the way back to inception.

(1) I don't think that's the only possibility. There's also the possibility of non-deterministic causation. It could be the case, for example, that 75% of the time when beings that have brain states of type T1 end up with a brain-state of type T2, but 25% of the time they end with brain-states of type T3. (2) Moreover, I think we should be wary that we understand perfectly well that the universe is a completely deterministic system. For one thing, many physicists deny this, at least at the micro-level. It's not clear to me that happenings at the micro-level never affect happenings at the macro-level. (3) Furthermore, it could be that our understanding of the brain is

I should say, I'm not convinced that should be the response; indeed, my gut reaction is to be against that response. I'm just saying that it's not wholly without merit. Whether we keep on doing stupid things depends on whether Sailer's underlying point about race differences is right in the first place. Obviously, it will be much harder to come to know that if people who even study the issue are blacklisted. But there could be other desirable consequences of not studying the issue: (1) It's possible that racial tensions would be exacerbated by an open studying of the issue;
(2) It could be a sign of disrespect to blacks, whites, Asians, etc., to even consider the issue;
(3) If it turned out that there were significant racial differences among whites, Asians, and blacks, and this became common knowledge, it might undercut the energy the world puts into improving the plight of blacks and Hispanics.

Quoting breadcrust: It's not the proper response (and this is one of Sailer's most consistent points) because if we never have this conversation, we'll keep doing amazingly stupid things.

So, proponents of affirmative action always point to the statistics of Whites and Blacks/Hispanics regarding life span, education, and median wage as the reason we need quotas, etc. Sailer will then come along and say, wait! then why do Asians top Whites in these categories? How is it that Whites can dial in the institutional racism to keep down Blacks/Hispanics, but Asians always top Whites? There may be a different reason! Then, he points to things like the correlation between higher IQ and the improvement in these three factors and the fact that every IQ test shows the same racial averages, and along will come claymisher screaming that Sailer's a racist and we need quotas!

Screaming? Really? Slow down there buddy. Show me where I said any of that. You don't know what my position on affirmative action is. You're just making up shit here. When people do that the normal response is "fuck you, buddy" but I'll spare you that 'cos you'd probably whine about that too. The only positions I've

I have a few problems with your response, but I will have to continue this at a later date (Probably Wednesday or Thursday) , I'm fairly busy for the next two weeks (I'm only here right now cause I have a serious case of senioritis). I hope you can remember to check back with me. Cheers.

I think I'm done with this for now. I'd recommend Sailer's blog. It's shocking, erudite, and eclectic. On the front page you'll find posts on Warhol/Szukalski, hospital slang, leftist eugenics, and a bunch of Sailer-contextualized Tiger Woods stuff. The risk to you is that you might come to twenty hours later, still link-sailing. It's what happened to me the first time, after I got over my initial, intense PC shock.

"Psychiatrists" was a typo, I meant to write "psychologist". The former, of course, is snake-oil while the latter is a real field of knowledge! I'll try and check out the Gintis lecture later. Have you read E. O. Wilson's "Consilience"? He notes that economic imperialism is due to economists being more reductionists and viewing reality as a whole to be analyzed with the same set of tools, while sociology was founded as a more anti-reductionist discipline. Washington is considered liberal by American standards, but other people use other yardsticks. The Democratic party is often noted as holding positions that would be center-right in Europe. claymisher: If someone gave a straight answer, would that grant immunity to charges of bigotry? For my own part, as an emotivist/non-cognitivist, I don't believe that anything is objective just/unjust or good/bad. Taking into account that other people have different views my preferred frame for how these different people are to interact is a sort of contractarianism, but with real contracts rather than an imaginary social contract hypothetical persons would ideally agree to. I don't think non-human animals have any rights (not that I think humans do either, which is why I wrote the foreword

Quoting T.G.G.P: "Psychiatrists" was a typo, I meant to write "psychologist". The former, of course, is snake-oil while the latter is a real field of knowledge!

Ahem... Is there a need to insult a noble profession?

I've read Sailer's blog a fair bit. I think I'm not competent to assess whether what he says about science is right.

Wilson's criticisms of neoclassical economics are incredibly naive: Even if they weren't analytically convenient to use, neoclassical models would still be employed (if only descriptively) because they describe equilibria behavior whose essential insights are robust under a wide variety of tweaks introduced for the sake of realism. It's pretty ironic that he would endorse the insights gleaned from agent-based modeling on the one hand while decrying neoclassical economics on the other. Does he believe that agent-based models fully capture the behavior of real organisms? Most telling of all, Wilson seems to be under the amazing misapprehension that neoclassical economics dictates that risk-aversion is irrational. This is simply false, and not to nitpick, but it's the kind of falsehood that strongly signals that one has never actually run one's views by an actual economist.

Quoting Ocean: Ahem... Is there a need to insult a noble profession?

It struck me that the discussion of racism just wasn't offensive enough. More seriously, the more "noble" a profession is perceived to be the less criticism we should expect to hear and presumably the greater marginal benefit from hearing criticism. In that respect medical doctors are actually more in need of metaphorical feces flung their way than psychiatrists. Something that should be said in psychiatrists defense is that they are much less likely to kill their patients than doctors; it is a poor snake-oil salesman who includes too much active ingredient and if the snake oil gives mere placebo benefit than to some extent we can even consider it a legitimately noble lie (honestly told by a believer, even). On the other hand, psychiatrists have some responsibility for involuntary commitment resulting from a questionable diagnostic procedure.

Quoting T.G.G.P: ... Something that should be said in psychiatrists defense is that they are much less likely to kill their patients than doctors;...

Oh, I feel so much better now. How flattering!

Quoting Bobby G: I should say, I'm not convinced that should be the response; indeed, my gut reaction is to be against that response. I'm just saying that it's not wholly without merit. Whether we keep on doing stupid things depends on whether Sailer's underlying point about race differences is right in the first place. Obviously, it will be much harder to come to know that if people who even study the issue are blacklisted. But there could be other desirable consequences of not studying the issue:

(1) It's possible that racial tensions would be exacerbated by an open studying of the issue;
(2) It could be a sign of disrespect to blacks, whites, Asians, etc., to even consider the issue;
(3) If it turned out that there were significant racial differences among whites, Asians, and blacks, and this became common knowledge, it might undercut the energy the world puts into improving the plight of blacks and Hispanics.

This is pretty much the trifecta of what causes so much discomfort with this topic for most people.
(1) is entirely possible. Perfectly good reason to shun discussing this openly. (2) is also relevant to keeping it a taboo for discussion. At least among the

Ocean, a moral philosopher might cry out against the action/omission standard, but medicine's own principle of "first, do no harm" would indeed make that passed bar a standard of nobility. JonIrenicus, I am reminded of Robin Hanson's talk arguing that whatever goals you currently have, your overriding goal should be truth. I think it's theoretically possible that in some cases societal ignorance could be preferable, but in general I go with the motto of Faber College from Animal House: "Knowledge is Good". It's just my subjective preference, but few people come out openly against it as a generality.

(3) This, more than anything else, is the nightmare scenario for those seeking to shift the levers of government policy and resources to effect change in peoples lives.

Taken to the extremes, you might get whole swaths of the population suggesting, "why bother, what good would it do anyway" for innumerable policy prescriptions.

There is no way to avoid that for some people, you already have people like bread making that argument, if not explicitly so far, dig deeper and that is what I would expect to find in him. For what it is worth, I do NOT think this would be a majority.

One of my biggest problems with that attitude, is the level of indifference and callousness expressed by such people. It is the situation of two people who can both agree completely that there are some differences in the averages between different populations, and yet having entirely different reactions to that realization. The reaction I despise follows the line - wow, SUCKS for that group, not my problem though. For those people, if it is not related to me and mine in terms of their in group, I don't think they care. I do care. I am not indifferent to the negative

Quoting Meng Bomin: Don't play word games with me.

Or what?

Quoting Meng Bomin: People are reluctant to make public statements that result in negative consequences for themselves personally.

Yes. Yes; they are. These people are moral cowards.

Quoting Meng Bomin: Do you think that differences in ability justify bad treatment?

What? No; of course, not. I'm saying that all studies of racial differences in ability have as their purpose the following practical consequence: bad treatment of blacks and certain other minority groups. I am against bad treatment of people in general and against racially-motivated bad treatment of people in particular. Is this weird to you?

After listening to the last 15 minutes of the diavlog, I'll add one more comment. Economists have seen the economy as an evolutionary system for decades if not centuries - the incentives to innovate and realize profits produce an evolutionary landscape within which people have incentives to engage in positive-sum transactions - it's not a coincidence that laissez-faire capitalism is often associated with "Social Darwinism." What does Wilson's study of evolution add to social understanding that economists' understanding of incentives and innovation does not already embody?

Quoting breadcrust: It is the current regime that is insensitive and stuck on ideas of racial zero-sum games. What we do now is look at data showing that Asians (then Whites) outperform Blacks/Hispanics and ASSUME some kind of racism. We then demand "fixes" that are often worse than the problems they supposedly address, causing hideous complications, waste, fraud, hurt feelings, high foreclosure rates, etc.

Here are examples of the nuanced way that Sailer looks at these things.

Back up a second. Forget about for a moment what we DO about different results between different groups. Does it bother you at all that some groups essentially start off with extra weights slowing them down and impeding their performance levels in comparison to other groups? Notice, I did not ask whether the weights were caused by society or nature. I want to know what your gut reaction to such a reality is. Is it closer to - It is what it is and, so what? or It is what it is and, we should do X and Y to compensate for, if not completely bridge, the discrepancy? Also note I did not give the option of - It is not what people say it is, if we do x,y,z

I was going to respond point by point, but why bother? I've linked to many different articles that would answer all your questions (six just in my last comment) but you can't have read them, because they are too lucid for you to have read them and misunderstood. In an attempt to get you to actually give Sailer's alien and difficult ideas a fair shake, I'll just add three things: 1)I used to be a standard liberal/socialist, assuming that modern America was egregiously racist (specifically pro-white) and that the average disparities one can see everywhere were a result of that racism. Then I saw stuff like this and realized I didn't have a clue. 2)I'm a libertarian who thinks people should be accepted and treated based on their individual merits and faults and situations, not some group averages. So, for example, I don't think the extreme poverty of a Black child is more meaningful than the extreme poverty of an Asian or White child. 3)One needs to be PC-blinded to think that there are no average innate racial differences in ability. Every male in the world sprints at some point or other. Sprinting

you going from JI's comment to "nazi" is absurd. i guess i'm a racist?

Quoting breadcrust: I was going to respond point by point, but why bother? I've linked to many different articles that would answer all your questions (six just in my last comment) but you can't have read them, because they are too lucid for you to have read them and misunderstood. In an attempt to get you to actually give Sailer's alien and difficult ideas a fair shake, I'll just add three things:

1)I used to be a standard liberal/socialist, assuming that modern America was egregiously racist (specifically pro-white) and that the average disparities one can see everywhere were a result of that racism. Then I saw stuff like this and realized I didn't have a clue.

2)I'm a libertarian who thinks people should be accepted and treated based on their individual merits and faults and situations, not some group averages. So, for example, I don't think the extreme poverty of a Black child is more meaningful than the extreme poverty of an Asian or White child.

3)One needs to be PC-blinded to think that there are no average innate racial differences in ability. Every male in the world sprints at some point or other. Sprinting

Just out of curiosity, bread, did you read the piece on g by Cosma Shalizi?

Quoting Bobby G: Just out of curiosity, bread, did you read the piece on g by Cosma Shalizi?

Not yet, but I will. When I first heard of it, g sounded like a great model... then doubt came crashing about an hour later when I considered autistic savants, etc. Sailer (with his greater intelligence, many more analytical tools, and many years obsessing) also seems unclear on the issue. I shouldn't even use the term.

Based on the fact that you can't stop calling me stupid, you're too emotional about this, so I shouldn't respond, but...

Sprinting is interesting because it's as close as a controlled scientific experiment as you're going to get.

But if you try to talk to most Americans about genetic differences leading to these differences in outcomes, most will insist that it's something to do with diet, culture, motivation, etc..... You can respond with the most devastating arguments about average morphological differences (pointing to specific things like calf circumference, waist to hip ratios), the ubiquity of the sprint, the commonality of diet, what normal distributions are about, and you'll probably be called a racist anyway.

Bullshit theorizing about intelligence tests are about as far from a scientific test as you're going to get. The more you talk about sprinters they dumber you sound.

All it is is a bridge. If one can admit that there are average innate racial differences in morphology, and that these are the principal reasons that sports outcomes are as they are, then understanding can progress. Liberals may actually start to consider why it is that Asians tend to live

Quoting breadcrust: I was going to respond point by point, but why bother? I've linked to many different articles that would answer all your questions (six just in my last comment) but you can't have read them, because they are too lucid for you to have read them and misunderstood. In an attempt to get you to actually give Sailer's alien and difficult ideas a fair shake, I'll just add three things:

1)I used to be a standard liberal/socialist, assuming that modern America was egregiously racist (specifically pro-white) and that the average disparities one can see everywhere were a result of that racism. Then I saw stuff like this and realized I didn't have a clue.

2)I'm a libertarian who thinks people should be accepted and treated based on their individual merits and faults and situations, not some group averages. So, for example, I don't think the extreme poverty of a Black child is more meaningful than the extreme poverty of an Asian or White child.

3)One needs to be PC-blinded to think that there are no average innate racial differences in ability. Every male in the world sprints at some point or other. Sprinting

Quoting breadcrust: Based on the fact that you can't stop calling me stupid, you're too emotional about this, so I shouldn't respond, but...

But if you try to talk to most Americans about genetic differences leading to these differences in outcomes, most will insist that it's something to do with diet, culture, motivation, etc..... You can respond with the most devastating arguments about average morphological differences (pointing to specific things like calf circumference, waist to hip ratios), the ubiquity of the sprint, the commonality of diet, what normal distributions are about, and you'll probably be called a racist anyway.

All it is is a bridge. If one can admit that there are average innate racial differences in morphology, and that these are the principal reasons that sports outcomes are as they are, then understanding can progress. Liberals may actually start to consider why it is that Asians tend to live longer, have higher median wages, and score better on all "supposed" tests of intelligence than do the other races in this ostensibly vicious, racist White society.

?

You seem resistant to nuance, but here goes... Sailer thinks that intelligence has a normal distribution. He thinks that average racial intelligence varies, but that

Better yet, just read Sailer's articles.

Quoting breadcrust: Better yet, just read Sailer's articles.

I get it. You love Steve Sailer. Come on man, tell us, how much dumber do you think black people are? Maybe you could rank order the races for us. Are Finns smarter than Hungarians? How about the Irish?

Quoting claymisher: Alright genius, you explain to me exactly how much dumber black people are on average. Draw me some overlapping distributions. Feel free to include all the usual summary statistics. I'm especially interested in the skew and kurtosis.

Hey Razib, you too. You're Sailer's pal. How dumb do you think black people are?

Quoting claymisher: How about the Irish?

Please, don't...

First of all, his ideas are not difficult or novel.

What makes most of his ideas difficult is PC culture, not complexity. In America one can generally not mention racial differences in anything. One will quickly be unemployed. You're dead wrong about the "novel" part. Sailer offers new turns of phrase, weird re-frames of problems, and an invasive, adversarial style on liberal blogs (some excellent stuff concerning Gladwell and "Igon values" recently).

But I did not convince myself that the conclusions were wrong, at best, the counter arguments against group differences were an argument over degree, not their existence.

Don't say this too loudly. And don't say it to claymisher, as you can see.

I want people treated as individuals as well. But one of the implications of this discussion is that there will be more individuals from some groups attaining certain levels of prosperity, and fewer members of other groups.

So what? Is the poverty of a Black child more meaningful than the poverty of a White or Asian child? If the answer is "no" then it doesn't matter what percentage of each race is poor, but how we respond to poor individuals.

The problem is that there is no

Quoting claymisher: Alright genius, you explain to me exactly how much dumber black people are on average. Draw me some overlapping distributions. Feel free to include all the usual summary statistics. I'm especially interested in the skew and kurtosis.

Since the distributions are judged to be normal, that should suffice for skew & kurtosis. I think it is mostly just assumed though with people noting that there are actually fat tails (somewhat similar to finance). The standard take is that the black average is about 1 SD below the white average, whiles Jews & northeast asians are about 1 SD above. La Griffe du Lion discusses many of the same topics as Sailer and shows an overlapping distribution for running ability here and discusses the size of the "black elite" with IQs above 120 or 130 here. They don't graphically overlap, but he plots a black distribution above a white one here so one can view the area in which there is overlap. Males are also believed to have higher variance than females, and hence are overrepresented at either tail. I can't remember actual numbers given for the variance though, the standard deviation used in all discussions I can recall

Quoting T.G.G.P: Since the distributions are judged to be normal, that should suffice for skew & kurtosis. I think it is mostly just assumed though with people noting that there are actually fat tails (somewhat similar to finance). The standard take is that the black average is about 1 SD below the white average, whiles Jews & northeast asians are about 1 SD above. La Griffe du Lion discusses many of the same topics as Sailer and shows an overlapping distribution for running ability here and discusses the size of the "black elite" with IQs above 120 or 130 here. They don't graphically overlap, but he plots a black distribution above a white one here so one can view the area in which there is overlap.

Males are also believed to have higher variance than females, and hence are overrepresented at either tail. I can't remember actual numbers given for the variance though, the standard deviation used in all discussions I can recall is 15 IQ points. Malcolm Gladwell hypothesized that blacks are like males in that they have higher variance, but I haven't heard any support for that. La Griffe estimates a Female/Male variance ratio of 0.916 here. He also claims that

Quoting claymisher: Terrific! Now tell me how much of that is due to genetic factors.

Exactly. Despite JonI's apparent misconception to the contrary, no one has ever disputed the existence of the IQ difference in standardized test results. What people have disputed is the assertion that this cause is genetic. Even the revolting Sailer admits "we don't know": "Here's what we don't know at this point: What causes this white-black IQ gap? Nurture? Nature? A combination or interaction? [...] Personally, I would bet on genes playing some sort of role...."

Quoting claymisher: Terrific! Now tell me how much of that is due to racial genetic factors.

Hard to say. We know IQ is heritable, but like height we haven't found specific genes. Adoption studies show that the effect of shared environmental differences is pretty much noise, but there has been some criticism that there wasn't enough variance in the adoptive homes. For really bad homes there's likely to be an effect, but above a certain thresh-hold shared environment is pretty much "equal" and the genetics correspondingly has a larger share. Malnutrition will stunt your growth, but you can't become a giant just by eating lots (micronutrients are low-lying fruit in third-world countries, but have been standard supplements of foodstuffs in the U.S for some time). We know that poor white children have higher IQs than blacks from middle/upper class families, and it doesn't make sense to attribute those differences to the better environments the white kids have. It's really just Occam's Razor suggesting there are racial differences in the distribution of genes contributing to variance in IQ at this point. Greg Cochran & Henry Harpending have some ideas for ones to look

Quoting T.G.G.P: Hard to say. We know IQ is heritable, but like height we haven't found specific genes. Adoption studies show that the effect of shared environmental differences is pretty much noise, but there has been some criticism that there wasn't enough variance in the adoptive homes. For really bad homes there's likely to be an effect, but above a certain thresh-hold shared environment is pretty much "equal" and the genetics correspondingly has a larger share. Malnutrition will stunt your growth, but you can't become a giant just by eating lots (micronutrients are low-lying fruit in third-world countries, but have been standard supplements of foodstuffs in the U.S for some time). We know that poor white children have higher IQs than blacks from middle/upper class families, and it doesn't make sense to attribute those differences to the better environments the white kids have. It's really just Occam's Razor suggesting there are racial differences in the distribution of genes contributing to variance in IQ at this point. Greg Cochran & Henry Harpending have some ideas for ones to look at based on genetic diseases found among Ashkenazi Jews which all seem

Quoting claymisher: There's a lot more to environmental factors than just the race of your parents. You can't just throw out cultural and environmental factors in an appeal to simplicity. Some might complain that if you're held to that high of a standard of inferential validity then we'll never know what race tops the standings, which is the whole fucking point.

Did you mean income of parents? Because white children of poorly educated parents have higher IQs on average than black children with highly educated parents. You seem to be suggesting something like John Ogbu's theory of a sort of anti-academic culture among blacks. The black-white difference actually increases as tests become more free of cultural dependence and more "g-loaded". Reaction time differences are interesting because they show an advantage to blacks in physically moving, so they are evidently motivated to answer quickly, they lag in decision time. Absolute certainty can never really be achieved (despite what I claimed above, I could have hallucinated all my knowledge of biology). We are left with conjecturing what we find most probable, and preferably putting error bounds on our estimates.

Quoting T.G.G.P: Did you mean income of parents? Because white children of poorly educated parents have higher IQs on average than black children with highly educated parents. You seem to be suggesting something like John Ogbu's theory of a sort of anti-academic culture among blacks. The black-white difference actually increases as tests become more free of cultural dependence as "g-loaded". Reaction time differences are interesting because they show an advantage to blacks in physically moving, so they are evidently motivated to answer quickly, they lag in decision time.

"Social and cultural factors" include the influence of the other 300 million people in America besides your parents.

Quoting breadcrust: ...
More race-free liberalism.

Yet more...

Egads, it continues. We probably have very different ideologies, and based on what you've said here I'm sure yours is evil, but you're not addressing my question which is why I should care more about the "plight" of poor Black people than the "plight" of poor Asian people.

I don't know what I am exactly, but I don't think the word liberal describes it. I simply have a less restricted problem set I look to to diagnose the discrepancies in outcomes. I cannot follow them down that limited path, it is like watching those ancient astronomers devise ever more complicated and twisted paths for planets and the sun to maintain the premise that the earth was the center of the cosmos. Anything could be suggested as an explanation of the observations, however fantastical, except the heretical notion that it was the earth that circled the sun.
In any event, it is not about a specific "race." The same handicaps affect members of all groups, the differences are the numbers not their existence. Your insistence on focusing it there seems to betray an obsession with race beyond what is healthy. And once again, you sidestepped the

Saletan has a pretty good article on why racial typologies are not sufficiently exact to be used in studies that measure the relationship between genetics and performance. The important point he makes is simply that race and genetic composition are not even close to identical phenomena, and should not be thought of as such.

Your insistence on focusing it there seems to betray an obsession with race beyond what is healthy. And once again, you sidestepped the question. I don't care if the person with the handicap is black or asian, I want to know if you care about ANYONE with a handicap?

The reason I'm talking about race is because it's a lot more interesting than talking about the usual statist/freedom-lover split that people always talk about on sites like these. You're just morphing a conversation about whether things like disparate impact law are a good idea for their supposed beneficiaries (or the rest of a society (an idea that Sailer spends a lot of brain power on)) into a conversation about whether I care about people who's lives are worse than mine. I do, but so what? You're a liberal so you think the best way to fix these problems is with technocrats with the power of the gun and I think that Wal-Mart has a much better model.

Assuming we had the capacity to improve the outcomes of people with less advantages in society, would you be in favor

"Social and cultural factors" include the influence of the other 300 million people in America besides your parents.

Translation: Asians in America have higher median wages, longer life expectancies, lower crime rates, and better test scores than Whites and Blacks because of the implicit and explicit racism of a primarily White society.

Quoting testostyrannical: Saletan has a pretty good article on why racial typologies are not sufficiently exact to be used in studies that measure the relationship between genetics and performance. The important point he makes is simply that race and genetic composition are not even close to identical phenomena, and should not be thought of as such.

To anyone who thinks this article of Saletan's is at all helpful, I counter-offer this article of Sailer's, to which I've already linked. His metaphor that race is like region and the way he works through it is very helpful. Of course, Saletan and Sailer have gone at it before in print more directly. If B-heads weren't what we all know it is, we could just watch the diavlog between the two.

The reason I'm talking about race is because it's a lot more interesting than talking about the usual statist/freedom-lover split that people always talk about on sites like these. You're just morphing a conversation about whether things like disparate impact law are a good idea for their supposed beneficiaries (or the rest of a society (an idea that Sailer spends a lot of brain power on)) into a conversation about whether I care about people who's lives are worse than mine. I do, but so what? You're a liberal so you think the best way to fix these problems is with technocrats with the power of the gun and I think that Wal-Mart has a much better model.

Quoting breadcrust: Translation: Asians in America have higher median wages, longer life expectancies, lower crime rates, and better test scores than Whites and Blacks because of the implicit and explicit racism of a primarily White society.

You know, your attacks on hippie strawmen don't prove that your racism is scientifically correct.

Quoting JonIrenicus: This is an example of why this should not and cannot be discussed. It does not matter if he IS right, it matters that he thinks he is right. Taking the position that should be the case over what is the case. Anyone who refuses to play the game of squaring the circle to get from A to B of "what should be = what is" is a bigot.

I just checked in to see what happened on this thread since I last added to it. There are just a few subjects that engender a lot of traffic. From what I have experienced they are climate change, health care reform and race.
Tempers flare and insults are hurled. I wonder why that is. While I am not an unbiased observer, I may be correct to say that it is 'the left' (whatever that means) that usually hurls the first 'bigot' bomb and keeps it up, no matter what. "the left' (whatever that means) seems to feel particularly adept at probing the hearts and minds of commenters. This is something that evolutionary psychology could perhaps explore.

Quoting Ray: Sides are splitting all over Wasilla!

P.S. 'that', not 'which' here.

From Jack Lynch "I must confess that I do not myself observe the distinction between “that” and “which.” Furthermore, there is little evidence that this distinction is or has ever been regularly made in past centuries by careful writers of English. However, a small but impassioned group of authorities has urged the distinction; so here is the information you will need to pacify them. If you are defining something by distinguishing it from a larger class of which it is a member, use “that”: “I chose the lettuce that had the fewest wilted leaves.” When the general class is not being limited or defined in some way, then “which” is appropriate: “He made an iceberg Caesar salad, which didn’t taste quite right.” Note that “which” is normally preceded by a comma, but “that” is not."

Quoting claymisher: "Social and cultural factors" include the influence of the other 300 million people in America besides your parents.

I think it is correct to point out all those other people, but "300 million" is an extreme exaggeration (and if you're going to go that route, why limit the boundaries to America rather than the whole world?). Judith Harris' work emphasizes the influence of peer-groups over parents. This can easily be seen comparing the accents & language of the children of immigrants, who quickly assimilate to the new country, with their parents. Bad neighborhoods and bad schools are commonly accused culprits and likely play a role, but it may not be on IQ. Black academic performance is actually overpredicted by their test scores while asian performance is underpredicted, this indicates that there are factors other than IQ that play a role in academic success. Conscientiousness is probably a biggie. I don't know how malleable it is, but I believe five-factor personality has been found to be significantly heritable. Putting blacks in white neighborhoods & white schools still results in a black-white gap. Regarding race vs genetics, cluster analysis of DNA matches individuals to their self-reported race with over 99% accuracy. If we

Quoting claymisher: You know, your attacks on hippie strawmen don't prove that your racism is scientifically correct.

A note about T.G.G.P. here, claymisher... Everything he's mentioned is covered by Sailer in detail, which is why I recommend you actually bite the bullet and start perusing that site. Given the consequences of one saying that Sailer may have some real points, you may already be a convert, for all I know. La Griffe du Lion engenders a lot of excitement whenever he/she (infrequently) emits something (Sailer calls him/her the Zorro of statisticians). Your statement about "hippie strawmen" so confused me that I just returned from WP's entry, having thought that maybe I didn't know what it meant after all of these years of usage. Nope... what are you saying?

Quoting breadcrust: A note about T.G.G.P. here, claymisher... Everything he's mentioned is covered by Sailer in detail, which is why I recommend you actually bite the bullet and start perusing that site. Given the consequences of one saying that Sailer may have some real points, you may already be a convert, for all I know. La Griffe du Lion engenders a lot of excitement whenever he/she (infrequently) emits something (Sailer calls him/her the Zorro of statisticians).

Your statement about "hippie strawmen" so confused me that I just returned from WP's entry, having thought that maybe I didn't know what it meant after all of these years of usage. Nope... what are you saying?

That's right, Sailer links to all kinds of interesting stuff. He has to. Sailer doesn't do any research. He spins what's out there into the most racist case possible. If that turns you on I'm sorry for you. "Sailer may have some real points" is setting the bar pretty fucking low. Yeah, and a broken clock is right twice a day. I don't need bigots to alert me to people like Ogbu and Judith Rich Harris. I'm still waiting for your racial superiority standings.

Quoting claymisher: Hey Razib, you too. You're Sailer's pal. How dumb do you think black people are?

Come on razib, we all see you're logged in. Answer the question.

Quoting claymisher: That's right, Sailer links to all kinds of interesting stuff. He has to. Sailer doesn't do any research. He spins what's out there into the most racist case possible. If that turns you on I'm sorry for you. "Sailer may have some real points" is setting the bar pretty fucking low. Yeah, and a broken clock is right twice a day.

I don't need bigots to alert me to people like Ogbu and Judith Rich Harris.

I'm still waiting for your racial superiority standings.

The only way you could be as wrong as you've been about Sailer is if you were familiar with his work. You haven't answered my straightforward questions and I am now fully bored, so I retire from the field. Victory is yours!

Quoting breadcrust: The only way you could be as wrong as you've been about Sailer is if you were familiar with his work.

You haven't answered my straightforward questions and I am now fully bored, so I retire from the field. Victory is yours!

Wait, is there a different Steve Sailer who's not a racist? Because I'm talking about the one who's a racist. And I'm about as interested in a brilliant racist as I am interested in a brilliant astrologer.

Quoting breadcrust: To anyone who thinks this article of Saletan's is at all helpful, I counter-offer this article of Sailer's, to which I've already linked. His metaphor that race is like region and the way he works through it is very helpful. Of course, Saletan and Sailer have gone at it before in print more directly. If B-heads weren't what we all know it is, we could just watch the diavlog between the two.

Meh. I mention Saletan's article hoping to derail the genetic studies amateur hour that's going on in some of these threads here. I have no particular issue with race studies in themselves-obviously racial typologies are meaningful in all sorts of ways, so we should expect there to be legitimate ways of examining them. I simply think that when talk about race starts getting conflated with talk about genetic determinism that it has stepped over a line-not a moral line, although there is a certain moral freight involved in it, but simply an empirical one. Race and genetics are not even approximately overlapping terms, and importantly, neither race nor genetic makeup are in any sense enduring terms either. A couple decades from

Quoting claymisher: That's right, Sailer links to all kinds of interesting stuff. He has to. Sailer doesn't do any research. He spins what's out there into the most racist case possible. If that turns you on I'm sorry for you. "Sailer may have some real points" is setting the bar pretty fucking low. Yeah, and a broken clock is right twice a day.

I don't need bigots to alert me to people like Ogbu and Judith Rich Harris.

I'm still waiting for your racial superiority standings.

Sailer actually has done original research. His finding an astounding (for social science) correlation between years married among white women and Bush's vote at state-level has been cited as notable by Andrew Gelman, who invited Sailer to participate at the tpmcafe book club for "Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State".

Quoting claymisher: And I'm about as interested in a brilliant racist as I am interested in a brilliant astrologer.

Speaking of astrology, a bungled attempt to debunk some of it was discussed here in a GNXP thread originally about climategate. I think the lesson is that one should adhere to good scientific practice even when sure of the conclusion you are trying

Quoting T.G.G.P: Sailer actually has done original research. His finding an astounding (for social science) correlation between years married among white women and Bush's vote at state-level has been cited as notable by Andrew Gelman, who invited Sailer to participate at the tpmcafe book club for "Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State".

Speaking of astrology, a bungled attempt to debunk some of it was discussed here in a GNXP thread originally about climategate. I think the lesson is that one should adhere to good scientific practice even when sure of the conclusion you are trying to prove. Also, Hans Eysenck apparently was convinced of astrology and was certainly brilliant, though I don't think he himself would count as an astrologist and one would presumably be interested in him for reasons other than astrology. I think your blanket dismissal of people you disagree with is irrational, JBS Haldane is definitely worth reading but was also a Communist. Go far back enough in time and pretty much everyone would be a racist by our standards. Of course, I am here using "irrational" in the epistemic sense where the only concern is the seeking of truth. If one

claymisher, Since you're not just policing norms here, what level/type of evidence would lead you to write on bloggingheads that there seem to be nature-derived differences in the average IQs of different races?

Quoting breadcrust: claymisher,

Since you're not just policing norms here, what level/type of evidence would lead you to write on bloggingheads that there seem to be nature-derived differences in the average IQs of different races?

Do you really think there's a live debate on this topic here? Do you think you're going to dazzle claymisher with subtle, forceful logic and win him over? Or are you presenting a demonstration of your calm professorial reasoning in the face of PC hysteria?

Quoting claymisher: So I gotta read Mein Kampf to find out if there's any insight worth salvaging? Fuck that.

I admit to not having read the whole thing, but I've been in some arguments on globalist vs continentalist interpretations of WW2 and I think it provides good evidence for the latter. It took a long time before I heard that the idea of the "Big Lie" was actually what Hitler was accusing his opponents of using rather than a technique he advocated, which makes more sense since most people don't admit to being liars. I thought since they were open about the importance of propaganda in their regime maybe they were just really cynical, but I think now that propaganda didn't have the same connotations back then. In the United States, for instance, it seems it was much more blatant and the government exercised influence over the media that wouldn't be tolerated now. So yes, I think it's a good idea to read source materials in the original. Hitler's own reputation was that he was a good orator, but I haven't heard many claim that he was that good of a writer and Mein Kampf specifically

Quoting claymisher: Come on razib, we all see you're logged in. Answer the question.

Razib has become a lurker now that the stakes are meaningful.
He was O.K. with winding up the crowd when mere political correctness was at stake:

Quoting razib: LOL. i guess the joke went too far? i like to do PC-speak to see how seriously people take my crap (on yglesias' blog they always take me seriously, it's pretty f**king funny), and you took it really seriously. i mean, come on, i'm objecting to you demanding i speak english and dropping in the word *redolent* :-)

Do you really think there's a live debate on this topic here? Do you think you're going to dazzle claymisher with subtle, forceful logic and win him over?

No chance of that. I kinda wanted him to just come out and say that no evidence would lead him to agree with the statement I posited, but considering that he's been throwing his feces in response to reasonable questions for quite a while, I should just give up. Not that there's anything wrong with him throwing feces. I mean, if he actually addressed the arguments fairly and said they might have some merit, all of the liberals on this site would read him the riot act in a mass display of norm enforcement. It would just be cool to hear some b-head liberals say that truth is unimportant in this sphere (as some liberals in the field have actually done.)

Or are you presenting a demonstration of your calm professorial reasoning in the face of PC hysteria?

Thanks for noticing. That's very generous of you to say.

Quoting breadcrust: No chance of that. I kinda wanted him to just come out and say that no evidence would lead him to agree with the statement I posited, but considering that he's been throwing his feces in response to reasonable questions for quite a while, I should just give up. Not that there's anything wrong with him throwing feces. I mean, if he actually addressed the arguments fairly and said they might have some merit, all of the liberals on this site would read him the riot act in a mass display of norm enforcement. It would just be cool to hear some b-head liberals say that truth is unimportant in this sphere (as some liberals in the field have actually done.)

What argument? You're giving yourself too much credit. You haven't proved that black people are intrinsically inferior. You've just linked to a lot of people who think they are. That's not an argument. That's just bigotry. And just because I'm hard on you and you resort to self-pity doesn't make you right and me wrong. Go ahead, give it your best shot. Tell me how you know black people are genetically inferior.

Quoting claymisher: What argument? You're giving yourself too much credit. You haven't proved that black people are intrinsically inferior. You've just linked to a lot of people who think they are. That's not an argument. That's just bigotry. And just because I'm hard on you and you resort to self-pity doesn't make you right and me wrong.

Go ahead, give it your best shot. Tell me how you know black people are genetically inferior.

You're never going to see that sort of courage or moral honesty, here. (I know you know that.) This guy's all about the hero worship - he's not going out on that limb, ever.

Since when does genetically different mean inferior? I have worked with and hired individuals of various mental and physical abilities and never have I considered them inferior.

Quoting piscivorous: Since when does genetically different mean inferior? I have worked with and hired individuals of various mental and physical abilities and never have I considered them inferior.

Inferior is a normative concept and has no place in positive science. For my own part I think normative concepts have no objective truth value, as mentioned above.

Wow. Why do you think that? What norm guides you into drawing that conclusion? And I take it that you also think epistemic norms have no truth value?

Quoting AemJeff: You're never going to see that sort of courage or moral honesty, here. (I know you know that.) This guy's all about the hero worship - he's not going out on that limb, ever.

My question to him:

... what level/type of evidence would lead you to write on bloggingheads that there seem to be nature-derived differences in the average IQs of different races?

His response:

What argument? You're giving yourself too much credit. You haven't proved that black people are intrinsically inferior. You've just linked to a lot of people who think they are. That's not an argument. That's just bigotry. And just because I'm hard on you and you resort to self-pity doesn't make you right and me wrong.

Go ahead, give it your best shot. Tell me how you know black people are genetically inferior.

Tell me where he actually answered my question. I'm not claiming that I could possibly have convinced him of anything, but asking him what could constitute evidence.

Quoting T.G.G.P: Inferior is a normative concept and has no place in positive science. For my own part I think normative concepts have no objective truth value, as mentioned above.

I have to demur from your statement. I haven't been following this discussion very closely---I find the whole subject of race and IQ uninteresting (since neither race nor intelligence are scientific or even well-defined concepts), but you are mistaken if you think that IQ tests are free of normative value. It is true that they purport to measure something "objective" called intelligence in relation to a norm (=the median), but their purpose, from the very moment they were first devised by French positivist psychologists in the 19th century was to rank students and thereby help educators select the best students in the interest of forming an élite. La carrière ouverte aux talents! In French as in Latin the word "inferior" has both a concrete meaning (=less than, lower than: as in le Rhône inférieur) and an abstract meaning (=of less value in a classification or a hierarchy). The latter meaning seems to predominate in English, but it is no accident that the two meanings coalesce. Assigning

Quoting AemJeff: You're never going to see that sort of courage or moral honesty, here. (I know you know that.) This guy's all about the hero worship - he's not going out on that limb, ever.

And saying that I hero-worship Sailer might be a bit of a stretch. It's not as if I have actually even interacted with him...

Quoting breadcrust: My question to him:

His response:

Tell me where he actually answered my question. I'm not claiming that I could possibly have convinced him of anything, but asking him what could constitute evidence.

Hey, you're the racist here. Do your own homework. It's not up to me to prove black people are genetically dumber.

Quoting claymisher: Hey, you're the racist here. Do your own homework. It's not up to me to prove black people are genetically dumber.

I'll give you an example of what I'm looking for. The standard liberal argument is that modern White Americans are extremely racist and that this racism is the reason that Blacks and Latinos are worse off than Whites regarding employment rates, median wages, life expectancy, and college graduation rates. And the usual thing liberals will do is point to data showing these disparities and we'll all nod and agree. The problem is that these liberals almost always leave off the Asian data point(s) (sometimes taking government charts that show Asians, then culling Asians and graphing). Many graphs and charts that look like smoking-guns to liberals are made from BLS data, with the Asians excised. So, at this point and based off this understanding, I'm pretty sure of two things: 1)White Americans are (on average) somewhat racist, but not so racist that their implicit and explicit racism is keeping down Asians, because that's what the data show. Asian averages top White averages. 2)If Asians are attaining "better" numbers than Whites, then maybe there is some factor

Quoting Francoamerican: I have to demur from your statement. I haven't been following this discussion very closely---I find the whole subject of race and IQ uninteresting (since neither race nor intelligence are scientific or even well-defined concepts), but you are mistaken if you think that IQ tests are free of normative value. It is true that they purport to measure something "objective" called intelligence in relation to a norm (=the median), but their purpose, from the very moment they were first devised by French positivist psychologists in the 19th century was to rank students and thereby help educators select the best students in the interest of forming an élite. La carrière ouverte aux talents!

In French as in Latin the word "inferior" has both a concrete meaning (=less than, lower than: as in le Rhône inférieur) and an abstract meaning (=of less value in a classification or a hierarchy). The latter meaning seems to predominate in English, but it is no accident that the two meanings coalesce. Assigning a number to intelligence is both an act of measuring and an act of ranking: hence normative.

Do you think species is an unscientific concept? Ernst Mayr

Quoting breadcrust: I'll give you an example of what I'm looking for. The standard liberal argument is that modern White Americans are extremely racist and that this racism is the reason that Blacks and Latinos are worse off than Whites regarding employment rates, median wages, life expectancy, and college graduation rates. And the usual thing liberals will do is point to data showing these disparities and we'll all nod and agree. The problem is that these liberals almost always leave off the Asian data point(s) (sometimes taking government charts that show Asians, then culling Asians and graphing). Many graphs and charts that look like smoking-guns to liberals are made from BLS data, with the Asians excised. So, at this point and based off this understanding, I'm pretty sure of two things:

1)White Americans are (on average) somewhat racist, but not so racist that their implicit and explicit racism is keeping down Asians, because that's what the data show. Asian averages top White averages.

2)If Asians are attaining "better" numbers than Whites, then maybe there is some factor (IQ?) besides implicit and explicit White racism which explains why their numbers are "better" than Latinos' and Blacks'.

But I could be

Quoting T.G.G.P: Do you think species is an unscientific concept? Ernst Mayr says it's just as valid as race, and he created the orthodox definition of species..

No, but I think natural selection is inadequate to explain the creation of new species, as I have explained elsewhere--to the great annoyance of claymisher et al.. If Mayr really said that the concept of "species" is just as valid a concept as "race," I can only assume he was senile...at the time he said it. Species is a perfectly intelligible concept; race isn't. Race has been a pseudo-concept ever since its invention in the 18th century---alas in France. Has modern biology made the concept more scientific? Only if you ignore the fact that human beings have been intermingling for ten of thousands of years. The genetic differences between so-called races are so minuscule as to be insignificant. I remain a devout sceptic until someone can convince me otherwise. IQ tests will never convince me because they rely on too narrow a definition of intelligence and, as many have pointed out, are culturally biased.

Quoting T.G.G.P: When creating rankings such as with intelligence, or even height or (borrowing from Richard Dawkins' "The Ancestor's

I was on tenterhooks, but the claymisherian response is in. He didn't address my question; I'm not surprised. So I've failed to convince yet another blog friend that Sailer isn't a complete asshole. At least claymisher learned that in Racist White America, Asians top the charts, that Sailer once Slate-failed to convince Levitt that legalized abortion was not good for Blacks, and that there's a photo of Mickey Kaus chillin' with Sailer out there. Maybe cm can convince Bob to black-list Mickey. Do liberals talk that Ogbu stuff much these days? I thought they couldn't find a dull enough Occam's Butterknife. What I generally hear instead is that Whites have accepted Asians into White-ness and allowed them to surge ahead somehow. It's kind of hard to follow.

as many have pointed out, are culturally biased.

Are Raven's Matrices culturally biased? If so, how? Most IQ (and similar tests) are designed by Europeans and White Americans, but Asians have higher average scores than Whites. Are they biasing these tests to different cultures on purpose? The days of "boat:regatta::" are long gone.

Quoting breadcrust: I was on tenterhooks, but the claymisherian response is in. He didn't address my question; I'm not surprised. So I've failed to convince yet another blog friend that Sailer isn't a complete asshole. At least claymisher learned that in Racist White America, Asians top the charts, that Sailer once Slate-failed to convince Levitt that legalized abortion was not good for Blacks, and that there's a photo of Mickey Kaus chillin' with Sailer out there. Maybe cm can convince Bob to black-list Mickey.

Do liberals talk that Ogbu stuff much these days? I thought they couldn't find a dull enough Occam's Butterknife. What I generally hear instead is that Whites have accepted Asians into White-ness and allowed them to surge ahead somehow. It's kind of hard to follow.

I haven't once cited white racism as the cause of anything. I know it sucks looking like a loser, but pretending I said things I didn't and replying to that ain't helping you. What question? Is this your question? "... what level/type of evidence would lead you to write on bloggingheads that there seem to be nature-derived differences in the average IQs of different races?" My answer is nothing. I don't know of any

Quoting breadcrust: Are Raven's Matrices culturally biased? If so, how?

Most IQ (and similar tests) are designed by Europeans and White Americans, but Asians have higher average scores than Whites. Are they biasing these tests to different cultures on purpose? The days of "boat:regatta::" are long gone.

You missed my point, stated in my first reply to T.G.G.V. Cultural bias is the least problem with IQ tests as far as I am concerned. What I really find questionable about such tests is their UNSCIENTIFIC character, the unexamined assumption that intelligence is the ability to respond quickly and under pressure to mathematical and verbal puzzles. I have known some rather stupid puzzle solvers. I have no doubt that IQ tests measure something, but what exactly? Whether they measure the full range of intelligence is certainly debatable. In Europe far less emphasis is put on such tests, at least after elementary school. I really do not see how they can be used to justify the belief that there are intellectually inferior "races" since the concept of race has NO scientific validity.

"... since the concept of race has NO scientific validity."

Do you believe that countries should quit amassing race data in their censuses and that the US should end all affirmative action? Or, do you think we should maintain "disparate impact" laws, etc. as they are now?

Quoting breadcrust: Do you believe that countries should quit amassing race data in their censuses and that the US should end all affirmative action? Or, do you think we should maintain "disparate impact" laws, etc. as they are now?

Apples and oranges. There is a difference between a scientific concept of race and a political or cultural concept of race. The former would presumably involve some physical, i.e. genetic, difference between races that would be similar to the differences between species (but there are none!). The latter is a conventional distinction that varies from country to country. I don't know what you mean by "disparate impact laws." Affirmative action is a political and cultural response to an historical injustice--slavery and its aftermath. Whether fair or unfair, it has nothing to do with race as a scientific (in fact pseudo-scientific) category. Not all countries amass race data about their citizens---for example France.

Quoting Francoamerican: You missed my point, stated in my first reply to T.G.G.V.

Interesting slip. Is this what you(r fingers) were thinking of? ;^)

Quoting bjkeefe: Interesting slip. Is this what you(r fingers) were thinking of?

;^)

Maybe. To paraphrase Pascal: "The fingers have their reasons of which reason knows nothing." Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît pas.

Quoting Francoamerican: No, but I think natural selection is inadequate to explain the creation of new species, as I have explained elsewhere--to the great annoyance of claymisher et al.. If Mayr really said that the concept of "species" is just as valid a concept as "race," I can only assume he was senile...at the time he said it. Species is a perfectly intelligible concept; race isn't.

Race has been a pseudo-concept ever since its invention in the 18th century---alas in France. Has modern biology made the concept more scientific? Only if you ignore the fact that human beings have been intermingling for ten of thousands of years. The genetic differences between so-called races are so minuscule as to be insignificant. I remain a devout sceptic until someone can convince me otherwise. IQ tests will never convince me because they rely on too narrow a definition of intelligence and, as many have pointed out, are culturally biased.

Maybe in the US, but in France IQ tests were (they are no longer) intended to separate the superior from the inferior students.

I forgot about your skepticism of "macroevolution", we'd understandably view species differently! Most scientists do not have a platonic conception of

There will be a certain subset of the population that will never accept the possibility of differences in ability based on genetics. Particularly the standard modern liberal, it is exceptionally difficult for them as the idea strikes at the very heart of the egalitarian ideal. They take the notion that the ideal society ought to promote egalitarianism and force feed it on the notion that nature itself MUST have an egalitarian structure. That injustice, and unfairness is beyond the capacity of nature to allow to occur. The most basic understanding of natural selection and differential reproductive success and heredity and mutation and genetic drift is in direct contradiction to that egalitarian model. Nature cares NOTHING for equality, Man does, some of them anyway, but not nature. And so it is hard for some, perhaps impossible for them to accept it.
Let them alone. If the egalitarian framework gives them comfort, even applied to the structure in nature, let them have that. Would you go to your grandmothers death bed, see her taking comfort in the idea that this is NOT the end, that she will see her lost loved ones, and try and

Quoting T.G.G.P: claymisher: Admitting that NOTHING could get you to admit it puts you in a very unenviable position! It suggests your position does not have any factual basis at all! I can come up with an example I think WOULD convince you: if we actually discovered IQ genes, measured their effect, and showed they were distributed differently among different racial groups. That would be pretty definitive. People with an hereditarian interpretation of observed gaps predict that we WILL eventually discover just that, those with a nurturist interpretation should predict we won't (this can be made falsifiable by specifying a time period). Make your beliefs pay rent in anticipated experience.

Tell me how you're going to find IQ genes unmediated by environment.

JonIrenicus, Nothing but pufferies. Read about disparate impact law. Read Sailer's take on it. We're lowering the quality of our lives by doing stupid things because liberals are sure that if we sue enough people, and make sure that HR departments are large and jumpy enough, we can make everyone equal. If you aren't familiar about the many elements of the Ricci case, then you don't know shit.

T.G.G.P.

breadcrust, I am going to hoot in triumph, because claymisher has confirmed my interpretation of his views as saying that racism is not supposed to be the sole factor for observed differences. Quit beating that horse, it's been dead for a while.

Well done. As Kahn would apparently write: *bow* The two things I thought immediately when I read claymisher's response were: 1)Genetic markers for IQ, as you mentioned AND 2)Claymisher has no respect for science. He's putting some pretty straightforward issue into the same mental space as Dennett's "hard problem." Ridiculous. But it proved what we both thought: claymisher (like all liberals) is just enforcing norms and is immune to argument on this issue.

Quoting T.G.G.P: I forgot about your skepticism of "macroevolution", we'd understandably view species differently! Most scientists do not have a platonic conception of species (a major barrier to understanding evolution). A species is a grouping of related organisms, primarily identified by their ability to create viable/fertile offspring with one another (not all species reproduce sexually of course, and lions & tigers are considered separate even though they can create fertile offspring). Steve Sailer defines a race as a large extended family characterized by extensive inbreeding, Razib would add that they have been subject to similar selection pressures over time. Pretty much like the biological concept of "sub-species". It should be noted that scientists use the term "race" all the time without thinking about it applied to non-human species, it is only when talking about humans that it is controversial. The Mayr statement I was thinking of was made in 2002.].

Actually, scientists do not use the term "race" all the time. It went out of fashion long ago as an equivalent for species. Certainly it did in French and it is my impression that it has also disappeared from English-English (the superior version

Quoting breadcrust: 2)Claymisher has no respect for science. He's putting some pretty straightforward issue into the same mental space as Dennett's "hard problem." Ridiculous. But it proved what we both thought: claymisher (like all liberals) is just enforcing norms and is immune to argument on this issue.

"just enforcing norms"? Why they fuck shouldn't norms be enforced? That's why they're norms. You got it completely backwards: because I respect actual science done by actual scientists I don't like racist pseudoscientists cloaking their bullshit in science. Again, you can't tell me how you're going to prove to me that black people are genetically mentally inferior factoring out non-genetic factors. But that's not going to stop you from cheering half-assed speculation from creepy fuckers like Steve Sailer. You might as well be promoting intelligence design.

Like the moths that change color according to the pollution level, the dark-skinned humans moving out over the globe changed color due to their different exposures to conditions. I guess we assume that the lighter skins of N. Africa, and the much lighter skins of Scandanvia were due to spontaneous mutation? The further north people migrated, the more challenging the climate, the more intelligence was selected for. Or was it not the rate of intelligence that changed, but the facility for grasping. Or are they the same? The ones who ended up on the other side of the Bering land bridge seem to not have had a penchant for traditional progress. As far as the settlement of the New World, some think that it was the fit, the adventurers, the optimistic, the intelligent, who were the one to mainly take the leap of faith and migrate.When Africans were forced into chains in the holds of ships, the intelligent, the psychologically strong, and the physically strong would have been selected for survival. My high school history teacher taught us that a significant majority of slaves were not exposed to harsh treatment, but were considered

Quoting claymisher: Tell me how you're going to find IQ genes unmediated by environment.

I said earlier we can be completely certain that genes play a role, because you couldn't exist without your genes. Similarly, there's nothing unmediated by environment. If you starve to death or a mastodon steps on you, your genes don't matter because you're dead. You can be Einstein and I could hit you in the head with a ball-peen hammer and you'll get brain damage. We've identified genes that cause retardation (or dwarfism and so on) and scientists don't dance around about "mediation by environment". Your argument seems to be against genetics generally (rather than specific to IQ), and that ship has sailed. You might as well try to bring back flat-earth theory. breadcrust: I think David Chalmers came up with the "hard problem", Dennet seems to dismiss it.

Quoting Francoamerican: Actually, scientists do not use the term "race" all the time. It went out of fashion long ago as an equivalent for species.

Agnostic or Jason Malloy at GNXP a while back grabbed a boatload of citations from scientific journals where it's used to refer to sub-species for things other than humans. And of course

TGGP, you a Sailer fan too? Do you think black people are inferior? I'm not against genetics. I am against tendentious "X gene" hype. I suppose I'd have to admit black folks were genetically dumber if you proved they all had Down's syndrome. Is that the case?

Quoting claymisher: TGGP, you a Sailer fan too? Do you think black people are inferior?

I'm not against genetics. I am against tendentious "X gene" hype. I suppose I'd have to admit black folks were genetically dumber if you proved they all had Down's syndrome. Is that the case?

Look, Clay, I do not the phrase "black people are dumber" any more than you do.
First, it is insulting, second, it is a sloppy statement that is imprecise, it suggests a blanket description of a population that can be taken to apply to individuals, it does not. I am mostly black, with some korean mixed in, and I do not consider myself dumb or inferior.
And then there is an issue with people who make these arguments, some of them are racists. There are people who go further than the arguments in the bell curve and try to make a case for racial separation and purity, for its own sake. Not stopping at simply not mixing with races they deem "lower stock" but refusing to mix with what they themselves deem slightly higher stock - asians. These people are not simply concerned with IQ, they desire a certain racial purity that I think can rightly be described, racist.
But that

Quoting T.G.G.P: Agnostic or Jason Malloy at GNXP a while back grabbed a boatload of citations from scientific journals where it's used to refer to sub-species for things other than humans. And of course it's very often used by scientists when referring to humans, though some prefer the euphemism "populations". Stories about doctors tailoring medication to different racial groups has gotten some attention in the press recently, they presume the existence of races which react differently to certain medicines. I haven't read Darwin in the original, but I believe with races he was just referring to types and didn't actually go that much into species (despite the title of the book).

. Darwin uses race and species interchangeably. I suggest you read Darwin before making such casually ignorant statements as your last one. You may call "population" a euphemism if you like, but the confusion between race and species was a semantic muddle that had disastrous historical consequences. From the tenor of the rest of your remarks I would say that the disaster is by no means over.

Quoting T.G.G.P: You don't know what you're talking about. Russian scientists created a breed of domesticated

So basically you're saying we should just assume groups have differing intelligence, because of genes and whatnot?

Quoting claymisher: So basically you're saying we should just assume groups have differing intelligence, because of genes and whatnot?

I think a lot of the variance is accounted for by the whatnot.

Quoting Ocean: I think a lot of the variance is accounted for by the whatnot.

Whatnot is not causation. Or is it?

Quoting claymisher: Whatnot is not causation. Or is it?

Here, assuming whatnot is unexplained variance... Or ask a statistician.

Quoting claymisher: Because of the distribution of the tiny fraction of the world's best sprinters Steve Sailer is correct about blacks being dumb? That's pretty fucking stupid.

The guy's a straight-up white supremacist, and if you can't admit that you're either a liar or an imbecile.

lol you are really damn dumb...Sailer takes issue with white nationalists frequently...this is part of liberal creationism--people like Sailer MUST be demonized lest their ideas (which you have a profound but irrational revulsion for) actually get open airing among high IQ individuals of course there aren't group differences of course there aren't group differences of course there aren't group differences of course there aren't group differences of course there aren't group differences of course there aren't group differences of course there aren't group differences BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT HITLER there I've just accurately summed up your anti-intellectual contributions to the subject...some might conclude from this that you are a brittle ideologue

Quoting claymisher: TGGP, you a Sailer fan too? Do you think black people are inferior?

Inferior is a normative concept, there is no fact of the matter. I think IQ draws on a real g-factor with a basis in physiology, perhaps the speed at which neurons process information, and that there are genetic differences affecting it which give rise to the significant heritability compared to the negligible shared environment effects. Occam's Razor suggests that between group differences in IQ be explained the same way as within group differences, particularly when a number of attempts to correct for environmental inputs don't pan out. Yes, I'd say Sailer is one of my favorite journalists working today. I'm not completely alone, Pinker included one of his articles in a "best science journalism" collection. He's no genius, but he displays appropriate deference to experts when they know better than him and has found a good niche for what advantages he does have.

Quoting claymisher: I'm not against genetics. I am against tendentious "X gene" hype.

You are right to do so, it's usually much more complicated than that. There may be hundreds of genes affecting gingivitis, and many of those genes may have multiple effects.

Quoting claymisher: I suppose I'd

Quoting T.G.G.P: Inferior is a normative concept, there is no fact of the matter. ...

If you're asserting a quantitative difference on a measurable proxy for an important trait like intelligence, then that's not really the case.

My Occam's razor magic eightball says "answer unclear, try again."

Quoting AemJeff: If you're asserting a quantitative difference on a measurable proxy for an important trait like intelligence, then that's not really the case.

If the trait I'm measuring is the amount of light reflected off skin, then yes, blacks are "inferior" at being white. Conversely, whites would be "inferior" when it comes to their skin absorbing light. But if you just ask "black and whites, who's inferior?" there isn't an answer.

My Occam's razor magic eightball says "answer unclear, try again."

Nothing wrong with admitting uncertainty. But that's quite a different position from denouncing anybody who might have an hereditarian interpreation of group differences in IQ scores.

Quoting T.G.G.P: Nothing wrong with admitting uncertainty. But that's quite a different position from denouncing anybody who might have an hereditarian interpreation of group differences in IQ scores.

You're fooling anyone with that. "hereditarian interpreation of group differences in IQ scores" is code for teh blacks are dum and everybody knows it. Sailer isn't just darkly gesturing at the possibility of innate black inferiority (which is bad enough). He's out there preaching it. And apparently so are you (If you feel that black folks aren't genetically dumber feel free to correct me). I've never taken the blank slate position (I know you racists love to accuse your opponents of black slatism because it's an easy strawman to fight). Just because some group genetic differences exist doesn't prove every particular (e.g., anti-black) claim. If you're not comfortable with TGGP is a racist then you might want to try not being racist. Also, appealing to Occam's razor makes you look like you watched too much Star Trek. Oh what the hell, let's follow that link.

Perhaps then bad breath and poor oral hygiene are simply a fitness indicator, and kissing evolved as a method for humans

Quoting T.G.G.P: If the trait I'm measuring is the amount of light reflected off skin, then yes, blacks are "inferior" at being white. Conversely, whites would be "inferior" when it comes to their skin absorbing light. But if you just ask "black and whites, who's inferior?" there isn't an answer.

Nothing wrong with admitting uncertainty. But that's quite a different position from denouncing anybody who might have an hereditarian interpreation of group differences in IQ scores.

Shorter Jeff: If you call people stupid, then you're appealing to a non-normative standard of inferiority. Shorter TGGP: But, if you call them black then you're not saying they're inferior. I think you've just committed an objectively intellectually dishonest act.

T.G.G.P. Any strong opinions about this? Regarding Dennett: noted.

Quoting claymisher: You're fooling anyone with that. "hereditarian interpreation of group differences in IQ scores" is code for teh blacks are dum and everybody knows it.

For one thing, there are a lot more groups than blacks and whites. I refer to "groups" generally because it applies generally (there are other races which also have different scores), including groups that fall within the same racial umbrella (Ashkenazi Jews have higher IQs than Caucasians generally, as well as their fellow Mizrahi & Sephardic Jews and other Europeans). For another thing, "dumb" has not been defined here. The average Af-Am IQ is about 85 relative to a white average of 100. If we declare 70 to be the cutoff point for "dumb", then some blacks (more than standard deviation below the average) would thus qualify and the rest would not. I don't have a particular cutoff in mind, I would probably use the word "dumb" situationally (for those who've read "The Dilbert Principle", think back to the anecdote about Scott Adams' batteries and the repairman) which would mean calling the same people dumb that at other times I might call smart. Thirdly, this is orthogonal to hereditarianism vs nurturism. James Flynn doesn't dispute that blacks score a

Quoting T.G.G.P: ...
What? I'm saying the choice of what standard to use when determining "inferiority" is arbitrary and hence not objective. As I mentioned recently, different people value different things. Bertrand Russell gave a good example of how the same trait can be given different connotations when he said "I am firm, you are obstinate, he is a pig-headed fool". Yuri Slezkine gives a similar example comparing "Mercurians" and "Appollonians" (more specifically, the Jews in the Pale of Settlement compared to their Slav neighbors). Under a Mercurian standard (which values intelligence, among other things) Jews are superior, under an Appollonian standard Slavs are. Between the two, who is right? There is no answer.

...

What would be the analogous first line in a couplet that ends with "you have a lower IQ?"

Quoting T.G.G.P: For one thing, there are a lot more groups than blacks and whites. I refer to "groups" generally because it applies generally (there are other races which also have different scores), including groups that fall within the same racial umbrella (Ashkenazi Jews have higher IQs than Caucasians generally, as well as their fellow Mizrahi & Sephardic Jews and other Europeans). For another thing, "dumb" has not been defined here. The average Af-Am IQ is about 85 relative to a white average of 100. If we declare 70 to be the cutoff point for "dumb", then some blacks (more than standard deviation below the average) would thus qualify and the rest would not. I don't have a particular cutoff in mind, I would probably use the word "dumb" situationally (for those who've read "The Dilbert Principle", think back to the anecdote about Scott Adams' batteries and the repairman) which would mean calling the same people dumb that at other times I might call smart. Thirdly, this is orthogonal to hereditarianism vs nurturism. James Flynn doesn't dispute that blacks score a standard deviation lower and that's significant. If they're "dumb" because they live in sub-standard housing with lead paint, the revelation that genetic differences

Quoting T.G.G.P: Yes there is. People were all lactose intolerant back then (most of humanity still is), it spread like wildfire after a tribe of dairying pastoralists picked it up. We can also tell from skeletons that people have become significantly more gracile just within the past few centuries! Compare the skull-thickness of Australian aboriginals to their Anglo neighbors. That's the effect of a more peaceable England where people don't get hit on the head as often as they did in the medieval era. All this is in The 10,000 Year Explosion..

Dubious reasoning. Have you ever looked at works of art, i.e. statues and other representations of the human form, from antiquity? Every bit as "gracile" as human beings of the past several centuries. Ditto for medieval people, who may have been of smaller stature but were by no means thick-skulled imbeciles because their heads were battered more often. I suggest you take at look at the paintings of Fra Angelico. Plenty of people living today fit that description, though.... Physical traits such as stature and body structure (phenotype), depend on so many things--diet, exercise---that it is difficult to distinguish what is owing to

Quoting T.G.G.P:
breadcrust: I've got some complaints about Miller, but what he said there seems plausible. The dream of easily finding a few single genes of large-effect appears to have been overoptimistic in many cases.

I don't think that matters that much. Due to the complexity and sheer number of gene combinations it is not likely a human being will ever have a comprehensive map in their heads, but so what?
Whether it is a few genes, or a larger number, the latter can still be analyzed by computers and we ought to still be able to determine samples with less likelihood for certain susceptibility to diseases or whatever other other trait one wishes to analyze. We will STILL have the ability to select for samples with a greater mix or lesser mix of whatever genes we wish. Concern over not simply being a few genes is not relevant except in the case where one wishes to be able to more easily select against/for a trait. But that is just at the earliest stages, I suspect with time we should be able to actually engineer the traits we

Quoting T.G.G.P: Do I qualify as a racist? There are a number of different standards we could have. If the determining factor for racism is the belief that people should be treated differently based on some sort of racial hierarchy, then I don't qualify. If it's believing that there are genetic differences between races (melanin is an obvious one), than I qualify and I'm pretty sure you do as well. If it's just IQ that's relevant, and a racist is someone who believes group differences exist and are significant (regardless of the cause) then I qualify, so does James Flynn, and I think you do as well. But perhaps your definition is a combination of the latter two definitions: belief in group differences in IQ combined with the belief that genetics plays a part in those differences. That combination makes it more complicated, so you would probably have to provide some support for why your definition should be preferred. Of course I've been writing these definitions myself, you may have your own definition not adequately represented here, in which case I'd ask that you make it explicit so we're on the same page regarding terminology.

All other

I'm of the unpopular view that all people are morally equal in the sense that they are all rational agents, or have the capacity for rational agency (or perhaps because they are all part of the human species, but I'm still thinking about that). Call this "moral worth in the capacity-sense". On the other hand, some people are morally better than others, in the sense that they do morally better acts than other people do (this gets complicated by how difficult were the obstacles you had to deal with, but no need to get into that now). Call this "moral worth in the activity sense". I think when you're talking about what makes someone better or worth than someone else, it is really these factors that matter. There are many people who are smarter than I am, but that doesn't make them better than I in an absolute sense. That might make them more socially useful than I am (assuming, of course, that they use their intelligence for socially useful projects), but I am of the unpopular view that just because someone is more socially useful than someone else, it doesn't follow

Quoting AemJeff: What would be the analogous first line in a couplet that ends with "you have a lower IQ?"

I don't have "The Jewish Century" at hand now, so I can't give the quote. But we're all familiar with the negative connotations of "nerd" and "egghead". You might object that's just one archetype of persons with higher IQs, and there are others. Lawyers are another type, and often held in disrepute. I can say with confidence that Slezkine documents the association on the part of Appollonians of the intelligence of Mercurians with deceptive or malicious ends. They are "crafty" or "conniving", compared to the honest simplicity of Appollonians. "Simple" can be used as an insult, but that's not what Lynyrd Skynyrd intended with "Simple Kind of Man". On a somewhat related note, have any of you been reading recently about James Scott's newest book on the southeast asian highland regions of Zumia and the de facto anarchy there? He repeats a claim I recall from "Seeing Like a State" that the people there purposefully chose illiteracy and loathe writing, often attacking the records office first when they revolt. Some more familiar example of this distaste might be

Quoting T.G.G.P: Thanks for putting it so simply! I'll guess that about half of the 15 point gap between black and white americans is genetic in origin (7.5 points, if one wants misleading precision!)

I'm curious, what's it like being a racist? What do your black friends make of this, or do you keep it to yourself?

Quoting T.G.G.P: Francoamerican, artwork doesn't cut it. We've got skeletons form different time periods and it's simply a fact that we have become more gracile over time. Ask a physical anthropologist. The topic has been discussed in an earlier episode of bhtv.

I am not interested in pursuing this topic with you further. You obviously have a bee in your bonnet about IQ tests and races. Two points however, and then basta: 1. It is not a fact that humans have become more gracile in historical time. The episode you refer to deals with pre-historic times. Artistic evidence is as just as relevant as physical anthropology to form some idea of what people looked like in earlier historical periods such as the Middle Ages and Antiquity. I might add that on my infrequent visits to the US I am not exactly overwhelmed by the gracility of homo americanus. 2. The major racial groups did indeed evolve before advent of civilization. And, I am sorry to have to inform you, but the Jews are not a distinct race.

Quoting Bobby G: I'm of the unpopular view that all people are morally equal in the sense that they are all rational agents, or have the capacity for rational agency (or perhaps because they are all part of the human species, but I'm still thinking about that). Call this "moral worth in the capacity-sense".

On the other hand, some people are morally better than others, in the sense that they do morally better acts than other people do (this gets complicated by how difficult were the obstacles you had to deal with, but no need to get into that now). Call this "moral worth in the activity sense".

I think when you're talking about what makes someone better or worth than someone else, it is really these factors that matter. There are many people who are smarter than I am, but that doesn't make them better than I in an absolute sense. That might make them more socially useful than I am (assuming, of course, that they use their intelligence for socially useful projects), but I am of the unpopular view that just because someone is more socially useful than someone else, it doesn't follow

Quoting Francoamerican: I might add that on my infrequent visits to the US I am not exactly overwhelmed by the gracility of homo americanus.

Why, I oughta...

Quoting claymisher: I'm curious, what's it like being a racist? What do your black friends make of this, or do you keep it to yourself?

"There is nothing more painful for me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery -- and then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved." Everyone is a racist, so it's a pointless question.

Quoting breadcrust: "There is nothing more painful for me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery -- and then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved."

Everyone is a racist, so it's a pointless question.

I'm pretty sure not everybody thinks the average black person is hardwired to be 7.5 points lower than whites on an IQ scale. I don't. Do you?

Quoting claymisher: I'm pretty sure not everybody thinks the average black person is hardwired to be 7.5 points lower than whites on an IQ scale. I don't. Do you?

You have an untenable belief structure. You say that no one can prove that IQs of different races have different averages (that this is untestable) and you say that the IQs are the same (by, I'm assuming, some test):

Racial theories of intelligence are always and everywhere bullshit. No one is ever going to be able to prove that one population of humans is genetically smarter or dumber than any other. There's no point in even trying.

I'll give you mine: plus or minus one or two IQ points.

That's pretty screwy. By your logic:
A>B is unprovable
A A=B is provable and probably certain

How do you come by this knowledge? From the great book of PC truisms?

Beyond that, now that I've shown you a picture of Kaus and Sailer at the Hoover Institute and you know that they at times cross-link, are you and the rest of the liberal creationists going to demand that Wright quit doing diavlogs with him?