Please post all off-topic comments for the week in this thread. They will not be posted in the main articles.
I’m so excited. This Friday is Friday the 13th!
Open thread week ending July 14, 2018
10 Tuesday Jul 2018
Posted in Uncategorized
Pumpkin Person
%d bloggers like this:
plus they actually did use close to all the SNPs there are.
In our procedure, a first screening based on standard single marker regression is performed on the training set to reduce the set of candidate SNPs from 645,589 SNPs that passed QC (Supplement) to the top p = 50k and 100k by statistical significance… The number of activated SNPs in the optimal predictors for height and bone density is roughly 20k. Increasing the number of candidate SNPs used from p = 50k to p = 100k increased the maximum correlation of the predictors somewhat, but did not change the number of activated SNPs significantly
peepee is fucking grasping at straws. no! no! putin, russia, trump, mueller,…
according to this study from sweden…
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41539-017-0005-6/figures/1
Anyone here heard about measured IQ scores dropping in Norway due to nutrition getting worse? They did a test with families showing that people born in 1975 had higher scores than those born in 1991.
Part of the study done was to examine how younger brothers performed compared to older brothers, and there was a linear relationship between lower scores and later birth years, thus pointing to environment as the main cause of the decrease in IQ scores.
What’s your guys’ take on this, technology, nutrition, or otherwise? Any opinions on dysgenics as well?
It was racism. The teachers didn’t believe in the younger brother enough and they had no younger brother role models.
Also the legacy of colonialism.
We need to have a conversation about younger brothers.
Haha, I agree, maybe politically geared schooling, such as reinforcing political correctness and making a more inclusive environment for everyone, might have dragged down average scores due to lack of attention to higher scorers or for various other reasons.
Also, my personal thoughts are that prenatal environments are to blame. There may be a lack of prenatal hormones that govern brain development for younger children, whereas older children may experience a better prenatal environment. we’d also have to examine Norway’s GDP because better nutrition is widely available when a country is doing better economically.
Aside from physiological tests they’ve done to determine that reaction times are increasing, they’ve done a lot of tests in Scandinavian countries to show that the percent of higher scores are falling dramatically. I’m not sure if it’s ever been discussed here, but smart fraction theory is one reason people attribute so much success to the West compared to other countries, where the right tail of the curve is larger compared to other countries and thus the smartest bring prosperity to their country.
Implying there’s a “genetic” component to a test of middle class knowledge. If IQ is a mental ability, then it’s not caused by genes.
Yes, rR I acknowledge that IQ tests may just be measures of cultural knowledge, specifically middle class knowledge. Although I personally think theyre valid.
Puppy
Puppy
Puppy
” Philosopher ”
about 10 years older
about 10 IQ points higher
both of us have psychotic features.
both of us are introverted and Intuitive.
my brother has Aspergers (trouble understanding people)
my mom is developmentally delayed.
my brother thinks she is developmentally delayed on purpose.
aunt gets predatory loans for poor people all the time.
she doesn’t understand they are taking her money.
mom thinks buying lottery tickets will solve of money problems.
sisters IQ is 92, she has slept with over 20 guys. has a baby now.
” Philosopher ” never mentioned having siblings.
If he is a single child that explains his independence of thought.
I have a mousy personality.
composure is psychosis.
When my mom cries my brother says she cries to ignore the problem and that she understands what the problem is so cries to ignore it when he talks to her. He has Aspergers. My mom cries because she doesn’t understand and he yells at her and threatens her stuff. He breaks things that are hers.
She is too stupid to understand that he is the problem. I yelled: if he is making you cry and breaking you’restuff, why do you let him. Get rid of him. I then yelled what is the problem and she cried I don’t know. I yelled why are you crying, she said I don’t know.
developmentally delayed mother
Anger management Asperger’s brother.
I did not have the money for him so my mom cried. I asked why what will he do? She said I don’t know.
I was in a 4-way fight 5 months ago because I, my sister and aunt would not let my mom leave and drive my brother home. Me my sisters boyfriend my brother and his friend were in the street. The more I yelled “mom does not do stupid things on purpose” the angrier he got. The boyfriend had a bowie knife. My brother was so mad he could not hit me. Eventually, the police came. Everyone went home.
My brother is fucking retarded thinking she does things on purpose. She is mentally delayed not intentionally misunderstanding him. This retardation is how he understands people. Aspergers. (false attribution)
my brother is so retarded
he should not make my mom cry
it’s not her fault she can’t understand things
If it’s blood brothers, that mere fact would rule out the two obvious explanations : African low IQ settlements and dysgenic policies inciting poors to make more children. So that’s original.
Yeah, its blood brothers by father I believe. You can look it up theres a lot of literature that came out mid June. It was all pver the news too.
I have been listening to many videos of Pederson and Pinker, two prominent Psy. They both have little capsules through wich they convey a pre-thought message while giving an appearance of spontaneity. But, Pinker is much more intelligent than Pederson.
With Pederson, I was first annoyed by his voice . Then I got hooked by his prophetic manners (repeating phrases like a cult leader or Trump … ) . Then, the substance has been sucked out and I was bored by constant repetition and simplism.
With Pinker, I don’t get that hooked but I definitely found more substance.
Both are quite biased and posing like very open minded and purely objective thinker. They made me think there is no objectivity in science except if the scientist is Asperger like and doesn’t feel emotionally about any matter and doesn’t identify with any idea or cause …
I am very happy to have discovered those through this blog. Thx PP , good that you continue, even if you have less time and have to recycle stuff more.
Instead of examining the genetics for high IQ, we need to examine the brain structures of proven geniuses. I’ve noticed a high IQ is nothing if it is not specialized in an area to the point of mastery. Different parts of the brain allow for specialization in different things, therefore reinforcing genius or mastery of something. I think Einstein’s brain is commented on a lot, and obviously Pumpkin wrote a few articles on him, but what was left from being emphasized was how Einstein’s brain was blessed with a incredible parietal region and a corpus callosum which let him do intensive math and create abstract spatial thought with that lethal combination of anatomy. It just goes to show you that yes, genetics can give you a high ability to perform well, but the ability to arrive at genius, you must have a brain that is conducive to getting everything firing on all cylinders. The act of problem solving is important, but what’s more important is how you solve those problems, because as problems get exponentially harder to grasp, solving them requires more fluctuations in the way you think. We also need novel thinking to prepare us for problems that haven’t been thought of yet, to create problems, which is also unique in and of itself and requires what Paul Cooijmans calls associative horizon. Brain chemistry goes a long way as well. Attention is dopamine-related. The brain structure, though, is key because it allows one to figure out what strengths that person has and what cognitive mode of thought they will have.
Actually, they should do more research on the heratibility of brain structure, neuronal composition, etc. That would probably give us a better analysis of what we’re working with in terms of how a person thinks than anything.
Einstein wasn’t among the most remarkable at math. It’s more an aptitude and willingness to think horizontally and connect the dot among different fields and theories. I would say it’s a combination of work, social skills to make others work for him a lot, a confidence in theoretical power to explain the world, horizontal skills and brain. It’s perfectly possible he was a 135 IQ while still being a genious. Maybe too much intelligence can kill the harmony with the other parts.
Control theory is basically the order of operations of a circuit feedback system. White matter fiber tracks create this circuit between the memory modules of gray matter. Depending on the arrangement of control paths (white matter) internal control of memory determines intelligence. Control is prioritization so the more the brain can handle the more complex situations it can handle, and the more complex creations it can make. Prioritizing means the brain is holding more and doing more if the control pathways utilize memory to control more. Training gray matter/memory can program the control mechanisms to become more efficient but generally, the number of control paths are set and a high number of paths means the ability to do more.
When memory is programmed psychological development occurs.
This development allows a general understanding of the world opposite of narrow.
I define intelligence as:
The ability to do more and more in your head simultaneously.
part of that is the ability to understand abstract rules called patterns.
second is the number of patterns one can deal with at a time.
patterns can be seen or verbal
but rules matter because the world operates on causality.
abstractions are just higher sets of causality to solve problems.
a good way to solve a problem is to know the steps (rules) to solve it.
if you make up your own rules that is creativity.
as long as it works a complex task requires doing more in your head.
certain tasks are to difficult or take too long for people without abstract ability.
(Quantity, Causality, Shape)
The world follows rules.
The more rules you understand and can recombine the more intelligent you are.
Has Pumpkin ever did a post on Neoteny? In my estimation, it seems to be the biggest indicator that someone has a larger brain and hence a larger, more reliable G. Reliable as in, higher IQ that is the result of a larger brain does not suffer the genetic diseases like Tay Sachs that high Ashkenazi G is associated with, and no seizures or anything like that, and is also not associated with autism or schizoprenia.
I guess consideres the more K selected peoples in Rushtons hiearchy to be more neotneus. https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/05/15/which-race-is-most-beautiful/
And since he thinks human races follows his ideas of progressive evolution, with Asians apperently partitioning from west asians instead of the other way around, enchephilazation and neoteny kinda correlate interacially. Within races it doesnt seem to appear, though Kanazawa talks about high iq people searching novell experiences.
Just-so stories
I actually made a guest post that covered Neoteny. It’s called Sexual Selection and Intelligence Surprisingly, Humans are more peramorphic than neotenous. At least in the most notable traits
Puppy, you should estimate how many Oscars are going to be won by each race objectively. And then we can compare with the actual oscars and have evidence to campaign.
In my opinion, oscars should be apportioned by representation among the population excluding special needs, alzhemiers, children, illegal immigrants and people with autism (as by definition they cannot act).
Based on this, 90% of oscars should be won by whites, if we are objective about criteria to be a good actor. The other 10% by jews maybe.
I used to work in a video store and so have watched a lot of film. I’ve never seen a movie where a black person of any gender, doesn’t act like themselves in the movie. If someone can find me a movie where Will Smith plays a mystic monk or Denzel plays a transgender nurse, I will take everything I say back.
Dustin Hoffman is a really really good actor. Unfortunately, like many members of the ashkenazi community, I think his specific, ah neurological condition means hes probably naturally good at acting.
doesn’t act like themselves in the movie
phil imagines himself to know these people…
and apparently phil believes Will Smith played himself in ‘Ali.’
Really good opinion from the ashkenazi community. Definitely isn’t giving people the run around.
RUSSIA! RUSSIA!
All this time I thought it was the WASP elite that hated Russia because of communism. Then you realise the truth. Russia is now our enemy because Putin reversed Sachs and Summers work in the 1990s.
Amazing.
MADRID — Over the next week, President Trump will visit Europe to call on allies, get in some golf and then meet President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. He’ll no doubt feel more comfortable with the Russian leader, whom he considers “fine,” than with freeloading NATO partners who, he says, treat Americans as “schmucks.”
Roger Cohen, brilliant insights [redacted by pp, july 10, 2018].
I think all nyt readers should be put in isolation in case they infect anyone else.
If we ranked the average non autistic IQ of newspaper readers, we’d probably find that the people that dont read newspapers at all fall into extreme low IQ and extreme high IQ.
This is a fascinating phenomenon which reinforces my theory that if you are really smart your opinions are not that much different from a welfare gambling addict at the bookies who smells of urine.
And so the irony of the truth is that its actually very simple. And doesn’t need a high IQ at all to see.
In this manner we can then say, that the reason IQ on average, never consistently evolved to genius levels in the population was quite simply because its not needed.
Philosopher, you’re living in the past. Soon, newspapers, the Oscars, etc. will be obsolete. All the cultural phenomenon that you’re obsessed with is slowly dying off. Young people are obsessed with Black culture to the point where degeneracy will become the norm. Trust me, as soon as the Boomers die off, this world will be a completely different in terms of ethics/morals and culture especially.
Most information and media is and will continue to be consumed electronically. Millenials in particular look to Twitter, Facebook, etc. I’m not sure about Gen Z, as they’re pretty young and lean very conservatively in terms of politics, but I doubt their mores and what not are preserved like older generations. They seem to be involved in degenerate behavior to an extreme. I know that you, Philosopher, are a late Gen Xer, so there’s obviously a huge generational gap between you and I, but I really don’t see young people being involved in anything other than self-preservation in social terms. They’re not capable of self-actualization and other features of human psychological conditioning, merely living a life characterized by social media and self-promotion.
Philo, if your hypothesis were true, newspaper would have less than 2% readers : 1% autist and 1% for the two « extreme » end of IQ. Besides, big part of autist and low extreme aren’t able to read a newspaper so you would end up with 1% readership. Your idea is amusing but isn’t coherent.
This comment doesnt make sense. I said the people that don’t read newspapers.
And thx to you Philo, I am now able to spot people with schizo tendencies.
Once you made fun of me as being able to go and measure peoples brain and IQ and it’s true that I have to struggle not to check my guess (I know it’s insensitive).
I did – though – with 3 person at the gym and the results were very positive, despite my generating a small crisis for a poor guy. I was a bit sorry and i succeeded to help him out of the embarasment. If I were schizo, I would have liked to have someone like me as a brother or dad.
Interesting myself more on people that on things has bee very positive so far. And this blog helped a lot. I started with social interest through Lion and went to Psy through Pumpkin.
BRUSSELS — President Trump renewed his criticism of European allies on Tuesday and said he was most optimistic about meeting with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, as he departed for a summit meeting in Brussels that threatens to highlight acrimony within NATO.
Im seeing a Bernays pattern here. Trump is usally followed by the word ‘russia’ in the nyt by the time the paragraph ends.
These are all front page stories im linking. Not archives. I.e. on this day, at least 3 stories mentioned Russia and Trump in the same paragraph.
Anyways (((Hirschfeld))) should explain to non autistic readers someday why Russia is bad for the jewish community rather than agitating for an invasion.
This is a fascinating phenomenon which reinforces my theory that if you are really smart your opinions are not that much different from a welfare gambling addict at the bookies who smells of urine.
not quite.
your and his feelings toward society will be the same, but he’s far less likely to be able to match his feelings to the reasons for them.
sort of like how you can’t see your own false consciousness…but you can see problems.
In this manner we can then say, that the reason IQ on average, never consistently evolved to genius levels in the population was quite simply because its not needed.
Or maladaptive. Going along with this line of thought, very high IQ people are less likely to conform. Conformity is important for one’s survival in a group…and so past a certain point, IQ would lessen rather than increase one’s reproductive success.
professor shoe at it again [redacted by pp, juky 10, 2018].
The points displayed are averages over bins containing 10-50 individuals.
so the less than perfect correlation means the real correlation sucks hard.
…Furthermore, the four cohorts represent different geographic regions (even, different continents) and individuals born in different decades…
one from NZ and the other 3 from the US. prof shoe [redacted by pp, juky 10, 2018] thinks geography matters. no fucktard! what matters is culture. if NZ were a US state one would expect this. as it is NZ and the US are much more similar culturally than two random developed countries.
Note that higher SES families tend to have higher polygenic scores on average — which is what one might expect from a society that is at least somewhat meritocratic.
and what one would expect from a totally un-meritocratic society as well fucktard.
this paper is pointless. if educational attainment can be predicted then so can upward mobility. but how much of the variance in educational attainment did the predictor explain? answer .35^2 = 12.25%. so the graphs are extremely misleading. without the binning the correlation is close to 0.
When we looked at the Dunedin study data, we did find that participants with
higher polygenic scores were slightly more successful than those with lower scores,
but the effect was very small—just 1% to 4% of the variance.
so those graph’s are intentionally misleading.
We tested if education-linked polygenic scores predicted social mobility in >20,000 individuals in five longitudinal studies in the United States, Britain, and New Zealand.
where’s the data for britain? hiding something?
Based on GWAS, we expected E-Risk participants with higher polygenic scores would achieve higher GCSE levels by age 18 y. They did (polygenic score–GCSE level r = 0.27, P < 0.001).
so a heritability of 7.3%. bravo!
Even after taking account of parents’ education, E-Risk participants with higher polygenic scores tended to achieve upward educational mobility (parental-education adjusted r = 0.16, P < 0.001).
what shoe can’t grok is that these tiny correlations are not going to get much bigger, and that no one expected them to be exactly 0%.
We measured education-linked genetics using the polygenic score method (30). This method uses GWAS results as a scoring algorithm to compute a summary measure of genome-wide genetic influences on a phenotype.
what population or populations was the predictor maximized for?
here are the more honest figures.
navy blue is attainment. light blue is change from parents’ level.
so there is a significant reduction in accuracy. from .35 to .15, .22, .26, and .25. the minimum correlation always indicates the true environment independent effect of genes.
so imagine this same predictor is applied to educational attainment in france or japan. i’d guess the correlation will be less than .15, the UK figure.
also notice that dunedin is the highest in both education and occupation. i believe dunedin data was used to find the best predictor.
so it appears that it is “game over” as professor shoe says, but he’s the loser, and everything i’ve said over the years is true.
They’re only looking at say 10 million SNPs at most, not all 3 billion nucleotides.
Each of us have 25 million genetic mutations that virtually no one else has.
It’s also unclear whether they are measuring broad sense heritability or just narrow sense.
And just cause predictive power declines in distant populations doesn’t nessecarily mean the SNPs are not causal, it might mean different races have different genetic architecture
A genonomic predictor of skin colour based on whites would do worse in northeast Asians because they have different genes for light skin, so any cross population comparison needs to hold gene pool constant. My idea is to compare unmixed descendants of black slaves in the U.S. to West Africans. Very similar gene pool but in vastly different environments
“My idea is to compare unmixed descendants of black slaves in the U.S. to West Africans. Very similar gene pool but in vastly different environments”
And same result.
not all 3b nucleotides vary. humans are 99.9% identical. but again if the finding for height had also been 9% then steve shoe could continue his charade. 40% vs 9% means game over. except shoe lost. or for some bizarre reason height is determined mostly by common variants and IQ by rare variants or IQ is very not linear and height is. can’t think of any reason why this should be.
btw, if what’s measured is movement relative to parents then there’s no reason to restrict the populations to the developed world. india and chiner can be included like they were for height iirc. any country can be included.
and…if what’s really being measured by the predictor is independent genetic affects then the predictor shouldn’t always be less accurate in other societies. it should be less accurate in some and more in some others.
It’s also unclear whether they are measuring broad sense heritability or just narrow sense.
in shoe’s paper it was narrow sense, additive.
different genetic architecture
= no independent genetic effects = h^2 = 0
unmixed descendants of black slaves
such exist only in the caribbean.
or maybe the .35 figure wasn’t for educational attainment relative to parents but outright.
then .35 goes to .26, .27, .3, .32.
so as you can see in the WLS cohort from the US (people now in their 60s and 70s) the predictor explained only 1% of the change in wealth.
sad!
even if the equal environments assumption were true the comparison of MZTs and DZTs would overestimate h^2, because…
P = aG + bE + cGxE
the same environment for MZTs is exactly the same environment in the sense that bE + cGxE is the same for both twins raised together. but for DZTs only bE is the same.
I dont get this obsession with Steve Shu or whatever his name is. If you think hes doing quack science, why pay attention? You don’t see me combing through Gould papers looking for aha moments.
because…
1. he’s the most sophisticated of the HBDers.
2. he has the ear of oligarchs, or claims to. no other HBDer does, except maybe murray.
3. his last paper is the first of its kind and the beginning of the end for one side or another of the hereditist/anti-hereditist debate.
4. he epitomizes the prejudices of the american elite.
I think he talks to the Chinese elite and some of the tech people and thats about it. Not many people that know about HBD, know who he is. Its common sense. You don’t need a genetics paper to tell you something is up.
Obama came to visit him
Yeah but Obama also visited Neil De Grasse Tyson and Teh Nehisi Coates. I think people listen to him in the same way you might listen to a good opera singer or comedian. Theyre not taken too seriously.
The only people obama listens to intently are Michael Forman, Rahm Emmanual, Robert Rubin, Singer and others like that.
he has given many talks to hedgistanis.
last one was a talk to soros fund management.
obama didn’t come to visit him fucktard. obama came to MSU for some reason and shoe shook his hand.
A lot more than just a handshake iirc
As I said before, brains are about as heritable as looks give or take. You can’t explain how civilisation endured otherwise and how white settlers on 3 different continents, in one of them, mostly criminals, created more advanced societies than anything outside of NE Asia.
you could if you weren’t beholden to the individualist ideology and [redacted by pp, July 11, 2018]
pill’s conspiracy theories also show he is still brainwashed by the individualist ideology.
ideology is also a set of beliefs which are so taken for granted that those who hold these beliefs are not aware that they hold them or even that they are beliefs and not facts. they are what zizek called “unknown knowns”.
many secret societies created the science, politics, and economics of current western civilization. it was an alchemical occultic process the continues today in many groups. (deep web)(dark web) No dancing bears. Over 3 million members.
European poverty was coparable to the rest of the world before the end of the industral revolution. So IDK what you mean by civilazation. If you say that civilazation is knowledge, then south and west asia would beat east asia, who has been prety stagnant and poorer than the rest of the world.
The amerindians lost their lands becuase of population losses through desiese. Africans never really lost their continent, it was more like a protectorate of western europe, same with India
History is defenately NOT a natural experiment, it just have many variables in common with our perception of the future and thus creates an illusion.
European poverty was coparable to the rest of the world before the end of the industral revolution. ”
No it wasn’t.
It toped like four times richer with the conditions i named. But lets say the medival times to make my point. Also, by the rest of the world i meant aisa. Anyhow, it isnt an natural experiment.
If you think IQ is totally random. It follows, that Nobel Prize and Fields Medals and so on would be distributed more equally among human races. You don’t need technorogee to do math or write a paper as jews showed.
Of course, the reason Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals were western created prizes is itself genetics.
It always comes back to the doling out Oscars debate. The Oscars wouldn’t exist if whites didn’t exist.
it may be totally random, but i never claimed that. i do claim it is far closer to totally random than HBDers think it is.
Here’s a good piece on Nobel Prizes.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/10/the-absurdity-of-the-nobel-prizes-in-science/541863/
They’re pretty biased overall (I don’t need to say for who, though).
“Today we see similar attacks on the judiciary in Hungary, Poland and other illiberal democracies. Assaults on judicial independence are made easier when the public comes to view the judiciary as a political body. This risk, and not just the identity of the next justice, should be at the center of public attention.”
This Op-Ed has been updated to reflect news developments.
Lee Epstein is a political scientist and law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. Eric Posner is a professor at the University of Chicago Law School.
These are jews, so I doubt they are this autistic to say this. Courts have always been political. The reason courts started was so the knights of the round table could have a ceremony before inflicting pain on enemies. I don’t know what he’s talking about.
How can someone be ‘objective’ about social issues or borders or other matters?
ideally the judiciary is powerless, mere instruments of the legislatures. the duty of judges is to assure that court procedure is followed and to determine facts. interpretations should be something they all agree on and thus don’t actually have to do. as soon as original intent is abandoned the judiciary is usurping the legislatures, arrogating power for itself.
if all judges followed original intent there would be no conservatives or liberals among them. the judges’ politics would be irrelevant. and they’d be respected.
as soon as original intent is abandoned
meaningless
interpretations should be something they all agree on and thus don’t actually have to do
impossible
ideally the judiciary is powerless, mere instruments of the legislatures.
mob rule, which is to say, elite rule, then.
to live is to interpret. “original intent” is a rhetorical idea and nothing more. and no one actually cares much about “original intent.” all they care about are their personal politics — the function of the rhetoric is to allow one side of some political issue to win a battle without losing a war, i.e. inciting some kind of rebellion or disobedience.
what’s strange is that muggy himself has disavowed original intent by arguing technological change can have an impact on the meaning of the constitution — this is contra original intent.
truly understanding jurisprudence takes extremely high IQ. and it’s thankless.
but you’re welcome anyway.
How can someone be ‘objective’ about social issues or borders or other matters?
phil is correct here.
you’re both morons.
there was only one legit opinion in heller following original intent. i found it. i thank swank for leading me down the path at the end of which i saw that lawyers are too dumb and too evil to be trusted with making up their own rules of interpretation.
sure man, the original intent of the founders was that something outside the constitution, the supreme law of the land, could change the meaning of the constitution.
i thank muggy for continuing to unknowingly prove my point: what one calls ‘original intent’ actually means ‘whatever i like,’ and its function when used is to mollify the other side.
^^^DISHONEST JEW^^^
ah but muggy repeats himself.
Actually in many countries, priests used to be the law and order because they were ‘experts’ in morality.
Just like today, people who make up lies to convince people to down tools also control the courts. Sad!
this is true, and as usual, it’s something I’ve already said.
your problem is that you think you’re special and have overcome your biases.
I only know that I know nothing
but that isn’t what is meant. don’t suppose you know what you only imagine you know is closer to the truth.
I can see why Sailer reads the NYT so much. Its kind of like a dark joke if you know how the world works. Its quite amusing.
Theres an article saying that people shouldn’t pay attention to the bernie sanders people and ‘take the centre’ i.e. Joe Liebermans positions on everything.
Its a dark joke when you understand the NYT is not a liberal newspaper anymore than National Review is a conservative paper. Jimmy was right about fake opposition in relation to media anyway.
I bet all this CRISPR gene editing stuff will only be used in China to make more extreme versions of Chinese – i.e. very nerdy, autistic, really subservient, and sexually invisible.
Great song.
That profile pic was making me angry. Had to change it.
Hsu said that the new paper by Belsky et al, Genetic analysis of social-class mobility in five longitudinal studies is “game over” on his blog.
“…our genetic measurement is imprecise. The education polygenic score explains only a fraction of the estimated total genetic influence on education
…analyses do not completely exclude potential bias due to population stratification”
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/07/03/1801238115
They also didn’t exclude SNPs that didn’t meet their exclusion threshold and the sample is not independent. That doesn’t sound like “game over” to me.
Conley and Fletcher, in their book The Genome Factor: What the Social Genomics Revolution Reveals about Ourselves, Our History, and the Future (pg 80) write that “polygenic risk scores are noisy proxies for the entire genetic component of these traits.”
Nevermind the other problems with PGS (the population stratification problem, which won’t go away, even in these new analyses). PGS should just be called PSS (population stratification score). PGS “clearly contains a strong ancestry component” https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/03/23/287136.full.pdf ; on schizophrenia, but generalizable).
Haworth et al write in their paper Common genetic variants and health outcomes appear geographically structured in the UK Biobank sample: Old concerns returning and their implications. that
“..the true impact of biases within this sample is larger than these results suggest…analysis produced associations between GRS and complex traits even in the absence of direct genetic effects on biology.. (also) that predictions based on GRS are capable of inducing associations where there is little or no direct effect.”
Click to access 294876.full.pdf
Martin et al write in their paper Human Demographic History Impacts Genetic Risk Prediction across Diverse Populations. that there are
“directional inconsistencies in inferred polygenic risk scores…indicating that different traits are likely to suffer from biases that cannot be adjusted, e.g., using prinicipal components alone…”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28366442
But PCA corrections
only detects genetic structures to the level of third or fourth cousins and does not correct for deeper population structure even when it is known to be present [10]. As described above, there are many reasons for thinking that stratification goes much deeper than what is evident in PCA, reflecting genealogies maintained over many generations. … In addition, all attempts for correction involve many assumptions and raise many difficulties of interpretation. One is the assumption that the contribution of SNPs is additive/independent when variation in complex traits is by definition due to combinatorial, non-additive/interactive effects of multiple environmental and genetic factors [8]. Another serious problem is that population structure has been actively created and maintained by social policy, using IQ testing and schooling, the very variables assumed, in GWAS, to be independent of such structure. Those social dynamics, of course, play havoc with statistical assumptions.
http://sci-hub.tw/10.15252/embr.201744140
The GWAS research program will be put to bed soon. Can’t keep defending a clearly failed research program that only shows “genetic associations” with a plethora of problems. Hsu is delusional.
the population stratification problem
that’s because it’s a dumb politically correct concept which assumes race is the only difference between people. ALL societies are stratified, because ALL societies select for some things and against others even if only a little bit. AND those things they select for result from the interaction of the individual’s genes and his culture. just because it’s genetic doesn’t mean it’s genetic…[redacted by pp, July 11, 2018]
Richardson successfully argued that the small genetic differences between social classes are irrelevant to cognitive ability and educational attainment. The arguments in Richardson’s paper are still sound today, and these new papers only strengthen his arguments.
Cultural differences do cause psychological differences. But, of course, these differences cannot be genetically inherited (because there are no psychophysical laws), but they can be culturally inherited.
“…cultural differences are known to exist, and cultural differences can have an impact on psychological traits. For example, members of different cultures have different beliefs and values.” (Prinz, 2012: 68.<Beyond Human Nature: How Culture and Experience Shape Our Lives)
do you keep a file on all the books you read filled with quotes or what? you should give us a bibliography of the critics of hereditism. we all want to be as well read. maybe you already have. if so where?
I have a good memory and my nook allows me to highlight quotes so I can get right to them.
The book I cited is a pretty good read. Alright chapter on IQ, could have been better.
polygenic risk scores are noisy proxies for the entire genetic component of these traits.
but such scores ARE the ONLY way to resolve the issue once and for all. i said this years ago. if shoe et al can come up with a polygenic score that gives an h^2 equal to the twin studies for a group of people selected randomly from the world population, or if despite all the computer power and data available he can’t do this, then it will be game over.
at this point it’s looking like the latter.
Hsu won’t be able to produce one like that because the EEA is false. There is no logical or empirical reason to accept the genetic conclusions of twin studies and these new research programs will not validate these heritability estimates.
And PGS are pretty much population stratification scores.
Steve probably doesn’t care about proving independent genetic effects. In his eyes that’s probably a given
If he can guess your SAT score within 50 points from your DNA he’ll declare mission accomplished
If it doesn’t work in other countries he’ll just make one for those countries
His goal is practical not theoretical
If he wanted a global predictor, he’d have the machine learn on a global sample from the outset
[redacted by pp, July 11, 2018]
Another serious problem is that population structure has been actively created and maintained by social policy, using IQ testing and schooling, the very variables assumed, in GWAS, to be independent of such structure.
this is an example of what i’ve called so many times “the individualist ideology”.
Can you elaborate?
the individualist ideology assumes that…
1. “there is no such thing as society.” —thatcher
2. individuals have traits independent of the societies they belong to.
3. the traits of a society are nothing more than the sum of the traits of its individuals.
4. whatever the individual’s situation, it’s 100% due to his individual characteristics. it’s his fault or virtue or genes. the “locus” of all pathologies is the individual. society can’t be criticized. a particular society is taken as given, like the moon or gravity.
ideology = a way of justifying the status quo invented by the elite to make themselves feel better and to keep their power and believed in by the 99% because living in an unjust world one can do nothing about is emotionally intolerable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Galton
This guy was arguably smarter than Darwin and he was more forceful about human biodiversity. I doubt Darwin never talked to him. Darwin probably held the same views. People knew about this without having severe autism and inventing a statistical method called ‘IQ’ to observe something totally obvious. I bet even some animals can tell some races are smarter, on average.
[redacted by pp, July 11, 2018]
I suppose in time, you’ll be able to tell how good looking a person is too and therefore how good he does with women. But its extreme to say his DNA made him a lothario.
Interesting guy, didn’t know a lot of statistical theory came from psychology.
Shu is shooting in the dark with a pretty primitive idea of how genes work. Darwin said ‘gemmules’ in the blood transferred traits. Our theory is a lot better than what Darwin and Galton worked with, but 50 years from now I guarantee, people will look at Shus paper and the SNP crap and call it primitive.
In such situations, just use common sense.
Galton got around it by examining prominent invidividals and how the were clustering in degrees of family.
Genes are a mystery to geneticists. Most geneticists say race is only a social construct. Go on the American Genetics Society. Thats the official line. Galton got the right answer using rodents. These people have microscopes and software packages and can’t get the right answer. Hahahaha.
Richardson only said that that causes greater population stratification. He makes a good point that population structure has been maintained and created using social policy and IQ. Thus causes further population stratification.
It’s clear that GWAS studies can’t untangle what these people want it to. Population stratification seems to be a very big deal. GWAS will be dead soon and then the hereditarians will beat another thing to death. They won’t stop until they “find” what they’re looking for.
“Galton got around it by examining prominent invidividals and how the were clustering in degrees of family.”
Family studies can’t disentangle genes from environment. As swank says, environments are still similar too, so you can’t jump to one or another conclusion.
(If we’re talking about about the genetic inheritance of psychological traits, impossible, psychophysical laws, etc.
but 50 years from now I guarantee, people will look at Shus paper and the SNP crap and call it primitive.
And people will still be certain that psychological traits are “innate” based on some new The Emperor’s New Clothes ideology.
But if people can realize that the genetic differences between racial groups are small and that these differences — esp wrt ‘IQ’ — underlie the hierarchy that creates a destructive false consciousness….
…why won’t they abandon the ideology that holds together the hierarchy?
status is that important.
phil’s entire concept of jurisprudence is built around his desire to preserve his imagined place in that hierarchy, all empirical evidence from his own life to the contrary.
“…why won’t they abandon the ideology that holds together the hierarchy?”
Because people have their careers invested into these failed paradigms. Twin studies are highly flawed, the EEA is false. There is no logical or empirical reason to accept the genetic conclusions drawn from twin studies. GCTA is flawed, tough to correct for population structure. GWAS is flawed (as are polygenic scores which is due to population stratification), again, tough to correct for population structure due to population stratification. It seems any method concocted to validate the heritability methods of twin studies and the search for these “thousands of genes/SNPs/alleles of small effect” always seems to fall short with a whole slew of methodological and conceptual problems. It’s because the models used are false.
Robert Plomin has a book coming out in October 2018 called “Blueprint: How DNA Makes Us Who We Are”. If that’s the premise of the book then it’s false because DNA is not a “blueprint”, “code”, or “recipe”. Presuming that DNA is a “blueprint” presumes that DNA is context-independent. But that’s false. DNA is context-dependent.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2223161/
Because people have their careers invested into these failed paradigms
ha!
their careers are designed to justify these paradigms.
the paradigms prop up society.
muggy hit it on the head: men need to live in a just world.
but WHY?
because humans NEED
…
…
fairness
…
…
aka
…
..
EQUITY
yet, for whatever reason…most cannot connect this to jurisprudence, and why EQUITY is the all-prevailing concern — or at least the appearance of equity.
original intent MEANS NOTHING to the extent that it fails to provide the illusion of “fairness.”
but ‘ey ‘o you know who understood-a this-a spic-ee meat-a-ball?
humans need fairness but perhaps also a sense of self, independent of society? As Mug of Pee has said, successful people want to believe we would have been ourselves regardless of time or place so we may overestimate genes & underestimate environment.
“their careers are designed to justify these paradigms.
the paradigms prop up society.”
I agree.
What does it mean to “want to believe we would have been ourselves regardless of time or place”? What do you have in mind? Actions? Intentional states?
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it, for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the law-giver is the law. —lincoln’s first inaugural address
A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law.
—Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197, 212 (1903)
humans need fairness but perhaps also a sense of self, independent of society?
the FUNCTION of that sense of self is to avoid BEING DOMINATED BY THE GROUP or anyone else you jedrools
that sense is a defense mechanism against tyranny.
I’m a human being, goddammit!
As Mug of Pee has said, successful people want to believe we would have been ourselves regardless of time or place so we may overestimate genes & underestimate environment.
because ideology BINDS the high class as much as it binds the lower class.
NO ONE wants to live in an unjust world
NO ONE KNOWINGLY DOES EVIL
so yes, of course the King believes in noble blood.
muggy then proceeds to cite examples of empty rhetoric, further proving my point. in that case, the court wanted to do something not EXPLICITLY AUTHORIZED BY THE LEGISLATURE, so jived its way into convincing everyone that the legislature intended something not explicit.
also in Mankichi:
“If a literal interpretation of any part of it [a statute] would operate unjustly, or lead to absurd results, or be contrary to the evident meaning of the act taken as a whole, it should be rejected. There is no better way of discovering its true meaning, when expressions in it are rendered ambiguous by their connection with other clauses, than by considering the necessity for it, and the causes which induced its enactment.”
swank. you and your entire profession lost an argument with a non-lawyer, me. the above quote agrees with me, disagrees with scalia and original meaning.
GAME OVER swank.
i have proved that you and 99% of your fellow lawyers are both dumb and evil.
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it, for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the law-giver is the law…
A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law.
ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS USURPATION, ABUSE OF POWER, LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH…
black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices…
Lol, sure buddy.
Swank doesn’t get my point vis courts being political tools. If you call yourself a christian, you should believe in christian things. Christian things are made up. But there is a canon there and a history. Its not a priests job to invent new rules for being a christian based on the amount of hollywood movies he watches. I say its political in the original sense. Its clear to me, what the founders thought about racial minorities. Crystal clear. Its hard to argue they wuvvved them. You can’t just pretend they wuvvvved them and give them reparations and things and invent new rules. The rules are politically made, but once made, you are either a christian or not a christian. How hard is that to understand?! I just don’t get it.
that’s right swank. SURE = CERTAIN.
you’re not only retarded, you’re dishonest.
there’s a movie i can’t find online called Original Intent: The Battle for America.
the transcript is available. bork sounds sane. dershowitz, scalia, some black lady law professor, etc. all sound retarded.
btw pill, swank doesn’t care about the truth or about right and wrong. he’s a sociopath like 99% of lawyers. there’s no point in trying to convince him of what is obvious to all non-sociopaths. his condition is incurable.
The rules are politically made, but once made, you are either a christian or not a christian. How hard is that to understand?! I just don’t get it.
that’s because there’s nothing to get…
except that if original intent were the sole school of interpretation judges would have no power, and being evil, they wants themselves some power…so they must give a mountain of bullshit ridiculous reasons why any other jurisprudence is better.
…is better than original intent.
the court wanted to do something not EXPLICITLY AUTHORIZED BY THE LEGISLATURE
what the fuck does that have to do with original intent? it’s PERFECTLY consistent.
strict constructionism is FRAUD. scalia was a FRAUD. and scalia was DUMB.
although the specific intent of RICO was to dismantle the italian american mafia, it can be used for other things, and this is consistent with original intent. DUH!
The Artist Formerly Known as ‘The Philosopher'( you are either a christian or not a christian.
Do you believe the Pope is the antichrist as some proclaimed “real” Christians believe? If confused Read Steve Quayle and Tom Horn.
Do you even understand this shit Philosopher? You are poisoned by Nietzsche.
By all the denominations of Christianity how many know the final 7th trumpet in revelations was Donald Trump. Tom and Quayle don’t. The think UFO Vaticana.
Very few understand the end times. Very few Christians think other Christians are real Christians. Least the Conspiracy Christians.
Amending the constitution is not made up new rules.
The constitution has rules to amend the constitution by voting.
Philosophe doesn’t understand ament process.
Yes, people in Congress and Senate, when all founding fathers were dead, did love minorities.
Check out:
The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Procedures_for_amending_the_Constitution
Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution, the nation’s frame of government, may be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and subsequent ratification. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a convention of states called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures.[1] To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be ratified by either—as determined by Congress—the legislatures of three-quarters of the states or state ratifying conventions in three-quarters of the states.[2] The vote of each state (to either ratify or reject a proposed amendment) carries equal weight, regardless of a state’s population or length of time in the Union.
“Yes, people in Congress and Senate, when all founding fathers were dead, did love minorities.
Check out:
The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments”
No they didn’t. At least half the congress wanted to keep slavery until the Civil War. What are you talking about.
Make a timeline. Put a blue dot for every 10 years since the constitution was written to the ruling recently of Fisher vs Uni of Texas.
Theres a reason why the Warren Court was notorious in history for ‘legislating from the bench’. Even most liberals and jews call the Warren Court an ‘activist’ court.
I want you to explain to me in your opinion why Lincoln sponsored legislation to found a black colony in Africa and ship back free slaves there. I want you to explain how this shows the 14th amendment means Fisher vs Uni of Texas is a logical timeline based on the people that passed the 14th amendment. I even quoted the guy that wrote the text saying he explicitly doesn’t mean equality extending beyond due process and basic legal rights. I want a full explanation. Take your time. Full explanation.
Yes constitutions are amended. But when people say they read the founders writings and see ‘the brilliance’ of the founders and that thomas jefferson meant black lesbians should run for president someday, they are out of their minds.
There’s nothing in the 14th, 15th and 13th amendments about AA, or banning people who think races have different personalities from being on media, or abolishing the border to latin america because its ‘racist’.
Exactly, actually to be frank most of these judges aren’t power mad or looking to mess around with people but simply are somewhat brainwashed by their liberal arts ‘education’ or in many cases are actually jews.
In some cases judges are bribed. If you think judges have never been threatened or bribed you are extremely naive.
But on these more social issue type rulings, the opprobrium they personally face socially as a result of the rulings indicates to me that people are doing it because to some extent they believe its the ‘right thing to do’. This is the type of ‘reasoning’ women like. Which is to say, not reasoning.
Whatever about the ‘right thing to do’ – most of these people have never sat down and actually thought about this as an objective concept beyond ‘whatever Rabbi Weinstein says’ – the law isn’t about ‘doing the right thing’ as such. Its about socially constructed ‘justice’ according to a set of rules or at least guidelines.
You can disagree with it. In that case, don’t call yourself a minister or a judge. Stop pretending to believe in something you obviously don’t and using it as a cudgel to make people who do ‘believe’ go do weird things. Robert is right about that point.
You can’t make up a reason about what you want to do and pretend its in the original rules just because Rabbi Weinstein showed you a black child holding a puppy in his latest movie being threatened by a white policeman. You can’t say youre a christian and say mohammed is the true prophet and thats what the bible was REALLY saying.
If its the case that the law ‘allows’ for interpretation it should say it or the legislature or case law should fill in the blanks. There is a lot of ‘discretion’ when you start invoking certain legal principles in some ways vs other parts. Thats why we thought having these justices would clear up these gaps.
But if anyone can find me text in the constitution or any amendment that extrends the rights of US citizens to citizens of Syria, Yemen, this means they are not reading the constitution, but the huffington post op-ed pages and have ‘left the priesthood’.
To me these ‘judges’ (they are supposed to judge the constitution, not morality in general) are mentally deranged when saying the ‘founders’ and ‘the people that wrote the amendments’ intended for syrian citizenry to be a part of the united states. This is obviously a LIE. Its FALSE. 100%.
When Martin Luther called out the catholic hierarcy for running a scam on indulgences, he was 100% right. Indulgences are not a part of the christian cannon. The people giving them and soliciting them should be defrocked or expelled from the religion because they’re obviously corrupt and venal. Thats exactly what happened, in a fashion. The counter reformation cleaned up a lot of that nonsense.
If you call yourself a christian, you should believe in christian things. Christian things are made up. But there is a canon there and a history
phil once again repeats something i said a long time ago:
“the only jurisprudence is a consistent jurisprudence. all of them are shit. what matters is [SIC YOU RETARD SWANK] objective criteria.”
all you’re doing is slowly understanding me.
muggy on the other hand…
seems to understand that, in the realm of IQ, the good thing about IQ tests are that they are — however shitty — objective.
the same thing goes for the text of statute — it’s the only truly objective evidence of the lawmaker’s intent. therefore….
…
everything else…
..
is just…
…
‘usurpation’ of one subjective type or another.
muggy hates this in the context of IQ tests and admissions and holistic criteria, but loves it in the context of the law of the land, where he has been duped into believing that ‘holistic criteria’ can be anything but subjective.
…
that jive is a killer. it’ll get ya.
that’s why muggy quoted Ed Meese and still doesn’t understand that by his own Heller discussion, he doesn’t even agree with original intent.
when swank loses an argument and is shown to be retarded he just makes shit up…just like dershowitz in the movie.
every thing he says above is a lie.
it’s the only truly objective evidence of the lawmaker’s intent. ONLY A LYING JEW COULD EVEN THINK TO SAY SUCH A THING.
muggy hates this “this” isn’t what you say it is lying jew.
that’s why muggy quoted Ed Meese and still doesn’t understand that by his own Heller discussion, he doesn’t even agree with original intent. MORE LIES FROM THE JEW COMMENTER.
ORIGINAL INTENT IS 100x MORE OBJECTIVE THAN ANY OTHER JURISPRUDENCE. ONLY A LYING JEW OR A LIBERAL ARTS FUCKTARD COULD THINK OTHERWISE.
muggy projects when he loses an argument.
now he’s forced to say that the actual words voted on by the legislature are somehow not the most objective representation of their intent.
what’s more objective than that, muggy?
are you seriously going to argue that pamphlets and incomplete debate records are more objective than what was voted on by the legislature itself?
jew gotta be kiddin’ me.
muggy now says that his position on hELLER isn’t that the standing army itself nullified the second amendment and that later he changed his position to some vague notion of technological change doing the same.
SAD!
original intent = holistic evaluation criteria for diversity applicants at Harvard.
it’s a way to get the right
…
RESULT.
but hey, they all are!
I say the more the merrier.
You’re the one with the preferences.
one day you’ll understand. jew know what I mean?
ONLY A LYING JEW
STOP BEING LONG-WINDED
I think a part of Swanks brain is missing. I said its made up to the extent that that is obviously how consitutions are made. They don’t come from the sky. But that doesn’t mean you can keep on making shit up.
What part of these sentences is hardest for you to understand. Underline the parts youre having trouble with.
I know Dr Shu wants to bang the SJW drum for asians, but the difference between hispanic and black Model 1 and 4 is entertaining.
Im surprised the athletic model doesn’t buff black intake by much. AFAIK, Harvard is not really known as a sports college.
If they broke out jew from white as Unz, did, whites would probably be neutrally treated by the admissions.
^^^JEW^^^
white gentiles are the most discriminated against group unless they’re from the 0.1%. this is what espenshade found.
whites hate other whites. elites hate non-elites….it’s a patronizing hatred, because they believe that they truly are gods/saviors/whatever…
they hate them for reasons other than just hating them. they hate them, because it allows them to divert attention from themselves…because it is CONVENIENT to hate them.
identity politics is the mortal enemy of actual social change.
if the structure of US society were unchanged except that all the various identities were equally represented everywhere and at every level it would be just as shitty a society.
and yet muggy clings to identity politics fiercely…because he clings to social identities other than economic ones.
you’re a very curious case.
Dr Shu is right. But he misses the point about asians studying in Harvard. Its the same deal as the Oscars. If blacks won 50% of oscars, the oscars wouldnt be ‘the oscars’.
Likewise, if harvard wasn’t an elitist jew elite recruitment ground, and let in 25% asian intakes, then Harvard would cease to be Harvard in time. The Rockefeller trust fund kids and jews would move their kids to another college and then that would become prestigious.
Based on what Harvard graduates write online and in media, I doubt they learn anything particularly different to bullshit any of us learned.
But he misses the point…as always.
what if ethnic groups were represented by how much money alumni of their ethnicity gave? then the school would be just whites and jews.
i recommend for your viewing pleasure the intro scene to Silence = Death (1990) wherein a guy kills himself by shooting himself in the asshole.
By this standard Bill Maher has a lot of kudos with elites.
Actually I assume a lot of real elites (not Bill Gates types), read Sailer. I notice a lot of times Sailer quotes people like Bill Kristol or the national Review guy quoting him. If they really thought he was a ‘crazy racist’ they wouldn’t read his blog so regularly.
Likewise if Robert really thought Professor Shu was retarded, he wouldn’t care what he thinks because itll be proved wrong anyway.
The intellectuals we have in public are by definition dancing bears. Real intellectuals are usually anonymous or actually working with the elite on a day to day basis organising things and determining what to do with Iran or whatever.
Anyone in academia is almost by definition a dancing bear. They passed the brainwash test and get a job brainwashing other people.
The people elites really listen to are not giving public lectures to 18 year old midwestern girls and black AA students.
It doesn’t get much more elite than bill gates pill. The people who have more money & power are groups, not individuals. Individual power is very limited.
Bill Gates is a dupe. He is not an elite. You cant be elite and have no social awareness.
Do you think everyone who gives to charity is a dupe?
pill’s individualist ideology again.
how do you know the elite aren’t brainwashed pill?
chomsky says they are the most obedient.
the madness of crowds is an emergent phenomenon. it can’t be explained by individual behavior.
Larry Summers is someone the elites listen too.
“Born in New Haven, Connecticut, Summers became a professor of economics at Harvard University in 1983. He left Harvard in 1991, working as the Chief Economist at the World Bank from 1991 to 1993. In 1993, Summers was appointed Undersecretary for International Affairs of the United States Department of the Treasury under the Clinton Administration. In 1995, he was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political mentor Robert Rubin . In 1999, he succeeded Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury. While working for the Clinton administration Summers played a leading role in the American response to the 1994 economic crisis in Mexico, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and the Russian financial crisis. He was also influential in the Harvard Institute for International Development and American advised privatization of the economies of the post-Soviet states, and in the deregulation of the U.S financial system, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.”
Hes the only academic I can name offhand, that they really do listen to and is part of the ‘nomenclatura’ of US elites. I doubt he explain in his lectures why Russia selling its assets to his tribal kin is good economics.
The country’s economic policy reflects what summers suggests a lot more than Warren Buffet, even though Buffet is more right.
“He admits that free trade is harmful to the American middle class: “That said, I acknowledge that global trends and new studies show that the impact of trade on wages is much more pronounced than it was a decade ago”.[84] Nevertheless he advises the United States not to protect its economy (through protectionist measures) and to pursue free trade policy for the benefit of other countries : “The real strategic choice Americans face is whether the objective of their policies is to see the economies of the rest of the world grow and prosper. “”
This is a very common line to gentiles. “Do it for the poor brown people”. In reality, the average mexican is not much richer either since NAFTA.
Israeli policy and Soviet Jewry
According to notes taken by H. R. Haldeman, Nixon “ordered his aides to exclude all Jewish-Americans from policy-making on Israel”, including Kissinger.[58] One note quotes Nixon as saying “get K. [Kissinger] out of the play—Haig handle it”.[58]
In 1973, Kissinger did not feel that pressing the Soviet Union concerning the plight of Jews being persecuted there was in the interest of U.S. foreign policy. In conversation with Nixon shortly after a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir on March 1, 1973, Kissinger stated, “The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy, and if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern.”[59] Kissinger argued, however:
That emigration existed at all was due to the actions of “realists” in the White House. Jewish emigration rose from 700 a year in 1969 to near 40,000 in 1972. The total in Nixon’s first term was more than 100,000. To maintain this flow by quiet diplomacy, we never used these figures for political purposes. … The issue became public because of the success of our Middle East policy when Egypt evicted Soviet advisers. To restore its relations with Cairo, the Soviet Union put a tax on Jewish emigration. There was no Jackson–Vanik Amendment until there was a successful emigration effort. Sen. Henry Jackson, for whom I had, and continue to have, high regard, sought to remove the tax with his amendment. We thought the continuation of our previous approach of quiet diplomacy was the wiser course. … Events proved our judgment correct. Jewish emigration fell to about a third of its previous high.
—-
Now I know why Nixon was deposed. Hahaha. I’ve been trying to figure that one out for years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summers_memo
Hahaha, this is interesting reading!
Pritchett if you read about him, wrote a book advocating open borders.
The same mind at work.
I doubt it was ‘sarcastic’ btw. You don’t write things like this in a World Bank office. Its too detailed to be a joke email. IMO, this was seriously considered. Like the open borders.
WHy would someone write a joke email on behalf of their boss? It makes no sense.
Im starting to think Summers is a legit psychopath now. It would make a lot of sense.
The first half of the interview he talks sense.
The second part he is definitely lying or engaging in beating up strawmen.
Summers is a very interestng person. Not least because he is a good example of a public intellectual who is a legitimate elite and also because his mind is a good reflection of how our elite calculate things.
Can someone give me an explanation that isn’t explained by ‘hes a psychopath’.
But at 1:12 he says its regrettable the trump has “demonised muslims” and yet im pretty sure Summers would have been involved with Perle, Wolfowitz and so on at Bilderberg carving out safe spaces in the Middle East.
How can you hold both such opinions in your head? And be intellectually coherent?
Summers is a really really good example of our elite in the West. Its a pretty dark view.
It must be amusing to them thinking about what the dum dums at home are doing twisiting their hair and having ‘serious’ debates about “independent media” and ‘religious liberty’.
We now know why Bush went into the middle east. And it was about a certain type of racial/religious issue….
Im reminded of gypsyman in a pub with his college friends debating ‘free speech’ and ‘tolerance for minorities’. In a clown world, the only intellectual debates are debates that are fake or manhcuko debates. This is why real philosophy hasn’t been written since the early 20th century. You are not allowed have a real discussion.
I guarantee every college campus will have a classroom where debates about religious tolerance for muslims might come up and you have our (((friends))) snortling in the corner at the naivete of Gypsyman engaing in a stirring argument about how Holland was a pioneer of religious liberty blah BURHA BRA BRA PANTIES.
This is pretty interesting.
12:00 he says Henry kissingers first meeting with Sadat was immediately after he met Sadat. i.e. this is a pretty obvious giveaway about his position in the US hierarchy.
The conversation beginning in the 20th minute about how he told Carter to take the Shah of Iran is very amusing. What the hell is a private sector banker doing with kissinger telling carter to take a desposed dictator?! Hahahaha. Talbot is right. He is a major figure behind the scenes in american history.
33mins: This part of the conversation is a bit la la. He says John Rockefeller did the country proud by creating a monopoly in oil refining. The whole point of the antitrust laws was to stop something like Standard Oil. It impeded american growth. I didnt know he made more money from the break up, than if it stayed together though.
I didn’t learn that much from this. I’d imagine all the questions were vetted. This guy was the boss of a lot of presidents de facto.
The most interesting question one could ask is what he thinks of the rise of the jewish elite in his lifetime.
In this video he recommends to Bill Clinton to drop the cap gains tax and raise the gasoline tax. Ouch.
You can see why all those left wing latin american political leaders had to be assassinated.
18:56
He tells the president to move the native american museum to the custom house hahahaha.
You aren’t going to learn much watching these scripted interviews. These people are chameleons. A candid interview would have been much better.
3.50 onwards is hilarious. Putin is right. The ‘West’ doesnt like an independent actor like Russia running around blocking Isra….the ‘wests’ foreign policy.
There was a quote Putin made a few months ago saying they he thought certain ethnic minorities were to blame for hacking the US elections. HAHAHAHAHA.
Putin is actually quite charismatic i must say. Ive seen a few videos of him now and he definitely is among the more charismatic debaters, even if he looks quite dour.