A blog commentator named “Swanknasty” wrote: Blacks have probably contributed as much if not more to popular art through music than whites in white society. Indeed blacks are dramatically over-represented in certain forms of popular art, not music only. Who’s the most successful broadcaster in American history? Oprah. Who’s the most successful music star in American history? Michael Jackson. Who’s the most successful comic in American history? Bill Cosby. Who’s the only living American Nobel Prize winning novelist? Toni Morrison. Who’s arguably the greatest American orator of the 20th century? Martin Luther King. Blacks are only about 12% of America, yet they are #1 in one form of art after another. Coincidence? I don’t think so.
Now some people might say it’s affirmative action creating more opportunity for blacks to enter certain fields, but affirmative action was largely just a correction for past, and to a lesser degree, current, discrimination; there’s very little evidence it’s given blacks an unfair advantage at the highest levels of the “free market”. Blacks are less than 0.25% of American billionaires despite being over 10% of Harvard graduates, so while affirmation helps blacks get all the right credentials, it doesn’t appear to help them rise to the top in the real world. And yet when it comes to the arts which requires no credentials, they do rise to the top with great efficiency, despite averaging lower IQ scores than other Americans.
In order to explain this, one should note that all modern humans can trace their ancestry to a single black woman who lived in Africa 200,000 years ago. Because early forms of the black phenotype emerged so early in human history, I believe they have preserved certain ancient traits such as relatively high social IQ and relatively high rhythm IQ which was useful for attracting numerous mates, however when humans left Africa and migrated North, evolution placed more emphasis on pure survival and less emphasis on prolific mating, so not only did sex organs and testosterone decrease, but social IQ and rhythm IQ became relatively low, and technological IQ became relatively high, as g (general intelligence) increased. In addition, moving North increased mental stability, and too much mental stability impairs creativity.
This does not necessarily mean blacks are more creative than whites or even as creative as whites, but what it does mean is that when a black and white both have a true overall IQ (or g level) of around 130, the black will be far more likely to become a creative genius, especially in the arts, because he or she will be typically higher on the non-g components of creativity.
However just as blacks are relatively creative because they branched off the human evolutionary tree early, Northeast Asians might be relatively uncreative because the mongoloid phenotype emerged very late in evolution; at a time when social IQ and rhythm IQ was reduced (relative to g), and mental stability was maximized. This is not to deny the incredible creativity of Northeast Asians, it’s simply to say that there creativity should be higher than whites given their higher overall IQ, yet this doesn’t appear to be the case. So just as blacks are probably higher on the non-g components of creativity than whites, whites are probably higher on the non-g component of creativity than Northeast Asians.
indeed pp has a very low IQ and he lies about his age.
he’s obviously under 13.
He is good with numbers and bad with everything else.
One place where I’ve found blacks to be almost entirely absent is in the painting and illustration world. I follow a lot of top concept artists and illustrators and they are either Asian, Half Asian or White. I remember noting earlier that labeled ‘painting’ as a low IQ part of the arts and I’d agree if we’re talking about the kind of painting that most people do: i.e. colorful flowers, pretty scenes, abstract color splotching and lines. However as you move from those things into portrait and figure painting the need for technical skill and planning goes up exponentially. Likewise with concept art, where you might be asked to mock up an atmospheric treatment of an alien coastline at dusk, or design a futuristic fighter jet and paint it firing its weapons, just feeling your way through is not enough. You need that, you need a feeling for what makes something wild and fun to look at, but you also need to plan like crazy and execute with precision, and you’d better be able to deliver in a few weeks too, or next time they’ll call someone else.
Visual arts probably loads on spatial IQ. Jensen claimed blacks do poorly in spatial visualization even when controlling for g, which would make sense because in warm climates , there was less need to construct shelter, make sharp tools. learn to sew etc
Michael Jackson skillfully practiced a boring, narrow, shallow sub-art (dance-pop). Oprah skillfully practices a boring, narrow, shallow non-art. Many, many White comedians are more amusing and interesting than Bill Cosby. Toni Morrison is second-rate at best. Martin Luther King practiced the standard Black oratorical trick of declaiming platitudes and cliches in a hyper-dramatic manner.
Jimi Hendrix was a first-rate artist with a serious artform (mutant blues). Of course, he spent all of his time with the White people who were the major developers of that artform. Ralph Ellison’s INVISIBLE MAN might be a first-rate novel — it’s got an interesting surreal feel to it that adds an extra dimension to the boring “Black Experience” routine. Maybe there are other examples of first-rate Black artists with serious artforms. Maybe you can come up with some. I don’t think you’ve done so. In any case, the title of your post is, uh, overly enthusiastic.
But you’re a nice person who thinks about interesting things, and I like you and your blog.
The quality of their work is debateable but there’s no disputing the fact that African Americans have disprortionately produced many of the most popular works of art in the world.
Michael Jackson practically invented modern pop. Oprah practically invented modern talk shows.
Why is it hard for an HBDer to give credit to blacks? I think we all know why.
Oh please, Swanky Pete, go back to sleep.
Talk shows were a common staple of American daytime TV long before Oprah ever showed up. You never heard of Merv Griffin or Phil Donahue or Dick Cavett ? These were huge daytime talk shows and they were huge before Oprah ever got out of high school.
And Michael Jackson was the King of Pop, not the originator of it.
Once again, spunky needs to take a closer look at what he reads. Note the qualifier modern before the genres in question.
To Swanky, with his historical amnesia, the word “modern” just means what he can remember.
‘To Swanky, with his historical amnesia, the word “modern” just means what he can remember.’
Typical semantic nattering from spunky. Here, spunky, how about “contemporary.”
Swanky Hipster,
What distinction is there between Phil Donahue, who had a popular and influential daytime talk show from 1970 to 1996, to Oprah’s talk show, which ran from 1986 to 2011? What makes one show “contemporary/modern” and one not?
There are none. You just like speaking gibberish.
You just like trying assert your way out of facts, actually.
Donahue is the originator, but only technically. Donahue gave the structure, so credit where due. But Oprah gave the blueprint for execution. The crux of the talk show as we know it is the style invented by Oprah.
And I don’t even like talk shows. Or Oprah for that matter!
What “blueprint” are you talking about, you slippery eel?
Oprah is just the most popular practitioner of what was already a very common television format when she began her show. That’s it. There’s nothing “modern” or “contemporary” about it. Oprah don’t need a “blueprint”; she just brought a style and sensibility that was more popular in that format than anything that had come before it.
‘Oprah is just the most popular practitioner of what was already a very common television format when she began her show. That’s it.’
No, you just have a very limited grasp on the artistic, which I have shown so many times by now that I could probably sell a “greatest hits” collection.
She revolutionized the genre. That is the word people use to describe what she did. In case you didn’t know, the word means to “change something drastically and fundamentally.”
“Oprah Winfrey revolutionized the talk show market with her unique and natural style”
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2011/05/04/winfrey-inducted-into-illinois-broadcasting-hall-of-fame/
“Oprah Winfrey was not the first person to host a talk show on television. But she revolutionized the genre.”
http://news.discovery.com/human/oprah-winfrey-changed-america-110525.htm
Incidentally, she apparently also revolutionized book publishing, too. That I did not know.
Swanky Hipster tries to sell the Oprah Winfrey Show as some revolutionary way of doing a talk show. He believes he has proven it by referring to a couple of silly articles, one of which talks about Oprah’s revolution resting on her “relentless messages of positivity and self-improvement.”
Not even I thought Swanky was this stupid.
Poor Swanky. He’s now reduced to parroting the over-the-top phrases of TV Guide.
Other than by her identity, how did Oprah revolutionize the talk show genre? By letting Tom Cruise jump on the furniture? By having a book of the month club?
It was just a Goddamn talk show.
‘tries to sell the Oprah Winfrey Show as some revolutionary way of doing a talk show.’
Popular opinion “sells” Oprah Winfrey as revolutionizing the talk show. You are wrong, spunky.
‘He’s now reduced to parroting the over-the-top phrases of TV Guide.’
It’s not just TV guide, silly spunky. The same word, over and over again:
https://books.google.com/books?id=BpW18-FDYL0C&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=oprah+revolutionized+the+talk+show&source=bl&ots=pZyt015qZo&sig=P4FN9DM5MHCTo1q3Mip5-U20eZk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zHmHVP-IDMPtoAS21YGACg&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=oprah%20revolutionized%20the%20talk%20show&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=uWnRs5wCpJsC&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135&dq=oprah+revolutionized+the+talk+show&source=bl&ots=a0Vnomc2gZ&sig=WQ45DmI7Gb4n4qc_NaOBW4T0KVU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7nmHVKG5L9XZoATZ_YDYBg&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=oprah%20revolutionized%20the%20talk%20show&f=false
Shall I keep going, spunky? It’s not an accident that they keep using the SAME EXACT WORD to describe what Oprah did.
You. are. wrong. Again.
As a European educated in the Classics, I am often baffled by the shallowness of Americans, and your comment and this blog post is one exampel of this. Why would I care about pop culture? It’s devoid of worth. Why would I listen to pop music? Why would I read pulp fiction? Almost all of the authors I admire and read are Europeans. Asians, too, did not match that what European white men have created. Where is the black Borchardt? Or the yellow Benn? A muslim Flaubert? They never existed, because they can’t exist. The reason Germans, for example, had such a high and introspective culture that was based on a deep longing for understanding the nature of things has to do with their genetics, because Scandinavians already differ in this. For more on this, see Andreas Vonderach’s “Völkerpsychologie”. But knowing Americans, they are mostly mono-lingual. Vox Day, on the other hand, knows how to read German, and is of high intelligence indeed (99th percentile).
>elitist detected
“Yo-you don’t know 6 million languages!!!”
I don’t think your examples prove your strong claim.
Are blacks dramatically overrepresented in broadcasting? I’m not sure how one could measure such a claim, but I doubt it. Oprah is an entertainment phenomena, but her position at the apex of the entertainment industry is based largely on the syndication of one show and her success is not widely shared in the field by blacks below her. The only subfield of broadcasting that I can think of where blacks are dramatically overrepresented is sports broadcasting.
How about comedy? Are blacks dramatically overrepresented in the field? Again, I don’t think so. I can think of many more famous black comedians (Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, Chris Rock, etc.) than famous black broadcasters, but whites still dominate the field. Take this randomly-chosen list of what the headline says are the 20 best comedians of 2013. Only three positions are taken up by four black comedians (Key and Peele are a comedy duo). You might consider that overrepresentation, but it’s certainly not dramatic.
Are blacks overrepresented among successful novelists? Highly doubtful. Morrison may be the only living U.S. Nobel Laureate in Literature, but she was also the first of the ten American Nobel winners in literature who was black, and the Swedes have been handing out prizes to American blacks in other categories since 1950 and to Africans in literature since the early eighties. So it doesn’t appear any inherent bias prevented the Nobel committee from honoring other American black writers earlier than Morrison. And if you look at the winners of the Pulitzer Prize for fiction, only one over the last fifteen years was black (Edward P Jones, author of the The Known World) .
Oratory? Maybe. It’s a hard field to judge, though, since few people other than preachers and politicians make their bread by public speaking and no well-known prizes are awarded in it. Even most politicians have enough other responsibilities that they can usually dispense with grand rhetoric and replace it with chatting up housewives at coffee klatches and taking selfies with the farmers and their cows at the local county fairs.
Only in music is black overrepresentation dramatic and substantiated. Ragtime, Blues, Jazz, Rhythm and Blues, Soul, Funk, Hip Hop are just some the musical styles that have originated in black communities and then spread to whites. Even in areas like pop, disco, and rock – all of which were probably influenced by black music, but were still musical genres started and popularized by white musicians – black representation is still heavy.
CORRECTION:
Oprah is quite large and her success outsized, but even she is not deserving the plural form of phenomenon
I might have overstated my case since I haven’t yet done a thorough statistical analysis, but even when blacks have proportional representation, that implies they are more creative (relative to IQ) than non-blacks, given that their mean IQ is lower and the average IQ of top achievers in even shallow forms of art is likely well above 100.
That would be true only if creativity is the reason for their proportional representation.
Take novel writing. I highly doubt that blacks are even proportionately represented among the best novel writers, no matter how we judge that category.
But even among the successful American black writers, almost all of them are rewarded them for writing about the American black experience. Few ever become successful writing about other subjects.
Take genres like science fiction or gothic horror or historical novels or children’s stories, where the writer has to stop naval gazing, get out of his own experience, and engage some other period of time, even if it’s imaginary, and some other kind of experience, even if it’s made up. Now that takes creativity and imagination. But can you name a single successful black author in any of these genres?
I’ve heard of Octavia E. Butler, for example, but I don’t know if she was any good because I’ve never read her books. But her subject matter and success is at least something that owes itself to creative imagination and not just to a proprietary hold on a sensitive subject matter like slavery or racism.
But successful black authors like Butler are very rare. And since authors are free to use pen names and be recluses, there should nothing about their race preventing them from writing a successful science fiction novel like Dune or a successful modern gothic horror novel like Ghost Story or a successful children’s novel like Watership Down or Charlotte’s Web or A Wrinkle in Time. Nobody cares what the authors of those books look like.
There’s also nothing preventing them from successfully writing about the ancient world in the manner of Gore Vidal and Mary Renault. Or a novel like The Clan of the Cave Bear, but set in Africa. There’s nothing preventing them from writing about the experience of white slaveholders in a sympathetic way in the obverse manner of how William Styron, a white southerner, wrote sympathetically about the life of an infamous slave rebel in the The Confessions of Nat Turner Now that would be creative.
But apart from the American black experience, black authors usually have nothing to write about. How is that evidence of creativity and imagination?
Blacks invented rock too, spunky. Rocket 88 recorded by Ike Turner is considered the first rock song.
I thought it was Bill Haley. In any event, I gave credit to the influence of black musicians for rock and roll, and to the influence of black music in general, so it’s not of critical importance.
Haley covered the song. That is to say, Haley ripped them off and got famous with exactly the same song.
What must have been rich is that when blacks invented an ENTIRELY NEW brand of popular music — hip-hop/rap, whites turned around and accused them of “stealing.”
1. Whites steal ENTIRE SONGS from blacks —> get rich. Whites claim that the white versions of black songs ‘added something’ or whatever stupid bullshit.
2. Some blacks say ‘fuck it we lost that one,’ and create another type of music, where — operating under the same principles of taking another’s work and ‘adding something’ — they sample other music.
3. Whites cry foul.
But hey, we’re all living in the exact same America, right?
Even Led Zeppelin ripped off most of their work from other artists. Stairway was a rip-off from Randy California and “Spirit.” Many of their other hits were straight from Willie Dixon.
I don’t trust Swanky Hipster’s history of Rock and Roll, since he doesn’t really know anything, but even if he is, by accident, completely accurate in his description of whites stealing from black musicians, it doesn’t change anything about what I said.
I gave full credit to blacks’ for their creativity with music. I listed several musical genres or styles for which blacks are said to have invented and developed. And I acknowledged the probability they were also responsible for inspiring several other popular musical genres they are often not credited with.
Music is one area where the anti-HBDers don’t have to make shit up to find creative blacks. Swanky Hipster doesn’t have to resort to his normal trick of citing something like markings on an ancient piece of wood to prove Africans were engaged in high mathematical musings or a pile of rocks to show they were monument builders. Hell, even Charles Darwin knew that Africans could dance and sing.
swank-the-great’s guide to a spunky post:
1. Only concede when 100% incorrect and it has shown to be so. Anything less, (such as a high probability of indirect evidence against) then concede the point with a rhetorical salvo meant to preserve ethos:
‘I don’t trust Swanky Hipster’s history of Rock and Roll, since he doesn’t really know anything, but even if he is, by accident [editor: lol wtf is this even trying to say you nincompoop?], completely accurate in his description of whites stealing from black musicians, it doesn’t change anything about what I said.’
Misstated and misrepresented facts do damage to credibility and because most of what you say relies on speculation and inference, it does color what you say.
2. Rely on the non-expertise of laypeople to twist generally agreed upon interpretations of findings:
‘Swanky Hipster doesn’t have to resort to his normal trick of citing something like markings on an ancient piece of wood to prove Africans were engaged in high mathematical musings or a pile of rocks to show they were monument builders‘
For example, your comedy list is only from 2013. How about something more probative, like an ‘all-time’ list?
http://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-funniest-stand-up-comedians-in-entertainment
That may be too democratic for your tastes, but what do we find? If we break it down by the top 100….there is about equal representation. HOWEVER, if we look at the ELITE, represented by the top 20, we find huge overrepresentation.
Swanky Hipster,
That’s better than you’ve shown, Swanky. At least I do concede when someone shows I’m in error. You, on the other hand, keep making stuff up even when you obviously have no clue what you’re talking about.
No, it doesn’t.
I acknowledged that blacks were highly creative in music. So your little heartfelt history of Rock and Roll is immaterial to that point. It doesn’t change a thing. There were no major misrepresentations or misstatements in my remarks. If I made a mistake – and you’re not the person to point that out – it was one of degree, not kind.
REPOSTED:
Swanky Hipster,
That’s better than you’ve shown, Swanky. At least I do concede when someone shows I’m in error. You, on the other hand, keep making stuff up even when you obviously have no clue what you’re talking about.
No, it doesn’t.
I acknowledged that blacks were highly creative in music. So your little heartfelt history of Rock and Roll is immaterial to that point. It doesn’t change a thing. There were no major misrepresentations or misstatements in my remarks. If I made a mistake – and you’re not the person to point that out – it was one of degree, not kind.
Try to keep your eye on the ball, Swanky.
There are no experts on the demographics of comedy, broadcasting and novel writing, you fucking moron, and there are no agreed-upon interpretations of it that matter to our discussion. So learn to think and argue for yourself, pinhead.
I have no problem accepting alternative lists and debating the merits of which is a better representation of reality. But that was clear in my original remark. I made no strong claims about any of those fields. Here’s my original comment again, with my qualifications in bold:
You’ve clearly overreached. I didn’t make any strong claims in this paragraph. I didn’t say my list of comics was the only list to be used. I just said it was randomly selected. I even acknowledged that my list might show some slight overrepresentation of black comics, but was simply not as “dramatic” as Pumpkin claimed it to be.
Even your own source shows only five of the top twenty comics, and eight of the top forty, are black – that’s certainly overrepresentation, but it’s not dramatic. And it’s not much different than my source showed.
So, once again, you’re full of shit. Will you concede this? No, of course not. Because that just wouldn’t be you, would it, Swanky?
‘You, on the other hand, keep making stuff up even when you obviously have no clue what you’re talking about.’
Spunky must be a rhetoraholic, look at him go with this little tu-quo. Obvious as judged and inferenced by who, anyway? You? Not so compelling, spunky.
‘No, it doesn’t.’
Yes, it does. When your content is mostly speculation and inference, being caught with faulty knowledge of facts casts great doubt on said speculation and inference. More common sense that spunky lacks.
‘There were no major misrepresentations or misstatements in my remarks’
Failure to properly attribute credit (there is a huge difference between creation and mere influence) does cast doubt on your ability to judge prominence in a given field, spunky.
‘There are no experts on the..’
spunky apparently doesn’t understand his own rhetorical tricks. You casting the Ishango Bone as a mere ‘bone with tally marks’ does rely on the non-expertise of laypeople for your intepretation of it as trivial. The same is true of you treating the ruins of great zimbabwe or the african stone henge as trivial, because of their size.
‘I even acknowledged that my list might show some slight overrepresentation’
You fail to see the parallel in your ‘rock’ inferences with your ‘other fields’ inferences — underestimation.
‘that’s certainly overrepresentation, but it’s not dramatic.’
Par for the pedantic course. spunky admits that he was essentially saying nothing (agreed!) and that his real persnicket is with what the word dramatic means. Apparently he thinks it means something like ‘ridiculous’ or ‘overwhelming.’ Let’s change words — an appropriate synonym is “considerable.”
I don’t dislike black music, I think it is quite enjoyable when rounded a bit by white performers. Strictly black is so obsessed with ghetto and beats without melody, delivered with an attitude that no longer feels very fresh.
I dislike some black music, like Hip Hop, but there’s no denying its influence. When I was club hopping in Asia, I would frequently go into places where it was hard to find any patrons who weren’t Asian. And yet the music they were listening to was mostly created by American blacks.
Yes. N.E.R.D. is “ghetto and beats without melody.” Tendency here to define everything that is the worst you can think of as ‘pure’ black.
Cold weather does not necessarily select for intelligence, but de-select selfish types (selected for collective smart behavior and not for individual intelligence). Hot weather selected selfish types in the African population, more than ‘in any other population”’. However, as with the Gypsies, Africans and particularly (especially), hybrids of the American continent, have higher ego than, for example, the East Asians. In the entertainment world, this is necessary. Bruce Charlton believes that there was a great fall of Western music (and art in general) quality, from the early twentieth century until today. Possibly the largest number of blacks among others, may have had some impact, especially because the african-American music (including Brazil) is extremely heterogeneous. For example, in my country, we have Milton Nascimento and the ” carioca funk ”.
Blacks are over-represented in the entertainment world (aka, very soft-pop art) mainly by environmental factors, because they are a dependent population in the west. In other words, they depend on the good will or the interests of political and financial monopolies that dominate the media. Therefore, the ‘liberal elite’ ‘want for greater cultural diversity in the media and therefore increased the number of blacks on television and in music. There was no direct competition between the best actors, filmmakers and musicians.
Blacks are almost identical to Gypsy, especially the Iberian gypsies, because they are a sub-class (most of them of course), but has made important cultural contributions to the societies in which they live.
In both cases, it is possible that a class of native intellectuals (or ” white ” in US) has seen artistic value of the cultures of these two populations to expose them to the public.
In both, (obviously) some creative personality traits (and genius personality) there. Traits are universal, phenotypes aren’t universal.
In terms of music. It is partly on to suggest that today, declined to music, because the value becomes very subjective when it comes to popular music. The greater the artistic value, more equal will be his qualities and with a tendency for the elegance, that is, less is more.
His theory is interesting but should not stick to the statistical determinism. Most black high iq I know are not very different from white high iq. Obviously there are creative people within the collective-demographic abstraction, ” black race”, and probably in greater proportion than among Asians, especially the continental East Asians.
But even if it were true, I advise you to use some terms like ” tend to be ” than ” they are ”.
Blacks have a higher proportion of people with psychopathic personality and this is one of the components for the production of creative genius. But lack of high intelligence (or would be better, intellect) and a combination with introverted personality, to produce large proportion of creative geniuses.
But perhaps it is not so simple, because we are talking about historically distinct populations. The combination of these same features can have different results for different races of people, even if all biological variables are matched, a guess.
On the creativity of East Asians. I have nothing more to talk about the Japaneses. Only if the historical subclass that is present on the islands may have had some impact gene, besides the Ainu. It is noteworthy that Caucasians have 3 major versions or subraces, the Mediterranean, the Alpine and Nordic and most major European geniuses were born in countries where occurs this interethnic friction. The Mediterranean is a white version of blacks in terms of behavior, increased crime, increased explicit passion for (selfish) life (cicada way of life), increased sexual behavior.
Creative people tend to be born from the combination of opposites, an introvert father and an extrovert mother?? Because the creative personality is a combination of conflicting characteristics.
REAL creative people are very rare, even in Europe or US.
weak argument, pumpkin. You cherry picked some examples of prominent, successful black artists and tried to generalize for an entire race. You look at some of the greatest composers, authors, and painters from the Classical period and all were white That’s not to say Black people do not have the capacity to be creative – they can, just like anyone else, but perhaps they may seem overrepresented because their particular type of creativity is more popular than others. Rap and soul music outsells classical, but both are creative work. You mention Oprah, but what about Ellen? Elvis and Paul have sold as many as MJ.
‘You look at some of the greatest composers, authors, and painters from the Classical period and all were white’
You mean during slavery? I wonder why…
And what about Phyllis Wheatley, who was praised by Voltaire…
What about Benjamin Baneker?
Le Chevalier de Saint-Georges?
You may counter that they were not “the greatest” of their time, to which I would counter that when you consider their time, the fact that they rose to the heights they did is nothing short of incredible.
‘ Rap and soul music outsells classical, but both are creative work’
Go listen to bebop jazz if you don’t think blacks are capable of creating complex music that rivals classical music.
Horowitz was extremely impressed with Art Tatum.
I’ve never watched Oprah so can’t comment. The most successful music star in American history was Elvis. And I’m not even sure how to measure a comedian’s success. Album sales or net worth? Cosby would be first in neither. Regardless, he made most of his money from sitcoms and product endorsements not comedy. I understand that the Kardashians have made quite a bit of money as well. Doing what I have no idea. My point is that neither brains nor talent are necessarily required to succeed in arts and entertainment. Brains helps finagle the ins and outs of the networking required to maneuver the entertainment industry. But there are also entertainers who are little more than a mindless commodity created and traded by shrewd agents.
Destructure,
I agree with your main point, but who among comedians have sold more albums and had a higher net worth than Bill Cosby?
“who among comedians have sold more albums and had a higher net worth than Bill Cosby?”
I don’t know his total album sales. But most well known comedians have probably sold more albums than Cosby who made most of his money off sitcoms and product endorsements. Jerry Seinfeld is probably the most successful comedian in US history. He has the highest net worth of any comedian I’m aware of at $800 million; much of it from his show as well. But he’s also the highest grossing comedian in annual ticket sales or close to it and has been for years.
Destructure,
I have no idea, either. I just wondered what made you so confident.
I do know Cosby’s albums were consistently among the top selling albums for the sixties and seventies.
Here is a quote from Mark Whitaker’s Cosby: His Life and Times:
That was in 1968. Cosby then signed a huge deal with MCA Records in the seventies, only one of which was a flop.
I hadn’t realized Seinfeld was that wealthy.
unless you sell tens of millions, album sales don’t pay squat. the big $ comes from licensing rights and also merchandise
Grey,
Cosby would have sold tens of millions of albums in the sixties and seventies. We’re talking about a period of time before most artists got full control of their product, when national syndication rights weren’t a common thing for the performers, and when taxes on the wealthy were much higher. Cosby made most of his fortune in that period with album sales, advertisements, and standup shows. He was worth about forty million in 1980 in inflation-adjusted dollars. About one-third of that came from his work as an adman.
He then compounded that fortune many times over with The Cosby Show.
‘The most successful music star in American history was Elvis’
It’s a wash between Michael Jackson and Elvis, actually.
“It’s a wash between Michael Jackson and Elvis, actually.”
Not even close. Elvis career spanned 1954-1977. Jackson’s career spanned 1964-2009. Not only was Jackson’s career twice as long but it came later when album sales were typically much, much higher. Yet Elvis still sold nearly twice as many albums as Jackson.
Why White Americans don’t listen to Mexican music? the fact is that the Browns listen to music that was created by their White elites with European influences, actually Mariachi has Western roots, Hip Hop or Jazz should be dumped for this music 🙂
feminists don’t dress up like tarts and take pictures of themselves…unless they’re “conservatives”.
all music is less than crap except Gregorian chant, the less jazzy recordings of Thelonious Monk, and the Berlin Philharmonic von Karajan studio recordings of Wagner.
What do you believe is bad about the other types of music?
it’s not a matter of type.
it’s just that Monk and the very precise rendition of Wagner are still affecting for me.
the problem with music especially but with all forms of art is…
it affects. it is even esteemed to the extent that it affects.
this affecting is confused with meaning.
so there is a feeling of significance and meaning…
but there really isn’t any.
whoever cannot say what he means as clearly as the most obscure philosophers has nothing to say.
that is, art is distraction.
theoria, catharsis, contemplation, asceticism, genuine religiosity, requires that one recognize distractions as distractions and cut them off.
of course many artists or would be artists are contemplatives, cloistereds manque. BUT as Benedict said…laborare est orare.
the sky scraper, the Toyota corolla, etc. these are not “fine” art, but they are art all the same…and more impressive than any fine art because they “work”. it’s only bourgeois decadence that esteems and pays tens of millions for fine arts and thinks the miracles of techne quotidian. a hot shower after a long walk in the rain surpasses all “art”.
and speaking of music. black Africans did invent polyrhythms, did they not?
Monk is unique in my experience.
he was a genuine “musical genius”.
and by that i mean he never had any intention of affecting.
his music was like some long mathematical proof.
his music was just music, music itself. the problem is that if you’re not a musician, and i am not, his improvisation can just sound like noise and masturbation.
but again…especially in Monk’s case…i’d be surprised if he had a high IQ score.
@World Mustache Champion:
Why you didn’t reply me? are you that afraid of hot girls? virgin much.
@ proudfeministgirl
Don’t mind World Moustache Champion. He’s gay and retarded. As to why Americans don’t listen to mariachi music. It’s for the same reason Mexicans don’t listen to country and western or bluegrass. They’re mostly localized folk genres, The only people who listen to them are those whose culture it is and they already have their own. That’s why World Moustache Champion prefers Gregorian Chants. The sound of homosexual priests chanting reminds him of his culture that developed in the bath houses of the Swiss monasteries.
transsexual destructure doesn’t know that there is one other music i don’t find nauseating, self-important, and adolescent, as is destructure. but tannies don’t like it…they’re the “worst band ever” and the loudest.
but this one song by another band is especially irritating to those suffering a sexual identity crisis like d. it’s one of my favs.
stat crux dum volvitur orbis!
the Who make all other bands look like fags.
but here’s the Animals again. that last link was just lip sinking.
i’d expect less hostility from d as we both have john wilkes booth as a hero.
The House of the Rising Sun is one of your faves? I didn’t realize you were so fond of Kentucky Appalachian folk songs. Here’s the original recording.
not at all.
music is a low art.
those who are excluded or exclude themselves in America one would expect to make the best music.
that includes blacks and hillbillies.
that Rand Paul represents KY is very sad. a great example of false consciousness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consciousness and shame http://www.salon.com/2014/07/16/i_was_poor_but_a_gop_die_hard_how_i_finally_left_the_politics_of_shame/.
“those who are excluded or exclude themselves in America one would expect to make the best music.”
Oh yeah? Well I’m writing a song called “The Ballad of Ross B”. It’s about a retarded homosexual from a broken home. He grew up selling his mangina on the mean streets of Portland and dreamed of going to Princeton. It ends with him working in a warehouse and arguing with his betters on HBD blogs.
again with this “Ross” thing. you should really take your haldol.
the only Ross i’ve known was a short red headed guy i used to work with. he married a witch (Wiccan), and Ross was his last name.
the only time i’ve been to Portland, OR was when the US chess championship was held there. i’ve never been to Portland, ME.
besides d. you’re not the better of anyone.
As long as you’re around I’ll always be better than at least one person. But enough of that. I just came up with the perfect ending for my song’s music video. It ends with Ross slumped in front of an arcade console. Just as he expires he whispers “Jeff Willms” then a quarter drops from his lifeless hand and rolls across the floor.
again with this “Ross” thing.
haldol d, haldol.
or maybe thorazine.
but you’d know better than i what the latest and greatest anti-psychotics are.
and meu deus d, we’re all losers in the end even if we have 50 kids like some black criminal.
i’d much rather be the wretched of the earth than be the prince of this world.
vanity of vanities. all is vanity.
The Swanky Hipster writes above:
I’ll leave it up to the audience. I’m sure most of them will find it compelling since they read the same thing I read.
What you pointed out about my supposed faulty knowledge of the origins of Rock and Roll, if indeed it’s true, doesn’t change a single thing of significance in what I wrote.
However, when you say “Oprah invented the modern talk show,” whose guilty of inferences based on faulty knowledge leading to a disastrous conclusion?
It didn’t in this case, though, did it, Swanky Hipster?
Hahaha ! One of the points of a monument is its size, doofus. The pyramids of Egypt, the ruins of Machu Piccu, the Mayan Temples, the statues of Easter Island, etc. Are you noticing a pattern yet?
As for the Ishango Bone, there is no consensus about its purpose. You’re just making shit up again.
Try to keep up with the discussion. My comment was responding to Pumpkin’s point that blacks were “dramatically over-represented” in the fields he named.
Now focus on that word “dramatically” for a moment, for it holds the key to your understanding. Proportionate representation and even slight overrepresentation are not dramatic.
For example, over fifty percent of the NFL is made up of black players. That’s pretty dramatic overrepresentation. All of the medalists in the Olympic sprint races have been black for decades. That’s also pretty dramatic.
Nothing similar exists in any creative endeavor for blacks other than music. There’s certainly nothing dramatic about 20 percent of the best forty comics in your preferred list (and 15 percent of the slots in my preferred list) being black – not in a country which is nearly 13 percent black.
‘However, when you say “Oprah invented the modern talk show,” whose guilty of inferences based on faulty knowledge leading to a disastrous conclusion?’
I said she practically invented it. Nice try at the misquote, spunky. Most everyone agrees she revolutionized it, which means that what I said is spot-on.
‘It didn’t in this case, though, did it’
More hamfisted rhetorical tactics.
‘ One of the points of a monument is its size, doofus’
‘a building or place that is important because of when it was built or because of something in history that happened there’
Wrong again, spunky. No wonder you have trouble with what words mean.
‘there is no consensus about its purpose.’
There doesn’t have to be a consensus. There only have to be reasonable competing theories and interpretations, which there are. You rely on the non-expertise of laypeople to cast the other interpretation as unreasonable. Your entire schtick is lame rhetoric 101.
Swanky Hipster,
* The adverb “practically” doesn’t change anything. It just shows you can’t write for shit.
* The origins of Rock and Roll were not the point. I generously granted that blacks were both creative and dramatically overrepresented in music, and that this fact was obvious from the wide number of musical genres they had created or inspired and the wide popularity their music enjoyed. I even mentioned Rock and Roll as one genre they had most likely inspired. So your hyped-up point about the sordid history of white privilege in Rock and Roll was a minor side issue to this presentation, and, true or not, didn’t change anything about it.
* Look up the etymology of the word, Swanky. In addition to a remembrance of some event, you’ll find other information showing you’re monumentally wrong. But of course if you’re the kind of reader who sticks to the first couple of entries in an online dictionary, then the nuanced meaning of words will give you a lot of trouble.
There are no interpretative difficulties in recognizing the size and accomplishment of the statues on Easter Island or of the Egyptian pyramids or of Mayan temples. The Ishango Bone doesn’t measure up to that level of accomplishment. So you presented and hyped up some bizarre interpretation to make the markings more important than they were, and now you’re trying to pretend that only lay people would think otherwise.
Swanky,
* “Almost invented” is like “almost pregnant.” Either Oprah invented something or she didn’t, and in this case she obviously didn’t.
* Nobody refers to monuments unless they are referring to large and impressive buildings/sites or megaliths. Not unless they’re being ironic. Sorry but the Ishango Bone doesn’t count and neither did that little edifice you linked to the other day that showed something a group of enterprising twelve year olds could have built.
* My remarks about blacks and music invested nothing in the particular history of Rock and Roll, and even made reference to the opinion that some people thought blacks inspired the genre, so my credibility is in good stead.
* To any reasonable person, “dramatic” does not mean a slight overrepresentation on *your* preferred lists, Swanky. No matter how much you want to hump on it.
* I have no idea who Muggy is, but if you’re talking about Macaca, I’m happy to consign you to his corner. You two belong together.
You can “almost” or “for all functional purposes” invent something. This is more of you trying to assert your way out of misquoting me and being WRONG. If two people jointly create something but one does 99% of the work….it is perfectly fine to say that that individual practically invented X or Y. For example Matt Damon practically wrote Good Will Hunting in the public’s mind. Spunky would say ‘outrageous, you can’t practically write something.” Of course, spunky would be wrong and that wouldn’t be surprising.
‘ Nobody refers to monuments unless they are referring to large and impressive buildings/sites or megaliths.’
Spunky is living proof that expertise is necessary. What a large and impressive building site this is….:
‘Sorry but the Ishango Bone doesn’t count ‘
I never said it was a monument. I said it was evidence of cultural smarts. More misattribution.
‘To any reasonable person, “dramatic” does not mean a slight overrepresentation on *your* preferred lists’
It’s a good thing I never said “dramatic” meant slight. I said a better word would be considerable. Elite representation of 25% with a population of ~13% probably qualifies as considerable. More tricks…especially with the ‘reasonable person,’ which you use to make your misquote of me more appealing. Too bad you just aren’t that good at the rhetoric biz, spunky.
To say that Oprah invented the modern talk show is like saying George Carlin invented cursing.
Your sources were bunk, the equivalent of newspaper blurbs.
Here, I’ve got one for you:
See, I can do it, too.
‘To say that Oprah invented the modern talk show is like saying George Carlin invented cursing.’
The qualifier practically does the job.
‘See, I can do it, too.’
Yes and when several other sources including wikipedia back up what you say, we’ll talk. That’s what you can’t do, spunky — rely on facts. Because you don’t have them.
You don’t have facts, Swanky. You have interpretations made up for weak minds that you cling to because you don’t know any better.
Oh so now it’s not a fact that many different sources credit her specifically with “revolutionizing” the genre? That’s an interpretation? I guess to you reading words as they are on the page must be quite the battle requiring much brainpower. Don’t confuse that with “interpretation.”
Your sources aren’t making objective analyses, Swanky. They’re pumping up with blurbese.
When it comes to talk shows, Oprah was both an innovator & a popularizer of the inventions of others. The learned Pincher Martin is correct that the type of show Oprah did (at least in her early years) was largely invented by Donahue (or his producers) in the sense that it was an issue oriented show dealing with taboo topics with a host who wandered through the audience. Oprah herself credits Donahue with inventing this genre of TV.
However Swanknasty is probably correct that Oprah invented the execution in that prior to Oprah, talk show hosts (and public figures in general) were probably much less likely to share intimate secrets like being molested or the shame of gaining weight. Its said that pre-Oprah, talk show hosts were more detached, while post-Oprah, they’re more like intimate friends sharing secrets & showing emotion. so in a way Oprah invented something far bigger than a genre: a form of media communication and confession culture which has transcended entertainment & can be seen in the way politicians pretend to feel our pain & even the way the Queen of England was pressured to show emotion after Princess Di’s death. Some dictionaries even created the term Oprahfication to describe the confessional group therapy culture she created which is seen in everything from reality TV to the rise of social media .
Or in other words, I’m totally correct because I always properly qualified my statements. I even made it clear that Donahue was the originator. But, she did practically invent the modern talk show. Go back and watch Donahue. Then watch an Oprah episode from like its early years. Which one looks more like the kind of talk shows that exploded? Oprah’s.
Here’s a quality article about what she did and did not invent
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,988512,00.html
Pumpkin Person,
Of course this is largely a matter of personal style and inclination, not invention. Oprah didn’t invent herself; she just was herself.
But were previous talk show hosts “detached,” unlikely to share secrets or show emotion?
Of course not.
Here is Iggy Pop and David Bowie on the Dinah Shore show, talking about cutting himself and then getting treatment for it, with Dinah Shore showing the requisite sympathetic emotional responses expected of a nitwit female host. This is daytime talk show television in the seventies, Pumpkin.
Here, for example, is the famous Dick Cavett in the 1970s interviewing the famous novelists Gore Vidal and Norman Mailer (along with Janet Flanner) It’s hilarious, emotional, and watch how the host Dick Cavett gets involved and take sides at the end. This is daytime talk show television in the seventies, Pumpkin.
Every major pop phenomenon is going to bring along in its wake idiots who try to explain it and look for clues in the culture as to why it happened. (Many social commentators, for example, are trying right now to explain the significance of Lady Gaga and Lena Dunham.) But Oprah was just the most successful in a long line of talk show hosts who preceded her.
She had her own style, of course, but this was also true of every other talk show host, from the gregarious Merv Griffin to the intellectual comic musings of Dick Cavett to the soft southern belle charm used by Dinah Shore to the strident liberal advocacy of Phil Donahue. Oprah’s greatest distinction is not any format she invented, but that she became the most popular talk show host in history.
Swanky sure is a needy boy for a hipster, always looking for approval.
I was the first one to mention Phil Donahue, cupcake.
Go back and watch a movie made in the seventies and one made in the early nineties. Which one looks more movies made today?
Any cultural phenomenon which take place closer to the present is likely to resemble the world we live in more than does one which is older. That’s a truism, not an insight.
‘I was the first one to mention Phil Donahue, cupcake.’
Did I say mention or that I was the ‘first’ to mention? Do you not speak english, spunky? Because it doesn’t seem like you can read it.
‘Any cultural phenomenon which take place closer to the present is likely to resemble the world we live in more than does one which is older’
I also included the type of shows that emerged in the 90’s, not too long after Oprah’s appearance on the scene. You are wrong, spunky.
‘But were previous talk show hosts “detached,” unlikely to share secrets or show emotion?’
According to the rest of the world, no, not really. That is why the word “revolutionize” has been used in scholarly papers, journalism articles, “TV guide,” and popular books to describe the effect Oprah had on talk shows.
The ‘no not really’ is public response to your little anecdotal argument, there.
Dinah Shore shows emotion but what she doesn’t do (at least not in that clip) is reciprocate by claiming she too has cut herself; instead she remains a voyeur
By contrast, biographers say that one of the moments that put Oprah on the map was when a woman in the mid 1980s was describing being sexually abused & then Oprah broke down and said “it happened to me, too”
By putting the focus on her own secrets and her own struggles (weight, relationships) she arguably invented a new style that was copied by not only other broadcasters, but by politicians, movie stars, reality stars, even British royalty, & now with social media, almost everyone
Of course edgey celebs have always revealed taboo secrets as your link shows, but Oprah doing it as an elite mainstream media figure was arguably transformative. For example Oprah stated (perhaps incorrectly), that before she publicized her liquid diet in the 1980s, supermarket tabloids focused on ridiculous things like babies from other planets, but after the liquid diet, they focused much more on celebrity secrets & weight
Of course as you say, it’s hard to know whether this was a calculated style Oprah pioneered or just her natural personality
Mailer’s silliness reminds that Pincher Martin has posted his own passport photo before on another blog:
Swanky Hipster,
I certainly know enough English to capitalize the word when I write it. How about you, sweetheart? Did you know that little obscure fact?
You knew nothing about Phil Donahue until I told you about Phil Donahue.
Your point is banal. It’s nothing more interesting than saying that the talk shows of the same period are more similar in style to each other than they are to talk shows of other periods.
Hey, guess what Swanky Hipster? When a TV show – any TV show – has success, other people immediately copy its style. Or they spin off from it.
Stop bluffing, Swanky Hipster. You’re no damn good at it.
‘I certainly know enough English to capitalize the word when I write it. How about you, sweetheart? Did you know that little obscure fact?’
So you know where to put big letters but not how to combine those letters together and form meaning. Gotcha.
‘You knew nothing about Phil Donahue until I told you about Phil Donahue.’
More wild assertions. I spoke correctly in the first instance — Oprah practically invented the modern talk show.
‘ It’s nothing more interesting than saying that the talk shows of the same period are more similar in style to each other than they are to talk shows of other periods.’
To a surface-level windbag such as yourself, sure. Influence and innovation are measured by characteristics of later works in the genre.
‘Stop bluffing, Swanky Hipster. You’re no damn good at it.’
Only spunky would think citing several sources using the exact same language = bluffing.
Pumpkin,
I’m limited because YouTube is not heavy with clips from the seventies’ talk shows. But the confessional style and the empathetic style has always been with us. The whole point of a talk show is to get the know the celebrity who’s being interviewed, to get to know the real person, and the demographics of daytime TV in the seventies were aimed at housewives.
Tears might have flowed more copiously on Oprah. She might have shared more words of empathy with her guests. She might have revealed far more about herself. She was obviously more successful on her show. But that wasn’t the result of invention. It was just her engaging style was extremely popular for a long period of time.
‘But that wasn’t the result of invention. It was just her engaging style was extremely popular for a long period of time.’
And the reason she didn’t consciously decide to form this style is…….?
The fact that she had won an oratory contest earlier in life?
The fact that she was an honors student?
The fact that she majored in communications?
Yes. Those types of people probably just shoot-from-the-hip in formulating their public speaking styles. lol.
Because hosting a daytime talk show five days a week is too exhausting to try affect a style. Oprah was herself. Her voice, her look, her manner – you can’t fake that stuff on a daily basis for twenty-some-odd years.
If all it took was affecting a style, more people in show business could have immediately adapted it and squeezed Oprah out of her huge audience. Why didn’t they? Because it’s too fucking hard.
‘Your sources were bunk, the equivalent of newspaper blurbs.’
Yes, because varying sources using the EXACT SAME language to describe her accomplishments is “bunk.” Even Harvard says she revolutionized the genre.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2013/05/harvard-awards-9-honorary-degrees/
‘Because hosting a daytime talk show five days a week is too exhausting to try affect a style. Oprah was herself. Her voice, her look, her manner – you can’t fake that stuff on a daily basis for twenty-some-odd years.’
How would you know? What an out-your-own-ass statement.
‘If all it took was affecting a style, more people in show business could have immediately adapted it and squeezed Oprah out of her huge audience. Why didn’t they? Because it’s too fucking hard.’
There were a lot of spin-offs that became popular. So the style itself probably wasn’t that hard to emulate. However, to maintain success requires effort. Constant effort. It is hard. And that’s why Oprah stayed on top and her competitors fell. Oprah apparently reinvented her talk show a few times, and she branched out.
best American chat show…
Later with Bob Costas was good.
Costas is easily the smartest man in sports announcing.
there’re lots on youtube.
If all it took was affecting a style, more people in show business could have immediately adapted it and squeezed Oprah out of her huge audience. Why didn’t they? Because it’s too fucking hard.
People did try to copy it, but they lacked the timing and rhythm & it just felt awkward.
According to Chris Mathews & Maureen Dowd, bill Clinton is an example of someone who was able to use the Oprah empathetic confessional persona to great success in a different field. LOL
Swanky Hipster writes above:
Blurb language is blurb language. You can pick up any book on almost any subject and read the same type of sales pitch. “This book has changed the way I think.” “This book will revolutionize the way we approach [fill in the subject].” “This book is the best of its kind in thirty years.”
I always wondered who took those lines seriously. Now I know. “Oprah revolutionized day time talk shows.”
Now Swanky Hipster is even quoting throwaway lines from write-ups for honorary degrees, as if the Harvard Gazette was interested in anything other than hyping up the university’s award recipients.
Like I said, Swanky mistakes a sales pitch for objective analysis. He sees Harvard on the letterhead and his knees start to shake.
I worked in broadcasting for a short period of my life. So I have a basic familiarity with how difficult it is to pull off the kind of job she does. You obviously don’t.
The reason she was successful was because of who she is. It had nothing to do with the format, nothing to do with reinventing the wheel, nothing to do with her politics.
indeed, Martini played evil white villain #3 in some kung fu movie.
or maybe the period of his life was quite short. that’s Martini on Niven’s right.
‘ “This book has changed the way I think.” “This book will revolutionize the way we approach [fill in the subject].” “This book is the best of its kind in thirty years.”’
Those statements you produced all used DIFFERENT language. All of the sources used the SAME language. That is rare.
That’s Derbyshire, you dumb fuck.
No, it’s not. I used three recurring types of blurbs. I could have found more.
‘ I used three recurring types of blurbs. I could have found more.’
A scholarly article used the word. Time used word. Harvard used the word. Countless other newspapers used the word. Wiki used the word.
They mean what they say, spunky. They don’t need to ‘sell’ Oprah. She is a billionaire many times over.
it’s my dead uncle too, killed by some Chinese cure.
he spent years in the PRC and the ROC and has some movie credits.
that almost all China movies are kung fu movies again demonstrates the vacuity of China people.
speaking of Di’s funeral and sacred music…funerary rites should be the measure of any religion or philosophy and…but the Anglicans have the best and their two best hymns are both nationalist.
Jerusalem (Blake is the better of Shak at his best and was a religious man)
and
I vow to thee my country
which reminds one that the Britishers, the nation of shopkeepers and their diaspora, are collectivist when it’s expedient to be so.
as David Brooks said…
America is a collectivist country that thinks it is an individualistic country.
now that’s the BIG LIE. so big that even the liars don’t know they’re lying.
‘* The adverb “practically” doesn’t change anything. It just shows you can’t write for shit. ‘
Practically means “almost.” You won’t be asserting your way out of this one spunky.
‘Look up the etymology of the word’
More rhetoricese. I’ll translate “I don’t like the widely accepted way of checking meaning, I would rather use mine.”
Regardless, the real etymology is here “the word comes from the Latin “monere,” which means ‘to remind’, ‘to advise’ or ‘to warn.'[2]” That is the root of the entire word and concept and the dimensions of the structure are not essential to the meaning. How wrong can you be? Go for broke, spunky.
‘So your hyped-up point about the sordid history of white privilege in Rock and Roll was a minor side issue to this presentation, and, true or not, didn’t change anything about it.’
It damaged your credibility. I know you don’t think credibility matters, which is why you believe a white supremacist (oops, separatist) can legitimately write an objective “history.”
And your last quibble about what “dramatically” means is just more proof that you’re a rhetorical shyster….but I repeat myself.
‘some bizarre interpretation’
One that has been advanced by experts in the field. Of course, you treat it as bizzare because you rely on a layperson’s sense of what a “stick with tallymarks” may represent to make such an assertion. LAME TRICKS.
Muggy is right about you, I realize. You’ve already admitted you didn’t say much in your original post. You aren’t saying much now beyond quibbling over what words mean (and generally being incorrect)
Swanky,
* “Almost invented” is like “almost pregnant.” Either Oprah invented something or she didn’t, and in this case she obviously didn’t.
* Nobody refers to monuments unless they are referring to large and impressive buildings/sites or megaliths. Not unless they’re being ironic. Sorry but the Ishango Bone doesn’t count and neither did that little edifice you linked to the other day that showed something a group of enterprising twelve year olds could have built.
* My remarks about blacks and music invested nothing in the particular history of Rock and Roll, and even made reference to the opinion that some people thought blacks inspired the genre, so my credibility is in good stead.
* To any reasonable person, “dramatic” does not mean a slight overrepresentation on *your* preferred lists, Swanky. No matter how much you want to hump on it.
* I have no idea who Muggy is, but if you’re talking about Macaca, I’m happy to consign you to his corner. You two belong together.
Current consensus on B/W IQ gap is that it has narrowed ~5.5 points.
Rushton’s typical objections to the contentions have also been dealt with
HBDers whine about how “PC” scientists won’t entertain their ideas. Look here, they are being entertained and summarily dispatched.
This is what real scientists think of HBD
skip to 56:30 and watch until 58:10 for the shorthand.
Exact response to every single counter-example. “Well THAT’S AN ANOMALY!”
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with the experiment, it’s wrong.”
–Richard P. Feynman
But hey, that guy was an idiot! IQ 124!
The problem for Swanky Hipster is that reality doesn’t match up to his theory.
We have black people from sub-Saharan Africa dispersed all over the world. They exist, of course, in large numbers in four dozen African countries. They also exist in several North and South American countries, including large black populations in the two most populous countries in the western hemisphere. They can be found in much smaller numbers in a handful of European countries. Finally, they reside on nearly all Caribbean island nations and territories.
I would conservatively guess that’s at least eighty countries and territories where black people can be found. These states have various political systems, languages, climates, histories, tax rates, etc.
In not one of them do the descendants of SSAs exhibit, in mass, any independent skill at the tasks required for modernity. And in only a handful do we see any evidence they might even be up to the task.
But that’s not it. We also have history to look at.
Richard Nixon knew in the early seventies that the Chinese were smart even when China (where the vast majority of Chinese live) was as impoverished as an African nation and in the midst of the Cultural Revolution. He knew that because of the country’s culture and history, and because of the success of the Overseas Chinese.
But sub-Saharan Africa does not have that grand culture and history. Nor any evidence of a talented diaspora outside of some ambiguous evidence in Britain and maybe a Caribbean Island or two.
So just as there’s no evidence today that blacks as a whole could run a modern nation at a high level, so there’s no evidence they’ve ever created a civilization that was once of the apex of human culture.
I street to point out that this is not their fault. We’re all born into an environment we had nothing to do with making. But it’s also not anyone else’s fault. Not colonialism or slavery or racism or anything else. HBD explains that; Swanky Hipster’s theory does not.
Reality does match up to my theory. Agriculture led to larger populations. Larger populations meant more social rules to follow. Learning more social rules led to constant training and development in certain skills.
The cold climate theory is silly. To say something like harsh weather wouldn’t “strongly” select for a trait is to ignore the means by which cold would select — brutal conditions every generation. People didn’t just move from Africa to Scandinavia overnight either. It was very slow. So slow that the knowledge gained in one area probably required very minor tweaking to the next, to the point that ‘new deaths on account of more cold’ were probably almost nil.
Asian populations don’t follow the cold climate theory, as Suzuki pointed out.
We have seen several IQ gaps that are environmental in nature — Irish IQ gap, and (probably) North/South Korea IQ gap (it’s not a given that they are genetically the same, but they are probably at least very close genetically), etc. The gaps diminished when the two populations were placed on more equal footing. Blacks have yet to gain that footing —> but the consensus says that the IQ gap is narrowing.
‘So just as there’s no evidence today that blacks as a whole could run a modern nation at a high level’
Wrong. You don’t get to write it off as a ‘small island.’ It’s a country. Deal with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbados
None of this has anything to do with genetic differences. You’re just changing the subject.
And according to you, agriculture was invented in Africa before it introduced in Sweden. Yet what do we have today?
It might be, but it’s still better than anything you’ve offered up to explain reality.
Ron Unz’s stupidity lives.
Anomalies are anomalies. You can’t hump on one group of tests that support your ideas and ignore the other 95 percent which don’t.
An island-sized Disneyland is not modernity, Swanky. Deal with it.
‘And according to you, agriculture was invented in Africa before it introduced in Sweden. Yet what do we have today?’
History related to the development of agriculture and population movement?
‘It might be, but it’s still better than anything you’ve offered up to explain reality.’
Not really.
‘Anomalies are anomalies’
‘“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with the experiment, it’s wrong.”
–Richard P. Feynman
In case you forgot.
‘An island-sized Disneyland is not modernity, Swanky. Deal with it.’
Top 5 for literacy.
Seems modern. But then again, that’s a vague word with a large subjective component.
‘a brief training session on Raven’s Progressive Matrices— often regarded as a virtually pure measure of g—increased the scores of Black Africans by 14 points while increasing the scores of Whites by only 4 points (Skuy et al., 2002).’
I watched the video.
Rushton owns Suzuki so bad.
I’m not surprised that an HBDer would think that. Rushton doesn’t get around to Suzuki’s main point.
Suzuki is very dumb.
Yes . To HBDers the actual experts are dumb or just must be afraid.
Unscripted, on-the-spot comedy. But hey, comedy doesn’t require smarts, right?
”Yes . To HBDers the actual experts are dumb or just must be afraid.”
Stop to generalise Hbd’ers. I’m not a ”iq deterministic”.
If you’re not “IQ deterministic,” then I’m not sure you even qualify as an HBDer. That’s not a bad thing, either.
I’m. There is an admission test to join the community Hbd ?? a kind of hbd iq. No, I’m not a ”iq deterministic”, although i’m not a ”iq denier”. The difference is there.
Be careful because this kind of thinking is not unlike the cavemen, us and them. Ugauga thinking.
I’m not an IQ denier. I just side with current scientific consensus on the matter.
Incidentally, I still wonder why HBDers won’t advocate for gene therapy if they are so convinced of biological determinism (in one way or another). We live in an exciting time:
HBDers act like gene therapy would be a “waste of money.” If we can create products like the above, we can develop meaningful gene therapy.
Stop lying, Swanky. You’re as far from the scientific consensus as anyone here.
The scientific consensus says genes help explain the racial IQ gap. In brief, the scientific consensus agrees with HBDers, not you.
The scientific consensus does not agree with Robert Sternberg‘s ideas on intelligence, and you claim to always follow the scientific consensus, yet you write about that IQ skeptic like he has something serious to say.
‘The scientific consensus says genes help explain the racial IQ gap. In brief, the scientific consensus agrees with HBDers, not you. ‘
More lying.
The consensus = “Group Differences in IQ Are Best Understood as Environmental in Origin”
It’s in that paper I cited.
HBDers don’t just say it ‘helps.’ HBDers assert that it explains all or nearly all. More rhetorical gymnastics.
‘The scientific consensus does not agree with Robert Sternberg‘s ideas’
In reference to Sternberg’s work and the part of his work I referenced “[t]ypes of intelligence other than the analytic kind examined by IQ tests certainly have a reality.”
More lies from spunky.
And your paper doesn’t represent a scientific consensus.
Not true. Most HBDers claim that environment is responsible for about half the difference.
However, the rub for you, Swanky, is that most HBDers also claim that environmental differences are difficult to change because they either happen too early for intervention or are randomly distributed in ways we don’t fully understand yet. Environment might even be a poor word to use for such differences, as most dumbs liberals assume it means something like SES or access to libraries.
There’s no reason to be quoting Sternberg at all, Swanky, unless you don’t agree with the scientific consensus on intelligence. He’s an oddball. He doesn’t represent a large class of thought on intelligence.
‘And your paper doesn’t represent a scientific consensus. ‘
Yes, it does. It’s issued on behalf of the APA.
‘Most HBDers claim that environment is responsible for about half the difference.’
Yes. Half biological determinism and the other half practically biological determinism —> a rose by any other name, spunky.
‘unless you don’t agree with the scientific consensus on intelligence’
The consensus that agrees with his basic idea that there are other abilities that also count as “intelligence?”
Pumpkin writes above:
I agree. They lacked her style. She didn’t invent anything. She just had a manner and approach that was highly appealing to the people who watch those kind of shows.
That’s a good comparison.
But you notice that his wife Hillary completely lacks that style despite being close to it for nearly four decades, being in the same field as Bill, and witnessing first hand how successful his style was to his political endeavor. Yet she still can’t pull it off. If she wins, she’ll win with her own style, not his.
You can’t train personal style. You are who you are. You can hide certain aspects of your personality and/or soften your edges (or naturally change as you just get older), but you are who you are.
‘You can’t train personal style’
There is an entire craft centered around “affecting” different personal styles. It’s called acting you nimrod. It’s definitely possible to play a part for an hour a day.
Yeah, and even the best method actors need a break from a role, Swanky. They don’t play that role five days a week for twenty five years.
‘They don’t play that role five days a week for twenty five years.’
Yes they do.
Why do you think so many entertainers have breakdowns?
A lot of entertainers are ‘on’ all the time.
People were struck by how different Johnny Carson was in real life versus the show, and that was an hour a night for almost 30 years.
No, they don’t. They play many different roles and, in between those roles, they are themselves.
Famous method actors like Daniel Day Lewis and Robert De Niro don’t stay in the same character for twenty five years.
Does Oprah look like the kind of jittery woman ready to have a breakdown because she’s been playing the same role for too long?
Actually Carson came across much differently in person to the people he was interviewing than he did to the TV audience. He was blessed with the sort of nervous mannerisms that don’t look nervous on the tube. But some interviewees on The Tonight Show commented they were surprised to discover that Carson’s body was much more herky-jerky, much more nervous, when they saw him in person than when they just watched his show.
TV is what they call a cool medium. Nervous and hot personalities usually don’t play well on it. If you’re a politician appearing on TV, you want to be like JFK, not Theodore Roosevelt. But Carson was unusual in that somehow TV translated his nervous mannerisms into a cool personality.
‘No, they don’t. They play many different roles and, in between those roles, they are themselves.’
Oh so comedians who rely on a character onstage aren’t playing a character? Vaudeville acts? Show headliners? Theater actors? Sitcom stars?
‘Does Oprah look like the kind of jittery woman ready to have a breakdown because she’s been playing the same role for too long?’
Yes, I suppose her fluctuating weight was coincidental. She’s even said it was about not handling stress properly. How naive can you be shown to be about these issues, spunky?
‘Actually Carson came across much differently in person to the people he was interviewing than he did to the TV audience’
Nice try, but I’m not talking about his mannerisms on/off camera. On TV he was outgoing and was vivacious. In real life, he was private and more taciturn.
Pincher, i agree that Oprah & Clinton display behaviours that can’t easily be taught. It reminds me a bit of a documentary where Martin Bashir watched in awe a clip of Michael Jackson singing as a child and asked “did someone teach you that?” and MJ replied “no, you can’t teach that”
I think where I disagree with you is you seem to imply Oprah & Clinton are just being themselves & showing their natural personality while i think they’re both just really talented improvisational actors who are especially good at reading people & that’s a cognitive ability that just can’t be taught. But because it’s perhaps not an especially g loaded cognitive ability, a lot of high IQ people like Hillary are not the best at it.
However even if it is just their natural personality (and it might be) rather than a performance, I’m not sure that implies its not inventive. I think all artists bring their natural personality to their art. A writer who brings her unique voice based on her unique emotions is just being herself too but in the process may create a new genre of fiction. I don’t know if invention necessitates one having an intentional plan because art and the artist’s personality are inextricably linked
the above could never be written by a white male heterosexual…even a Canuckistani.
Terrance and Phillip for PM.
Pumpkin,
I think they have high interpersonal skills and high IQs. Both enhanced their careers. But those interpersonal skills are as much a natural part of who they are as their IQs.
I hate Bill Clinton, but he was born to be a politician. He’s as natural a politician as any man I’ve ever seen. I’m sure Oprah had a similar personality fit with her job.
The flaw in this ‘natural’ or ‘off-the-cuff’ interpretation is that both Oprah and Clinton showed interest in EXACTLY these areas.
A story like Charlize Theron’s fits with this narrative — discovered while throwing a fit in a bank. Okay, so her ‘spark’ may just be ‘her.’ And that is the story with certain actors or entertainers.
HOWEVER, Oprah studied communications, was involved in oratory contests, and was an honors student. She was diligent and interested in the study of public speaking.
To say a style can’t be imitated is ridiculous. THAT IS WHAT HUMAN BEINGS DO. The fact that several other talk shows got popular, with the host taking on a similar persona, busts the claim.
A better example — Jimi Hendrix is considered to be a great rock guitar player. He is also considered inimitable. Nevertheless, he revolutionized the genre. People copied him extensively. And while they never quite matched him, they emulated him enough to sell records.
Switching to more STEM-friendly territory — Euler invents a certain way of viewing numbers and relations between numbers —- the function. We can do calculations with functions and ape his way of thinking enough for “functional” use, even though your average engineering student won’t be Euler.
Swanky Hipster writes:
Yeah, smart people tend to do well early in life and outgoing people tend to show interpersonal skills early in life. Amazing, huh?
But many honors students – probably tens of thousands per year – show interest in politics, speech contests and broadcasting. That doesn’t turn them into Oprah or Bill.
‘But many honors students – probably tens of thousands per year – show interest in politics, speech contests and broadcasting. That doesn’t turn them into Oprah or Bill.’
And…? I never said it would.
What a weak rejoinder. Typically, there must be a first to anything. You are arguing that it’s unlikely that an entertainer developed a particular persona consciously, which is ridiculous. Entertainment history is full of individuals who did exactly that — create characters. Ricki Lake was often touted as the “next Oprah.” She had a similar style.
It was a weak rejoinder to a weak parry.
You tried to claim that people like Bill and Oprah are trained, not born. You made reference to silly items like speech contests and the like. I just showed you why that’s silly.
‘You tried to claim that people like Bill and Oprah are trained, not born. You made reference to silly items like speech contests and the like. I just showed you why that’s silly.’
Actually, that’s not what I said, spunky. I said that the styles they developed were probably developed consciously. The success of others in emulating their style determines how ‘born’ or ‘made’ they are, perhaps. However, the main point was, regardless of whether anyone else can perfectly imitate Oprah or Clinton, other people can imitate them well enough to make money or products in that style.
I then analogized to the many, many other examples of exactly that phenomenon. A musician consciously creates a style that is uniquely their own, but other musicians copy it well enough to be successful. A mathematician consciously creates a new way of systematizing thought, but other mathematicians can use the blueprint to be successful.
Style is what is lacquered on to talents that already exists. You can modify your talents somewhat, shape them to some degree, but you can’t invent them nor can you modify them substantially and in such a way that the mask becomes the reality.
‘Style is what is lacquered on to talents that already exists.’
Assertion.
‘You can modify your talents somewhat, shape them to some degree, but you can’t invent them nor can you modify them substantially and in such a way that the mask becomes the reality.’
The mask doesn’t have to be “the reality.” The rest are just assertions with several counterexamples.
Bear in mind that I’m not saying that there is no “talent” component to anything. I am saying that the “talent” component is much less than you believe and assert.
What makes good into great — perhaps that is “talent.” What takes mediocre or below average to proficient? Probably practice.
It’s a summation, not an assertion.
10,000 hours, huh? Well, hit the hardcourt, Swanky, and let us know when you turn into Michael Jordan.
‘10,000 hours, huh? Well, hit the hardcourt, Swanky, and let us know when you turn into Michael Jordan.’
What a way to demonstrate your continued misunderstanding of the point. If I practice 10,000 hours at basketball I will probably be pretty good. Of course, what it will take for me to be great may be that “talent,” which is why I won’t be Michael Jordan.
Similarly….practicing 10,000 hours probably won’t make a talk show host Oprah. But it will turn him or her into a pretty competent talk show host.
as my whole family sounds like Buckley i can appreciate more than others how the good have been out-bred by the filth in America since WW II and contemporary American “conservatism” is a white trash movement.
Contemporary American conservatism was built by William F. Buckley, you dipshit, and it’s anti-elitist in nature. He once famously said that he would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the 2000 faculty members of Harvard.
God, how did you get to be so stupid? Do you know anything?
contemporary American conservatism has nothing to do with Buckley at all.
how did you get to be such a prole?
Buckley was only anti pseudo-elites. that is, pushy striving fucktards.
“meritocracy” leads to shop-girl PMs like Thatcher.
Buckley first book – God and Man at Yale – was a broadside at the Yale faculty who he felt had left God outside the classroom in favor secular pursuits and the brainwashing of Yale students. Buckley then built the modern conservative movement from the ground up in the fifties.
Once again I ask, how did you get to be such a dumbass?
Buckley was an RC. and according to Wills and ARRANT RC.
it is IMPOSSIBLE to be a contemporary American conservative and be anything more than a token RC.
Buchanan and O’Reilly are both examples of popular conservative pundits who are not at all mainstream. they’re PALEO-CONS.
stat crux dum volvitur orbis.
I’m not interested in your idiosyncratic definitions of what religious faith can and cannot be conservative, dipshit.
GOD!
Pinky.
GOD!
not the American Protestant IDOL!
but the living God.
GOD !
GOD !
GOD !
THE LIVING GOD !
There’s just no fucking way you ever earned a 1600 on your GRE.
what Buckley lamented in his Lotus Valley lock-jaw nip was that elite unis had ceased to be elite…had been taken over by pushy striving, pimply, ill-favored dumbfucks.
No, that’s not what he lamented. He was a God-fearing lover of America and hater of all collectivists, and he expected the rest of the U.S. elite to be the same way.
not a 1600.
a 2400.
you’re a moron Pincher.
an American idiot.
read Marion or Plotinus.
then maybe you’ll stop being such a boring PROLE.
an irreligious conservative is just another name for a SATANIST.
The only 2400 you’ve ever earned, Macaca, was the frequent flier miles your parents built up by ferrying you around the country from one institution to the next in the vain hope they might find some cure.
just more prolisms from a prole.
A Buckley Prole, Macaca, one who will inherit the earth.
dust to dust…as i’ve said before…
a prole is one who ranges himself within the range he is given…one who identifies himself with his time and place without knowing he does so…a sub-human.
The chapel showed no ill effects of its long neglect. The paint was as fresh and bright as ever. And the lamp burned once more before the altar. I knelt and said a prayer – an ancient, newly-learned form of words. I thought that the builders did not know the uses to which their work would descend. They made a new house with the stones of the old castle. Year by year the great harvest of timber in the park grew to ripeness, until, in sudden frost, came the Age of Hooper. The place was desolate and the work all brought to nothing. Quomodo sedet sola civitas – vanity of vanities, all is vanity. And yet, I thought, that is not the last word.
“Pincher Martin” might be subbed for “Hooper” and the sense would be the SAME!!!
ultimately atheism or agnosticism relies on:
1. idolatry, confusing Being with beings, not apprehending the ontological difference…beings are known…Being is not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heideggerian_terminology#Ontological
2. a belief in the ding-an-sich despite all the progress of science which belies it. not to mention its inherent absurdity. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/592145/thing-in-itself
atheists and agnostics and almost all those who claim to believe are CONFUSED.
Deirdre McCloskey typifies contemporary American “conservatism”.
one of her books had an interesting title so i bought it from the U Chicago catalog. it was so retarded i had to stop reading five pages in.
then last night driving home listening to BBC radio i heard a man speaking who was identified as Deirdre McCloskey. i thought i’d not understood, so i looked for a vid of her on youtube, and there was one on Newsnight. i had understood..a man’s voice came out of a putative woman.
it was all explained by the wiki.
Deirdre McCloskey is NOT a woman but a mutilated man, like destructure.
she is a devotee of Milton Friedman, the ultimate MF.
“transition” in the context of this elective mutilation has to be up there on the list of all time euphemisms. up there with “resettlement to the east”.
Here we have the Macaca tangent. The right side of his mouth talks about one subject while the left side of his mouth mumbles about something else.
And out of neither side of his mouth is anything other than stale bosh emitted.
that sums up your own prolix, trite, and inane comments.
“paleo-con” means RC conservative just like “neo-con” means Jewish conservative.
this may not be the connotation or the “intention” but it is the denotation and the “extension”.
but all the Orthodox churches are in communion with the Holly See of Peter.
Putin is a paleo-con of a sort.
once a Chekist always a Chekist.
and the oligarchs are not nearly so Jewish as they once were. Berezovsky topped himself the poor sod.
Macaca heads off in such random directions that I doubt he even knows where’s headed when he starts writing a post.
this map says it all…
crede ut intelligas.
certum est quia impossibile est.
EGO SUM QUI SUM.
it is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen.
More old science talk:
“‘Culture free?’
Are “culture-free” or “culture-fair” intelligence tests possible, or is success on a test inevitably influenced by familiarity with the culture in which the test was developed?
Moreover, is it desirable–or even possible–to adapt Western tests to non-Western cultures, or should new tests be designed from the ground up to measure skills and abilities valued by the culture in which they are to be used?
Many psychologists believe that the idea that a test can be completely absent of cultural bias–a recurrent hope of test developers in the 20th century–is contradicted by the weight of the evidence. Raven’s Progressive Matrices, for example, is one of several nonverbal intelligence tests that were originally advertised as “culture free,” but are now recognized as culturally loaded.
Patricia Greenfield, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, argues that nonverbal intelligence tests are based on cultural constructs, such as the matrix, that are ubiquitous in some cultures but almost nonexistent in others. In societies where formal schooling is common, she says, students gain an early familiarity with organizing items into rows and columns, which gives them an advantage over test-takers in cultures where formal schooling is rare.”
http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligence.aspx
this is exactly right.
HOWEVER, one can imagine tests developed to segregate/discriminate smart from dumb in any human society even the most primitive. one can further imagine that a significant g factor might be found in these bespoke test batteries.
if the BGI study had a million participants rather than just 3000 or whatever and these were the crem-de-la-creme of all human societies and some consistent genetic difference were found for this group, THEN on could say that there is a hard-core genetic effect on intelligence.
but this hasn’t been done and worse HBDers don’t even understand the need for such a study. as Suzuki said or intimated…one could make Rushton’s outrageous claims with solid evidence, but Rushton’s evidence is straw.
according to Dan Everett the Piraha have only the quantities one, two, many yet have no trouble learning arithmetic in Brazilian schools.
of course the notion that race is not “biologically meaningful” is a bit of an overstatement by Suzuki and others. this is because the differences between the races isn’t in the alleles one race has and another doesn’t nor even in allele frequencies. it’s rather in the region of allele space which they populate, that is the correlational structure of the allele frequencies. so black, white, mongoloid is a simplistic distinction, but not meaningless.
Suzuki also rightly makes the human/animal distinction…
that is, that one characteristic which most distinguishes humans from animals is their plasticity.
so the measurement of “psychological traits’ independent of the particular time and place and society is very difficult.
and i can compare this to my experience with dogs.
Poodles REALLY are smarter than other dogs. my other dogs REALLY weren’t/aren’t as “bright” as my poodle or the poodles i’ve known.
but what does that mean? it doesn’t matter.
the point is that in the case of dogs there REALLY are MARKED behavioral differences.
Macaca writes:
Of course we see those differences in people, too. And we see them early, as Dan Freedman’s experiment with infants of various races shows.
I took it as him saying that the traits we assign to individuals that mark them as “a race” are socially created anyway, so we could find races and clines for any arbitrarily selected criteria.
Suzuki’s demeanor lent itself to a “he’s not debating” criticism. However, I took it as a) I’m not taking it seriously and b) here’s why — I have laid down a simple introductory gauntlet and he has failed to meet it. a) and b) lead to your point and the general point I see repeated — “there is no conspiracy, there just isn’t much evidence.”
Kaplan and Winther therefore argue that, seen in this way, both Lewontin and Edwards are right in their arguments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_classification%29#Cluster_analysis
there are some obvious geographic correlates. the Chinese and Indians are separated by the Himalaya. black Africa is isolated by the Sahara. both of these limit gene flow.
that is the “no races only clines” i was taught in school is a little disingenuous because some of the populations in the middle of the clines are very small.
i suppose the Tuareg and the Wodaabe might be an example.
it’s interesting that the Tuareg were once referred to as “blue men”. for the indigo colour of their veils and other clothing, which sometimes stains the skin underneath.
one can actually see the American socially constructed categories by looking at Saudis or central Asians for example .
that is, from an American perspective some Saudis look like blacks and others look like Italians.
some central Asians look like whites and others look like Chinese.
my guess is that this is not due to heterogeneity in these populations.
an interesting question is if Saudis or central Asians see these differences also. my guess is they do not.
Suzuki’s a chump. James Crow is a much more distinguished geneticist than Suzuki, and he explains why races matter: Unequal by Nature: A Geneticists’s Perspective on Human Differences
Suzuki was saying the same thing, spunky.
You can use genetic information to separate individuals into races. I didn’t even deny that (neither did Suzuki!). However, that information probably will not match up too well with our popular conceptions of “race.”
Even if correct – and it’s not – since most people around the world who struggle with modernity still want what the wealthiest people of the world have in Europe, the European offshoots (United States, Australia, Canada, etc.), and now East Asia, it hardly matters. If they want to live in wealthy societies, then they need to learn what we learn at the pace we learn it at.
And the evidence shows they can’t. The tests show that, and the results in their societies are consistent with those tests, and the results in modern societies between races are consistent with those tests.
How do you know it’s not, exactly? The paper I cited (itself an update of the APA task force’s 1994 report on intelligence) shows a lot of evidence that is consistent with this viewpoint.
‘ If they want to live in wealthy societies, then they need to learn what we learn at the pace we learn it at.’
Okay.
‘And the evidence shows they can’t. The tests show that, and the results in their societies are consistent with those tests, and the results in modern societies between races are consistent with those tests.’
Did you not see this?
‘a brief training session on Raven’s Progressive Matrices— often regarded as a virtually pure measure of g—increased the scores of Black Africans by 14 points while increasing the scores of Whites by only 4 points (Skuy et al., 2002).’
The evidence does not “show they can’t.” You are just — like a typical HBDer — vastly overstating your case. Blacks inhabit an entirely different cultural space than white Americans.
Because my earlier polling data is more conclusive than your ambiguous evidence.
Here’s another example of what I was stating to you earlier. You ignore 95 percent of what IQ tests have found to focus on that one anomalous result that is congenial to your prejudices.
They don’t inhabit a “cultural space,” you idiot. They are found all over the world in all kinds of different cultures, and yet they fail the modern test in all of them with the one or two ambiguous exceptions I mentioned earlier.
American blacks, for example, earn far higher incomes than do Mongolians in Mongolia or Romanians in Romania or the Vietnamese in Vietnam – and yet all three of those groups outperform U.S. blacks on IQ tests and will continue to outperform them. And that’s not because they come from modern countries.
‘Because my earlier polling data is more conclusive than your ambiguous evidence.’
It’s not ambiguous at all. It is the follow-up to an official document that unambiguously represented the consensus. What polling data did you put forward? Please, show it. I hope it isn’t a personal anecdote from Jensen.
‘You ignore 95 percent of what IQ tests have found to focus on that one anomalous result that is congenial to your prejudices.’
Please, by all means, point me to a study that contradicts what I brought forward here. The education produced larger gains on a highly g-loaded test in blacks than in whites, which suggests at the very least, that “genetic inferiority” would not stand in the way of progress on highly g-loaded tests.
I cited the book and provided this Wikipedia page to it. That book, although dated, trumps anything you’ve provided because the time it was published in was even more hostile to any idea even suggesting genetic determination than is our own time.
You point to one study, but the mass of studies looking at black/white gap show the opposite.
You remind me of the people who used to refer to that Eyferth study of black American fathers/white German mothers from just after WW2. Of course it was one of the few pieces of evidence supporting the environmentalists, and so they continuously humped it, just as you do with this anomalous study today.
You’re grasping at straws, Swanky.
‘That book, although dated, trumps anything you’ve provided because the time it was published in was even more hostile to any idea even suggesting genetic determination than is our own time.’
According to that book, most experts believe that the environment plays a substantial role (sum of environment 100% and those who believe genes + environment). I never said genetics had nothing to do with intelligence. I didn’t present the scientific consensus as saying genetics have nothing to do with intelligence.
‘You point to one study, but the mass of studies looking at black/white gap show the opposite.’
POINT ME TO ONE SET OF DATA that shows what you say 95 percent of IQ studies “show” and contradicts what I put forward.
‘Of course it was one of the few pieces of evidence supporting the environmentalists, and so they continuously humped it, just as you do with this anomalous study today.’
The british mixed children versus white children is evidence in the same vein as the Eyeferth study.
The Eyeferth study probably didn’t have a representative sample of black men. But then again, within the armed forces there was still an IQ gap between blacks and whites.
Regardless, the study isn’t “anomalous.” It’s part of a large body of evidence showing that these gains are on g-loaded tests and that blacks probably have more to benefit from measures such as training, etc.
‘They don’t inhabit a “cultural space,” you idiot. ‘
Yes they do, in their respective societies.
A lot of the data for country IQ comes from Lynn, and a lot of it has been roundly criticized.
Pincher’s equating theism with stupidity is common. I imagine it’s pp’s primary motivation for her atheism.
but things have changed, if they ever were as Pincher imagines they are…of course it depends on how “religiosity” is defined.
Research on secularity has noted that, in America, agnostics have significant levels of education, while atheists have relatively low levels of education…Research in nonreligion in Britain has shown that the positive relationship between education and non-religion has been reversed with generations after 1955, in other words, that the nonreligious populations tend to have less education and that religious populations tend to have higher education, even though religious affiliation has decreased for both.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_education
listening to Hitchens I agree with everything he says, and his debate partners are morons save Monsignor Lorenzo Albacete, a PhD in physics. but at the same time it’s clear to me that Hitchens wan’t an atheist hewas just anti-religion, as am I.
as one man with a very very high IQ, Kurt Godel, said: Religions are, for the most part, bad—but religion is not.
Americans and other colonials can be indulged. the “religion” which flourishes in America is non-sense and very unlike Christianity in its first few centuries. in the beginning Christianity was like Stoicism, Cynicism, or Neo-Platonism…as Jean-Luc Marion has observed the distinction between philosophy and theology simply didn’t exist until the 12th c. but Christianity did have some Oriental, that is Hebrew, elements, and the midrashim take a very dim view of “philosophers”.
Macaca,
What balderdash.
I didn’t equate theism with stupidity. I pointed out that Buckley got his start as a conservative commentator by attacking the godlessness of his Yale professors and their leftist agenda. Today, such an attack would immediately mark Buckley as a Prole by the likes of you.
an example of the social construction of race:
the man on the far left would be categorized as black in the US going by appearance only. the man on the far right as Sicilian or some “honorary white”. yet all of these men are Saudis.
Except of course that racism agains blacks is common in the Middle East, including in Saudi Arabia and Iraq. This shouldn’t be too surprising given the history of the Arab slave trade in Africa. Many white Europeans were also enslaved by Arabs, but they had a higher status than black slaves.
Get to work on that passport, Macaca.
(And none of the Saudi Arabians in Macaca’s photo look that different.)
It’s not as simple as spunky asserts….
“However, ethnic prejudice among some elite Arabs was not limited to darker-skinned people, but was also directed towards fairer-skinned “ruddy people” (including Persians, Turks and Europeans), while Arabs referred to themselves as “swarthy people”
“The famous 9th-century Muslim author Al-Jahiz, an Afro-Arab and the grandson of a Zanj[39][40][59] slave, wrote a book entitled Risalat mufakharat al-Sudan ‘ala al-bidan (Treatise on the Superiority of Blacks over Whites), in which he stated that Blacks:
…have conquered the country of the Arabs as far as Mecca and have governed them. We defeated Dhu Nowas (Jewish King of Yemen) and killed all the Himyarite princes, but you, White people, have never conquered our country. Our people, the Zenghs (Negroes) revolted forty times in the Euphrates, driving the inhabitants from their homes and making Oballah a bath of blood.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade
His remarks about non-intelligent blacks are limited to a small subset of “blacks.”
The prejudice grew as the demographics of the slave trade changed, which is what you’d expect: culture changes.
Almost all people are ethnocentric, preferring their own kind and culture to those of other people.
But where is the evidence that Al-Jahiz’s commentary was shared among most Arabs? Al-Jahiz was a black Arab man writing about the virtues of other blacks. He wasn’t a typical Arab man writing about blacks. Even today Arabs practice a virulent racism while claiming their religion proscribes it, something that American black muslims have usually ignored in their enthusiasm for Islam.
In describing the virtues of blacks Al-Jahiz can sound remarkably like a modern man:
Hmmm…
* Great at dancing.
* Great at singing.
* Eloquent.
* The most athletic race.
Got it.
‘Even today Arabs practice a virulent racism while claiming their religion proscribes it, something that American black muslims have usually ignored in their enthusiasm for Islam.’
Once again, that racism is a cultural byproduct of the slave trade. The level of racism was not there before the slave trade.
‘Got it.’
Characteristics that are important and showcased in hunter-gatherer societies. The “noble savage” trope.
No, it’s not – and quoting one Afro-Arab about the virtues of black people doesn’t provide proof to the contrary.
‘No, it’s not – and quoting one Afro-Arab about the virtues of black people doesn’t provide proof to the contrary.’
“Mistranslations of Arab scholars and geographers from this time period have led many to attribute certain racist attitudes that weren’t prevalent until the 18th and 19th century to writings made centuries ago.[11][65] Although bias against those of very black complexion existed in the Arab world in the 15th century it didn’t have as much stigma as it later would. Older translations of Ibn Khaldun, for example in The Negroland of the Arabs Examined and Explained”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade#Arab_views_on_African_people
”I’m not an IQ denier. I just side with current scientific consensus on the matter.
Incidentally, I still wonder why HBDers won’t advocate for gene therapy if they are so convinced of biological determinism (in one way or another). We live in an exciting time:
HBDers act like gene therapy would be a “waste of money.” If we can create products like the above, we can develop meaningful gene therapy.”
Swanknasty,
You are a ” iq denier ‘, please no (more) dishonesty.
Gene therapy for what ??
To ” increase points of IQ ” ??
Human intelligence does not exist without culture, especially our modern human intelligence. So measure the intelligence without cultural bias is how to measure the flight of an eagle with its wings clipped.
In the blog of Steve Sailer, a commentator posted a link on the comments of Richard Feynman on education in Brazil. In fact, the Brazilian educational system prioritizes the artificial memorization because it is not concerned with the improvement of teaching, but with statistical results, to win the next election and keep cattle, more and more stupid.
Iq tests, to try to become the most culturally neutral as possible, turned into a test that measures something that relates to intelligence, but it is not.
Cognitive tests should be biased in cultural issues, but not according to the old model of multiple choice. Questions should work all integrated aspects of human intelligence, vocabulary, creativity, ability to make analogies and to seek the most thoughtful and wise answers, that is, to be the most complete and simple as possible.
We are social beings and societies you need to cooperate and contribute. Highly intelligent people who are only concerned with themselves are completely useless to society and potentially dangerous.
‘You are a ” iq denier ‘, please no (more) dishonesty.’
How am I an “iq denier?”
‘Human intelligence does not exist without culture, especially our modern human intelligence. ‘
Never disagreed with this notion. What we view as “intelligence” indeed does reflect our culture.
But the way interprets this is wrong, because you believe that culture influences considerably in intelligence and human behavior. In other words, you put the cart ahead of the horse.
It is more complex than that. However, the essential always to be understood is that we are influenced by our genes, because we are our genes. Ridiculously speaking, we are influenced by ourselves. ” Genes ” makes up our whole body, every piece of it.
Environmental factors are circumstantial factors. Are our interactions at all levels within the social environment. If a society has an intelligent and nepotistic group, then other groups may suffer injustice because of it. Any human being can be adapted to your strengths are exploited (in a good way) by society. DOMINO EFFECT.
I am in favor of the theory of multiple intelligences, but without an egalitarian agenda within her, saying that they are all geniuses, which is not true, although not 100% wrong.
Blacks, through a specific perspective, can be considered collectively lower than East Asian and European Caucasians, but based on a perspective, you guys know what the word perspective, it means in the real world is not ???
If blacks are compared to the Amerindians, we can say that they have been very resistant to all kinds of exploitation that others may have inflicted him, not to mention the friendliness and charisma.
Social intelligence is not necessarily the same thing as emotional intelligence.
‘But the way interprets this is wrong, because you believe that culture influences considerably in intelligence and human behavior. In other words, you put the cart ahead of the horse.’
I disagree.
Differences in “culture” seem to be a function of population growth and hierarchical society.
Swanky writes above:
Europeans are made up of various admixtures of several base populations, not all of whom developed agriculture early. But regardless of admixture, they’re all pretty smart on IQ tests.
I didn’t forget. I showed why his comment is much more appropriately targeted at you than HBDers.
Modern in this context simply means that a population can continue to expand the frontiers of scientific knowledge and apply that knowledge to technology to expand the frontiers of economic growth.
Those are the things we take for granted in the West, but no SSA populations can come anywhere close to doing on their own and may not be able to do even with substantial help.
‘Europeans are made up of various admixtures of several base populations, not all of whom developed agriculture early. But regardless of admixture, they’re all pretty smart on IQ tests.’
The “time to agriculture” matters less than the cultures that developed around agriculture. Europeans have lived in large societies that collectively formed cultures necessitating the same set of skills. The inequity in resource distribution placed a premium on those skills.
I bet if we tested the german barbarians vs roman citizens, the german barbarians would score low, too.
‘I didn’t forget. I showed why his comment is much more appropriately targeted at you than HBDers.’
More fabrication. You tried to write off the counter-examples with “anomalies are anomalies.”
‘Those are the things we take for granted in the West, but no SSA populations can come anywhere close to doing on their own and may not be able to do even with substantial help.’
Usually it’s because they don’t have the money. I understand that you are in love with IQ causes GDP. But it’s also possible that GDP causes IQ. Agriculture was a bad bet until the Industrial revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#Reception_and_impact
Meaningless ad hoc drivel.
You said that early agriculture and urban conglomerations were the keys to later modern success. But many successful northern people (the Finns, the Mongols, etc.) belonged to populations who didn’t develop agriculture until well after such developments in SSA. And their genetics aren’t derived from migratory farmers. They still score high on IQ tests, do well in school, and either belong to modern societies (the Finns) or most likely soon will (the Mongols) once they are further integrated into the global economy.
Hart’s thesis explains this far better than does your thesis.
Not if you were to train young Germans in Latin, they wouldn’t. And Tacitus’s famous comments about Germania are hardly dispositive to these questions.
There are always anomalies in social science. But there are more of them on your side of the argument than there are on the HBD side of the argument.
Capital flows freely around the world to the best opportunities, Swanky. It has for the last hundred and fifty years. China had zero capital under Mao. Look at it today. South Korea was as poor as Ghana in 1950. Look at it today.
‘But many successful northern people (the Finns, the Mongols, etc.) belonged to populations who didn’t develop agriculture until well after such developments in SSA’
Once again, the TIME of development doesn’t matter. I did not say early agriculture. I said agriculture. When you measure the IQ of individuals who belong to a more agrarian, hierarchical society, you will probably find that they have higher IQs than those who are not in such a society.
You could probably further differentiate between agrarian societies by the population sizes, which is probably itself correlated with diversity/amount of crops, trade, etc.
‘Not if you were to train young Germans in Latin, they wouldn’t. And Tacitus’s famous comments about Germania are hardly dispositive to these questions.’
I don’t see why they aren’t evidence. He was alive in that time period. You were not.
‘But there are more of them on your side of the argument than there are on the HBD side of the argument.’
Not really. You keep trying to force anamolies by focusing on “early” agriculture. I’m saying that it more has to do with living in a larger society, which is enabled by agriculture, which would make the ‘early’ or ‘later’ development less relevant.
Certain societies are closer to “integrating” because they didn’t catch the full benefit of the Industrial revolution, but nevertheless, they still lived in larger populations and so already had fairly high development in the skills measured by IQ. Probably somewhere around the same as the west pre-Industrial revolution.
‘Capital flows freely around the world to the best opportunities, Swanky. It has for the last hundred and fifty years.’
This is untrue. There are plenty of restrictions on the flow of capital. Further, capital flow usually results in the rich staying rich. A strong middle-class, itself a function of industrial development within a country (which also requires less stark income inequality), may be what leads to higher IQ. That would be consistent with my agriculture idea.
REPOSTED:
If time doesn’t matter, then what’s your argument? That SSAs will become as smart like whites as soon as they start farming? There’s already plenty of evidence that’s not happening.
And Mongols didn’t farm. The land wasn’t suitable for cultivation. Yet they score as high on IQ tests as European whites.
Again, Hart’s thesis covers that. Your thesis does not.
Yes, and Tacitus’s not alive in our time, which means he didn’t understand science or psychometrics.
Okay. Mongolia is one of the least dense countries on the planet. It has almost zero arable land. Mongolia has one city with more than 85,000 people and only twenty cities with more than 10,000 people. And that’s today, when Mongolia has more people than ever before.
IQ? Number five in the world.
I think there’s a rather large hole in your theory that you need to fill, Swanky Hipster.
Like Japan, China, Taiwan, and South Korea over the last century and a half, right?
You’re pretty ignorant of economics, Swanky, but then that doesn’t surprise me.
Except that nothing you wrote here is true. How much industrial development does Mongolia have?
‘If time doesn’t matter, then what’s your argument? That SSAs will become as smart like whites as soon as they start farming? There’s already plenty of evidence that’s not happening.’
Well, you are wrong again. The Flynn effect shows up in developing countries, which is evidence that what I am saying is indeed correct.
‘And Mongols didn’t farm. The land wasn’t suitable for cultivation. Yet they score as high on IQ tests as European whites.’
I’m not sure where you’re getting your data from. If it’s Lynn, then that paper as far as I can remember, didn’t even measure the IQs of Mongols that were not living in China, in Chinese communities and likely mixed with chinese. Even with that advantage, he found an IQ gap of about 5 points. But I’m sure you’d reject an American study of mixed children with a small gap as evidence that blacks do as well as whites on IQ tests. So it is here then, that the actual gap is probably larger.
‘Mongolia is one of the least dense countries on the planet. It has almost zero arable land. Mongolia has one city with more than 85,000 people and only twenty cities with more than 10,000 people. And that’s today, when Mongolia has more people than ever before.
IQ? Number five in the world.’
There’s no real serious data on Mongolian IQ, though, as pointed out above. If an overwhelming plurality of their population lives in one place —- a city with nearly 2 million people — then that is a large population.
‘Yes, and Tacitus’s not alive in our time, which means he didn’t understand science or psychometrics.’
Then applying this little heuristic to your own “evidence,” we can say it’s a wash.
‘Like Japan, China, Taiwan, and South Korea over the last century and a half, right?’
And all of them are still well behind their benefactors.
‘Except that nothing you wrote here is true. How much industrial development does Mongolia have?’
It’s considered a second-world, industrial state.
”I disagree.
Differences in “culture” seem to be a function of population growth and hierarchical society.”
The ‘culture’ may lead to super externalization of one group over the other. Affects the appearance, what we see, but does not affect the essence, what we and others are.
I don’t understand what you write, sorry.
The “appearance” or “phenotype,” is what we are. Genes don’t sit inert. Genes and the environment play off of one another to produce every single trait we have.
Only during the pregnancy. ”Random” genetic combinations. Aa, AA, Ab, AB…
Complex traits aren’t as simple as Dom-Reces.
Completely wrong, i don’t say that appearence IS phenotype. Appearence is a result of hierarchical-circunstancial-environmental factors. For example, Zuckerberg ”looks a genius” (specially to people as Pump and others status seekers), but he’s not. People analyse factors by subjective parameters (appearence) and not by essence or objective parameters. Phenotype AND genotype is obviously what we are. You don’t understand what word ”phenotypes” mean???
Environment OBVIOUSLY play a role our behavior but not as dominant than ”genes” AND ”technique” between the two.
‘You don’t understand what word ”phenotypes” mean???’
‘the observable properties of an organism that are produced by the interaction of the genotype and the environment‘
Seems like that’s you.
So explain please!
”Random” genetic combinations aren’t simple.
Most college students can replicate the knowledge that is memorized, but they can not explain how work.
Most people are not intrinsically motivated OR (intelectually) curious. Most people…
‘Most college students can replicate the knowledge that is memorized, but they can not explain how work.’
Which is one of the MAIN reasons that IQ tests are faulty. If two children look at a problem that requires the student to know the property of similar triangles, the student who simply learned the formula and accepted it as true will get the question right. The student who didn’t learn the property of similar triangles and spends 4 or 5 minutes trying to figure out but sees a relationship (he just can’t PROVE it and will NOT accept an intuition without PROOF — itself a sign of smarts) will get the question wrong. We haven’t learned anything about these two students, really.
Exactly. This is interesting because Hbd hardcore people really believes in ”deity of iq” but MOST of their ”high iq” ones are today marxist or at least nihilistic and pragmatic people, with near-zero of passion, empathy and capacity to see the ”real reality”.
The eugenics that many hbers want impose in the west will cause the bureau-asiatization of european caucasoid, eliminating creativity and growing technic intelligence. And already is happening.
Many (not ALL) hbders love the idea that ”geniuses” can be like him. Terman syndrome. But, Lombroso was more correct specially because Terman wanted change the pathological idea of prodigy this ”belle epoque”. Terman was very personal motivations and it disturb completely his job.
Swanky writes above:
We were talking about SSA. Even where the nutrition is adequate and farming exists in the region, the natives show no evidence of catching up to the IQs of European whites or East Asians. Flynn Effect or no Flynn Effect. There’s no evidence of the stirring of modernity in parts of SSA. Economic growth rates are high because of resource extraction managed by companies from Europe and Asia.
I can’t look at Lynn’s book right now, but let’s assume you’re correct that Lynn measured the IQ scores of Mongols living in the Chinese province of Inner Mongolia rather than those living in the country of Mongolia.
And let’s also forget for a moment that Inner Mongolia is really just an extension of the Mongolian steppe, heavy with grasslands and mountains, not densely populated as most Chinese provinces are, and until very recently subject to the worst insanities of the Chinese Commies.
Despite all this, the Mongols in China still score as high as European whites. These people, who were heavily persecuted in China very recently and are still viewed by the Han with prejudice today and who are often educated in a language and culture not their own, show no apparent ill effects from their treatment.
And I doubt there was much recent admixture if the test was actually administered to Mongols. Mongols are a minority in Inner Mongolia, but they’re mostly gathered in certain parts of the province and they would only have earned minority status if they spoke Mongolian, which is hard to imagine if they had substantial Han admixture. Besides, even if the true Mongolian IQ were something like 95, it would still support Hart’s thesis more than your own.
You make it sound like being a Mongolian in China is a dream. But over the last fifty years they’ve experienced much sharper prejudice than have blacks in the United States. If Chinese Mongols can experience that kind of prejudice and still score so high on IQ tests, then what the hell is holding back blacks in the U.S.?
But Ulaanbator’s large size is only recent. It had less than sixty thousand people in 1900. There are also huge African cities today, much larger than Ulaanbator, but you don’t argue that those urban conglomerations have raised African IQs to the European level, so why pretend that’s how it happened in Mongolia?
‘the natives show no evidence of catching up to the IQs of European whites or East Asians. Flynn Effect or no Flynn Effect. ‘
The Flynn effect IS evidence of “catching up.”
‘Despite all this, the Mongols in China still score as high as European whites’
‘ If Chinese Mongols can experience that kind of prejudice and still score so high on IQ tests, then what the hell is holding back blacks in the U.S.?’
First, your link in no way shows that Mongols have suffered prejudice comparable to blacks. According to them, they’re all equal. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-03/29/content_5914498.htm. I can’t really tell. If you have better data, please share.
Regardless, even if they “suffer prejudice,” they still are in a culture that emphasizes (even moreso than Western culture) certain skills. So they lag natives and perform a cultural rung below.
‘ There are also huge African cities today, much larger than Ulaanbator, but you don’t argue that those urban conglomerations have raised African IQs to the European level, so why pretend that’s how it happened in Mongolia?’
Historically, the Mongol empire was pretty large — 110 million. The cities were probably spread out, but they also had respectable populations. If I also recall, an environmental impetus was given for the empire forming — temperate climate. Nomadic tribes becoming far larger in size (unification) following the environmental shift gives rise to these population densities.
No, it’s not. The Flynn Effect is too widespread to be evidence of catching up. Besides, where has the Flynn Effect been applied to just SSA population to demonstrate catchup? Answer: Nowhere.
I said over the last fifty years. And if you don’t agree with, then you didn’t read the link.
<block
CONTINUED…
Hahaha ! Swanky Hipster has gone from quoting blurbs about Oprah revolutionizing day time TV to quoting Communist propaganda about the equal brotherhood of all ethnicities in China.
All I can say is talk to the Tibetans and Uighers, Swanky, if you’re really still unsure about whether all minorities in China are treated equally.
The vast majority of people in the Mongol empire were not Mongolian or even people of the Steppe. They were conquered subjects. The Mongolian leaders who moved to the cities they conquered, as Kublai Khan eventually did in China, either saw their progeny intermix with the locals or they maintained their Mongol ways, but had to skedaddle back to Mongolia as soon as their local power base came tumbling down.
There were no Mongol-populated cities in the Mongol empire other than the great tent city of Karakorum, which was never an impressive city because it was built to reflect the virtues of the Mongols who didn’t care for cities, but preferred the steppe.
You’re nearly as ignorant as Macaca.
Martini’s abuse one should take as high praise.
all who make him appear the ignoramus he is are “ignorant”.
he’s a Pit Bull chained in Cockring’s yard.
‘No, it’s not. The Flynn Effect is too widespread to be evidence of catching up’
The Flynn effect is greater in less developed countries. The gains are slowing down in the developed world. These two facts imply a gap that will close (or at least substantially narrow).
‘I said over the last fifty years. And if you don’t agree with, then you didn’t read the link.’
Quote what in the link you believe supports any basis for comparison.
‘Hahaha ! Swanky Hipster has gone from quoting blurbs about Oprah revolutionizing day time TV to quoting Communist propaganda about the equal brotherhood of all ethnicities in China.’
I was being glib. It was a dig at YOUR source.
Regarding Mongolia….it really all depends on their IQ scores. And we don’t have any reliable data on them.
Swanky writes above:
REPOSTED:
Swanky writes above:
Since we have modern Germans to study, it’s not a wash.
What your claim demands is that we assume the Germanic people became super-smart in a little over a thousand years rather than they were already smart and just required the accouterments of civilization to show it. And you want to assume that based on one classic book.
What ignorant tripe.
Most of East Asia is consistently ahead of both southern Europe (Spain, Italy, Portugal) and several European off shoots (New Zealand, Israel), and not a little ahead, either.
On a per capita basis, Japan is comparable to France and the U.K., Taiwan is comparable to Iceland and Sweden, South Korea is comparable to Italy and Spain, and Singapore and Hong Kong are among the most wealthy places in the world. And coastal China is probably as wealthy as Taiwan, with interior China soon to catch up.
Singapore’s infrastructure is so impressive that it easily outshines any U.S. city’s you can think of. The airport is routinely ranked among the best in the world; the port makes Oakland and Long Beach ports look like they belong to the Third World; its subway is top notch.
You’re an ignoramus. Mongolia has no industry to speak of beyond mining, and resource extraction is not a high-IQ industry.
neither SIngsing nor HK can be compared to any real country.
compare them to Monaco, Andorra, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Abu Dhabi, etc.
with this fair comparison they’re both shit-holes.
By per capita income, Singapore is ahead of Andorra and comparable to Luxembourg. Monaco and Liechtenstein are both so small (about 35,000 each) that Singapore is nearly ten times as populous as the two combined.
and Singapore’s stock market has been shit for the last 20 years.
and Japan’s been in recession for 20 years.
Taiwan is a shit hole compared to Iceland, and so is most of East Asia. obviously Pincher is a Chink who’s never been to Europe.
in IQ terms i’m 100% certain the German contemporaries of Aristotle were morons compared to Athenians.
BAR! BAR!
and in the last 20 years the German share market has outperformed the American, one of the very few to do so.
Who cares about the stock market?
Yes, Japan has been mired in a long term economic slump and yet it still wealthier than southern Europe and comparable to Great Britain and France.
I’ve been to Europe, Asia and the Middle East, which is more than your passport-less self can claim.
you obviously haven’t.
or you’re just a liar.
who cares about the stock market?!
do you put your money under your pillow or in gold bars you’ve buried in a “secret place”?
when the market is shit this means the economy isn’t growing, that corporate taxes have increased, or that wages have increased faster than revenues.
which is it?
The average household size is 3.47 persons.[141] Due to scarcity of land, 81.9% of resident households (i.e. households headed by a Singapore citizen or permanent resident) live in subsidised, high-rise, public housing apartments known as Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats, after the board responsible for public housing in the country.[141][142] Live-in foreign domestic workers are quite common in Singapore, with about 224,500 foreign domestic workers there, as of December 2013.
i live in a house which i own on a full acre in one of the richest municipalities in my state.
yeah.
3.47 persons in a tiny shitty apartment is the high life.
talk about ignorance.
Macaca,
I knew you were a dumbass, but you’re really taking the cake now.
Equity markets can go through long periods of little to no growth without disrupting the underlying trend of economic growth, and so without telling us anything about the overall wealth of the country. This is especially true of a small city-state like Singapore which is reliant on trade and has many corporations with local HQs who aren’t listed on the Straits Time Index.
I’ve got mine in the market, shithead, and I’m sure it’s better invested than your trust fund from daddy will ever be.
You have to know the local market. How much capital is publicly raised? How much is private. You do realize there are private equity markets, I hope.
You also have to know how much of the public market captures the local economy in other ways, such as trade, that might not be reflected in local public markets.
You also have to know the history of the local stock market. Sometimes one good year in the stock market can anticipate several years of economic growth.
just more ignorance.
the fraction of private vs public is totally irrelevant. and you’re not a private equity guy either.
if an economy grows, revenues grow. and unless expenses as a % of revenues grow more rapidly profits increase, companies payout more in dividends and buy-backs and the share market goes up.
IN 20 YEARS THE STRAITS TIMES HAS INCREASED ONLY 58%.
like i thought, you’re as ignorant of economics and finance as you are of biology.
Macaca,
It is if you’re judging an economy by measuring the growth an equity index, you moron. Companies not listed on the public stock exchange will not have their earnings reflected on it – at least not directly and probe;y to indirectly either.
Well, then you’ll have to explain how the U.S economy grew, and per capita income nearly tripled, from 1967 to 1982 without any growth in the value of the most common U.S. stock exchanges.
Good luck working on your answer, Ace.
1. you seem not to grasp that BOTH public and private companies should benefit from economic expansion. if the us is anything to go by public companies should grow much faster as, for one thing, they can attract better people.
2. i HAVE explained it. their expenses grew and the cost of capital grew as a result of high inflation. that is, expenses had grown faster than revenues AND the risk free yield was so high that P/E ratios had to be similarly high to compete. in 1980 a mortgage rate of 12% was a steal.
i couldn’t find the 30 year, but here’s the 10 year.
3. so what you saw over the period you’ve given is an increase in the share of income going to labor and a decrease in the share going to capital…has that happened in Singapore? if so that’s a very good thing, but the exact opposite of what one would expect with small government laissez-faire policies.
4. btw, i am categorically opposed to wealth taxes. but i don’t include estate taxes in that category, so to speak. NH is an anomaly in the NE, a state that often goes GOP, but it’s got the highest property taxes in the country. property taxes are evil imho. live free or die? ha!
I asked Macaca to answer this question:
Macaca responded by clapping his hands and stamping his feet.
I’ll say it a hundred time before breakfast. The stock market is not the economy. A quarter of the value of the stock market can disappear in less than a year without the underlying economy moving much at all. The stock market can also remain stagnant for long periods of time without damaging the underlying economy.
* For a prime example, nearly 90 percent of the wealth disappeared in U.S. equity markets during the first four years of the Great Depression, but the economy shrank by less than one-third. The U.S. economy then grew because of state spending by the mid-forties without the stock market reflecting that growth at all. It took until 1954 before the stock market’s value had recovered to the level it was at in 1929, but the U.S. economy was significantly larger in 1954 than it was in 1929.
CONTINUED…
There are several reasons this is true.
First, the most common stock indices do not reflect all capital in the public markets, let alone the private markets. The old DJIA, for example, is still commonly used in the media despite representing less than thirty percent of U.S. market capitalization. It’s also weighted in an unconventional way.
Even the S&P 500 only represents about 70 percent of the U.S. market capitalization. But what happens if mid- and small-cap companies experience a rise in their value that large-cap companies don’t see? Well, it won’t be reflected in the S&P 500 market average. We won’t see it.
This is not an academic exercise. It happens in real life. In the period from 1979 to 1981, for example, small-cap stocks did great while large-cap stocks lagged far behind. Small caps also tend to rise more than large caps over the long run (for the simple reason that successful small companies generally have more room to grow than successful large companies).
It’s true that the U.S. has indices which capture nearly 99 percent of the market’s capitalization – indices like the Wilshire 5000, for example. But the U.S. capital markets are far better developed than anywhere else in the world, and so they are more reflective of the U.S. economy.
But for most of the world, private markets still often take the place of public markets whose value are reflected in well-known indices. That’s why it’s dangerous to assume the stock market is the economy, especially for an economy you don’t understand. The STI, for example, is simply a large-cap stock index representing just thirty companies. Well, if Singapore’s stock market index doesn’t capture any small companies or if the large companies on the STI make much of their revenue overseas, then the STI is a poor proxy for understanding the growth of Singapore’s national economy.
Hong Kong has a market cap larger than Frankfurt and Zurich’s markets combined. Does Macaca think that means Hong Kong is twice as rich as Germany and Switzerland?
that is P/E ratios had to be similarly low.
here’s a chart showing the increase in yields during the 70s.
http://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-dividend-yield/
something like half of Singsing lives in PUBLIC HOUSING.
now that’s SHITTY!
And something like 60 percent of Germans and Swiss don’t own their own home.
Every place has its own peculiarities of economic development. Small dense cities like Singapore and Hong Kong have to be very careful how they parcel out land. Most of the natives in those cities still live better than you, Macaca, so shed them no tears. They don’t need them.
almost none of the natives live better than me.
better than you, yes. me, no.
not owning your own house and living in the projects aren’t the same thing.
half of Singsing lives in the projects.
Most of those Singaporean projects make your home look like a dog hovel, Macaca.
Like I said, the average Singaporean is richer than you, and you know it.
more lies.
Modern germans wouldn’t really show us anything, though. They have lived in the type of society I’m talking about for centuries…
‘What your claim demands is that we assume the Germanic people became super-smart in a little over a thousand years rather than they were already smart’
Eastern Germans suddenly became much smarter when Germany was re-united, which supports exactly this interpretation.
‘Most of East Asia is consistently ahead’
Of course, you have to keep using the word “comparable” because you know and I know that they are not as good.
Many examples you point out are only examples of core-periphery.
Mongolia’s main industry is mining, but Mongolia has many other industries.
A lot of the Asian countries are finding this out the hard way, btw. Many problems….
the Mongols and the Manchus both conquered China despite being outmanned at least 100 to 1.
yet today they’re backward despite their huge heads.
another anomaly?
it takes intelligence for one person to subject 100, does it not?
the illiterate greasy Visigoths did the same in Spain.
Just another anomaly.
The retarded flatulence continues.
As a percentage of the Mongolian economy, industry other than mining, construction, and the production of spinoff materials from its traditional herding practices (such the production of cashmere), is trivial. None of those industries are high-IQ pursuits.
Besides, the mass production of all of these economic pursuits are recent. They do not predate the Soviet control of Mongolia.
In brief, Mongolia has not developed any significant industry that sub-Saharan African countries do not already have (mining is quite common in Africa) or can’t quickly attain. The share of the economy dedicated to industry in Swaziland (47.8%), for example, is greater than that dedicated to it in Mongolia (32.6). And only 10.6% of Mongolia’s labor force has jobs in industry compared to over 30% in China.
I gave you the source. They are “comparable” by that measure.
It’s true that not everything can be reduced to an income figure, but that works both ways. For example, crime in East Asia is pretty much nonexistent. You’re safer in Tokyo, Taipei, or Singapore than you are anywhere in Europe (and forget about America – there’s no comparison). Infrastructure is also pretty good in the wealthiest places in East Asia. The best airports in the world, for example, tend to be in Asia. On the other hand, quality of life indices are generally slightly lower in East Asia than relative income figures suggest because of pollution, overcrowding, and other similar factors.
So there’s a tradeoff, but it’s not always a tradeoff that works to East Asia’s disadvantage. In general, I would say that most Americans would still prefer to live in Europe than East Asia for cultural reasons, not quality of life reasons.
Horeshit.
Japan is the second largest country in East Asia and it’s more populous than any country in Western Europe by a good margin. South Korea is as large as Spain. Taiwan is as populous as Australia – or twice the size of Greece. Singapore’s population is as large as Finland’s and bigger than Norway’s or Ireland’s. Hong Kong has more people than Denmark and nearly as many as Switzerland.
And the periphery of China is as large as all of Western Europe. Jiangsu province, for example, is larger than any country in Europe except Germany, and the average per capita income there, expressed in PPP, is nearly $18,000 Shanghai, Tianjin,and Beijing are all wealthier than Jiangsu and their combined population is the size of France. Guangdong has a hundred million people in it and the average per capita income is nearly $14,000. Most of these average per capita incomes compare to a typical Eastern European or South American country, which is a helluva improvement since they started off in the 1970s at the per capita income level of an African country.
And their IQ suggests they will continue to improve. No one makes that claim for Africa.
Of course East Germany was quite advanced compared to anywhere else in the world outside of the Western Europe and its offshoots. No one doubted the intelligence of East Germans like they do Africans. No one questions their ability to modernize.
The Manchus have pretty much disappeared as an independent population, so there’s no point talking about their backwardness. The Manchus have integrated into the Han Chinese in a way that many Mongols have not. The Manchu language, for example, is dead.
The Mongols are backward, but promising – in the same way that the Chinese themselves were recently both backward and promising.
Sub-Saharan Africans are backward and not promising.
That’s the distinction you and Swanky can’t grasp.
the retarded flatulence…very unlike the high brow performance of Le Petomane?
hardly! Le Petomane is the greatest artist of all time. he knew how vile art is. he was honest.
in fact Australia is still very dependent on extraction.
South Africa was too. maybe the end of Apartheid has changed that.
but the Saudis and Gulf Arabs refer to “the curse of oil” without irony.
Canada too is very dependent on extraction.
that is, without extraction (and ag—a form of extraction) Australia and Canada would be a lot poorer.
this map shows it that Manchuria is doing fine. the west is the problem.
i’m sure HBD-tards have an explanation.
That map shows nothing that anyone who’s been awake for the last ten years doesn’t already know. Coastal China has thrived while Interior China has lagged.
And for fucks’ sake, you dumbass, Manchuria is no longer filled with Manchus. They are less than ten percent of the population in the provinces that make up Manchuria. There are more Koreans in Jilin, for example, than Manchus.
If you’re going to pretend to be smart, you can at least make a better show of it.
again assertions i have never made are attributed to me.
if Martini isn’t a girl he’s a woman in a man’s body.
i worked under two very tall ROCs. they both had stank breath and the woman wanted to …
but she was married with kids so i didn’t accept.
Macaca writes:
The Canadians’ productivity is far higher, though, which means they know how to extract far more with much less in labor and resources. Africa extracts by pretty much throwing endless supplies of black people down black holes. China’s not much better, and I’m guessing Mongolia is probably in the same boat as China.
If you’re going to depend on extraction to make a living, then the key to wealth is to extract productively like the Canadians (as well as Australians and Americans).
The two stupidest things I’ve heard today, and perhaps for the entire month, is Swanky citing ChiCom propaganda about how all minorities in China are treated equally, and Macaca telling me that the stock market is the economy.
spunky doesn’t even understand when someone is making fun of him.
‘The retarded flatulence continues.’
A nearly nonsensical statement.
‘ None of those industries are high-IQ pursuits.’
Compared to the first world, okay.
‘In brief, Mongolia has not developed any significant industry…’
Blah blah blah, Mongolia is second world, African countries are third world.
‘Americans would still prefer to live in Europe than East Asia for cultural reasons, not quality of life reasons.’
As if one wasn’t almost entirely, if not mostly, determinative of the other.
Your other stuff about East Asia is negated by the lone fact that only Japan squeaked its way onto the First World list. So they’re so comparable and rich, yet not a part of the First World.
‘Of course East Germany was quite advanced compared to anywhere else in the world outside of the Western Europe and its offshoots. No one doubted the intelligence of East Germans like they do Africans. No one questions their ability to modernize.’
Of course, that’s not an answer, spunky. It’s longhand for ‘THAT’S JUST ANOTHER ANOMALY.’ Lol ‘it can’t mean anything because everyone knows East Germans are smart anyway.’
Swanky Hipster,
The “Second World” died out as a category at the end of the Cold War.
What you’re struggling to say is that Mongolia is wealthier than most of SSA. That’s true, but not germane to the discussion
What you evade explaining is why Mongolia’s marginal wealth (which was achieved very recently), and its very high IQ (which is higher than its wealth suggests it should be), are both not predicted by Swanky Hipster’s theory of history.
No, not really. Most people just feel more comfortable with their own kind. And if they travel or live abroad somewhere that’s not terribly different from home – like Britons moving to France or Japanese living in China. If you go to live in Italy or Spain, the pace of life is slow, the climate is comfortable, the local history often relevant to your own past, the language not that far removed from your own, etc. If you go to East Asia, the pace of life is fast, the climate often different, the local history completely foreign, and the language indecipherable.
Japan is unquestionably part of the develop world. It’s not up for debate. Only an idiot would argue otherwise. It belongs to most of the developed world’s economic organizations. It’s been a member of G7, for example, since the organization’s founding in 1975. And despite its moribund economy, it still has a much larger economy than any in Europe.
But the wealth has spread in East Asia to a lot more places than just Japan. Even a place like Taiwan is now slightly wealthier per capita (using PPP) than Japan.
There’s no anomaly, dipshit. No one questions that political stupidity or isolation or war can prevent a smart people from temporarily achieving their full potential.
There are much more egregious examples of this than East Germany. Look at China during the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) or, even more strikingly, from the late Qing to the end of the Republican Era (1830 to 1949). Look at North Korea over the last fifty years.
The problem for Africa is that unlike the Chinese or the East Germans or the North Koreans, there’s no evidence they are smart enough to eventually get with the program. James Watson recognized this and got flayed for talking about it publicly.
‘The “Second World” died out as a category at the end of the Cold War.’
More semantic prattling:
‘The three world theory has been criticized as crude and relativity outdated for its nominal ordering (1, 2, 3) and sociologists have coined the term “developed”, “developing”, and “underdeveloped” as replacement terms for global stratification—nevertheless, the three world theory is still popular in contemporary literature and media‘
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_World
Call it developing then, and the third world as underdeveloped. It makes no difference.
‘and its very high IQ’
You haven’t established this, as I’ve already said two or three times.
‘But the wealth has spread in East Asia to a lot more places than just Japan. Even a place like Taiwan is now slightly wealthier per capita (using PPP) than Japan. ‘
Taiwan is not a developed country. China is not even a developed country.
‘The problem for Africa is that unlike the Chinese or the East Germans or the North Koreans, there’s no evidence they are smart enough to eventually get with the program’
Barbados is more highly developed than China according to this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index#2013_report
And you keep talking about how there’s ‘no evidence,’ when there’s evidence of the gap in the United States narrowing, there’s evidence that black africans have more to gain from learning certain cultural elements than whites, etc.
You just ignore the evidence you don’t like. And we all know why. I mean, you won’t even give Oprah credit for revolutionizing talk shows lol.
there are three anomalies in the Caribbean for the HBDers. Barbados, T&T, and the Bahamas.
these are small countries and two have significant European minorities. T&T has a lot of East Indians.
and they rely on tourism, tax evasion, drug trafficking…and aren’t all that rich…but they can’t be dismissed.
it’s impossible not to notice how “white” the blacks from these countries act.
Barbados has the lowest birth rate in the New World next to Cuba.
Having an island with beautiful beaches within easy reach of a wealthy country is a lot like finding out your country is sitting on huge oil reserves. You don’t have to be smart to take advantage of it.
Swanky Hipster,
Yes, ignorant people still use it, just as ignorant people still refer to the Soviet Union when they’re talking about Russia.
Your only quibble was whether Lynn measured Mongols in Mongolia or Mongols in China. As I’ve established, it hardly matters, and Lynn’s claim for their IQ is high enough that even a significant measurement downwards (say, a third of a SD) still leaves Hart’s thesis in good standing, which is more than can be said for your thesis.
You’re right about China, but wrong on Taiwan. But in both cases, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Like Macaca, you can hardly escape your house, let alone see other countries.
By any objective definition, Taiwan is squarely in the middle of the developed world.
The IMF has listed it as one of the top 36 economies in the world.
Taiwan’s per capita wealth? In the top twenty-five using PPP and in the top forty using nominal GDP.
Taiwan’s HDI is 0.882, which places it higher than Austria, Luxembourg, Italy, Spain, Greece, the Czech Republic, and Poland.
For political reasons, Taiwan is excluded from many global economic organizations and the UN, but any organization South Korea can join should be considered a lock for Taiwan if political considerations did not bar their entry, since the two countries have been paired economically with each other since the 1970s in much the same ways Singapore and Hong Kong are paired.
That would mean Taiwan is capable of being a member of the high-income OECD group and the Development Assistance Committee. In other words, a developed country.
I’m not surprised you think differently, however, since most Americans who don’t travel abroad, as you obviously don’t Swanky, can’t differentiate between Taiwan and Thailand.
China’s not developed yet. It’s developing.
But Barbados is Disneyland for adults. I guess your economic model for Africa is (to borrow a fine turn of phrase from an online acquaintance) to “turn the continent into a tourist resort for beach bums.” But what works for less than 300,000 people on a small island adjacent to a large wealthy developed country with plenty of extra capital to waste on trips to the sun won’t work for one billion people.
Yes, it should close any century now. Stay patient, Swanky.
more lies and projection by Martini who can’t even afford a car let a lone a plane ticket.
he hangs his hat on his claimed decade in the ROC.
he apparently has nothing else. and why in God’s name would anyone choose to live there? was he on the lam?
Macaca,
We’ve already established that I’m your superior in every way, so why fight it? As the old boys used to say, if you’re going to get raped, lie back and enjoy it.
there are three possibilities. no four possibilities.
1. Martini is an old man in diapers who lived on a US military base in Taiwan when there were some.
2. he was an English teacher
3. his parents are Chinese
4. the most likely…he moved to the ROC because
that he worked for the US govt as a civillian or for an American company in Taiwan i doubt.
Keep stabbing in the dark, poor follow. Maybe you’ll get lucky and draw blood.
‘Yes, ignorant people still use it, just as ignorant people still refer to the Soviet Union when they’re talking about Russia.’
People still use it because it’s still useful.
‘Lynn’s claim for their IQ is high enough that even a significant measurement downwards (say, a third of a SD)’
Speculation based on data that itself was all but ridiculed.
‘I’m not surprised you think differently, however, since most Americans who don’t travel abroad, as you obviously don’t Swanky, can’t differentiate between Taiwan and Thailand.’
Blah blah blah. You gave me a NONUNNDP-calculated HDI. Not interested. And you keep listing a lot of ‘almosts’ and ‘just-about-tos.’
Most people don’t ‘travel’ to these countries. They travel to the periphery which itself resembles the core.
‘I guess your economic model for Africa’
You said there’s no evidence black africans can successfully run a country. You’re wrong.
‘Yes, it should close any century now. Stay patient, Swanky.’
1/3 of it has narrowed.
we have established the exact opposite.
one reveals what is good. one does not reveal what is bad.
you’ve only revealed that you lived in the ROC.
that’s it.
You’ve been pummeled into submission, Macaca. Go back to watching your cutting tools and telling us about how much stock market performance is synonymous with the health of a national economy.
it’s also clear that you have no engineering or business education.
so i’m going with English teacher.
I just schooled you on the stock market, son. Shall I tell how you how best to invest your trust fund next?
Swanknasty: you are one of the most naive persons I have known, naive enough to be one of the few to claim that Taiwan is not developed, at least not in the present, last time I was there in my vacations I though it was just as nice as Japan and much better than Mexico, the country I unfortunately live in. No one in Asia denies neither the success of some Taiwanese exports.
‘Swanknasty: you are one of the most naive persons I have known, naive enough to be one of the few to claim that Taiwan is not developed’
MSCI doesn’t think so. But the IMF thinks so. Regardless….the self-calculated HDI tells us all we need to know.
Direct vote-buying is rampant in Taiwan. Mark of an undeveloped country.
Horrible environmental regulation and standards. Mark of undeveloped country.
The next factor is more speculative, but it’s the education/culture that prevails. Not much civic engagement and free-flow of ideas.
Like most of the ‘Asian tigers,’ it’s 4 parts facade for every 1 part of legitimate merit.
Swanky’s an idiot.
The self-calculated HDI tells us only that Taiwan is not a UN member.
Morgan Stanley is only concerned with equity markets, not with South Korea and Taiwan’s economic development.
Taiwan scores higher on transparency and corruption than most of southern Europe. See here, for example.
If corruption is not allowed in a developed country, then clearly Italy is a developing country.
WTF ?! Nah … Lol ,however despiste our differences you are welcome to comment on my blog : ) todos son bienvenidos, ademas si recibo mas comentarios podria animarme a publicar mas posts 😉 tambien entiendo Español asi que pueden escribirme en Castellano.
Transparency International on its Corruption Perception Index:
Denmark: 1st out of 175 nations
Germany: 12th/175
United Kingdom: 14th/175
United States: 17th/175
France: 26th/175
Portugal: 31st/175
Taiwan: 35th/175
Spain: 37th/175
Hungary: 47th/175
Czech Republic: 53rd/175
Greece: 43rd/175
Italy: 43rd/175
******
So Taiwan’s level of corruption places it about where its level of economic development places it – higher than most southern and eastern Europe countries, but lower than the northwestern countries of Europe.
The corruption measure isn’t dispositive.
As far back as ’94, Krugman called out the “Asian Tigers.” And he was probably right then as he is probably right now.
All of the “great numbers” are just window dressing. The house’s interior is shabby.
Pinky’s definitely a lace curtain type.
the most successful economy over the last 20 years has been a surprise. it’s the Germans again.
indeed E Germany had higher per capita GDP than Asutria in the early 80s iirc.
like Scandinavia, it’s another “anomaly” for Randroids, neo-liberals, and libertardians—that is, contemporary American conservatards.
Santoclulto will like this:
Arminio Fraga addressed the “anomaly” of Scandinavia directly saying,
what matter s isn’t big government or small government. what matters is good government.
that > 80% of Singapores citizens live in projects shows that Singapore is NOT a libertardian paradise or even close.
but from what i’ve seen Singapore has much less inequality than HK. if true why?
perhaps it has much lower immigration? millions of poor from the PRC will increase inequality.
of course majority black Bermuda and the Cayman islands are richer than Singapore. must be genetic, right? or are they just another anomaly?
Only because the CIA (or one of its proxies) overestimated it.
I guess Africans merely have to turn their continent into a beach resort with shady banking services to turn it all around. Good work, if you can get it.
Of course Macaca is still exaggerating the differences between the countries.
Using GDP per capita (PPP), Singapore is ranked 3rd, 4th, and 5th on three lists. On one list Singapore is ranked higher than Bermuda. On another it’s ranked lower. The Cayman Islands is ranked much lower on the only list it appears.
Using nominal GDP per capita (using exchange rates), Singapore is ranked 8th, 12th, 13th, and 13th on four lists. Bermuda appears higher on the two lists it appears, while the Cayman Islands appears lower on two lists and higher on just one.
So it would appear that Bermuda might have a slightly higher GDP per capita than Singapore, while the Cayman Islands probably has a lower figure, but in neither case is it certain.
Of course Singapore’s population (5.5 million) is also about fifty times larger than the Cayman Islands (56,000) and Bermuda (64,000) combined, but why spoil a good story when we can instead watch Macaca advise SSAs to start investing in beach resorts and tax refuges all around the continent.
It’s the new modernization theory !
Swanky with his usual nonsense above:
Ignoramuses use it because they don’t know the Cold War is over.
You didn’t ridicule it. You questioned its application. I showed you why it didn’t matter.
I gave you nothing but facts. You’ve given me your tears … and more useless words.
You’ve traveled to neither, so how would you know?
I said they couldn’t successfully modernize. You’re wrong. Unless you want to argue that Barbados and the Bahamas are the apex of modernity with top scientists, universities, tech research, world-beating companies, etc.
Okay, you got me there. Let’s say two centuries. If you have enough children, Swanky, you might do your own part in helping to narrow the gap.
No evidence the gap has narrowed
But now that rushton & Jensen are gone, the politically correct can just say whatever they want. When the cats are away, the mice will play
I was kidding, of course.
Yes there is. This tripe by Rushton was responded to and refuted in the second paper I cited. Consensus is not on your side.
Consensus doesn’t mean shit, especially in a field as politicized as this one. What was the rebuttal to rushton & Jensen’s argument ?
Swanky doesn’t understand what a consensus is anyway. He thinks it means when scientists agree with him.
Only to an HBDer would scientific consensus “not mean shit.”
Whenever Swanky uses the words “scientific consensus”, just think of Vizzini using the word “inconceivable”
VIZZINI “HE DIDN’T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE !”
INIGO MONTOYA: “You keep using that word. I do not think that it means what you think it means.”
Blah blah blah your poll agrees with me the APA agrees with me.
I guess to you it’s not a consensus unless it’s unanimous.
The Cold War may be over but the distinctions are still mostly apt.
And you gave me several facts that were either lacking — an HDI not computed by the UNDP — or worthless — almosts and just abouts.
You said run a modern country not run a country at the apex of modernity. Barbados and similar countries have high OFFICIAL HDI. HDI takes into account schooling education, etc.
And the gap narrowing occurred over the last 45 years or so.
Nope. Most of Eastern Europe is going one way (toward Western Europe). Russia’s muslim frontier is going another way (becoming more Islamic). Mongolia still another way (with its orientation focused on its big neighbor to the south). Russia is seeking to reestablish itself as a great power. China is consolidating its status as a great power.
There’s no longer any coherent logic to the Second World.
Nobody serious would dispute what I said about Taiwan’s development. You’re just not a serious person.
The ROC obviously can’t be a direct participant in any UN study because it was kicked out of the UN. But that decision was political, not economic.
What I said was, who can run a modern country *independently.*
That is to say, if Western Europe and its offshoots (Canada, Australia, the United States, etc.) were to disappear tomorrow, what places would continue to practice cutting edge science, develop new technologies, and apply those technologies to sustain economic growth?
East Asia? Probably. Eastern Europe? Maybe. India? Possibly. South America? I doubt it.
After that, nobody else. Least of all, anyplace with substantial numbers of SSAs.
A handful of wealthy Caribbean beach resorts masquerading as countries don’t contradict that.
‘Nobody serious would dispute what I said about Taiwan’s development. You’re just not a serious person.’
You pointed me to an HDI that Taiwan calculates for itself as proof that Taiwan is developed. More irony in that a) when you misunderstood my joke, you were criticizing me for citing a biased source and b) here you are eager to do the same…of course, you’re right that I wasn’t serious when I cited the biased source. The hilarious fact is that you are serious with this nonsense.
‘The ROC obviously can’t be a direct participant in any UN study because it was kicked out of the UN. But that decision was political, not economic.’
Part of being developed is playing well with others.
‘What I said was, who can run a modern country *independently.*’
Are you saying that Barbados is not an independent country now?
‘what places would continue to practice cutting edge science, develop new technologies, and apply those technologies to sustain economic growth?’
How silly.
I guess the hundreds of years between Rome falling and the emergence of these factors in western Europe would tell us that those peoples were genetically inferior. After all, they didn’t “continue practicing cutting edge science…’ etc.
Swanky Pete has got to be the dumbest mofo on the planet.
I pointed out a lot more than that.
There was no joke, except the one you unintentionally played on yourself. A joke needs a punchline or some sort of payoff. Even if the joke doesn’t work, the punchline is still plain to see. You on the other hand clearly believed the ChiCom press release that China’s 55 minorities are well treated. You’d make a good Maoist, dipshit.
If you know anything about Asia, there’s no reason to believeTaiwan was padding the stat by fiddling with the UN methodology.
South Korea’s HDI, for example, is 0.897, and South Korea is Taiwan’s twin in economic development, with both being medium-sized East Asian societies that began their modernization and development at the same time, democratized around the same time, and have nearly identical per capita economic stats.
Again, this is not news to anyone who knows anything about not just Asia, but the world.
Is this another one of your jokes without a punchline? Are you really this fucking stupid?
Nixon (and Carter) threw Taiwan (ROC) under the bus in the 1970s to give the U.S. an advantage in Cold War politics and because most of the rest of the world was tired of pretending that China (PRC) didn’t exist when, in fact, they controlled the entire Chinese mainland. Mao was feuding with the Soviet Union. A border skirmish broke out between the two former Communist allies, and war was possible. The Soviet Union was reportedly so worried about Mao that it even asked the U.S. to look the other way as it nuked China.
The U.S. decided to open relations with the Mao’s PRC at the time, and Mao with the U.S., because both considered the Soviet Union much more dangerous to their interests. China was in the middle of the Cultural Revolution and not anywhere near the power it would later become, and most Communist countries sided with the USSR in its dispute with Mao. The U.S. was mired in Vietnam at the time and looking for Chinese help to get out, while also hoping to counter-balance growing Soviet strength in SE Asia. Since China had its own issues with Vietnam, Beijing was a natural ally.
But China would not open diplomatic relations with the U.S. unless it dropped Taiwan as an ally. That was the price of any diplomatic deal because both the PRC and the ROC considered themselves the sole legitimate rulers of all China. Congressional allies of Taiwan managed to prevent Taipei from being completely thrown under the bus by working to ensure that the status quo was maintained across the Taiwan Strait. The U.S. would no longer openly ally with Taiwan, but it would still seek to maintain the island as an independent political entity.
So the U.S. kicked Taiwan to the side of the curb based on a pure realpolitick move. In fact, at the time Richard Nixon made his opening move, China, not Taiwan, was the one who didn’t play well with others, having pretty much isolated itself with various border wars and skirmishes over the previous twenty years.
That’s why Taiwan is isolated today. It’s the much smaller of the two parties who once claimed to represent all of China. That has nothing to do with economic development.
I can’t believe how fucking stupid you are, and that I would have to go through all this trouble to educate a nitwit about the simplest facts in Asia.
What’s next, Swanky Hipster, do you want me to list all of Asia’s capitals for you?
I’m saying its wealth is dependent on others. It doesn’t generate wealth by itself.
Since the discussion was about modernity, it doesn’t matter. But if you want to now expand the discussion to pre-modern times, we’re back to the Easter Island question. What has SSA accomplished that ever placed it at the front of human civilizations? The answer is nothing.
It was plain to see. You furnished a lame groundless piece and I responded with the same.
Anyone who knows anything about Asia knows that there’s a lot of smoke without fire and that they’ve been “on the verge” for decades.
And not being easily pushed around is part of being a developed country, spunky.
All wealth “depends” on others. Trade grows an economy. You keep moving the goal posts….
Regarding the Germans, no, the point is that your “cutting edge” heuristic sucks.
And going back to SSA there’s plenty there to suggest smarts.
Chinese people are smart, but its elite are extremely pragmatic (well, chineses tend to be very pragmatic people). Elites quality look like more important and decisive than ”people quality”. Look at South Africa in apartheid era?? Look Koreas or Germanies (during cold war)??
Now, compares Martinica and Singapore and use this kind of MONOcromatic analysis is very dishonest or stupid to do.
Most people are cattle all the time, smart or not smart enough.
”Santoclulto will like this:
Arminio Fraga addressed the “anomaly” of Scandinavia directly saying,
what matter s isn’t big government or small government. what matters is good government.”
Again?? I’m not fan of Arminio Fraga.
Half of ”comments” of ”Hbd deniers” are ad hominem.
Oh please. HBDers dish out the snark and then whine about ad hominem.
You’re the one complaining….
Need ”consensus”??
no. your gif makes no sense in this context. you can’t call me the victim when you started complaining.
You said he was victim of Hbds and so use ad hominem on each comment yours. Of course it makes sense.
http://davidduke.com/massive-murderous-racism-whites-america/
WOW
Swanky Hipster continues his little dance of ignorance above.
As usual, Swanky states the exact opposite of the truth. East Asia is the only large region in the world where dramatic and genuine economic convergence with Western Europe has taken place.
Not coincidentally to HBDers, but very coincidentally to Swanky and Macaca, it also happens to be the only place in the world which has populations with average IQs at or above the European mean.
Great. Swanky’s presents his grand theory for international relations, which is about as insightful as his grand theory on the International House of Pancakes.
Taiwan was marginalized in the seventies when it was neither a developed country nor a democracy. It was marginalized mainly because it was small and China was big, and because its fate got caught up in the Great Power game of Cold War geopolitics.
But I don’t feel sorry for it. Taiwan’s existence as an independent entity, however precariously maintained, is also the result of Cold War politics. The U.S. under President Truman was fully prepared to allow China to reclaim Taiwan at the start of 1950 until Chinese military forces intervened on the Korean peninsula later that year.
In any case, Taiwan’s marginalization on the world stage shows of how little importance such diplomatic recognition is to getting rich.
Sub-Saharan Africa’s entire economy could disappear tomorrow and few in the developed world would even know it was missing and fewer still would be affected by it.
Trade grows an economy, but it is not the lynchpin to economic growth.
The key to growth is economic productivity, which is built mainly on applied technology, which in turn is created by scientific advances.
Sure, all those Nobel prize winners, All those chess champions. All those fine universities. All that wealth. All those glorious civilizations.
It’s certainly more objective than any measure you’ve brought to the table.
You wouldn’t have a clue whether he was right or not because you can’t possibly understand what he was saying or the distinctions he was making.
Pingback: Are East Asians too highly evolved for their own good? | Pumpkin Person
You have a few facts wrong OP.
Iq increased as a response to social needs . It seems as if the need to think “in term of many variables” is what made humans evolve. There were other hominids (erectus and nearnderthal) in the north and outside of africa at the *exact same time* as modern humans were evolving in Africa. These erectus populations were destined to extinction while those in “laid back africa” went on to gain in intelligence. Consider a hominid debating on whether to challenge another homind for a limited resource say food.
he may consider….(1) I havent ate for days…(2) if i do not get something in me -> i may die..(3) there is limited food (4) why should i not challenge this hominid for the food he has (5) but its the alpha male (6) hes stronger than me (7) even if i do win the food , i wont have a good standing in my clan afterward (8) but his leg is broken (9) and i think if i ask politely i might get it
Consider that the hominid had to make a descision based on the relative strenghts of 9 considerations (variables)…imagine that there are 1000’s of other scenarios in a hominids life that each have multiple variables to determine an outcome and the outcome determines ultimately how succesful he is (and the likelihood of getting a mate and passing on these intelligence genes. Those that could not juggle many scenarios were less able to secure a wife and if they did they were almost bound to fail in raising the offspring.
This is optimised when the populations of the hominids are large and when there are no mitigating factors such as cold environment.
It is also the reason that the technology of the nearnderthals in ice age europe went more and more primitive with time … and also why the skull shaped started of somewhat simmilar to ours (when they were still fresh from Africa) and regressed with time , becoming more and more like the erectus populations they had evolved from while still in Africa.