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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

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

Then they can explain to you that Jews would say, is it good for the Jews, while goyim would express concern for the well being of the Jews. You're a storyteller. Your ear for dialogue is usually much better than that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

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

If his main point is that Jews are smarter than other people, my point is that the answer is in culture, not genetics, as I was saying on this site a few days ago before we were talking about anti-Semitism. Pay attention to something other than the inside of your own ass.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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.

Read Cowen's review of Murray again. If it's near impossible to prove that culture matters more, it's equally near impossible to prove that genetics matters more, but that doesn't stop an awful lot of people (like Murray) from working very hard to justify a prior that it's genetics.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

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

Stephens’ main point is flawed. He’s taken two highly arbitrary measurements and extrapolated from them that a group possesses unique genius.

You cannot take two data points and make a broad pronouncement about a huge group based upon them.

And as to your 150 years comment, WASPS have had a stranglehold on most of the power in the developed world. By any measure, they were the most dominant group of the last 150 years. Before and alongside them you’d cite the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, which controlled so much of Europe for so long and still has immense power today. Is anyone out there claiming the WASPs and Catholic Church hierarchy of old were uniquely smart? No. Why? Because it was largely a cultural phenomenon.

If Stephens said Ashkenazi culture values intellectual endeavor and this is reflected in its contributions, there’d be nothing controversial. But he has to go for the metrics. And the metrics on genetics are impossible because they always favor a focus on the outliers. And that’s just to start. The holes one can poke in the argument Nobel acquisition is a valid measurement can’t be counted.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If his main point is that Jews are smarter than other people, my point is that the answer is in culture, not genetics, as I was saying on this site a few days ago before we were talking about anti-Semitism. Pay attention to something other than the inside of your own ass.

The man’s article made your point. I said it made sense.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Read Cowen's review of Murray again. If it's near impossible to prove that culture matters more, it's equally near impossible to prove that genetics matters more, but that doesn't stop an awful lot of people (like Murray) from working very hard to justify a prior that it's genetics.

I don’t dispute that at all. I didn’t mean to suggest one could be proved more easily than the other. I don’t think either can be proved, or the impacts of each upon the other can be adequately understood.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

His main point is flawed. He’s taken two highly arbitrary measurements and extrapolated from them that a group possesses unique genius.

You can take two data points and make a broad pronouncement about a huge group based upon them.

And as to your 150 years comment, WASPS have had a stranglehold on most of the power in the developed world. By any measure, they were the most dominant group in history for a long time. Before and alongside them you’d cite the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, which controlled so much of Europe for so long and still has immense power today. Is anyone out there claiming the WASPs and Catholic Church hierarchy of old were uniquely smart? No. Why? Because it was largely a cultural phenomenon.

If Stephens said Ashkenazi culture values intellectual endeavor and this is reflected in its contributions, there’d be nothing controversial. But he has to go for the metrics. And the metrics on genetics are impossible because they always favor a focus on the outliers. And that’s just to start. The holes one can poke in the argument Nobel acquisition is a valid measurement can’t be counted.

You all have IQs between 110 and 120, yes? Just trust me. #inthe30s. I’m out.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

The man’s article made your point. I said it made sense.

You and I agree on a great many things, so I am puzzled by your innate hostility whenever the topic turns to what is good and bad for the Jews. I blame your environment.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You and I agree on a great many things, so I am puzzled by your innate hostility whenever the topic turns to what is good and bad for the Jews. I blame your environment.

No offense, but not sure you have that agency, but if we do have it, I know what I blame about you and I don’t want to.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

No offense, but not sure you gave that agency, but if we do have it, I know what I blame about you and I don’t want to.

In English next time, please.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

In English next time, please.

I thought you stopped drinking🙁

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Read Cowen's review of Murray again. If it's near impossible to prove that culture matters more, it's equally near impossible to prove that genetics matters more, but that doesn't stop an awful lot of people (like Murray) from working very hard to justify a prior that it's genetics.

I do not understand genetics anywhere near as well as many of my clients or my children, but the whole idea of genetics as somehow being immutable - "its in his genes" is a fundamental problem as well. We may be born with some built-in genetic "coding", but that coding won't even guarantee we'll have the same hair color or eye color our whole life.

Likewise, intelligence seems to have a lot to do with how we use the brains we're given, and one thing we know is that the brain changes with use, and can be affected by things like learning a new language (learning a more symbolic language, for example, will light up different parts of the brain and result in different gene signalling). Genes may give you the possibility of having strong symbolic reasoning, but if you don't use them, because you are born into an English speaking family, for example, your genetic signalling shifts because genes apparently don't like to scream into a void (metaphorically).

I'm just saying, the whole "nature/nurture" debate is framed around a really simplistic and kind of weird concept of nature.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I do not understand genetics anywhere near as well as many of my clients or my children, but the whole idea of genetics as somehow being immutable - "its in his genes" is a fundamental problem as well. We may be born with some built-in genetic "coding", but that coding won't even guarantee we'll have the same hair color or eye color our whole life.

Likewise, intelligence seems to have a lot to do with how we use the brains we're given, and one thing we know is that the brain changes with use, and can be affected by things like learning a new language (learning a more symbolic language, for example, will light up different parts of the brain and result in different gene signalling). Genes may give you the possibility of having strong symbolic reasoning, but if you don't use them, because you are born into an English speaking family, for example, your genetic signalling shifts because genes apparently don't like to scream into a void (metaphorically).

I'm just saying, the whole "nature/nurture" debate is framed around a really simplistic and kind of weird concept of nature.

By the way, one issue with IQ tests is figuring out what they actually test. There is a big symbolic reasoning section of the test. Surprise! You score better on that if you use a more symbolic and less phonetic form of written language. Is that testing intelligence?

Likewise, a number of items test the speed of certain reactions. If you use a more complex processing approach to a problem - your brain synapses take a longer trip around - you may not react as fast, but you may process more total data about whatever you are looking at along the way. Is speed of processing intelligence?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I do not understand genetics anywhere near as well as many of my clients or my children, but the whole idea of genetics as somehow being immutable - "its in his genes" is a fundamental problem as well. We may be born with some built-in genetic "coding", but that coding won't even guarantee we'll have the same hair color or eye color our whole life.

Likewise, intelligence seems to have a lot to do with how we use the brains we're given, and one thing we know is that the brain changes with use, and can be affected by things like learning a new language (learning a more symbolic language, for example, will light up different parts of the brain and result in different gene signalling). Genes may give you the possibility of having strong symbolic reasoning, but if you don't use them, because you are born into an English speaking family, for example, your genetic signalling shifts because genes apparently don't like to scream into a void (metaphorically).

I'm just saying, the whole "nature/nurture" debate is framed around a really simplistic and kind of weird concept of nature.

Yup. The interactions between nature and nurture are impossibly complex. Attempting to tease out which impact is greater seems an effort to understand in the simplest possible manner (pitting one element versus another) something that is unique in each person.

But in this data-rules-all age of ours, doing so is a highly attractive endeavor. Every anthropologist wants to be the guy who authored the study that gets him a TED talk where can say, "We're all wired for genius, or not, from the start." If nothing else, this provides a nice justification of wealth inequality. It isn't luck... It's predestination! Peter Thiel might invite you over for dinner.

This is why I think it's necessary to take on the "science" offered by those saying it's all nature. The argument must be dismantled with precision at every turn or it'll take hold. In a world where disadvantage mires so many in poverty and society increasingly resembles John Edwards' "two Americas," allowing the notion that the bottom half are all destined to be there leads to some terrifically bad policy possibilities.

Data is increasingly being used to justify sloppy conclusions. It's easy to dress up as infallible and it provides a neat shortcut around what would be much longer and far more rigorous and individualized assessments. Those who traffic in it are like epidemiologists. They have a use, but it's limited.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I thought you stopped drinking🙁

No offense, but not sure you gave that agency, but if we do have it, I know what I blame about you and I don’t want to.