Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

i appreciate the concern. My point is several people on your list should just shut up because they don’t know what they are talking about. But we all do appreciate the concern for the well being of the Jews you bring.

Okay. Well then I shall have this discussion with my Ashkenazi Jewish extended family. See how they feel about it. Which will dovetail exactly with how I feel about it.

The genetics argument Stephens cites is on a continuum of vile suggestions that were used to harm Ashkenazi Jews in years past. He’s creating “others,” and neglecting a broader and more complete scientific understanding.

He’s welcome to do it, but like Murray, he’s welcome also to have his ass handed to him in reply based on the limited data upon which makes a quite broad generalization.

Or stated more simply, “Thou shalt never cite anthropology.”

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Okay. Well then I shall have this discussion with my Ashkenazi Jewish extended family. See how they feel about it. Which will dovetail exactly with how I feel about it.

The genetics argument Stephens cites is on a continuum of vile suggestions that were used to harm Ashkenazi Jews in years past. He’s creating “others,” and neglecting a broader and more complete scientific understanding.

He’s welcome to do it, but like Murray, he’s welcome also to have his ass handed to him in reply.

Spacefuck: the piece in question said it was about the experiences they survived, not genetics. The Nobels are a fact, what is your explanation?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Spacefuck: the piece in question said it was about the experiences they survived, not genetics. The Nobels are a fact, what is your explanation?

They’re better than Grammys.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

They’re better than Grammys.

To get pussy? No. For $$$? Maybe.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Spacefuck: the piece in question said it was about the experiences they survived, not genetics. The Nobels are a fact, what is your explanation?

Well then why did he feel compelled to cite the IQ? If it was immaterial to the broader point, and undercut the broader point, then why was it inserted?

Of course it was inserted to suggest a superiority of some sort. That’s why people use such “data.” They are making an argument, but they are also insecure (god is Stephens insecure) and so they slam it home with a little bit of the old “science.” To insulate and bolster their arguments.

It happens a lot these days because data is free, and as a result, our pundits suck. Stephens is a middle minded drone at best, angling for David Brooks’ slot when that fool is shuffled off to Palm Beach.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

To get pussy? No. For $$$? Maybe.

Nobels are given out for economics. I’d love to see a study of how many theories over which the selectors fawned were in later years proven to be crap.

They’re also political as all hell.

Few of the ideas and work considered in Nobels can accurately be measured over the timetable considered by the people who hand out those awards. But nevertheless, awards and the accompanying pageants must be annually given.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Well then why did he feel compelled to cite the IQ? If it was immaterial to the broader point, and undercut the broader point, then why was it inserted?

Of course it was inserted to suggest a superiority of some sort. That’s why people use such “data.” They are making an argument, but they are also insecure (god is Stephens insecure) and so they slam it home with a little bit of the old “science.” To insulate and bolster their arguments.

It happens a lot these days because data is free, and as a result, our pundits suck. Stephens is a middle minded drone at best, angling for David Brooks’ slot when that fool is shuffled off to Palm Beach.

The original piece had two things to say Eastern European Jews are smart. See, he needed that because his point was the reason they are is they kept getting kicked out of places. One point was they have won a disproportionate number of Nobels. The other was the IQ point. Citing that was sloppy, given the actual thesis.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

The original piece had two things to say Eastern European Jews are smart. See, he needed that because his point was the reason they are is they kept getting kicked out of places. One point was they have won a disproportionate number of Nobels. The other was the IQ point. Citing that was sloppy, given the actual thesis.

As they’ve been historically marginalized by other groups, however, could not an equally offensive argument that they are booksmart but not much else be made?

This sort of thinking gets reckless unless it’s informed with really rigorous science. And average IQ and Nobels are simply inadequate science. I’ll actually go farther and say they’re woefully inadequate and make one sound foolish if they’re the bedrock of an argument a group is “genius.”

If I run the clock back several hundred years, I could argue Muslims, who far exceeded most other backward European cultures, were the greatest scientific and math minds. And to rewind even further, I could take us back to the Chinese.

But it’s all brutally incomplete.

Who’ll give a fuck about a Nobel in 300 years? And genetics, and the culture that impacts what we understand it to be, must be measured over thousands of years. Even Murray admits the concept of “assortative mating” punches a hole in his own theories.

Stephens fucked up, as he was sure to do, and I suspect will do more often in the future, as he’s just bright enough to know it’s better to be controversial and loathed than overlooked as a bore.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

As they’ve been historically marginalized by other groups, however, could not an equally offensive argument that they are booksmart but not much else be made?

This sort of thinking gets reckless unless it’s informed with really rigorous science. And average IQ and Nobels are simply inadequate science. I’ll actually go farther and say they’re woefully inadequate and make one sound foolish if they’re the bedrock of an argument a group is “genius.”

If I run the clock back several hundred years, I could argue Muslims, who far exceeded most other backward European cultures, were the greatest scientific and math minds.

thank you. But he was talking about people alive the last 150 years. You make my point.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Why do Jews win so many Nobels? The only point of his piece.

That's not the only point of his piece, but if it were: "There's such a powerful urge to believe that differences result from genetics rather than culture. Going back to Tyler Cowen's review of Charles Murray's latest, the evidence for that is really thin." -- me

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

i appreciate the concern. My point is several people on your list should just shut up because they don’t know what they are talking about. But we all do appreciate the concern for the well being of the Jews you bring.

Hang around with more MsOT, and you will ask , is it good for the Jews?, instead of referring to concern for the well being of the Jews.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I’ve read the arguments that cooperation and competition were evolutionary advantages. I’ve yet to read the compelling argument that they aren’t far more exclusive than they are complimentary. There’s a deep, innate impulse to find alliances and enemies. I can’t help thinking this lizard brain predisposition underpins the genetic “science” Stephens raises.

And this is without considering the dubious value of IQ. Most of success today is, as Cohen notes in another book, comprised of conscientiousness, organizational skills, and luck. The last is impossible to measure. The first two are more discipline than high mental function. If anything, they may indicate for slightly lower intelligence, as they demonstrate capacity to endure the mundane at a level a higher intelligence would find insufferable.

To assert IQ is a supremely valuable measure or to even backhandedly suggest an historically oppressed group has an above average IQ, which must invite the suggestion the high IQ is in part the basis for the oppression, are arguments too dumb to engage.

Or maybe it's all about culture.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Hang around with more MsOT, and you will ask , is it good for the Jews?, instead of referring to concern for the well being of the Jews.

Umm, fuck you. I don’t need to “hang around” Jews more. They live in my house.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

That's not the only point of his piece, but if it were: "There's such a powerful urge to believe that differences result from genetics rather than culture. Going back to Tyler Cowen's review of Charles Murray's latest, the evidence for that is really thin." -- me

I have no idea what you are saying, but do know you ignore his main point and are still on your own agenda.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Or maybe it's all about culture.

I’m open to the argument. But I suspect that’s also near impossible to prove. I think the more fair argument is culture impacts genetics in a way that renders genetics an unreliable measurement.

And geography has a lot to do with it as well.