Eminent scientist and wildly popular blogger Gregory Cochran wrote the following:
You know, esoteric, non-intuitive truths have a certain appeal – once initiated, you’re no longer one of the rubes. Of course, the simplest and most common way of producing an esoteric truth is to just make it up.
This demonstrates that Cochran is not just generally intelligent, but socially intelligent, because he understands the psychology of people unlike himself: HBD deniers. Although Cochran was not talking about HBD denial in that quote, that clearly was the subtext; and his quote nicely explains why so many brilliant liberals can deny HBD while even the dumbest most inbred conservative gets it right away. Some truths are so obvious that it actually takes more brains to deny them than to see them, and when they’re that obvious, denying them is an easy way to differentiate yourself from the stupid.
Further evidence of Cochran’s high social IQ comes from the fact that he and Henry Harpending have arguably the most popular HBD blog on the entire internet. One of the greatest scientists in the world told me privately about Cochran’s negative charisma and that other bloggers try so desperately to imitate it. Cochran has the social IQ to go around calling people idiots and morons in a way that most of his readers find charming and entertaining, but if most bloggers tried this, they would just look rude and insulting. In addition Cochran (and Harpending) had the social IQ to become heroes to the opponents of political correctness, despite writing one of the most politically correct books ever written: The 10,000 year explosion.
Don’t get me wrong, the book is scientifically brilliant and one of the most important books of the early 21st century, but it’s also politically brilliant, because the authors get credit for being rebels (look how bad-ass we are!; we’re saying there are ethnic genetic differences in IQ!) while also being darlings of the ultra-politically correct New York Times, and ultra-liberal Harvard’s luminary Stephen Pinker.
Because so many HBD people are a little autistic, they lack the social IQ to understand that there’s absolutely nothing politically incorrect about saying there are ethnic differences in intelligence, as long as the group differences favor a historically oppressed group. For example, Jared Dimond claimed Papua New Guineans are more intelligent than other populations and he’s a hero of the politically correct, who quote him on that very issue. Cochran and Harpending asserted (correctly in my opinion) that Ashkenazi Jews are more intelligent than gentiles, but this is actually one of the most politically correct things you can ever say, because it suggests that Jewish wealth and success is meritocratic and deserved, and thus counters anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. So the authors very skillfully achieved street cred in the HBD community despite writing a book so politically correct my liberal mother enjoyed it (she normally goes absolutely ballistic when I talk about HBD and wonders where she went wrong as a parent).
Figuring out how to have your cake and eat it too indicates intelligence, because from a Darwinian perspective, intelligence is the mental ability to adapt; to take whatever situation you’re in, and turn it around to your advantage.
“to take whatever situation you’re in, and turn it around to your advantage. ”
Just do not generalize this as “intelligence”. Bacteria and viral mutation do this. Scam artists do this. Most criminals do this ect.
Bacteria are not adaptable at the individual level. They’re adaptable because they genetically evolve so quickly, but humans are adaptable because our actual behavior evolves; it’s behavioral adaptability that implies intelligence which is why I included “mental ability” in the definition.
Scam artists and criminals do adapt situations to their advantage, but they have an easier situation to adapt to because they’re often sociopaths who feel no guilt. Not feeling guilt is a competitive advantage; but they didn’t turn the situation to their advantage, that’s an advantage they were born with. They didn’t solve as difficult a problem as does a moral person who gets rich.
My understanding is that ability to solve problem or figure out fact is intelligence. Low mental ability is due to lack of ability to see the truth.
Once the truth is known, wether to use the truth to benefit yourself is shapped by morality and psychological profile. The real intelligent people will consider that broader consequence of their action and balance the effects of personal gain vs society gain or loss. If it is win-win for every one, no problem. If win vs neutral, ok. If win vs loss, need to think hard. Therefore intelligent person is far more complicated in their actions.
Criminals might not be even figure out the solution in the first place. But they will have no hesitation to jump on any they learn from others to benefit themself regarless of broader consequence. To make this easier to understand, a soldier might not be able to invent the weapons but has no problem using them.
A at end, ability to figure out truth and solve problem is intelligence. Adaptation comes second.
My understanding is that ability to solve problem or figure out fact is intelligence.
But what is a problem? A problem is anything that’s bothering you. Thus, when you solve it, you’ve adapted the situation to your advantage because it’s no longer bothering you. So problem solving and adapting are really the same thing.
Once the truth is known, wether to use the truth to benefit yourself is shapped by morality and psychological profile. The real intelligent people will consider that broader consequence of their action and balance the effects of personal gain vs society gain or loss. If it is win-win for every one, no problem. If win vs neutral, ok. If win vs loss, need to think hard. Therefore intelligent person is far more complicated in their actions.
But they want to help society because it makes them feel good to do so, so ultimately everyone’s actions are motivated by personal gain; it’s just that personal gain tends to be more subtle, abstract, and indirect in high IQ people.
Some people just enjoy solving prolems which do not bother them, like math question, puzzle, soduko, ect.
If you event a new tech, made a new science discovery, it is almost win-win for every body.
If you can publish effective brain volume as `g’ at respected neuroscience journal, I will offer you $10K award without any known benefit to myself at this moment. I just want to promote truth which gives me joy. Joy might be the only benefit.
Some people just enjoy solving prolems which do not bother them, like math question, puzzle, soduko, ect.
But they enjoy doing them, so by doing them they are benefiting themselves. Humans don’t consciously engage in any behavior unless they think it’s benefiting them on some level. The difference between the smart and the stupid is the smart are actually getting what they want, at least in the moment, while the actions of the stupid backfire.
Now there are some people who are emotionally wired so poorly that no amount of intelligence can achieve all their goals because their goals are mutually exclusive (I want to be skinny, but I also want to lie on the couch eating pizza all day). People might wrongly assume such folks are stupid, but the reality is they just have an impossible problem to adapt to.
If you event a new tech, made a new science discovery, it is almost win-win for every body.
Such scientists have so much intelligence, that simply using it to benefit themselves concretely (as it evolved to do) is not challenging enough, so they use it to benefit society, but since benefiting society benefits their egos, their sense of self-actualization, their historical legacy, not to mention their gene pool; they might be indirectly benefiting themselves in the process. But the biggest benefit was probably the joy of trying to solve the intellectual puzzle.
If you can publish effective brain volume as `g’ at respected neuroscience journal, I will offer you $10K award without any known benefit to myself at this moment. I just want to promote truth which gives me joy. Joy might be the only benefit.
Well you’re an intelligent person and smart people get joy from abstract benefits like truth, as opposed to concrete benefits like a fancy car or a big house. So it’s very difficult to tell who is adaptable and who isn’t because different people define success differently and some goals are a lot harder to reach than others, depending on one’s circumstances and personality. That’s why IQ tests measure adaptability under very clear, standardized and controlled conditions, by explicitly telling you what your goal is (get to the end of this maze) and then measuring how efficiently you can achieve it.
Rabies virus is so clever it produces hydrophobia and terror in its host…so its host is inclined to bite with a mouth full of saliva and thus spread the virus.
It still kills 20,000 people a year in India.
“negative charisma”
That’s a new way of putting it. So who said that? Email me at gcochran9@comcast.net) – I won’t spread it around.
Check your inbox.
Jewish trait?
lots to unpack here. are you saying that HBD is an obvious truth?
ill just get to it. HBD is not the notion that “all of us are different, and ethnic groups are different.” That is a tautology. This tautology becomes a rhetorical device in the HBD toolkit, but it does NOT encapsulate HBD.
no one is arguing against the plain fact of difference.
HBD takes flimsy models that themselves make several EXTREME assumptions — excluding g x e (or concluding that g x e is negligible based on reasoning that essentially assumes g x e is negligible) from the equation, assuming linear relationships — misapplies those very flawed models — assuming that the metric indicates “proportion of value attributable to” rather than “proportion of variance associated with” — uses these misapplications to support a DISCOVERED reified trait — a product of factor analysis must be real and important because the model, which cannot tell us the significance of this trait, “tells us that the trait is significant” — and then misunderstands the political implications of all this — because this trait is sticky against even the fiercest environmental tempest, current policy to help X groups is pointless and a more conservative approach is necessary, despite the fact that a Rawlsian (liberal) conception of justice becomes more correct under these facts, rather than less.
When called out on any of the above, HBDers will discuss why their positions may be the case, could be true, are not necessarily wrong, etc. which is to misunderstand burdens of proof and persuasion. And at the end of it all, when they are called out on their transparent motivations, they shoot the “but don’t you agree we’re all different” bullshit flare.
…
HBD is far from a truth. It’s “possible.” Maybe even plausible. The problem with HBD is the constant overstating of the case.
Another example of how the critics of HBDers are smarter than HBDers.
There are studies which would or should satisfy the critics, but those have NOT been done.
It can’t even be said that the evidence is consistent with HBD. It has now been shown in two studies that heritability of IQ is much less in the disadvantaged. A study in France showed that adoptive parents’ social class did affect the IQ of the adopted a lot, but that adopteds with higher class biological parents (like Tony Blair’s Dad for example) scored higher than those with lower class biological parents.
Because most of these studies are done on children the HBDers use the Wilson effect to dismiss any inconsistencies found in children. They dismiss the Flynn Effect as resulting from better diet or that it’s not been an increase in their favorite reified statistic g.
And don’t forget dismissing child IQ impact because adult IQ is “more heritable.” Nevermind that this is probably because shared environment as “same roof” is less approximately true over time.
It’s not just that’s it’s incorrect. It’s that the overstated case is an insult to anyone’s intelligence.
That’s the Wilson effect! Which I mentioned.
Of course maybe Turkheimer is making things up. His results have been “contradicted” by some other studies.
But if true the HBDer can say, as Prof. Shoe has said, that the upper middle class and higher are achieving their potential.
Another explanation is that American society is like a dart board, where the center is upper middle class and higher and where total area represents total range of environments. That is, the privileged are all the same in environment compared to the underprivileged.
Oh my b I don’t keep track of all the names.
All this talk about G X E, linear models & reification is a red herring to confuse the issue.
The bottom line is that by the time you’re an adult, the home you were raised in has virtually zero impact on your IQ score, but the IQ of your biological parents has a huge impact.
You’re making it complicated when it’s so simple
Because most of these studies are done on children the HBDers use the Wilson effect to dismiss any inconsistencies found in children.
HBD people admit heritability is low in kids so you’re arguing against a position no one holds.
They dismiss the Flynn Effect as resulting from better diet or that it’s not been an increase in their favorite reified statistic g.
There’s been a huge Flynn effect for height & brain size too, so by your logic, those aren’t genetic either
You’re making it so simple when it’s just a smidgen more complicated. But you can’t understand that smidgen more. You’re in good company.
The question is NEVER or should NEVER be how smart am I and my possible clones according to some simple model.
The question is how smart (relative to the rest) could I be or have been under circumstances fitted particularly to me.
But for the grace of God, there go I.
Could be applied to one’s betters too, not just one’s inferiors.
And as pointed out by Swanknasty:
If HBD were as true as HBDers think, this would mean a much more intrusive government.
Conservative HBDers have yet to take the second step.
If heredity really is destiny, then anything short of eugenics is evil.
Three generations of imbeciles is enough.
or are enough. obviously I’m past the third generation.
OK. The problem is pumpkin person is mentally retarded.
Typical.
The question is how smart (relative to the rest) could I be or have been under circumstances fitted particularly to me.
Another red herring. Pick almost any American environment & raise a bunch of people of diverse anerican backgrounds in the same one. By adulthood their IQ’s will be the same as if raised by their biological parents
Yes — the home you grew up in rapidly loses accuracy as a shared environment metric as time goes on.
G x E is important here.
Here’s a blow by blow breakdown of why your counter-point is flimsier than you believe:
http://rpadgett.butler.edu/ps320/coursedocs/Richardson-Norgate.pdf
There is IN FACT NO EVIDENCE for peepee’s assertion.
The reason is that the environments of twins or siblings is correlated even when they’re separated at birth. That is, if one developed a metric of environmental difference/distance one would find the mean difference in these bullshit studies between the related subjects is much less than between two randomly chosen people. Even if the range of environments for adopted children were representative (which it is NOT) this distance between the related adoptees would NOT be representative.
I guess peepee didn’t read the link on GCTA or the comments. GCTA has repeatedly found a heritability of 0%!!! for traits which these bullshit studies have found heritabilities for as high as 70%!!!
Here’s a blow by blow breakdown of why your counter-point is flimsier than you believe:
I looked at it quickly & it sounds like the same old pseudoscientific propaganda by people too naive or too opportunistic to talk straight
The say range of adoptive environments too small. Well there are statistical adjustments for that & they hardly change a thing.
Next some talk about genetics being additive or not. explain why i should care if its additive, multiplicative, or the square root of e = mc2 multiplied by pie. To quote Hillary Clinton “what difference does it make?”
what statistical methods? point them out. let’s examine them.
and why should you care?
lol. first of all, you’re using additivity in a sense that relates to significance. Additivity and “independence” are one and the same thing — independent genetic effects would be a better term, here. The independence assumption is what the paper talks about when it says additive/independence.
Addivity in your sense here is also important because it goes straight to the heart of how significant a genotype’s contribution to an eventual phenotype is. But that gets into the equation itself — i.e. G + E, G*E sqroot*2(G)+E, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Swanknasty,
Are you denying that the correlation between twins raised apart is a valid measure of heritability? If so, what do you propose be the measure.
It would be a valid measure if the distribution of environmental distance between twins or children and their biological parents in adoption studies, etc. were the same as it is for the general population.
But even then it would be the heritability or a sample heritability for the particular population at a particular time.
That is, heritability does not imply an independent genetic effect independent of environment, It’s a measure of association rather than cause and effect.
It would be a valid measure if the distribution of environmental distance between twins or children and their biological parents in adoption studies, etc. were the same as it is for the general population.
It’s close enough; especially after statistical adjustments for range restriction
But even then it would be the heritability or a sample heritability for the particular population at a particular time.
Yes, of course. Heritability by its very nature is a relative measure. Who the hell disputes that?
That is, heritability does not imply an independent genetic effect independent of environment, It’s a measure of association rather than cause and effect.
Correct but meaningless. By your logic, dogs could be smarter than people in some potential environment
There is no such adjustment, because there can’t be such an adjustment.
I already said THAT!
The range of environments CANNOT be measured.
Not by my logic.
No dog has ever spoken. Neither has any chimp.
Some alleles and phenotypes are invariably associated with certain behavioral traits.
Cause = invariable association!!!
Uh drrr!
Heritability is just a snapshot of a condition that is constantly in flux.
Heritability is a fine measure of the associations between factors and the variance of a trait at a certain time and place.
And that’s all it is.
Trash post sorry. My opinion. Cochran have very low social iq, well, depend what perspective that you see.
Cochran is a political more than a scientist, so is possible he have higher ””social intelligence””, but this concept is very, very dark and at least to me, remember a traits of high functioning sociopath.
The objective empathy called honesty and Cochran show us that he’s not is objective empath and honest.
Two important examples about Cochran career.
Natural history of ashkenazi intelligence, wow… very good but not SOOOOOOOO politically incorrect. Why sir Cochran don’t write about natural history of WHITE gentile intelligence or asian gentile intelligence??? Many popular and important newspaper, i remember, congratule him by ”good” job. Why??? I expected media treat him as a racist and supremacist, but holoc…they are the ”victims”, they can do everything.
Homossexuality pathogenesis hypothesis. Very interesting but, all sexuality is pathogenic, all sexuality and assexual reproduction because complex lifes was born by simple and nano-lifes. He and Jaymême continues to try prove its theory. In fact, homossexualiy IS pathogenic, like all sexuality. Is important to study now the influence and pattern of pathogens in different replication strategies, monogamy or promiscuity.
But not, EGO ”sometimes” is more important than dignity.
Cockring is fat, short, and purblind. Maybe his shtick is an example of Nietzsche’s ressentiment.
Sorry, for me, what’s matter is dignity and Cockran don’t have it, is clear.
Social iq outside of the cochran example seems non existent. Looks, height, and gender favor heavily in how well a person’s bs (as in unscientific stuff) is accepted.
After all, a 5 foot guy and a 6 foot guy could say the same bs in a meeting, but the 6 foot guy will be listened to more. An attractive women will always rake in more in fundraising for some bs nonprofit than an ugly one even if both spoke the same bs and had the same body language. Your definition of social iq would fall apart in real life simply because everyone is superficial .
Right. But not completely.
So called “social intelligence” serves at least two purposes other than a merely descriptive purpose:
1. It is used to justify inequality when IQ fails.
2. It is used by stupid people to feel better about themselves.
In my experience people do differ in their ability to assess the motives and predict the behavior of other people, but this could just be experience rather than intelligence per se.
BUT!!! There’s a huge difference between understanding people and knowing how to be popular, and actually acting on it in a way that benefits you. Those who try have always been obvious to me and disgusting. “Honesty is the best policy”, said Ben Franklin. I’d take it further. Even when it isn’t the best policy, it’s the right thing to do usually. But then as Churchill said: In war-time, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies. And the war with evil never ceases.
The fictional House, MD was an example of a man with much greater understanding of people than those around him, who was less likeable as a result.
“Oh, how fine are the Emperor’s new clothes! Don’t they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!” Nobody would confess that he couldn’t see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success.
“But he hasn’t got anything on,” a little child said.
Most people get their asses kicked in real life. Thank God some have social IQ to distinguish the many ways in which they are getting their ass kicked.
It’s more true than you think
Jayg,
I agree that physical traits trump social IQ; but that doesn’t mean social IQ isn’t important at the margins or when extremely high or low
i love your blog, but you are far too patient with those who think they know things, but who disregard a century’s worth of research – i.e., those who already know they are right (b/c being on the side of equality is nice & noble), so they’ve never read in depth the research of say, Art Jensen, or Herrnstein & Murray. Doug Detterman (founder of the academic journal Intelligence, & its editor for 37 years) mentions a similar phenomenon in his recent interview: “…people have published papers that just don’t make any sense to somebody who knows the field of intelligence well. And when those papers are commented on by somebody who does, it’s an embarrassment. They seem to think they’re going to straighten out this backwater idea about intelligence, and so they come up with these ideas that have been thought about before, and it usually ends badly for them because they don’t understand the history of the field or what’s going on.”
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/finding-the-next-einstein/201409/intelligence-is-critical-the-future-humankind
i know you can’t make Jensen’s “Bias in Mental Testing” or other books/research articles prerequisites before commenting in your blog – but comments by the well-meaning (noble) naysayers get very, very tedious. those who comment in that way may or may not understand the idea of overlapping normal curves. they seem to think we have an evil agenda – & they don’t seem to think (!) a well-meaning & formerly liberal person could stumble upon the truth by doing research & perhaps working in test publishing, etc.
that interview above is a good start, b/c he discusses the many myths the public has about intelligence from the popular media.
Lol take a crack at using your well-read knowledge to address the criticisms then. Put up or shutup.
Panjoomby, excellent points.
But it’s not their fault; they’ve been brain washed by half a century of propaganda
No. Again.
The stoooopid side = HBDers
The smart side = their critcs.
Notice, Swanknasty, that when they’re too fucking retarded to even understand the criticism, they resort to conspiracy theories.
Even Herr Professor Doktor Shoe has so resorted.
The bottom line is, pee pee,
You’re too fucking retarded to even understand the link I gave.
You’re too fucking retarded to even understand the link I gave.
You’re too fucking retarded to understand we’re not talking about genetic engineering here, but simply what percentage of the variation in adult IQ is explained by genes.
You have to confuse the issue to divert attention from the fact that all the evidence is against you
Two other illustrations/examples of norms of reaction:
Kudzu

Asian Carp
I’m sure Prof. Shoe could come up with a genetic architecture which explained why Asian carp are so much more distinguished/accomplished in he US than they are in China and Vietnam. And I’m 100% sure it would be bullshit.
Dear God pee pee isn’t 6′ under enough?
You’re just digging yourself deeper and deeper.
Recommendation:
Stop blogging until you can make a perfect score on some IQ test nominal or merely actual.
Lynn estimates their current IQ’s as 92 and 102 respectively
So 10 points between Germans an Greeks, an I know that’s not genetic. And the Afrikaners made up more 10 points on British South Africans in 30 years.
So one wonders of the putatively “genetic” 15 point white black gap is also bullshit.
Maybe not. But maybe.
An example of a study which would shut up the critics. Jared Diamond develop a test to distinguish clever and not so clever among the natives of New Guinea still living as “savages”. It is found that the very smartest of these share certain alleles I common with the very smartest Swedes. But there are so many genes maybe that’s a false positive. So the study I repeated Quechua speakers in Bolivia. And the exact same alleles are found AGAIN.
My keyboard is shit, and I can’t type.
Lynn estimates their current IQ’s as 92 and 102 respectively.
So 10 points between Germans and Greeks, and I know that’s not genetic. And the Afrikaners made up more than 10 points on British South Africans in 30 years.
So one wonders if the putatively “genetic” 15 point white black gap is also bullshit.
Maybe not. But maybe.
An example of a study which would shut up the critics:
Jared Diamond develops a test which distinguishes clever from not so clever among the natives of New Guinea still living as “savages”. It is found that the very smartest of these share certain alleles in common with the very smartest Swedes. But there are so many genes, maybe that’s a false positive. So the study is repeated for Quechua speakers in Bolivia. And the exact same alleles are found AGAIN.
So 10 points between Germans and Greeks, and I know that’s not genetic.
It might be genetic. Yes the Greeks were more advanced than the Germans at one point, but a lot of migration has happened since
That’s a Nazi myth. Modern Greeks are genetically indistinguishable from ancient Greeks. But Alexander may have had blond hair.
And what about Spain. The richest and most powerful country in the world during the 16th c. But since the Armada lost it’s been downhill.
The correlation between a country’s IQ & a country’s wealth is 0.7 (far from perfect) so statistically we should expect some countries to be way richer or poorer than their IQ’s would predict at various times. There is such a thing as other variables & luck; even for entire countries
It has been obvious to me for some time that the “ideological” side in this “debate”, the one which routinely ignores counter evidence and lacks any self-awareness or self-criticism is the HBD side.
When I was younger I thought Gould was just a Jewish Marxist douche. I’ve grown up. Peepee hasn’t.
Charles Murray was arrested for burning a cross in front of a police station. Typical.
Uh drrr!
Btw that article doesn’t address the legitimate criticisms here.
For example…to say “the variation that is explained by genes” with reference to heritability itself is to use the formula for a square’s area to ask which side of a square is more important for calculating area.
…these data have encouraged the conclusion that environmental differences
between families…
And so? That’s like saying, “Uhhh, we planted these various cacti all over the forest, and they all rotted.”
Further evidence of the correlation of adopted twins’/siblings’ environment:
From their knowledge of the biological parents,
agencies tend to have preconceived ideas about the personality and intelligence that
the child is going to have, and place him or her in what they think will be a compatible
family environment [Rutter, Pickles, Murray, & Eaves, 2001]…
Or at least less different in environment:
More importantly, adoptive parents in all studies, by virtue of the rigorous selection
processes they are subjected to, tend to be of higher than average SES, and, as a
sample, restricted in range [Rutter et al., 2001].
Etc.
Of course these are dismissed as conceptually trivial but “obfuscatory” by Prof. Shoe.
Basically the very idea that genes, let alone many genes of small effect, cause certain behaviors or psychological traits is ridiculous.
The most such can do is predispose or make possible these behaviors and traits within a restricted range of environments.
And on why IQ tests themselves lose their validity and meaning outside a restricted range of environments:
While it will always be possible to devise indices of trait values
that portray trait variation ‘as if ’ that of a simple, quantitative trait, it is meaningless
to attempt to describe such variation and its development independently from the
ecological conditions in which it is embedded [Coen, 1999].
Of course another dispositive thing would be the production of genetically engineered super geniuses, but if they were merely smart, that would prove the critics right.
More importantly, adoptive parents in all studies, by virtue of the rigorous selection
processes they are subjected to, tend to be of higher than average SES, and, as a
sample, restricted in range [Rutter et al., 2001].
OK, let’s assume you’re right and all twin reared apart studies are wrong because the twins are insufficiently apart.
But there are 2 ways to measure heritability. One is to hold genes constant while environment varies, but the other is to hold environment constant while genes vary.
So lets compare identical twins raised together with unrelated people raised together. The former correlate about 0.87 in IQ while the latter correlate close to 0 by adulthood
No. Heritability is not measured or estimated as one thing. It is a FACT of a given population at a particular place and time for a particular trait.
You’re still beholden to the P = G + E bullshit.
The environment for MZ twins is the same for them. Because they have the same genes. The same environment is not the same for two unrelated people.
I’ve learned I can say this over and over and over again and even putatively intelligent HBD-tards like Steve Hsu still don’t get it.
At this point I’m thinking they can’t.
OK, let’s assume that holding environment constant is not informative for the reason you describe. We’re back to studies of identical twins reared apart. Your argument against these studies has consistently been that the twins are not sufficiently apart.
I just found a fabulous link where scholar Jack Kaplan makes that same argument & gets ripped to shreds by scholar Frank Sulloway who writes:
Bouchard et al. found that the rearing environments of the twins were indeed moderately correlated (r = .22), confirming a potential bias in the estimation of heritability. Bouchard’s team then assessed the direct influence of each of these environmental factors on IQ, from which they were able to determine the total contribution to heritability. The maximum contribution for any one of these nine individual environmental measures turned out to be a minuscule .03, and the mean contribution for the nine measures was just .006. In other words, the heritability estimate for this set of reared-apart twins, which was .69, would be reduced to about .66 based on environmental similarities among the adoptive homes of the twins.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/mar/15/how-to-inherit-iq-an-exchange/
It was Kaplan who did the ripping.
You and your commenter still don’t understand.
The only way one of these factors would have a significant correlation is if it had a similar effect on everyone or on a significant fraction. That is, only if E has an effect independent of G. Furthermore that the environments were correlated on the factors which were measured suggests it will be correlated on many other unmeasured factors as well.
What is important is that the adoptive homes be a random sample of homes for the population the heritability is claimed for. If they are not chosen at random their correlation isn’t 0. But at the same time it CANNOT be measured, because no one knows what environment is. So the .22 cited is interesting but meaningless.
I’ll say it AGAIN:
You’re still beholden to the P = G + E bullshit.
I’ve learned I can say this over and over and over again and even putatively intelligent HBD-tards like Steve Hsu still don’t get it.
At this point I’m thinking they can’t.
The only way one of these factors would have a significant correlation is if it had a similar effect on everyone or on a significant fraction. That is, only if E has an effect independent of G.
So your argument is G determines E so we can never control for E, so heritability is unmeasurable ? How convenient.
Furthermore that the environments were correlated on the factors which were measured suggests it will be correlated on many other unmeasured factors as well.
And they’d all be so intercorrelated that controlling for measured environment is sufficient
What is important is that the adoptive homes be a random sample of homes for the population the heritability is claimed for. If they are not chosen at random their correlation isn’t 0.
The statistical adjustments make them sufficiently close to random. Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good
NO! Dumbass motherfucker.
Heritability, h^2, is a FACT. It is a statistic of a particular population. It can be sampled.
But that sample must be random.
Get it?
There are NO SUCH ADJUSTMENTS motherfucker.
And even if there were it would be for a putative measure of an un-measurable, the environment.
If it were possible to measure the environment and the .22 figure was a good one, the mean distance between twins (for an n(0, 1) distribution of environment for the population) would be how much smaller?
Use your mathematical prowess.
If it were possible to measure the environment and the .22 figure was a good one, the mean distance between twins (for an n(0, 1) distribution of environment for the population) would be how much smaller
Well formulas suggest that when correlations are 0.22, range is only about 2% smaller than if correlation were zero; so I’d expect mean environment distance between twins to be similarly reduced by a trivial 2%
Dunno what those formulas are.
The mean difference for bivariate normal variables with correlation .22 and means, sds = 0, 1 is
sqrt(1-rho)*2/sqrt(pi) vs 2/sqrt(pi).
That is, the mean difference is 88% of the mean difference if rho = 0.
But what is the distribution of the absolute difference?
All I know is that when x and y correlate r, the Z score SD of x for people with a given y is the square root of (1 – r^2)
You can read the comments of “ronthehedgehog” and “a last a loved a long the” and you can see that Prof. Shoe banned me for reasons having nothing to do with the quality or informative-ness of my posts. None were abusive.
Prof. Shoe knew I was cleverer than him. That’s why he banned me, and keep s erasing my comments using a proxy.
Really.
It’s hard to believe.
But it’s true.
It’s the HBDers who want to spread lies, and therefore don’t want legitimate criticism.
All I know is that when x and y correlate r, the Z score SD of x for people with a given y is the square root of (1 – r^2)
then stop while you’re behind for God’s sake.
That’s true if the joint distribution is bivariate normal. But the conditional mean of x is rho*y.
That’s true if the joint distribution is bivariate normal.
Usually when correlations are reported, normal distributions are assumed. What distribution are you assuming.
But the conditional mean of x is rho*y.
In a normal distribution , the mean x for a given y is r*y. Don’t know what rho stands for
Don’t know what rho stands for
I hope you’re joking, but probably not.
rho is the Greek letter most often used for Pearson’s correlation.
yeah. you’re way too fucking stupid for me to comment here anymore.
i’m pulling the plug.
gasps. death rattle.
yeah. you’re way too fucking stupid for me to comment here anymore
Actually I have a better intuitive grasp of statistics than you do; despite having no formal training.
But if you wish to leave; I’m sure a lot of people will be quietly cheering 🙂
and not commenting or reading.
Actually I have a better intuitive grasp…
Well now that was a joke.
Après moi le deluge. Or rather: Apres moi la sécheresse.
As Chris Langan said:
Stupid people don’t know they’re stupid.
and not commenting or reading.
Reading was never your strong suit.
Well now that was a joke.
It’s not. You are.
As Chris Langan said:
Stupid people don’t know they’re stupid.
He’s right. You don’t.
NO! dumbass mofo.
All those who will “quietly cheer” my departure will immediately or gradually stop reading and stop commenting.
This has even happened at Prof. Shoe’s blog. But that could be a coincidence.
Sans moi, your blog is “toast”.
I’m Louis XV. You’re a sans-culotte.
I’m Die Mannschaft 2014. You’re the selecao 2014.
7-1.
And even better…(Though Rocky would be clobbered by modern heavyweights, he’d cruise among cruiserweights or light heavyweights. The guy was a human Secretariat.)
The greatest right hand ever thrown:
And that wasn’t the bullshit Ali over Liston (both of which were thrown by Liston).
Here’s a close up.
Pretty nasty.
And neither is an example of blood over blood.
Marciano was FREAK in training. The guy was OBSESSED with fitness.
And as one American female footballer (I think it was Milbrett) said of Die Mannschaft, “They take it more seriously than anyone.”
That is a record which may stand for ever.
Said the announcer, in tears, at the end of ’73 Belmont.
It’s not as if there weren’t a lot of motivation for breeding a faster horse..that is, a lot of $$$.
Yet 41 years later, Secretariat still has the record.
How can that be?
It would be as if Prof. Shoe’s chicken picture showed a larger chicken in 1973 than in 2005.
and a much larger chicken as Secretariat still has the record for the Belmont, Preakness, and Derby.
41 years later!!!
41 years of breeding later!!!
There are NO SUCH ADJUSTMENTS motherfucker.
And even if there were it would be for a putative measure of an un-measurable, the environment.
Your argument is only that because twin studies lack a random sample of American environments, no amount of statistical adjustments can make them valid, because there’s always some potentially huge source of bias we can’t statistically adjust for,
By the same logic, one could dismiss scientific Gallup polls. They too are not a completely random sample (some people are more likely to answer the phone, some are more likely to participate etc) but Gallup controls for such non-randomness by statistically adjusting its sample to match census demographics. But by your logic, no statistical adjustment is valid because we can’t measure let alone adjust for every conceivable source of non-randomness.
You’re way too genetically stupid to comprehend that unmeasurable sources of error tend to be unmeasurable precisely because they’re small and that sources of error tend to cancel each other out.
All the evidence is against you but instead of accepting it, you demand perfect studies that can’t be conducted so that your ignorant views remain unfalsifiable.
You may have scared other HBD bloggers into silence & banning you or moderating comments, but inevitably someone smarter than you has finally come along & I’ve exposed you.
Welcome to hell.
no one has argued that it’s impossible to perform studies of this nature or that the nature of the problem necessarily exceeds our reach.
you keep asserting that there are statistical formulas out there that successfully simulate random environmental distribution. I haven’t seen you put up an example yet.
gallup polls are different. a) they deal with more trivial matters than what’s potentially at hand in HBD, b) no one uses gallup polls taken today to suggest that the public will feel X way for all time, or permanently.
no one has argued that it’s impossible to perform studies of this nature or that the nature of the problem necessarily exceeds our reach.
First Ypres has argued that the identical twins must be separated into different homes in a completely random way, which means we’d have to throw darts at a map of the United States, and whatever households they landed on would have to be forced to raise somebody’s twin. That’s pretty close to an impossible study.
you keep asserting that there are statistical formulas out there that successfully simulate random environmental distribution. I haven’t seen you put up an example yet.
I cited Frank Sulloway replying to Kaplan that any environmental similarity between identical twins raised apart can be measured, and thus the heritability can be adjusted for the environmental similarity. When this was done, it showed heritability is slightly overestimated in twin studies, but remains sky high:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/mar/15/how-to-inherit-iq-an-exchange/
gallup polls are different. a) they deal with more trivial matters than what’s potentially at hand in HBD,
Trivial matters like predicting who will be voted the next president of the United States?
b) no one uses gallup polls taken today to suggest that the public will feel X way for all time, or permanently.
And no one uses identical twin reared apart studies to suggest that IQ will be highly heritable for all time, or permanently.
You mean they used a data set that had an underlying variance far lower than the population’s then found that these ranges of dissimilarity failed to make an impact? Shocking. Lol btw.
What data did they use for this exercise?
Also according to Gallup itself, it doesn’t predict the winner of US elections. It’s only a snapshot of popular opinion.
Oh you don’t think hbders tend to push the fact that ‘it’s in the genes. Period?’
You mean they used a data set that had an underlying variance far lower than the population’s then found that these ranges of dissimilarity failed to make an impact? Shocking. Lol btw.
They found that because the environments of even reared apart identical twins are correlated, the environmental difference between said twins would be lower (on average) than two random Americans. Since the degree of environmental similarity was roughly quantified, they were able to statistically remove it, and found that even after doing so, heritability remained sky high.
What data did they use for this exercise?
The 0.22 correlation between the environments of twins raised apart. Of course people can always quibble with how environment was measured, but since all the measures are likely highly intercorrelated and small, an omission or substitution would make little difference.
Also according to Gallup itself, it doesn’t predict the winner of US elections. It’s only a snapshot of popular opinion.
As far as the media’s concerned, they’re predictions, and Gallup knows it, and deliberately conducts such polls for media attention.
Oh you don’t think hbders tend to push the fact that ‘it’s in the genes. Period?’
And environmentalists push the “it’s the environment. Period.” All ideologies have their ignorant extremists.
given the usual P = aG + bE model where a^2 + b^2 = 1, a correlation of .22 would reduce an h^2 of .74 to .68.
Here a = h and one must solve the equations a^2 + b^2 = 1 and a^2 + rho*b^2 = h^2, to find the h^2 for the population as a whole a^2.
the environments used fail to capture the population variance in environments. thats the point. when there are 100 possible environments and your study only uses about 10 of those environments….then a) you will get a low correlation (obviously) and b) this correlation will fail to capture what needs to be captured — full environmental variance.
they were not able to “statistically correct for it” because their underlying data set was fucked from the outset.
so roughly quantified by what? those measures that they came up with, themselves based on lacking data?
‘As far as the media’s concerned, they’re predictions, and Gallup knows it, and deliberately conducts such polls for media attention.’
yes and as far as the public is concerned this is nature v nurture and heredity measures exact significance of genetic causal effect rather than simply noting the existence of a genetic causal effect.
ive seen way more HBD ‘genetics are destiny’ (even if in sheep’s clothing) proponents than ‘pure environmentalists.’ one issue at a time.
swanknasty,
The range of environments in the study was enormous. Some of the twins were raised by parents with an 8th grade education; others with graduate degrees. It’s just that there was more environmental variation between twin pairs than within them, so they had to correct for it, and they did.
The formula is (heritability – rho)/(1 – rho).
So if rho = .74, the real h^2 is 0. If it’s .5, h^2 is really .48.
Etc.
But rho is impossible to measure.
Some of the twins were raised by parents with an 8th grade education; others with graduate degrees.
The unconditional variance is meaningless. What matters is the distribution of the enviromental distance between “cotwins” not between pairs of twins.
The unconditional variance is meaningless. What matters is the distribution of the enviromental distance between “cotwins” not between pairs of twins.
But since the environmental correlation of cotwins was only 0.22, the average environmental distance between cotwins was only a smidgen smaller than the average environmental distance between twin pairs. And even that smidgen was then corrected for.
Got it?
‘The range of environments in the study was enormous. Some of the twins were raised by parents with an 8th grade education; others with graduate degrees. It’s just that there was more environmental variation between twin pairs than within them, so they had to correct for it, and they did.’
i highly doubt the variance in environment between twins reared apart even began to approach actual environmental variance between regular individuals.
link me up. show me.
how can u respond to his point about cotwin variance by reasserting a statistic that is itself likely to be flawed? wtf.
Swanknasty, here is a link that provides a lot of the data:
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jetterso/documents/ScienceMNTwinStudies.pdf
the range may have been “enormous”, but Nisbett cites a study finding the variance was only 1/5th that of the general population.
combined with the .22 cotwin correlation, that means the mean environmental distance between cotwins was only about 45% of what it would be for randomly chosen strangers.
the what would be the correction for h^2?
Corrections for range restriction to adoption studies indicated that socio-economic status could account for as much as 50% of the variance in IQ.[27]
from Wikipedia. so that’s .74 – .5 = .24. about right!
Okay. those measures are garbage. an index of available household items as a “cultural and intellectual resources” environmental metric. a questionnaire that asks for a retrospective perspective on childhood to encapsulate “family environments?”
still noting ive seen that accounts for the sheer differential in general population environmental variance and cotwin reared apart from other twin environmental variance
the range may have been “enormous”, but Nisbett cites a study finding the variance was only 1/5th that of the general population.
Usually range is an excellent proxy for variance so it sounds like Nisbett’s full of crap.
The politically correct don’t have to be scientifically correct because nobody calls them out
And in fact the SD (square root of variance) for adoptive father education is 4.5 which sounds large. No way is variance 1/5 of general population. If anything it’s bigger than the general population
Swanknasty, some of those measures may indeed be garbage. Most meaningful is the cotwin correlation in rearing father’s education , rearing mother’s education & rearing SES. These figures are 0.134 ,0.412, and 0.267 respectively.
These correlations are not high, but ideally you would want them to be zero so that twins are truly raised apart. But even the biggest environmental correlation (0.412) implies cotwins were only slightly more similar in environment than all the twins, & the environments of all the twins had enormous range (some rearing parents had 0 education, others grad degrees) as well as large variance
Yeah. I know you’re a moron. But you might read this.
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/125/4/392/
Yeah. I know you’re a moron. But you might read this.
None of the people you link to understand stats as well as I do but since you’re incapable of crunching the numbers I’ve provided, you’re completely manipulated by their propaganda. You hate academics & yet you’re a slave to them. How pathetic & embarrassing for you.
Yes there is range restriction in some studies, but that’s not a huge issue in the authoritative data I’ve provided.
Got it?
The importance of degree of environmental variation in influencing the correlation between identical twins reared apart, and hence the estimate of heritability based on this statistic, is revealed by the following examples.
a. Among 35 pairs of separated twins for whom information was available about the community in which they lived, the correlation in Binet IQ for those raised in the same town was .83; for those brought up in different towns, the figure was .67.
b. In another sample of 38 separated twins, tested with a combination of verbal and non-verbal intelligence scales, the correlation for those attending the same school in the same town was .87; for those attending schools in different towns, the coefficient was .66. In the same sample, separated twins raised by relatives showed a correlation of .82; for those brought up by unrelated persons, the coefficient was .63.
c. When the communities in the preceding sample were classified as similar vs. dissimilar on the basis of size and economic base (e.g. mining vs. agricultural), the correlation for separated twins living in similar communities was .86; for those residing in dissimilar localities the coefficient was .26.
d. In the Newman, Holzinger, and Freeman study, ratings are reported of the degree of similarity between the environments into which the twins were separated. When these ratings were divided at the median, the twins reared in the more similar environments showed a correlation of .91 between their IQ’s; for those brought up in less similar environments, the coefficient was .42.
Among 35 pairs of separated twins for whom information was available about the community in which they lived, the correlation in Binet IQ for those raised in the same town was .83; for those brought up in different towns, the figure was .67.
How old were they? If they were kids it’s meaningless because as I’ve explained to you ten million times, the effects of social environment vanish by later adulthood.
And even 0.67 is a high heritability because it implies IQ & genes correlate above 0.8
do you not realize how they got that result?
they correlated the features, then they multiplied that feature for what they had ALREADY DETERMINED the correlation between that feature and IQ to be. and they even admit that this is “AT LEAST” the value. right there, they are giving you the absolute FLOOR of the number and passing it off as the LIKELY value.
i dont see any explanation of confounds anywhere. for example, the low correlation between education and twin IQ could be explained by the fact that the twins tended to get placed with individuals with comparatively equivalent amounts of education; you could also find a “low” correlation at the same time because there could be a lot of variance in the 0-8 realm of education and comparatively little variance in the 10+ realm of education. Of course the 0-8 areas of education aren’t much different from one another. However 12 is much different than 8 and even 10.
a huge amount of the data that would allow us to independently draw these conclusions is unsurprisingly MIA.
lol even adding up all of their “correlations between trait and IQ” and multiply THAT by .22 (the average correlation to apply to all ‘environmental’ metrics). you get a far different picture.
.
i dont see any explanation of confounds anywhere. for example, the low correlation between education and twin IQ could be explained by the fact that the twins tended to get placed with individuals with comparatively equivalent amounts of education;
Swanknasty, the low correlations I’m referring to are between the parent education of the cotwins, not between education & IQ, though I’m obviously that’s related . The point is that separated cotwins differ enormously in how educated their rearing parents are, yet still resemble each other in IQ.
‘Swanknasty, the low correlations I’m referring to are between the parent education of the cotwins, not between education & IQ, though I’m obviously that’s related . The point is that separated cotwins differ enormously in how educated their rearing parents are, yet still resemble each other in IQ.’
yes but you GET TO their conclusions with their pre-made conclusions about the correlation between education and iq.
plus using their given equation Rff X r^2ft (which again they admit is just the FLOOR), if you add just those three traits together as one trait, you get results that are far different.
avg correlation among the three becomes .434
correlation with IQ becomes .275
total effect becomes .11.
is it not yet obvious to you that they are playing with numbers?
oops confusing my points. avg corr .271 and contribution .02. which is more than double what they say.
It has been obvious to me for some time that the “ideological” side in this “debate”, the one which routinely ignores counter evidence and lacks any self-awareness or self-criticism is the HBD side.
When I was younger I thought Gould was just a Jewish Marxist douche. I’ve grown up. Peepee hasn’t.
Charles Murray was arrested for burning a cross in front of a police station. Typical.
Uh drrr!
Of course pumpkin doesn’t know.
HBDers are without exception plain stupid.
Math and statistics is on their axis of evil.
yes but you GET TO their conclusions with their pre-made conclusions about the correlation between education and iq.
I’m not sure I follow your argument, or if you’re following mine.
I’m not talking about their conclusions or their pre-made conclusions. I am simply summarizing very basic empirical facts about their samples. The range and variability in the education of the rearing parents of all the twins is large. Yes or No? Among the cotwins, the correlation between rearing parent’s education is low, which means that the within twin-pair rearing parental education variability is almost as large as the total sample (between or within twin-pairs) rearing parent education variability? Yes or No?
Let’s first just agree that there was enormous variability in rearing parent education within cotwins before you argue about what conclusions should or should not be drawn from this.
When I was younger I thought Gould was just a Jewish Marxist douche. I’ve grown up.
I should hope so, since that’s just racist.
Charles Murray was arrested for burning a cross in front of a police station. Typical.
I find it incredibly scary that he would have done that, even just as a dumb kid. I had always admired him as a scientist of integrity so hearing about the cross burning made feel very naive for having respected him.
‘I’m not talking about their conclusions or their pre-made conclusions’
Yes you are. you are making a fuss about the .22 avg correlation and the individual impact of each trait.
using their own Rff x r^2ft equation for Ves leads us to plug and chug. originally the number for Ves was what? .26? that equaled r^2. That assumed an Rff of 0. We have approximately 20% more correlation than that. So we multiply the result by 1.2 and get .32. h^2 drops to .68.
keep in mind, even they admit this is a FLOOR value that they are passing off as the LIKELY value.
—
yes the variability of the twins was pretty high — compared to what, we don’t know, now do we?
everything ive seen regarding the twin environment variance is based around the FES. gee, we both know that’s garbage in the MINSTRA setting.
*1.25. sticky keys.
yes the variability of the twins was pretty high — compared to what, we don’t know, now do we?
Compared to the general U.S. population. If you asked a random sample of Americans how much schooling their mom or their dad has, I doubt you’d find more variability than that study reported for twins. For example, the average American, and thus average American parent (assuming parents are roughly representative) has maybe 13 years of education with only 1% having 21 years of education (PhDs are only 1%). That implies a standard deviation of 3.43 years. Compare that to the education standard deviation reported in the study for the rearing parents of the twins.
‘For example, the average American, and thus average American parent (assuming parents are roughly representative) has maybe 13 years of education with only 1% having 21 years of education (PhDs are only 1%). That implies a standard deviation of 3.43 years. Compare that to the education standard deviation reported in the study for the rearing parents of the twins.’
The average CURRENT american, sure.
this study began when? 1979? the twins were how old? on average according to your source they were 41. k, let’s look….so on average they were born in 1938.
look at this: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93442.pdf
median amount of schooling in years — 8.6. 37% had ANY HS or above.
let’s next turn to the fact that we only have ~112 “Fathers” anyway.
median amount of schooling in years — 8.6. 37% had ANY HS or above.
The median level of schooling was much lower in those days, but the stats you cite suggest the variability was quite low, though I would need to see more data points. But I doubt the rearing parents in the twin study were less variable in education than what was typical of American parents in general of that era.
‘The median level of schooling was much lower in those days, but the stats you cite suggest the variability was quite low, though I would need to see more data points. But I doubt the rearing parents in the twin study were less variable in education than what was typical of American parents in general of that era.’
the fact that their data set had a higher education mean despite having 0 as their bottom range suggests outliers weighing down the average. in the sample, the SD was 4.5. The top-end is WAY OVERREPRESENTED. but yes wed have to see the actual data to make heads or tails of it. you can doubt your direction and i can doubt in mine —but the burden is on you and your side.
even using their own ‘this is a floor’ equation decreases h^2 by a sizeable amount with their chosen rho.
As Swanknasty gas pointed out iirc, even if individual measures are only a little less carried, their combination may be much less varied.
The attempt to find those aspects of the environment which matter results from a misunderstanding. That is, it results from the assumption that environment has an independent effect.
When the dimensions are almost infinite like that of environment, it is impossible to correct for any lack of variance.
There is no variance in one aspect and very little in another, namely, the time of birth and the place where raised Do these have little or no effect? Maybe. Maybe not.
This is why the assignment to adoptive homes for twins or siblings or single children (who are compared to their parents biological and adoptive) must be random deliberately.
i mean did they even have a control group of randomly selected and controlled (on the same environmental variables) individuals? ive never read of them doing this.
i dont understand why it’s so hard to believe that these people are just dicking around with numbers.
Kempthorne put it like this:
What, indeed, is the “grip” on environment in the human IQ area? It is no more than “reared together” versus “reared apart”, and what does “reared apart” mean? Nothing more than at some age two related individuals, e.g., identical twins or full-sibs were separated by adoption, and then placed in homes that could be related familially and/or, of similar economic and social nature. I can only comment: Really, how naive can one be? The Burt study was characterized in the literature as the “only experiment”. Some experiment!
As soon as one turns to any behavioral measurements, the need to incorporate intra-uterine, family and community environment is obvious. I have the view that the “hereditarians” are utterly naive. It is obvious that parental IQ influences offspring environment. It is obvious that there is cultural transmission. To ignore the existence of this is merely stupid. I see no point in mincing words. If non-scientists sometimes have scorn for some supposed “scientific work”, they should not be faulted.
To this naivete in model formulation, must be added a statistical naivete. Any statistical test has, within its conceptual underpinning, a sensitivity or power function. It needs essentially no deep thought to realize that the sensitivity of statistical tests for maternal effects, for genotype-environment interaction, etc., etc., is so low that to say, as has been said often, that such and such a model modification has been examined and found unnecessary is utter naivete.
Also from Shalizi:
Devlin et al. fit several permutations of this model, including ones with and without the maternal effect term, and allowing more or less shared environmental influence on people with different sorts of relationships. What they found was that including the maternal effects substantially improved the fit, despite the fact that just about everyone previously had ignored it as negligible. To summarize, in their preferred model, the narrow-sense heritability (h2) was 0.34 (with a 95% credible interval of 0.27 to 0.40), the broad-sense heritability (H2) was 0.48 (with a CI of 0.43 to 0.54; coincidentally, very close to the estimate in Jencks’s old book [2]), and share of the maternal term was 0.20 for twins (CI of 0.15 to 0.24) and 0.05 for non-twin siblings (CI of 0.01 to 0.08). They also compared their model with maternal effects to an alternative which embodied the often-repeated claim that the heritability of IQ rises with age: maternal effects fit much better.
This is the best fit for the P = G + E model only.
the fact that their data set had a higher education mean despite having 0 as their bottom range suggests outliers weighing down the average. in the sample, the SD was 4.5. The top-end is WAY OVERREPRESENTED.
WRONG!!!! The range for rearing father education was 0 to 20 years of schooling and the mean was 10.7. The mean was almost exactly in the middle so no evidence of the sample being skewed by outliers.
The range for rearing mothers was 0 to 19 and the mean was 10.3. Once again, almost exactly in the middle. You and Jorgeous are grasping desperately at straws.
WRONG!!!
Dear God what a mathematically retarded moron.
The midpoint of the range is NOT the mean.
Jesus fucking Christ.
Stop blogging until you pass seventh grade math.
Dear God what a mathematically retarded moron.
The midpoint of the range is NOT the mean.
Again, jorgeous is as dumb as dirt. Of course the mean is not the midpoint of the range, but when a distribution is skewed by outliers at one extreme, the mean and the midpoint will be very different.
Never mind, it’s too complicated for you. Post in the Texas Chainsaw thread, and leave the stats talk to the adults.
Human specie are divided by cognitive castes. Education despise completely these reality. Education is a aplication in different ways of egalitarian dogmatism of XIX century. Iq part of same unilateral assumptions. Some people are very good to write, other are very good to do maths, others are very good to paint. Humans are radically different ”race-selves”, internally-selves, categoric-selves… Don’t there way to compares these differences in a unilateral perspective.
Supposed ”equality” produces inequality, when society despise all hierarchy system need specialization and cognitive castes are an reality of human intelligence like any other social complex species.
Some people are multi-task to do many different things in social complex contexts. Others are super specialists and will be very very probable this people will not to being analysed and employee correctly (and specially, in very important and influent jobs).
We have specializations and we have holistic thinkers who should ruling human societies and not predators.
A good link on regression to the mean, educate yourselves. http://www.unz.com/gnxp/even-with-heritability-outcomes-are-unpredictable/
Heritability’s a tricky concept; “regression to the mean” only makes it more so. Individuals—not populations—regress. Someone once hilariously argued that true black IQ was 92 (midway between 85 and 100) because of regression. Hah!
edumacate your own self motherfucker.
are the social classes populations like blacks and whites? NO. So Gregory Cock is full of crap.
Even in black and white there is regression to mean, same as in SES.
But there isn’t a regression to the mean of the middle class or lower class or upper class, because these aren’t populations like blacks and whites or whatever racial/ethnic populations.
REAL environmental factors is gene-gene individuals or populations interactions. Environmental factors is like geography, is a interaction of man and their environment. Is like a ‘tecniques” of Milton Santos.
Personality is to climate as behavior is to weather.
Behavior is variable like weather, but personality as climate are both very stable.
Hereditary varies but it doesn’t implies ”genetic role is insignificant”.
This people deny completely role of genetics in human mind make me sick.
Psychologic (and all phenotypes) are variable in its heritability 0% to 100% (both are allegoric because is near to impossible). Traits are universal, phenotypes are localized. To ashkenazis ”neuroticism” seems to have higher heritability, much higher than in gentile-europeans. Neuroticism in a sample of university students, seems 30%-50%, but phenotypes is a combination of universal traits, so, sometimes heritability will be direct…and sometimes will not direct. You have degrees of direct heritability to epigenetics processes.
Heritability (genetic role on human behavior) can be measure by individual but is ilogical deny role of genetics if we are our genes. We are not inanimate, i believe.
This study finds 0 shared environment effect. Same for every other study. When will dookie ever learn?http://m.bjp.rcpsych.org/content/early/2014/08/14/bjp.bp.113.136200.abstract
Dumbass motherfucker:
Of course there’s no shared environment effect. The very idea depends on the P = G + E model.
And you know what that means? Effect of genetic on crime is paramount.
a man slightly smarter than peepee:
He’s accomplished a heck of a lot more than you ever will.
you mean he was born to a rich political family?
what an accomplishment.
or do you mean he’s fat and smokes crack?
thank God I’ll never “accomplish” that.
First Ypres or Duke (are same people??:),
please, i’m curious to know its substitutive hypothesis about genetics, behavior and intelligence.
Is easy criticize but is little bit more complicated explain this criticism, producing new theories and hypothesis to substitute the old and ‘stupid’ ones.
I go expect here.
It’s NOT a question of hypotheses.
It’s a question of fact.
There is an h^2 for IQ for the developed world as a whole or for the US as a whole.
A sufficiently large random sample heritability will be a good estimate.
But no such sample has been made AND
Even if it had heritability, h^2, is a measure of association only and not of cause.
That is, it may be there are stupid people who would have been smart people in environments which are exceedingly rare or non-existent but still possible.
I gave the example of how night owls have bad grades, yet night owls have higher IQs.
If school were held in the middle of the night, who would have the bad grades?
Look up: “norms of reaction”.
Is not important if sample will be random nor selective, is important the results.
To environment have greater impact in human behavior is necessary in a random or an selective random, the impact to be the same in all people.
In same environmental conditions, people reacts differently, so eliminating environment discrepant circunstances, people will be different. Genes TOO??
”I gave the example of how night owls have bad grades, yet night owls have higher IQs.”
Off cours because all populations have internal variation. Lack of interpretation.
Their examples don’t disprove genes influence, sorry.
The problem in this kind of research is a interpretation problems. Mathematicians create equations and try enframe what is dynamic and have multiple forms. Lack of multiple perspectives.
Two peaces, man and environment.
Genetic PREDISPOSITIONS limit possible answers to environmental circunstances.
My example, climate and weather.
Some people are more influenced by environmental circunstances than others, my hypothesis.
P.P., the latest consensus in IQ research is here: http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp2014105a.html
And it flatly contradicts duke and swank.
Fantastic news
Pumpkin person, I believe the evidence of rising amounts of Jewish billionaires and influence over the past 60 years is proof that enough geniuses will be born to carry civilization on, despite declining fertility rates among the more intelligent.
The thing is, how does it work? You said a 5 point iq increase would result in 2x the processing speed. So, if say 2 people with an iq of 130 have a kid with an iq of 140, would that kid be smarter than his parents combined even if the parents only had 1 kid? If that is true, would that mean net intelligence stable across that family even though the parents lose in the fertility game compared to their more fertile neighbors?
Jay g, yes a 140 arguably has the complex problem solving speed of 2 to 4 IQ 130s, if you believe the doubling hypothesis which has not been well researched & it’s unclear if or how this happens in different domains: for example vocabulary certainly doesn’t double every 5 or 10 points.
Also the dysgenicists argue that mutation load is also lowering genetic IQ, so even if the left half of the distribution were not having more kids; the entire distribution is getting more mutated.
lol. now tell me WHY.
‘ However, for intelligence, heritability increases linearly, from (approximately) 20% in infancy to 40% in adolescence, and to 60% in adulthood. Some evidence suggests that heritability might increase to as much as 80% in later adulthood47 but then decline to about 60% after age 80.48’
translation — i do not understand heredity and why this finding is useless re: causal relationship
‘Most genetic research has been consistent with this dramatic increase in heritability for intelligence in the early human life course. Figure 1 shows the results of the first study to demonstrate significant increases in heritability in cross-sectional analyses of 11 000 twin pairs from childhood (~40%) to adolescence (~50%) to young adulthood (~60%)’
translation — most of the people who do not understand heredity and why this finding is useless re: causal relationship agree!
‘Although GCTA can be used to test this finding of increasing heritability across development, the first two attempts to do so using longitudinal data did not have sufficient power to detect the hypothesised age differences in GCTA heritability. One study reported an increase in GCTA heritability of intelligence from 0.26 (0.17 standard error) at age 7 to 0.45 (0.14) at age 12.56 Another study reported a decrease in GCTA heritability from 0.48 (0.18) at age 11 to 0.28 (0.18) in old age.46’
translation — this method that would better reflect the truth of the matter casts great doubt on previous findings and may reveal us as not really understanding heritability, so we will discount it or marginalize it
‘ Increasing heritability despite genetic stability implies some contribution from what has been called genetic amplification’
translation — when we realized that these environments WERE IN FACT having a huge impact on development, we decided to create a circular argument: these differences are mostly caused by genes because genes mostly cause environmental differences. LOL.
‘ The general intelligence component (factor) is a universally found statistical regularity’
products of factor analysis tend to be such……lol….
By “flatly contradicts” I assume you mean supports or is irrelevant.
The twin studies are not being confirmed. They are being disconfirmed.
Intelligence is associated with education and social class and broadens the causal perspectives on how these three inter-correlated variables contribute to social mobility, and health, illness and mortality differences.
translation: I’m a Scottish cunt and hack ideologist.
Lol, it’s hilarious. Well, if ”social intelligence” related to manipulation, oh, oh, oh…
Santoculto, social cognition, like any other part of intelligence, can be used for good or bad
Yes, i know, but when you use their talents against REAL social harmony, it’s a problem.
See mèrdia treatment to Rushton and compares with Coch.
Santoculto , the reason rushton & Jensen were attacked by the media is because they both implied whites (and East Asians) are smart. You can’t say whites are smart because the media narrative is that whites got their power through ruthless exploitation not intelligence.
Cochran got glowing coverage because he didn’t focus on whites vs non-whites, but jews vs Gentiles
Michael Moore wrote a book called “Stupid white men”. This also got glowing coverage
There’s a show on my local PBS station tonight about twin Chinese sisters separated early. One is raised in Sacramento, the other in a small village in Norway.
Unfortunately they’re still children and have met.
But that’s an example of a twin pair which a legitimate study could have.
They’re still growing, but the Norwegian twin is a lot taller.
Here’s the link: http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/twin-sisters/
Get a lot of twins like these and measure h^2.
I can already tell you what you’d find.
A much much lower h^2.
Of course, but when people say heritability is high, they are typically referring to heritability within a single country, especially a Western country like America. Worldwide it would most certainly not be as high. We know for example that people living in the third world have IQ’s and heights 1 SD lower than they would have had if reared in America, even in adulthood.
All that matters is that all the countries have roughly the same mean IQ.
Norway and the US are close enough.
One could simply limit the study to the developed world.
One could simply limit the study to the developed world.
Moving the goal posts. You can’t prove that heritability is low within the United States so you now wish to prove it’s low across the developed world.
Jorge Videla,
you guys need to be more clear what you want to say about its assumptions. You deny completely the role of genetics in human behavior? Or you are criticizing only the precipited deterministic conclusions many Hbd researches but without deny the obvious genetic role??
I believe in eugenics, but I think it would disappoint the hereditists.
I believe there is likely a “core” causal heritability of intelligence, but I think it’s around 20%, not 80%.
I believe that though there may be irresolvable differences in mean ability of the races in many traits, these differences are much smaller than one actually sees.
Comparing with average of races, its affirmation is relatively, slightly correct but i live in a miscegenation experiment country. These smaller racial differences in intellect make all difference. The euros and east asians masses are more hard working and pacific than black masses,on average.
speaking more about the Murray-burning-cross-incident, he later claimed to have been oblivious to the racial implications of his deeds. lol. he started practicing early i guess……
Yes I find it very creepy and disturbing. I thought the attacks calling “The Bell Curve” racist pseudoscience were completely unfair, but then I find out one of the authors did something racist that was completely unrelated to the book. Too much of a coincidence.
Doesn’t change how I feel about the book, but I have lost respect for Murray and I do question his motives in writing the book. I’m surprised he’s still welcome in polite company after that was exposed, but I guess it shows the power of a Harvard degree.
Swanknasty must be Jorgeous’s idiotic doppleganger. Proof that twin studies work !
A teenager burning a cross next to a police station in lily-white Iowa in 1960 has about as about as much racial significance as Jorgeous calling a white person a “chimp” in a large, overflowing auditorium with a couple of black people in it. I’d be amazed if Murray had even seen half-a-dozen black people in the town or given any of them more than two seconds’ thought.
What was going on in places like Mississippi at the time was probably as remote to a teenager in Iowa as what’s going on in Liberia is to an Iowa teenager today. The Murrays might have had a TV with access to a couple of TV stations in 1960. It’s possible, although not likely, they still didn’t have a TV at the time.
Iowa’s population is only three percent black today, which is significantly more black than it was in 1960. Even as recently as 1990, long after Murray left the state, the black population in Iowa was 1.7 percent. So the idea that race was somehow an obvious factor in Murray’s teenage cross-burning, and foreshadows more ominous developments later in his intellectual life, is a anachronistic nonstarter.
Why Pumpkin would be disturbed by some juvenile prank and call it too much of a coincidence, despite the well-known fact Murray would later marry a handicapped Thai woman, is evidence that Jorgeous’s daily beatings are beginning to have their effect on him.
is evidence that Jorgeous’s daily beatings are beginning to have their effect on him.
You obviously haven’t been following this thread. Jorgeous was the recipient, not the giver of numerous beatings, and you can always tell when he’s been beat because he switches to one of his sock puppets. And unlike other HBD bloggers who have been forced to ban him or impose comment moderation; that bastard doesn’t scare me.
Huh?
Some people just don’t know when they’re beat.
Or maybe peepee is a masochist. He enjoys being beaten.
Stupid people don’t know they’re stupid.
Sockpuppets?
They aren’t sock puppets if you know it’s me moron.
I just post under whatever I’m logged in under at the time.
pincher must be a hbd-hoplite, wielding a stupefaction spear and silly-stat shield, always ready to befog.
to begin with, we have the assertion that cross-burning in lily-white Iowa has little racial significance. the only reason we’re given (or can infer) is the lily-whiteness. of course, pincher is apparently ignorant of Iowa’s cross-burning history and association with the KKK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Dubuque,_Iowa#After_the_Civil_War
http://www.iptv.org/iowapathways/mypath.cfm?ounid=ob_000303
gee. I guess Murray just “had no idea” about this history. I guess him burning the cross at the height of the civil rights movement was just a coincidence. I guess he just INDEPENDENTLY invented an alternate symbolism for cross burning at complete odds with American culture.
anyway…
this is such an easy point.
im assuming that you have something substantial to say about EEA and MZA?
about the assumption of G+E = P?
Or maybe peepee is a masochist. He enjoys being beaten.
If I’m a masochist I’m a pretty bad one because the only one feeling the pain is you.
Sockpuppets?
They aren’t sock puppets if you know it’s me moron.
And many people here don’t, which is why you hide behind them every time you get your ass handed to you.
Stupid people don’t know they’re stupid.
Which explains why you think you’re a genius
Swanky Pete,
And there’s reportedly anti-Semitism in Japan, too, despite the fact Jews are pretty thin on the ground there.
There were KKK chapters everywhere in the country. It was once more popular than the Rotary Club or Future Farmers of America. They were burning crosses in places where people had only heard a rumor that blacks existed.
Dubuque, however, is on the Mississippi river, far from the little town in the middle of Iowa’s cornfields where Murray grew up. Not many blacks there, but they certainly would’ve been directly connected to the south via trade. So the fact a couple of crosses were burned there in the 1920s, long before Murray was even born, is hardily surprising nor is it relevant to Murray’s childhood.
Juveniles don’t go in for weighty symbolism. One kid says, “Hey, let’s burn a cross !” Another says, “Sounds dandy.”
Where was the symbolism in those kids leaving marshmallows at the scene?
Like I said, it was just a stupid prank. They would’ve probably preferred stealing girls’ panties if any had been available for the taking.
‘Dubuque, however, is on the Mississippi river, far from the little town in the middle of Iowa’s cornfields where Murray grew up.’
and dubuque’s black population was exceedingly small. it’s two hours away from Newton. i guess 170 miles separation is all it takes to be COMPLETELY ignorant of these issues. he used to hang out and play pool with ‘juvenile delinquents.’ I guess they were all ignorant of these issues as well.
‘Juveniles don’t go in for weighty symbolism. One kid says, “Hey, let’s burn a cross !” Another says, “Sounds dandy.’
…..
this is ridiculous. juveniles go in for IMITATION you dunce. cross-burning didn’t just pop into their heads ex nihilo. i guess charles murray and co really were geniuses according to you, because they RANDOMLY decided to burn crosses.
the state has history of cross burning and a minority of racism.
the dude decides to form a little gang AT THE HEIGHT of civil rights.
dude burns a cross.
dude later formulates wildly conservative views and contributes to a thesis that “coincidentally” casts blacks as inferior on a certain metric that, as it turns out, is extremely important in life.
yeah, you keep drinking that Kool-Aid.
Jorgeous,
You don’t know the difference between the two, as anyone who has argued with you for more than ten minutes can attest.
one only argues with those capable of argument.
you aren’t.
so I take my I pleasure from your defects.
“As it happens, I grew up just 30 miles away from Murray’s central Iowa hometown, in an even smaller farming town with no black families at all. But somehow I managed to learn what cross-burning meant by the time I finished high school, and I expect Murray did too.”
http://phoenixwoman.blogspot.com/2005/08/charles-murray-crossburner.html
Swanky Pete,
So he tells us in the 1990s.
People’s views change dramatically over time, but they often mistakenly believe they’ve always held them.
WOW THIS IS SURREAL BUT TYPICAL.
Charles Murray’s “views” didn’t change over time to rationalize his racist actions as a youth? But Perry’s must’ve? Lolololololol.
I’ve never heard a gallows laugh before, Swanky.
Murray’s action wasn’t racist because everyone loves marshmallows by a fire, and because nobody in his proximity at the time could’ve possibly been concerned about the racist implications of his juvenile action.
Perry wants to tell you how he strongly he felt as a teenager in 1960 about burning crosses while living in a similarly small Iowa town without blacks.
Well, unless Perry was such an uptight kid that you could sharpen a pencil in his asshole, I tend to doubt his youthful reminiscence of his strong nascent Civil Rights mentality. He’s telling you more about his politics as an adult than he is about his political views as a youth.
‘Murray’s action wasn’t racist because everyone loves marshmallows by a fire, and because nobody in his proximity at the time could’ve possibly been concerned about the racist implications of his juvenile action.’
a CAMPFIRE you dunce, not a cross that is LIT on fire. the rest is just an assertion that is belied by cultural context, historical context, and commonsense —- we must suppose that Charles Murray was ignorant of a nationwide phenomenon.
‘Perry wants to tell you how he strongly he felt as a teenager in 1960 about burning crosses while living in a similarly small Iowa town without blacks.’
Murray wants to tell you little he knew as a teenager in 1960 about burning crosses while living in a small Iowa town with two black families.
Murray has more to lose by admitting he was a racist. Perry has nothing to lose by just telling the truth. Murray’s narrative is more likely to be self-serving.
Swanky Pete,
It was a joke. Lighten up, skippy. Otherwise I’ll have to start using your asshole for a pencil sharpener.
Cross burning wasn’t a “national phenomenon.” Americans all around the country could go their entire lives without seeing anyone burn a cross in their state.
Perry is not an expert on what Murray knows, and Murray doesn’t claim to have not understood the symbolism of the cross burning. All he claims is that he (stupidly) didn’t understand its significance in his particular prank.
That’s completely believable.
Swanky Pete,
Two hours and forty minutes, and that’s with an interstate system in place that was only just being built in Murray’s teenage years. So I’m sure it took well over three hours in 1960.
I also explained why Dubuque’s politics were likely to be much different than Newton’s politics. Trade with the south. Being on the Mississippi put them in touch with the south in a way that most Iowans in the interior of the state, where Murray lived, would never have understood.
Here are the reasons to be suspicious of your tortured reasoning regarding the deep and malevolent reading you give to this trivial episode of Murray’s youth.
1) He was kid when it happened.
2) The important Civil Rights battles of the time were distant from Iowans.
3) Iowa had no significant black population at the time.
4) Iowans do not have a virulent history of racism in their state, and there’s no evidence that a small episode in Dubuque would’ve even been remembered at all by anyone in Murray’s hometown more than three decades later.
But an additional point against your tendentious reading of Iowa’s history is that civil rights – such as it existed in those days – was a national partisan issue in the 1920s, with the Republicans being generally for it and the Democrats generally against it. And Iowa was a deeply Republican state at the time.
Republicans of that era put forward anti-lynching legislation, spoke out against lynching, and put anti-lynching language in their party’s political platforms. Democrats, for obvious reasons, did not.
The KKK of that era was associated mostly with the Democrats. So a Klan rally in Dubuque in 1925 should be considered more of a local Democratic Party rally than it should be considered a genuine statewide affection that Iowans held for the KKK.
Iowans had strongly supported Charles Evan Hughes in 1916, Warren Harding in 1920, Calvin Coolidge in 1924, and Herbert Hoover in 1928. Those men were liberal-minded on the questions of the KKK and lynching. Their Democratic opponents, with the exception of Al Smith in 1928, were not.
So you’re not only exaggerating the importance of the event you linked to, you’re also likely misunderstanding it because you don’t know enough history to appreciate the context.
‘1) He was kid when it happened.’
= juveniles can’t be racist. also, he was 17. BARELY a kid. next.
‘2) The important Civil Rights battles of the time were distant from Iowans.’
= geographic proximity in an age of wide media somehow renders individuals unaware of SOCIETY-CHANGING issues. nonsense.
‘3) Iowa had no significant black population at the time.’
already exploded by the fact that Dubuque’s black population was miniscule. it doesn’t matter if Dubuque’s politics were ‘different,’ all that matters is a) whether the people in Newton were likely to know about Dubuque’s racial past or b) whether people in Newton were likely to understand that cross-burning was a racist activity.
‘4) Iowans do not have a virulent history of racism in their state, and there’s no evidence that a small episode in Dubuque would’ve even been remembered at all by anyone in Murray’s hometown more than three decades later.’
= subjective definition of the word ‘virulent.’ I think KKK activity that includes cross-burning and political activity indicates a history of virulent racism. the fact that the KKK was able to regain ground there in the 80’s indicates an undercurrent. you choose to minimize this. regardless, your entire argument hinges on the fact that somehow, people in Iowa were probably ignorant of racial issues — specifically, the implication of cross-burning — even though Iowa bordered on Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska.
this is not reasoning. this is waterboarding commonsense.
Swankster,
They’re more likely to be stupid. Even the smart ones are more likely to be stupid at that age.
Besides, just six years later, that racist seventeen-year-old married a Thai Chinese woman before such unions were even legal in some U.S. states.
Now that is quite a trick for a white racist in the 1960s to pull off, don’t you think? To go from burning crosses for racial reasons to miscegenation in just six years?
Wide media? I’d be shocked if the Murray household in Newton, Iowa had more than two TV stations in 1960. And you couldn’t tivo them. So any kid who missed them – which would be most of them – wasn’t going to see them again.
Why would any kid know some trivial episode in his state’s history? I don’t know what state you live in, but I can guarantee you have no similar detailed understanding of its history at seventeen that you expect Murray to have had of his state’s history at that same age.
A KKK rally in some Iowa city that took place tow decades before Murray was born wasn’t likely to be even briefly covered in some high school state history course.
If you believe the KKK was a force in Iowa during the 1980s, then you’re an idiot without the slightest sense of proportion.
‘They’re more likely to be stupid. Even the smart ones are more likely to be stupid at that age.’
stupid as in ‘do stupid things,’ maybe. stupid as in ‘ignorant of basic current events,’ nah….not the ‘smart’ ones.
‘Now that is quite a trick for a white racist in the 1960s to pull off, don’t you think?’
Not really. One does not have to be equally racist against all groups. HBD’ers give a lot of lip service to Asians and dislike ‘NAMs.’
‘ I’d be shocked if the Murray household in Newton, Iowa had more than two TV stations in 1960.’
No radios either? No national broadcasts? No Newspapers? WOW! lol.
‘Why would any kid know some trivial episode in his state’s history?’
Because people talk? You’re just trying to shoehorn “trivial” into “brief.” The state was bordered by three other states that were heavy into Jim Crow. To suggest that these discussions didn’t take place, at the very least in broader conversations about race, is to suggest an implausibility.
‘If you believe the KKK was a force in Iowa during the 1980s, then you’re an idiot without the slightest sense of proportion.’
in dubuque? I said regain ground.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Dubuque,_Iowa#Racial_problems
There’s nothing “basic” about civil rights’ symbolism to a teenager in an era before even Hollywood movies routinely featured cross burnings. It’s all part of the background. Adult stuff. And hence uninteresting to most kids, even to most smart kids.
In the 1960s????
Look, you keep losing the chronology of the story. Murray married a Thai Chinese woman in *1966.* That was well before HBD existed in the way you now understand it. And white racists in the sixties didn’t feel any special affiliation with Asians.
Getting married to someone of another race is also quite different from paying them “lip service.” Hard to fake it when you’re living with someone and she’s bearing your children.
How many burning crosses do you see in a radio program? I’m guessing not many.
Even in an Iowan newspaper in the 1950s, the number of photos with burning crosses in them that caught Murray’s youthful attention probably weren’t many.
And as I suggested earlier, burning crosses weren’t yet a stock item in many films of the fifties, as they are in the later Hollywood period films.
So, yeah, the seventeen-year-old Murray probably would’ve answered correctly if you asked him directly what was the significance of the burning cross in southern culture, but that’s not the same thing as having it drilled in your head to the point there’s no mistaking it.
No, it’s not just brief. It’s trivial. Burning crosses and holding a Klan rally may shock your modern sensibilities, but there’s no evidence it shocked so many people at the time – even people who were opposed to them – that they were still widely talking about it decades later.
Hell, most people couldn’t even remember Senator Robert Byrd was once a Grand Poobah in the Klan early in his political career while he was still alive and passing legislation.
What ground is there to regain?
If you can prove the Klan has more than one percent of any Iowa’s town population, no matter how small and backward, as dues-paying members, I’ll eat my sweaty baseball cap that I wear when I work out.
Martini’s folksy turn of phrase and his Americophilia show he’s just another hick like Cockring. Don’t deign argue with him.
“Hey guys, I’ve got an idea. Let’s nail two boards together and set it on fire in front of the police station.”
“Uhhh. Why? Why in God’s name should we do that?”
“Uhhh…’cause…Yeah. That’s it. That’s the ticket. Just ’cause.”
Hit me! Hit me!
‘There’s nothing “basic” about civil rights’ symbolism to a teenager in an era before even Hollywood movies routinely featured cross burnings. It’s all part of the background. Adult stuff. ‘
were they not reported in newspapers? were they not discussed on the radio? was civil rights not reported in newspapers and or discussed on the radio, too?
oh did birth of a nation, one of the most watched and famous movies of all time not feature a burning cross?
you are just asserting this and that without a care in the world! look at you go!
‘In the 1960s????’
yes, in the 60’s it was possible to be more racist against group A than group B.
‘How many burning crosses do you see in a radio program? I’m guessing not many.
Even in an Iowan newspaper in the 1950s, the number of photos with burning crosses in them that caught Murray’s youthful attention probably weren’t many.
And as I suggested earlier, burning crosses weren’t yet a stock item in many films of the fifties, as they are in the later Hollywood period films.’
more ridiculous speculation.
‘So, yeah, the seventeen-year-old Murray probably would’ve answered correctly if you asked him directly what was the significance of the burning cross in southern culture, but that’s not the same thing as having it drilled in your head to the point there’s no mistaking it.’
surreal. you agree he probably KNEW what the MOST COMMON meaning of the act was, but somehow, independently, when he did it, that meaning never came to him?
‘Burning crosses and holding a Klan rally may shock your modern sensibilities, but there’s no evidence it shocked so many people at the time – even people who were opposed to them – that they were still widely talking about it decades later.’
if it didn’t shock the populace, why was the Klan driven out? people just passively said ‘we’d rather not?’
“One Klan meeting near the Center Grove section of the city degenerated into a huge fight when anti-klan demonstrators attacked Klan members.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Dubuque,_Iowa#After_the_Civil_War
yeah. no one was shocked. no one was appalled. the presence of such antipathy suggests AWARENESS.
‘What ground is there to regain?
If you can prove the Klan has more than one percent of any Iowa’s town population, no matter how small and backward, as dues-paying members, I’ll eat my sweaty baseball cap that I wear when I work out.’
no thanks. how about you demonstrate that Charles Murray had a plausible explanation for his belief that cross burning wasn’t racist; or in other words, that Charles Murray was telling the truth when he spun that tale.
you’ve yet to do so. someone who grew up near him knew about it. a town close by had racial issues. the country at large was embroiled in a civil rights struggle that was documented by media at the time. the act he ‘randomly’ decided to partake in just ‘happened’ to mirror an extremely racist act. his later thesis casts blacks as irredeemably inferior.
yet apparently he just had no clue. lol.
Poor Jorgeous. He always tells himself not to argue with me, and then he argues with me.
That boy just can’t quit me.
ridicule not ague.
…your tortured reasoning…
Martini can put words together, but he can’t think.
It’s a very rare intellectual handicap.
although it is common in journalists and soi-disant belletrists.
‘ The mean was almost exactly in the middle so no evidence of the sample being skewed by outliers.’
it doesnt take many 0’s or 1’s to drag down a data set that consists of mostly 10+’s.
the fact that the SD was 4.5 makes an individual far MORE likely to have been put into an “overeducated” home than they would have been in the general populous.
it could also be a flatter but longer distribution curve as compared to the population’s, but the left side of the MZA curve overlaps pretty much the entire (steeper) population curve.
so you’re still failing to capture the actual population’s variability….
keep in mind this is just one small example among many.
Swanky Pete,
There was a group of kids and hence plenty of peers to imitate. How do you know it was Murray’s idea to do it?
Besides, you have yet to explain the weighty symbolism of the marshmallows being left behind.
doesn’t matter if it was Murray’s idea. what matters is whether he would have known the action’s racial implications.
re: marshmallows…you mean to say that leaving behind a calling card — a method of owning an act — somehow negates any racial symbolism? hbd-ah, please.
Maybe. If we were living in a Stalinist country, where the brain washing took place early and often.
But he was a kid. In a free country. Where blacks were thin on the ground.
Kids do stupid things all the time without realizing their implications. Even young adults who aren’t kids do stupid things.
yeah, a kid who is 10 or 11 maybe. NOT a kid who is 17. not buying it, chief. esp with an act as strongly ingrained in American culture as cross-burning, undertaken during a time of high racial tension. your argument depends on him being ignorant and it’s implausible — even per the statements of a gentleman who grew up close to Murray.
…not buying it, chief. esp with an act as strongly ingrained in American culture as cross-burning
You’re assuming some static American culture in which the important symbolism of one era is equivalent in importance to the symbolism of another quite different era.
In short, you’re buying that there’s something static about American culture.
But just as Americans once had very different views on race, so they once had very different views on the symbolism surrounding race. What was taught in the schools, even schools that might have been thought progressive, was quite different from what would be taught in a much later period.
Ahhh. Now I understand.
In 1960 cross burning was the latest fad. Everyone was doin’ it. It was cool. Burning a cross was like a Members Only jacket or parachute pants or a mullet.
Which reminds me I found this picture of Pincher.
I’m not nearly as handsome as that hayseed, Jorgeous. He ought to be in the movies.
‘You’re assuming some static American culture in which the important symbolism of one era is equivalent in importance to the symbolism of another quite different era.’
im assuming that X act has been associated with Y feature of culture for some time, yes. you are free to demonstrate cross-burnings in America that were not racist or tied to racism.
‘ In the early 20th century, the Klan burned crosses on hillsides or near the homes of those they wished to intimidate.’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_burning
weird he just happened to burn the cross on a hilside. i guess he didnt realize that was keeping in conformity with Klan practice, eh? lololol. of course you think G + E = P.
Sleeping in another man’s bed has been associated with homosexuality for some time, but that doesn’t mean Abe Lincoln was thought to be gay by his contemporaries because he slept in another man’s bed.
Find a single popular movie in the late fifties that Murray might have conceivably seen that showed cross burning. You know, since you say the association was so stark even a kid in 1960 should immediately apprehend it.
And, no, radio shows don’t count.
Yeah, it probably spooked those white policemen much more because it was up on a hill than it would have it the kids had burned it in a valley. Imagine how scared those policemen were after they found the marshmallows.
‘Sleeping in another man’s bed has been associated with homosexuality for some time, but that doesn’t mean Abe Lincoln was thought to be gay by his contemporaries because he slept in another man’s bed.’
lol how sloppy. during that time period sleeping in a bed another man was not strongly associated with homosexuality.
in 1960 cross burning was strongly associated with racism.
you are free to demonstrate — like i said earlier — that cross burning was associated with something else during 1960’s.
‘Find a single popular movie in the late fifties that Murray might have conceivably seen that showed cross burning. You know, since you say the association was so stark even a kid in 1960 should immediately apprehend it.’
lol keep moving those goalposts. i name a famous, well-known CLASSIC movie. now that’s not good enough, so it must be a late fifty’s movie. of course, it wouldn’t have to be in a movie for the association to be “so stark even a kid in 1960 should immediately apprehend it.”
not that it matters, but lol
The Burning Cross (1947)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040194/plotsummary?ref_=tt_ov_pl
The FBI Story (1959)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052792/
‘And, no, radio shows don’t count.’
for what reason, you refuse to say.
your case rests on extreme implausibility.
Swanky Pete,
But it is today – and it was understood to be as such in 1865 in a certain sense, too. Just not nearly to the same degree. It’s what I would call faintly anachronistic.
You made the same mistake by trying to argue that Murray’s decision to marry an Asian women in 1966 was somehow related to HBDers *today* being less hostile to Asians than blacks. You’re once again using attitudes in the present to explain behaviors in the past, even though present attitudes about these issues don’t fully encompass past attitudes about them.
Well, crosses have been burned on many occasions for reasons having nothing to do with race. But all I want to do is demonstrate that a young Iowan kid in 1960 could’ve burned a cross without having a racist reason for doing so.
I admit that cross burning in America in 1960 – even in Iowa, even in a place without black people, even for a young kid – wouldn’t have had any other well-known implications other than race. But that’s not the same thing as saying that the connection is as clear to a young person back then today as it is to us today.
Because burning cross is about imagery and a radio program doesn’t deal in images.
******
As for your movie selections, The Burning Cross came out when Murray was four years old, so it’s unlikely he ever saw it. The film also doesn’t appear to have been popular or to have had any well-known stars in it, so it’s unlikely it would’ve been reissued.
The FBI Story is certainly more appropriate. Murray very well may have seen that movie in Iowa since it starred James Stewart and it came out when Murray was sixteen years old. The film also deals with the KKK and organized crime.
But in reading the plot, I can’t find anything about a burning cross. So once again you’ve given me something without the critical imagery that you claim the 17-year-old Murray would have known was racist beyond any doubt, because it was seared in his mind as such.
Why bring up the movie at all if it doesn’t have a burning cross?
so stupid and boring, yet so verbose.
Now is that an argument or ridicule, Jorgeous, because it fails at both.
how would you know?
Because I’m better at both than you are.
And like I told you, Jorgeous, you can’t resist talking to me. You can promise not to, you can try to convince others not to, but you’ll eventually be drawn back to me because what else do you possibly have to look forward to in your life other than my abuse?
‘and it was understood to be as such in 1865 in a certain sense, too. Just not nearly to the same degree. It’s what I would call faintly anachronistic.’
No it wasn’t. If by degree you mean ‘nearly zero,’ then sure.
‘As noted above, in 19th-century America, men commonly bunked with other men.’
Their intimacy is more an index to an era when close male friendships, accompanied by open expressions of affection and passion, were familiar and socially acceptable. Nor can sharing a bed be considered evidence for an erotic involvement. It was a common practice in an era when private quarters were a rare luxury… The attorneys of the Eighth circuit in Illinois where Lincoln would travel regularly shared beds. ‘
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_of_Abraham_Lincoln#Co-sleeping
‘You made the same mistake by trying to argue that Murray’s decision to marry an Asian women in 1966 was somehow related to HBDers *today* being less hostile to Asians than blacks.’
No you just confused a general principle with a particular example of a principle — don’t look now, but your limitations are showing. Principle: people can be more racist against one group than another group. Example: Hbd’s relationship with Asians versus Blacks. Next.
‘Well, crosses have been burned on many occasions for reasons having nothing to do with race. But all I want to do is demonstrate that a young Iowan kid in 1960 could’ve burned a cross without having a racist reason for doing so.’
Yes, in Scotland. Doesn’t seem like America, to me. Doesn’t seem to have much, if any, bearing on 1960 America. Lol so sloppy.
Ah, the last refuge of befoggers — “possibility.” Anything is possible. The question concerns plausibility. You have failed to furnish any plausible alternative explanation.
‘Because burning cross is about imagery and a radio program doesn’t deal in images.’
I see, so reports about cross burning would have zero informational value. nonsense. next.
‘As for your movie selections, The Burning Cross came out when Murray was four years old, so it’s unlikely he ever saw it. The film also doesn’t appear to have been popular or to have had any well-known stars in it, so it’s unlikely it would’ve been reissued.
The FBI Story is certainly more appropriate. Murray very well may have seen that movie in Iowa since it starred James Stewart and it came out when Murray was sixteen years old. The film also deals with the KKK and organized crime.’
They’re both appropriate because both indicate a culture fully aware of cross burning’s racial implications. stop trying to hinge this discussion on whether Charles Murray may have seen a movie depicting cross burning. It’s nonsensical.
Swankster,
Above zero is still not zero.
The point is to recognize that a changing and somewhat ambiguous view of the matter exists.
It’s simply not plausible to believe that a man in the 1960s could be racist enough to burn crosses because he hated blacks so much that he could find no other way to express himself (even though he clearly didn’t know any blacks), and then completely abandon racism six years later by marrying out of his own race in a way that was striking for a white American to do at that time.
I didn’t say they have zero informational value, but they clearly don’t have the same impact, otherwise racists would just talk about burning crosses and never actually burn any.
Idiot. We’re talking about whether the young Murray fully understood the implications of burning a cross here, not whether he knew that racism or the KKK existed. So if you’re unable to find some movie that had a burning cross in it that Murray might’ve seen, then you must admit that the imagery at the time wasn’t as widely and powerfully broadcasted as it would later become.
well of course such a view exists.
it’s the view of morons like Martini.
Swanky,
A lot of people make this mistake. They think that because something was important when and where they grew up, that it must have also been just as important, and in just the same sort of way, when and where other people grew up.
A burning cross is a standard negative narrative image in today’s cinema and popular culture. You can find them in hundreds of movies over the last forty years, and they are always associated with the bad guys.
But that doesn’t mean the image was always so facilely and effortlessly associated with the bad guys, especially in a culture that hasn’t been as marinated in images as ours has been.
In fact, as recently as The Birth of a Nation, a major filmmaker could get away with showing the burning cross in a positive light, and might have even earned the positive endorsement of a president for doing so. Murray’s youthful flag burning (1960) is closer to Griffith’s movie (1915) in time than it is to us today.
That’s cross burning, of course, not flag burning.
now i’m thinking swank is a moron too.
swank.
why are entertaining this guy?
Like you, he has nothing better to do with his time.
The more critical question is, why am I wasting my time with you?
Jorgeous,
You’re an underachiever with a small dick and a harelip, and it makes your palms sweaty hoping no one else discovers that truth about you.
lol watching someone try to square peg round hole cross-burning into non-racism is funny….idc wat anyone says
if you had a better sense of history, nothing I told you would be surprising. Perspectives change. What was recently on the margins of acceptable discourse is now clearly out of bounds. What was once flirtation is now sexual harassment. What was once colorful language is now hate language. What were once juvenile pranks everyone outgrew are now signs of social maladjustment that linger. (And vice versa. The lines move the other way, too.)
Murray obviously didn’t burn a cross to make a racial statement. The context just doesn’t fit. I agree he most likely knew at the time the implications of burning a cross, but it’s unlikely that’s the first thought that crossed his mind that night.
Murray’s little gang of racist ruffians didn’t seek out a black family to target. They targeted the police station, a clear sign they were more rebellious than racist. Why a cross? They probably wanted to mindfuck the locals. They knew such an act was associated with bad people who weren’t welcome in Iowa.
Then they sat around and roasted marshmallows.
yes your bullshit doesn’t surprise me.
‘They knew such an act was associated with bad people who weren’t welcome in Iowa.’
lol which bad people? the only people who had burned crosses in Iowa before and were subsequently driven out? the people YOU SAID that it WAS UNLIKELY Murray knew anything about?
best kind of cretin is an unknowing cretin.
Swanky Pete,
You’re not paying attention, are you?
The “bad people” of the time would be those kind of people, like white southerners, who usually voted for the Democrats – in other words, the kind of people who took the opposite party line most Iowans usually took, and who had a culture most Iowans didn’t respect.
The bad people could also be loosely associated with white Catholics, who usually voted for the Democrats, and who had a candidate at the top of the Democratic ticket in 1960. (Iowa voted for Nixon in 1960.)
In fact, it never occurred to me until just now that Murray’s little ruffians might have been fucking with the local Catholics in the state, the ones who would be voting for JFK later that year, by burning their cross. There are a lot more Catholics in Iowa than there are blacks. One quarter of the state today is Catholic. So if there was a social schism that young people in Iowa might’ve picked up on and decided to have fun with in 1960, it was more likely to be anti-Catholic sentiment than anti-black sentiment.
I don’t expect a group of seventeen year olds to have all the politics figured out, but they probably picked up a political signal here and there from their parents, and then went out to have some fun with it.
‘The “bad people” of the time would be those kind of people, like white southerners, who usually voted for the Democrats – in other words, the kind of people who took the opposite party line most Iowans usually took, and who had a culture most Iowans didn’t respect.’
oh soooo he knows about the nuances of those political battles, but HE HAS NO IDEA about the KKK and cross burning? unreal idiocy, here.
‘I don’t expect a group of seventeen year olds to have all the politics figured out, but they probably picked up a political signal here and there from their parents, and then went out to have some fun with it.’
more contradictory “logic.” they happen to pick up a political signal here and there WHEN CONVENIENT for your dumbassed narrative, but for some reason COULDN’T HAVE “picked up” a narrative where cross burning was racist.
hbders have no IQ, low IQ, or at best, mediocre IQ — on display for the world. lololol.
Read the full post, Swanky, before allowing your sticky, twiggy fingers to hit the keyboard.
burning the cross had a racist implication in Birth of a Nation. racism was more positively viewed at the time. DUCY this does nothing to harm my contention and nothing to help yours?
im not making a mistake. in America, during the time period in question, cross burning was associated with racism. you keep trying to dodge, duck, dip, dodge, and duck around that fact.
I already admitted to you that there is no other possible implication to be drawn by an American from burning a cross, if one is to draw an implication from the act at all. Even in 1960’s Iowa. Even by a young kid.
But one can imbibe the ambiguous attitudes of a time unthinkingly. Just as one can hear the racist words of father and unthinkingly use those words in a context without any clear malicious intent and then be shocked to later discover that some people were offended by your language. And then grow up to be ashamed that you used those words. I don’t think that’s an uncommon event.
Yeah you’re just talking in circles about what is possible. No one gives a shit . All that matters is what is likely to be the case.
swank, you have no obligation to engage with racist morons like Martini.
do you have some fear that they might be right?
You certainly have that fear, Jorgeous. Why else do you spend your entire day lurking around HBD sites making the same damn arguments again and again and again?
It gives me pleasure to reveal the supreme irony of hbders. Those who tout IQ’s importance are consistently revealed to either lack much of it or show that the trait must be useless in practice.
Why would I have that fear?
I’m an HBDer’s superman.
100% Western European.
6’1″ with a ginormous head and broad shoulders to match.
I look like the aristocrat bully in some BBC scholastic drama.
BGI volunteer.
My dad even graduated Harvard close to Murray.
Get real motherfucker.
(Reposted again in the correct place)
Jorgeous,
You’re an underachiever with a small dick and a harelip, and it makes your palms sweaty hoping no one else discovers that truth about you.
Swanky Pete,
Well, I agree with you about that.
And what is likely to be the case is that a seventeen year old kid in Iowa, in a town with almost no blacks, and a state with no significant history of malicious racism, who later goes abroad to join the Peace Corps, and then marries an exotic woman in a period of American history when that was so uncommon as to be striking, is not signaling any racist intent by burning a cross in front of a police station while eating marshmallows. He’s bonding with his peers by sharing in some elaborate juvenile prank.
That’s far more likely than the malicious scenario you’ve drawn up.
It’s good you can get your pleasure somewhere, Swanky, other than from self-flagellation, of course.
Scratch that. Pinchers just a straight up apologist. Are all whites no longer racists because they elected BO, too?
He probably wasn’t rayciss aginst tha blacks becawse he had marreeed an asian. Ah reeson reel nice
no hare lip, a big dick, and an underachiever only by the rather dim lights of HBDers, who assume IQ and achievement are much much more strongly correlated than they are in fact, especially in ‘mer’ca. i make enough for me.
REPOSTED FOR CLARITY
Nope. Most whites weren’t racist in any meaningful sense long before Barack Obama ever got to the scene. His election was a confirmation of what most people already knew.
Love that fake Asian banter of yours, Swanky. You’ve clearly gone to the Jorgeous Jorge finishing school for how to insult Steve Hsu.
Feels so good to use racial stereotypes to combat the real racists, doesn’t it?
‘Nope. Most whites weren’t racist in any meaningful sense long before Barack Obama ever got to the scene. His election was a confirmation of what most people already knew.’
for this sweeping claim you cite to nothing per fucking usual. wat a joke.
‘Love that fake Asian banter of yours, Swanky. You’ve clearly gone to the Jorgeous Jorge finishing school for how to insult Steve Hsu.
Feels so good to use racial stereotypes to combat the real racists, doesn’t it?’
oh it was actually a redneck accent. guess im not so good at faking one. im sure you could show me how to perfect it.
It’s close enough to zero to show how inept your analogy is tho.
He didn’t need to abandon racism at all. Once again it is more than possible to dislike one group and be neutral to another group.
They clearly don’t have the same impact? To apprise an individual of what certain acts mean? Nonsense strikes again.
Last if the culture widely recognizes racism and is cognizant of the many actions associated with it, this is evidence in favor of greater awareness.
You have still failed to present any plausible contemporary alternative understanding of the action….tellingly.
“He didn’t need to abandon racism at all. Once again it is more than possible to dislike one group and be neutral to another group.”
Not to the degree you’re claiming. No, it’s not.
I’m pretty sure the number of men who burned crosses in the 1950s and 60s because they hated blacks, and then left the country and married outside of their race before Loving v Virginia is close to being a set of one.
Which if you’re sensible ought to make you reexamine your priors.
Any rube who studies basic rhetoric recognizes that words are about far more than their informational content. And Marshall McLuhan wasn’t the first man to recognize that the media matters for a message.
To claim that because a teenager probably heard a radio news program which spoke about burning crosses that he absorbed the full emotional impact and implications is bullshit. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
It’s not possible to despise one group more than another? Ok….
And not really. Fucking or even marrying outside one’s race is not proof of total racial tolerance. Unless you want to argue Thomas Jefferson wasn’t racist.
Oh now my argument is just that some radio program informed this sensibility? Nice try. Not really. The argument is that many such messages conveyed in many different types of mediums probably
put lil Murray on notice.
Not only was Jefferson a racist. He was an all-’round douche. Just like ‘mer’ca.
What a bizarre inference.
I said that a demonstrative American racist in the sixties, one who you accuse of deliberately using painful images to hurt others during what was still a turbulent and critical time in the Civil Rights era, was highly unlikely to move from one extreme to the other.
Jefferson did not marry Sally Hemings.
A racist can, of course, fuck a member of any race, even a despised one, and until birth control became common, that often resulted in a child.
But the racist wouldn’t marry that person before the law. He wouldn’t bequeath her and her children most of his property. He wouldn’t have her children recognized as his children in society.
Murray did all of that, and he did it before Loving v Virginia.
Good luck finding all those 1960s’ racists who joined the Peace Corps, traveled to exotic lands, married one of the locals, and then came back to join Harvard to propagate more racism.
Quite a tricky racist dude, that Charles Murray.
Except that when I ask you to provide proof of this, you can’t. The image is strikingly absent from contemporary cinema, for example.
It’s not one extreme to the other if he has disdain against just one group. It’s a very simple principle that you’re trying to ignore outright. No sale.
Your next argument is the culmination of hbder tactics — the burden shift. Common understanding of cross burning is what I say it is. Burden is on you to show the act means otherwise.
And actually I gave several reasons to believe Murray was aware. A healthy national dialogue on the issue, historical activity in a nearby town, popular media regarding racism and cross burning.
All you have offered to meet YOUR burden is a suggestion that his non-racism was possible. No dice, kid.
swank,
pink martini has never, really, NEVER said ANYTHING substantive.
he is just a very loud noisy vacuum. he’s a human shop vac. he loves to suck.
why?
because he doesn’t understand the issues. AT ALL.
i found this video of pink martini.
he understands enough to know that Murray and co. need obfuscating shills, lest people realize that it’s just bullshit, bullshit all the way down.
Swanky Pete,
You’re trying to sell the unlikely possibility that the 17-year-old Murray hated black folks so much (despite hardly ever seeing any, and despite living in a state and locale where indoctrinated race hatred in education was unknown) that he and a few of his pals had to burn a cross to let everyone in town know just how they felt – and then ate a few marshmallows while they vented their hate.
Then you have this same Murray deciding just a few years later to marry a handicapped Thai Chinese women, because all of us know just how much cross-burning white supremacists in the sixties were breaking down other racial barriers, even as they tried to hold up the walls of segregation against blacks.
I know you don’t know any U.S. history, but anyone who burnt a cross in 1960 – with the earnest intent of letting people in his town know how someone in the neighborhood felt about blacks – also hated Jews, Catholics, Asians, and anyone swarthy enough to stand out in what was still a 90-percent white majority country and a 99-percent white state.
So the only principle you’re trying to uphold is the one in which Abe Lincoln and Joshua Speed are lovers because they slept in the same bed.
REPOSTED FOR CLARITY
Swanky Pete,
You’re trying to sell the unlikely possibility that the 17-year-old Murray hated black folks so much (despite hardly ever seeing any, and despite living in a state and locale where indoctrinated race hatred in education was unknown) that he and a few of his pals had to burn a cross to let everyone in town know just how they felt – and then ate a few marshmallows while they vented their hate.
Then you have this same Murray deciding just a few years later to marry a handicapped Thai Chinese women, because all of us know just how much cross-burning white supremacists in the sixties were breaking down other racial barriers, even as they tried to hold up the walls of segregation against blacks.
I know you don’t know any U.S. history, but anyone who burnt a cross in 1960 – with the earnest intent of letting people in his town know how someone in the neighborhood felt about blacks – also hated Jews, Catholics, Asians, and anyone swarthy enough to stand out in what was still a 90-percent white majority country and a 99-percent white state.
So the only principle you’re trying to uphold is the one in which Abe Lincoln and Joshua Speed are lovers because they slept in the same bed.
No one assigned you to be the mindreader of Murray’s younger self, however much you might feel you’re up for the task. You still have to make a case, and you’re making it poorly.
You’ve proven no such thing.
1) There was no “healthy national dialogue” on cross burning. Yes, civil rights was a burning national issue at the time, but how many seventeen year olds would have concerned themselves with something like that when their state and locality didn’t have reason to?
2) The historical activity in Iowa you linked to is a joke. Something like that obviously won’t be covered in a survey course in high school.
3) You’ve shown no proof that the popular media covered cross burning as heavily as it has more recently.
Where were you when you were seventeen years old? What year was it? I guarantee you knew far less about your state’s history, the burning issues of the nation, and what the media was covering, than you think you knew. Even now I bet I could school you on it.
Another précis of Prof. Shoe’s stupidty (and he’s the cleverest of the HBD-tards):
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/wright.pdf
80 years apart I was Engels to Wright’s Marx. We came to the same conclusions independently.
Some quotes:
…it may be taken as certain that there will be an enormous number of widely separated harmonious combinations [sc. fitness or phenotypic peaks].”
The population is thus confined to an infintessimal portion possible gene combinations…
One possibility is that one particular combination gives maximum adaptation and that the adaptiveness of the other combinations falls off more or less regularly according to the number of removes.
For Prof. Shoe and other simple benighted dumbasses this is the only possibility.
…there may be innumerable other peaks which are higher but which are separated by “valleys.” [sic]
Uhhh drrr Videla.
According to Wikipedia this guy’s parents were first cousins.
Never mind.
This guy’s not an authority.
But he should be for HBDers.
No HBDer has more than 6 great grandparents. Cockring has only two.
His mother and father, grandmother and grandfather were sister and brother.
Genetics do matter.
Leave the jokes to someone who actually knows how to tell them, Jorgeous.
so keep telling them?
sorry about your having only five great grandparents.
but it’s not my fault.
Yeah, Jorgeous, double down on the unfunny.
I can see you believe that the key to getting laughs is to take a hackneyed line, one not even slightly funny when you first told it, and run it into the ground.
‘You’re trying to sell the unlikely possibility ‘
Unlikely only by assertion.
‘There was no “healthy national dialogue” on cross burning. Yes, civil rights was a burning national issue at the time, but how many seventeen year olds would have concerned themselves with something like that when their state and locality didn’t have reason to?’
A) you bear the burden of proof, imbecile.
B) An individual who grew up near Mr. Murray stated he knew about cross-burning.
‘) The historical activity in Iowa you linked to is a joke. Something like that obviously won’t be covered in a survey course in high school.’
how the fuck would you know? FYI, wild speculation != facts.
‘3) You’ve shown no proof that the popular media covered cross burning as heavily as it has more recently.’
I have no such burden you asshat. you need to show a plausible alternative meaning behind cross burning. You have already admitted that the cultural inference an American would draw from cross burning in 1960 was ‘racism.’
‘Where were you when you were seventeen years old? What year was it? I guarantee you knew far less about your state’s history, the burning issues of the nation, and what the media was covering, than you think you knew. Even now I bet I could school you on it.’
par for the speculating course with you. and we’ve seen your attempts to fish out historical norms — pretty piss poor indeed.
‘No one assigned you to be the mindreader of Murray’s younger self, however much you might feel you’re up for the task.’
‘I already admitted to you that there is no other possible implication to be drawn by an American from burning a cross,’
which is it you dumb motherfucker? is common understanding of a burning cross what i say it is or is it not? retard.
‘I know you don’t know any U.S. history, but anyone who burnt a cross in 1960 ‘
no, you dont know anything about U.S. history. take a look at anti-miscegenation laws, imbecile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States#Anti-miscegenation_laws_enacted_in_the_Thirteen_Colonies_and_the_United_States
many, if not most, prevented whites from marrying BLACKS ONLY ONLY. what does that tell you, idiot? prejudice against ONE GROUP was far stronger than another group, esp with regard to marriage.
Swanky Pete,
Unlikely by context.
This is not some backwards court of law, you doddering dildo, where burning crosses equal guilt until proven otherwise.
The burden is on both of us. Each of us have to prove our case. And the only way to do that is by referring to the times and the place where Murray grew up, to his age, and to other events in his life.
Because it’s far too small an incident, you bloviating retard, one without historical consequence for the state.
Hell, the history of eugenics wasn’t even covered when I was growing up in California, and that’s far more important to California history than some KKK rally and a couple of burning crosses were to Iowa in the 1920s. We barely touched on Progressivism in the state, and not one of us understand the significance of that movement when we were first taught about it.
I could go on and on about the lack of coverage in high school history courses, both for state and U.S. history. In fact, I could do the same for college courses. Just based on how little you show you know about American history, I’m sure you don’t know jackshit about your own state’s history, yet here you sit in judgment about what you think the seventeen year old Murray ought to have known about some trivial incident in Iowa that took place in 1925.
Answer the question, you pussy. Then no one will have to speculate.
Where were you at when you were seventeen? I want to have some fun fucking with your historical ignorance.
I gave a plausible meaning to it: IT WAS A JUVENILE PRANK WITHOUT RACIAL SIGNIFICANCE.
Surely the word “imbecile” going from you to me is the least plausible direction of that insult.
I never claimed Murray was doing something illegal by marrying an Asian woman in 1966. At least not in most states.
But there was still a strong social sanction against interracial marriage at the time, as evidenced by how Whites viewed the one minority (i.e. blacks) that was actually widespread and conspicuous.
Asians (and Hispanics) were such a tiny minority of the U.S. population in the 1960s that it probably never occurred to most white Americans in most corners of the country to outlaw marriage to them. Social prohibitions, traditional attitudes, and the lack of raw numbers was enough to discourage it in most states.
Still, some states did have the prohibition on the books until Loving v Virginia, which you ought to know if you read your link.
‘Unlikely by context.’
you mean the social context which you admitted would make ‘racism’ the most likely inference an American would draw from the act? lol.
‘This is not some backwards court of law, you doddering dildo, where burning crosses equal guilt until proven otherwise.’
because you don’t know how to argue:
“the burden of proof, or the responsibility to provide evidence and reasoning for one claim or the other, lies with those seeking to persuade someone holding the default position.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof#In_public_discourse
you admit the default position is what i say it is. the burden is on you to go forward and show that a) the default position is incorrect or b) that the default position should not apply here.
‘yet here you sit in judgment about what you think the seventeen year old Murray ought to have known about some trivial incident in Iowa that took place in 1925.’
no, it was one reason among MANY that lil Murray was likely on notice of the fact that cross burning = racist.
‘I gave a plausible meaning to it: IT WAS A JUVENILE PRANK WITHOUT RACIAL SIGNIFICANCE.’
no, you gave a possible meaning. learn what “plausible” means. you can’t give any other reasonable understanding of cross burning in 1960 America but a racial understanding, yet somehow think it’s ‘plausible’ that in this instance it meant nothing…no sale, dumb-dumb.
‘Asians (and Hispanics) were such a tiny minority of the U.S. population in the 1960s that it probably never occurred to most white Americans in most corners of the country to outlaw marriage to them. ‘
lol such a dumbfuck. plenty of the states on that list had vanishingly small black populations, yet somehow managed to prohibit only interracial black marriage.
a) are you saying that these local areas were somehow aware of NATIONAL TRENDS? funny how they are aware of national phenomena when convenient for you, but totally UNAWARE when inconvenient for you. idiot.
b) you are unwittingly proving my point even if we accept your stupid proposition as true — lack of exposure equals lack of a prejudice
‘Still, some states did have the prohibition on the books until Loving v Virginia, which you ought to know if you read your link.’
most of those were black only. so lol. constant self-contradiction from you.
Swanky Pete,
I see you’re not up for the Pepsi Challenge. Well, I can’t say I’m surprised. I’m sure at the age of seventeen you were still fingering your nose while pretending it was some sixteen year old’s panties.
No, I meant the *entire* context, Goofball. Murray’s age, his state and hometown’s demographics, his state’s history, the place where the burning cross was lit (i.e., in view of a police station), the marshmallows, his subsequent marriage to an Asian, etc.
I know you’re having a hard time keeping all those balls in the air at the same time, but do try to keep up.
I’m not seeking to persuade you of anything, Ace. You’re too much the idiotic ideologue to matter. I’m playing to the peanut gallery.
And there is no “default position.”
Just because you can google something about Iowa and cross burning on the internet doesn’t mean it was in Murray’s high school course work in 1960.
You do realize black people in the post-Civil War period could cross state borders, right? I hope they didn’t skip black migration in your history courses, as they appear to have done with so much else. That’s kind of an important topic.
So the overall black population in the U.S. is what matters. That’s most likely why even lily-white states like North Dakota or Montana didn’t take any chances with it. They knew there was no way to keep them out of the state altogether since they were American citizens.
Historical population trends also explain why Western states were so much more likely to ban marriage between Asians and whites. The whites in those western states felt threatened by Asian immigration during the mid- to late-19th century in a way the whites in the East and the South never felt. That’s why there were bans on Asian/White intermarriage in what today seem to be unlikely places for virulent racists, such as Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, Montana. Many of those bans lasted until the 1960s.
But since the Asian population shrank over time, after the passage of the anti-Asian immigration laws, there was no need to be sticklers for the marriage laws against Asians, and eventually in places like California and Oregon, they were repealed, modified, or ignored long before Loving v Virginia became the law of the land.
I know that’s a lot of history to give ann idiot, but someone else will read it even if you can’t.
“Why would I have that fear?
I’m an HBDer’s superman.
100% Western European.
6’1″ with a ginormous head and broad shoulders to match.
I look like the aristocrat bully in some BBC scholastic drama.
BGI volunteer.
My dad even graduated Harvard close to Murray.
Get real motherfucker.“
You guys are funny, 🙂
‘mer’ca is funny.
😉