If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Einherjar86]

Wow, that's fascinating. Well, I have to take back that comment then.

Does this only hold for anger/aggression? Because I feel like the trend would be different for depression (i.e. that listening to depressing music alleviates depression in a subject)--or is that wrong too?

 

[Dak]

Wow, that's fascinating. Well, I have to take back that comment then.

Does this only hold for anger/aggression? Because I feel like the trend would be different for depression (i.e. that listening to depressing music alleviates depression in a subject)--or is that wrong too?

Frankly I don't know, it's not something I've done any reading into outside of the anger side. There was much more interest in/sociopolitical pressure to determine the prosocial or antisocial aspects of "safe" outlets for aggression as opposed other emotions. We don't typically think in terms of "safe outlets" for other emotions, for one thing.

 

[Einherjar86]

This is a balanced piece (to be expected from McWhorter) and presents what I see as an acceptable compromise on the issue:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449208/race-iq-debate-serves-no-purpose

In sum, various thinkers insist, some more publicly than others, that we are at fault in not openly “facing” that there is a genetic IQ gap between black people and others. Yet there would seem to be no constructive benefit in “facing” this gap if it exists.

One thing that may undergird these thinkers’ sense that this issue must be “aired” is a general resentment of the Left’s censorious policing of race issues in general. As someone who has taken issue with such policing at length, I share these thinkers’ grievance that on so many topics — such as the value of standardized testing, the wisdom of open-ended racial preferences, the definition of cultural appropriation, whether black-on-black crime or the police present the direst threat to poor black communities, and others — views other than the Left’s are blithely dismissed as morally repugnant. A more open and honest discussion of such matters has direct implications for the well-being of the black community. But the IQ issue is different. To discuss it would shed not more heat than light, but all heat and no light.

Our valuation of intelligence, combined with black people’s grievous history in America, suggests an eccentric yet logical approach to the issue of race and IQ: As a topic whose discussion will yield injury, fury, and doubletalk with no countervailing benefits in terms of prescriptions for how society ought to operate, it ought be exempted from open discussion.

That is: Intelligence researchers, writing in dense, obscure academic journals, will continue to quietly present data that show that race influences the heritability of IQ to certain degrees; others will present data in disagreement. I hope they ultimately settle on a verdict that environment really does entirely trump the heritable portion of the IQ difference; possibly they will not. However, in the wider world, I see no reason that this research should be “faced” and subject to ongoing “debate.” For example, undergraduates should not feel comfortable bringing up these data in class discussions unrelated to genetic research; society would gain nothing from their doing so. Our mainstream media organs, while remiss in their current tendency to insist the issue is settled, will not be remiss in declining to program articles and symposia exploring it out of some kind of “curiosity.”

 

[rms]

"I think it's bad to talk about IQ and race because I think it's bad and goes nowhere"

Tyson's point about those against science because it doesn't appear profitable/beneficial is more than an aft response to this bogus claim. All legitimate research should be applauded, not only those that are seen as economically or politically beneficial.

If this is what those calling for us to be “honest” about the data they draw attention to mean, then I suggest they be more overt in their prescription. But the prescription would fare poorly. The chances that there will ever be a brutally open, race-based meritocratic consensus of this kind among America’s ruling and chattering classes are roughly nil

off your quote I thought he ignored this, but he contradicts his own position within his own paper. this doesn't make sense. There is clearly a great reason to research racial (IQ) differences, as evidenced here. The obvious and overt bias of being black and educated here are too obvious and ruin this paper.

That's one of the stupidest things you've ever said, Dak. Not one of the stupidest things rms has said, unfortunately.

Wow, that's fascinating. Well, I have to take back that comment then.

this is legendary.

According to this analysis, Murray and his confreres can qualify as charlatans at best, racists at worst, and likely something in between.

The Vox article will stand as our moment’s gold-standard reference on the issue

?? Murray argues this point though. The Harris podcast is easily a good reference. Citing this recent Vox "critique" against Murray and Harris is looking worse and worse by the day. Worse is being nice, from what I can tell.

Many, including most academics, insist that culture is itself determined by external conditions, but this is an oversimplification. Norms and culture, once settled as habit, can persist long after the external causes that originally created them.

ok, this is just poorly thought out. just because conditions are no longer present that once formed "culture," does not mean culture is not external. you aren't born with culture

 

[Einherjar86]

off your quote I thought he ignored this, but he contradicts his own position within his own paper. this doesn't make sense. There is clearly a great reason to research racial (IQ) differences, as evidenced here. The obvious and overt bias of being black and educated here are too obvious and ruin this paper.

He's not arguing against research. Read more closely.

this is legendary.

Unlike some people, I can admit when I'm wrong.

?? Murray argues this point though. The Harris podcast is easily a good reference. Citing this recent Vox "critique" against Murray and Harris is looking worse and worse by the day. Worse is being nice, from what I can tell.

Actually, it positions the Vox piece nicely against Murray's own work, which McWhorter also describes as referencing "a great many respected scholars of established credentials," and engaging "in the kind of close argumentation associated with serious scientific inquiry." So he's not taking the usual anti-Murray stance.

ok, this is just poorly thought out. just because conditions are no longer present that once formed "culture," does not mean culture is not external. you aren't born with culture

Again, that's not what he's saying. He states that calling culture external is an "oversimplification," by which he means that cultural practices can persist after the external conditions that shaped them have disappeared or transformed. He's not denying that culture is external; he's saying that making that claim elides a particular nuance regarding the longevity of cultural practices.

 

[Dak]

This is a balanced piece (to be expected from McWhorter) and presents what I see as an acceptable compromise on the issue:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449208/race-iq-debate-serves-no-purpose

I don't see where the compromise is, and there's little balance in the piece unless not screaming "bigot" and "racist" with mouth afoam counts as balance. The author reveals his lean late (credit for doing so at all at least):

I have always hoped the black–white IQ gap was due to environmental causes. My intuition — whatever it is worth given that I am not an expert on the subject — is that the lag in performance of African-descended persons on IQ tests is the result of culture.......I hope they ultimately settle on a verdict that environment really does entirely trump the heritable portion of the IQ difference

His self-serving "lack of imagination" as to why it is important is really the reason for the entire article.

But I do question why those calling attention to possible evidence for such a gap feel that it is such an important topic to discuss. That is, let’s suppose that black people actually are, on the average, lower in g than others. Why, exactly, is it so urgent that this be openly “acknowledged”? I can see exactly three rationales as to why we must be “honest” about the IQ gap, if it exists. None offers anything we could call progressive or constructive.

He then proceeds to build a a super-strawman which he begins to knockdown with glee before he even completes it:

society should accept that a disproportionate number of black people will labor at the bottom of the occupational scale and that in general black people will be underrepresented in the higher echelons of society. If this is what those calling for us to be “honest” about the data they draw attention to mean, then I suggest they be more overt in their prescription. But the prescription would fare poorly. The chances that there will ever be a brutally open, race-based meritocratic consensus of this kind among America’s ruling and chattering classes are roughly nil. Those who are revolted by the very idea of such a conclusion — including me — can rest assured that the moral development of the West, halting and imperfect though it has been, has produced a bulwark against complacently accepting racial stratification.

"I suggest they be more overt about their racism". Nevermind, he's just swallowing his spit before talking.

 

[rms]

He's not arguing against research. Read more closely.

He is clearly not for researching racial IQ differences based on this piece. I don't see how anyone could argue differently.

So he's not taking the usual anti-Murray stance.

by not lambasting Vox's response to Murray seems to be a slight deviation from the standard position

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't see where the compromise is, and there's little balance in the piece unless not screaming "bigot" and "racist" with mouth afoam counts as balance. The author reveals his lean late (credit for doing so at all at least):

His self-serving "lack of imagination" as to why it is important is really the reason for the entire article.

He then proceeds to build a a super-strawman which he begins to knockdown with glee before he even completes it:

"I suggest they be more overt about their racism". Nevermind, he's just swallowing his spit before talking.

You're a trip, Dak.

He is clearly not for researching racial IQ differences based on this piece. I don't see how anyone could argue differently.

Certainly scientists will research the topic and will share their findings, which will always be available online for those interested.

...

That is: Intelligence researchers, writing in dense, obscure academic journals, will continue to quietly present data that show that race influences the heritability of IQ to certain degrees; others will present data in disagreement. I hope they ultimately settle on a verdict that environment really does entirely trump the heritable portion of the IQ difference; possibly they will not.

 

[Dak]

I'll give him credit for referring to the rebuttals to the Vox piece, which was typical tripe from that outlet. But the whole piece looks like a combination of virtue signaling with an attempt to divert the attention of any of its readership from the "dense obscurity" of the science because at the end of the day, what we always need is progressive policies unless you're a racist.

The reason IQ influence needs to be dealt with is, in part, to combat the "disparate outcome" based policies which assume "systemic racism" or "systemic sexism" are the only possible explanations.

 

[rms]

your quote does not depict his position as neither for or against, just admits it will keep existing

but I was incorrect, he is clearly against discussing the issue to which I took a step further to mean he has no interest in researching it.

n sum, various thinkers insist, some more publicly than others, that we are at fault in not openly “facing” that there is a genetic IQ gap between black people and others. Yet there would seem to be no constructive benefit in “facing” this gap if it exists.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449208/race-iq-debate-serves-no-purpose

But the IQ issue is different. To discuss it would shed not more heat than light, but all heat and no light.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449208/race-iq-debate-serves-no-purpose

 

[Einherjar86]

I'll give him credit for referring to the rebuttals to the Vox piece, which was typical tripe from that outlet. But the whole piece looks like a combination of virtue signaling with an attempt to divert the attention of any of its readership from the "dense obscurity" of the science because at the end of the day, what we always need is progressive policies unless you're a racist.

The reason IQ influence needs to be dealt with is, in part, to combat the "disparate outcome" based policies which assume "systemic racism" or "systemic sexism" are the only possible explanations.

Just to let you know, you're part of the reason why no one wants to have the kind of conversation that McWhorter is deigning to participate in. Because even a level-headed and remarkably cogent piece like this is automatically "virtue signalling" or some other alt-online terminology.

You and others have built up this rhetoric of anti-criticism: "We can't say anything because we're labeled as racists." Now someone like McWhorter actually tries to say "Well no, you're not, race is biological and some of the work being done on race and IQ is scientifically sound, if not definitive; but the relationship between this science and the public sphere needs to be addressed."

McWhorter's point, with which I agree, is that even if IQ differences turn out to be, in part, biological (i.e. racial), that doesn't justify the dismantling of programs intended to counteract social disparities. You're basically saying that you want the research to pan out in order to make yourself feel better--i.e. to affirm that it isn't entirely "systemic." But McWhorter is already saying that it's probably not entirely systemic, that there are biological factors.

If the research does pan out, it will be published and it will be discussed--and you can cite it when you get into arguments like this. But it doesn't need to become fodder for public discourse, and the reason is that there are plenty of non- (even anti-) intellectuals out there who will make the most inane and propagandistic bullshit out of such research.

your quote does not depict his position as neither for or against, just admits it will keep existing

but I was incorrect, he is clearly against discussing the issue to which I took a step further to mean he has no interest in researching it.

Yes, you're right he's not explicit about whether he's for or against the research being done. But he admits that it will keep being done, most likely, and he doesn't say that it shouldn't keep being done. The implication is that he doesn't want it to be eliminated. He may very well harbor some personal desire to see the research go away, but I'm confident that McWhorter believes in the power of research, and that he's comfortable in letting all research speak for itself, no matter what it's on.

 

[Dak]

Just to let you know, you're part of the reason why no one wants to have the kind of conversation that McWhorter is deigning to participate in. Because even a level-headed and remarkably cogent piece like this is automatically "virtue signalling" or some other alt-online terminology.

You and others have built up this rhetoric of anti-criticism: "We can't say anything because we're labeled as racists." Now someone like McWhorter actually tries to say "Well no, you're not, race is biological and some of the work being done on race and IQ is scientifically sound, if not definitive; but the relationship between this science and the public sphere needs to be addressed."

Well the piece is level-headed and cogent, but that doesn't make it not an exercise in virtue signaling nor bereft of straw-manning. If you have a different label to describe the behavior the label "virtue-signaling" describes I'd be fine using it instead. The problem I have with that piece is it's an extremely long article that can be summarized as "with all due respect, [enter disrespectful comment]". Or at a minimum "Well that's true but it doesn't matter." Nothing before the comma or the but really matters.

McWhorter's point, with which I agree, is that even if IQ differences turn out to be, in part, biological (i.e. racial), that doesn't justify the dismantling of programs intended to counteract social disparities.

If the research does pan out, it will be published and it will be discussed--and you can cite it when you get into arguments like this. But it doesn't need to become fodder for public discourse, and the reason is that there are plenty of non- (even anti-) intellectuals out there who will make the most inane and propagandistic bullshit out of such research.

It wouldn't justify dismantling them, rather it would eliminate one of the justifications for having them to begin with. There are other empirical considerations though (like how they aren't improving outcomes).

The complaint that we can't discuss the truth because some people will misinterpret it is a nonstarter for both ethical and empirical reasons. The truth cannot be "problematic", and not allowing it into public discourse cedes the frame on the issue to exactly those sorts of anti-intellectuals you're concerned about. "You're not racist, you're just enabling the racists." Whew, and I almost thought science and the pursuit of truth was in the clear.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well the piece is level-headed and cogent, but that doesn't make it not an exercise in virtue signaling nor bereft of straw-manning. If you have a different label to describe the behavior the label "virtue-signaling" describes I'd be fine using it instead. The problem I have with that piece is it's an extremely long article that can be summarized as "with all due respect, [enter disrespectful comment]". Or at a minimum "Well that's true but it doesn't matter." Nothing before the comma or the but really matters.

It's long because it's an article. And it makes all the points it does because if it didn't, you'd criticize it for that too.

There's really no winning with you.

It wouldn't justify dismantling them, rather it would eliminate one of the justifications for having them to begin with. There are other empirical considerations though (like how they aren't improving outcomes).

That's laughable.

It could be that people on welfare (or comparable programs) would die without the support. But we won't ever know that, will we?

The complaint that we can't discuss the truth because some people will misinterpret it is a nonstarter for both ethical and empirical reasons. The truth cannot be "problematic", and not allowing it into public discourse cedes the frame on the issue to exactly those sorts of anti-intellectuals you're concerned about. "You're not racist, you're just enabling the racists." Whew, and I almost thought science and the pursuit of truth was in the clear.

The truth is often problematic. Thank goodness we don't just succumb to base biological instincts.

 

[CiG]

Virtue-signalling as a phrase goes back way before the alt-right existed, pretty slimy to slip that insinuation in there @Einherjar86.

 

[Dak]

It's long because it's an article. And it makes all the points it does because if it didn't, you'd criticize it for that too.

There's really no winning with you.

Not when an article is pushing goodthinkfulness or more limitedly, possibly, in the case of this article, goodspeakfulness.

It could be that people on welfare (or comparable programs) would die without the support. But we won't ever know that, will we?

They are dying on the support, just for different reasons. Transfer payments, at the receiving end, are simply an enabler. There's nothing inherently positive about that enabling.

 

[Einherjar86]

Virtue-signalling as a phrase goes back way before the alt-right existed, pretty slimy to slip that insinuation in there @Einherjar86

Sorry if it pissed you off. I gave about 0.3 seconds' thought to that comment, mainly because I've seen Dak and other like-minded posters use it. I wasn't insinuating anything about its history.

Not when an article is pushing goodthinkfulness or more limitedly, possibly, in the case of this article, goodspeakfulness.

They are dying on the support, just for different reasons. Transfer payments, at the receiving end, are simply an enabler. There's nothing inherently positive about that enabling.

Maybe you don't realize that transfer payments could be "enablers" and still help people survive who otherwise wouldn't.

But of course, you're talking about enablement as if it's fact, when it's not.

So thanks for your opinion. I think this is over.

 

[Dak]

Suit yourself.

Speaking of not liking saying something despite just saying everything should be aired (and also speaking of a shitty "journalism" site):

https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/6/27/15873072/google-porn-addiction-america-everybody-lies

Porn featuring violence against women is also extremely popular among women. It is far more popular among women than men. I hate saying that because misogynists seem to love this fact. Fantasy life isn't always politically correct.

The rate at which women watch violent porn is roughly the same in every part of the world. It isn’t correlated with how women are treated.

Here's where I can offer a similar criticism to the criticism I offered of the USMC "hitpiece" in the News Thread: Numbers would be nice.

 

[rms]

i totally wrote off that article btw, seemed long and ridiculous anyways

 

[Dak]

i totally wrote off that article btw, seemed long and ridiculous anyways

Which article? The NYT USMC article? The NR article? The Vox article?

 

[Einherjar86]

Doesn't matter, he didn't actually read any of them.