Pharyngula

Posted by: dsmwiener | October 28, 2010 1:57 PM

I believe that is the sneaky-fucker strategy. Highly effective, I hear.

Posted by: ibyea | October 28, 2010 2:02 PM

Hey, natural selection, the dumb ones went hunting. ;)

Posted by: Yoav | October 28, 2010 2:05 PM

"It used to be useful when we were cavemen and we needed people to guard the caves full of women and children. to explain the world and build a shared back story. So, in our evolution, you can see that there use to be a utility for homosexuality religion, but that was when we were cavemen and we aren't cavemen anymore. So, homosexuality religion is obsolete."

Posted by: Greta Christina | October 28, 2010 2:12 PM

Wow. Of all the terrible arguments I've seen against homosexuality, that one's the latest.

Does he really think that's how evolution works? That it works by Entity A sacrificing its procreative abilities so that Entity B can better survive and reproduce? How, exactly, does he think Entity A passes on its genes, so this self-sacrificing strain gets perpetuated?

What a moran.

Posted by: jnordstrom | October 28, 2010 2:13 PM

Umm... what was that you said about revolting misogyny?

Posted by: El Bastardo | October 28, 2010 2:15 PM

Somewhere along the line there would have been an ESS between the "sneaky-fucker" strategy and the "dumb-fucker" strategy.

What's the evolutionary advantage of being a dumb fuck then? These are the thoughts that never cross Randy's lonely brain cell.

Posted by: James F | October 28, 2010 2:15 PM

"So, in our evolution, you can see that there use to be a utility for homosexuality...also, their cave paintings were fabulous."

Posted by: frog, Inc. | October 28, 2010 2:17 PM

Isn't that the plot of "A Primate's Memoir" by Sapolsky? You forgot the end where Caveman PZ lives to be 120 years old while Caveman Randy dies at 28 from a spear through the back.

Caveman PZ does, however, have to be capable of making hair pretty, among other talents...

Posted by: lhikanliveson | October 28, 2010 2:18 PM

Woo, cavewoman harem for PZ

Posted by: frog, Inc. | October 28, 2010 2:23 PM

"What's the evolutionary advantage of being a dumb fuck then?"

That's only a sensible question if the complexity of being a dumb fuck and a sneaky fucker are the same, such as both being single gene phenotypes.

Most people are dumb fucks due to the noise.

Posted by: broboxley OT | October 28, 2010 2:25 PM

you mean how randy's mind wandered when geraldo reached over the hefalump to archingly struggle with a piece of warm meat?

Posted by: gussnarp | October 28, 2010 2:26 PM

I see a paper in the works, "Reproductive strategies of paleolithic metrosexuals". Either it didn't work very well, or metrosexuality is not heritable. Otherwise we'd live in a much more fabulous world.

Posted by: Fred The Hun | October 28, 2010 2:26 PM

ibyea @ 3,

Hey, natural selection, the dumb ones went hunting. ;)

And the smart ones stayed home with the women, learned how to cultivate hops and barley and started making beer! When the hunters came home with fresh meat everyone partied and the hunters got drunk and fell asleep... Later the hunters adopted religion and here we are today >;^)

Posted by: tsig0 | October 28, 2010 2:29 PM

The Trophy Wife will not be happy about this development.

Posted by: Cosmic Snark | October 28, 2010 2:32 PM

I wonder if the gay cavemen's caves had more feng shui.

"Not that there's anything wrong with that!"

Posted by: gussnarp | October 28, 2010 2:34 PM

@Gaebolga - Well, it's a function of the patriarchy in that the people doing the talking are usually males, those types like their women to be submissive. They only talk about gay males because lesbians don't scare them the same way. They aren't afraid that they are actually lesbians, nor that lesbians are watching them in the shower at the 'Y' just waiting for them to drop the soap.

Posted by: grudgedk | October 28, 2010 2:36 PM

Hey, natural selection, the dumb ones went hunting. ;)

Wow. Of all the terrible arguments I've seen against homosexuality, that one's the latest.

Posted by: david.morning | October 28, 2010 2:40 PM

huh, that's funny. Last time I saw an argument like this it was on the *pro*-gay side of the arguement. Iirc it was a counter to the "IT'S UNNATURAL!" claim (vaguely remember it being part of a paper, but it might just have been a sciency philosophical point).

The idea wasn't that the gay members of the tribe would be left behind, but rather that they wouldn't have children of their own and so would be well placed to care for children on someone elses behalf, much the same way you might ask your parents/siblings to look after the kids for you. This then meant that the children would have a better upbringing as they would have a member of their family (aunt or uncle) on hand to look after them rather than being left home alone, as well as strengthening the bonds between family members and so a more stable environment for the children

Possibly worth noting that the setting for this wasn't the stone age, it was after people had started on agriculture, nor was it a permanent thing, but rather an occasional "hey, could you help me out" favour from a family member.

Also, if this guy's right (even in the vaguest of senses), wouldn't the role which gays should be filling now be teachers? Or foster parents? I mean, if evolution favoured the trait so that they could look after children, surely a position which has a heavy child care aspect would be ideal for them! (just wish I could hear this guy try to explain why this isn't the case without contradicting his other proposal)

Oh, and there's the obvious point that, even if something might *seem* obsolete, in biology that's very rarely the case (if ever), and trying to get rid of it (still curious how he plans to do this) would be an extremely bad idea. It also doesn't automatically make it "bad", as if a moral position is dependant on specific utilities (if this were the case, I wonder how it would apply to preachers)

Posted by: yanshen71786 | October 28, 2010 2:43 PM

The problem is that while conservatives refuse to accept evolution as a whole, liberals and especially men like Mr. Myers and his followers, will refuse to entertain the notion that evolution occurred on modern human beings, possibly leading geographically isolated groups to have evolved a different set of mental and physical traits(I guess the mental part is the controversial one).

When you see how conservatives combat evolution tooth and nail and go to extraordinary lengths to criticize and assail every piece of evidence in favor of the theory, you'll notice a remarkable parallel between that and how most liberals fight any claims about human group differences tooth and nail, assailing every possible piece of evidence offered up as well. In both cases, the conservatives and the liberals are extremely hostile and angry because their a priori world-view has been shattered by the cold hard scientific facts, or at the least, as in the case with human evolution, there's a strong body of evidence to suggest that egalitarianism might not be the case(i.e. the idea that all living creatures today were placed on Earth by God in their modern form, the idea that all human groups are identical in every possible way, except the least superficial physical traits).

The problem that PZ alludes to is far more general in nature. Usually when someone has an emotional interest in seeing a particular idea be validated(i.e. Creationism or human egalitarianism), they're extremely hostile when it comes to accepting evidence which refutes their worldview. The rhetoric becomes wildly emotional, with plenty of name-calling and snark, and people lose the ability to remain dispassionate and rational. How do I know that this bias exists? I've been on forums where the liberal moderators state explicitly that unpopular opinions have to be supported by much stronger evidence than popular opinions. That is to say, if you offer up a just-so story that says that gender and racial disparities in real life outcome are the result of sexism and discrimination, you don't really have to present any compelling evidence that this is the case, because this is a popular opinion that makes most people feel good, deep down inside. If you offer up another just-so story, that these disparities are at least partly the result of innate biological differences, you're basically insulted, vilified, and you have to offer up proof that apparently must be absolutely perfect beyond any doubt(notice how similiar this is to creationists who demand that evolutionary theorists offer up absolute proof beyond any possibly doubt whatsoever).

Anyway, the point of that rant was to agree with Mr. Myers, that dispassionate, rational inquiry is best for society in general. The only problem is, it's a far more prevalent problem than most would realize.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/O.jullMj0I2VvJaxMMVeNKSfOPf73voLSxJAe9PdlOWwi8Y-#258ec | October 28, 2010 2:45 PM

Just so stories indeed. Congressman Randy has no idea of what he is talking about. He has been reading too many comic strips or he thinks the Flintstones has some reality to it.
Some how I doubt sexual interest was as important to said "cave men" as it is to poor Randy

I would bet that his attitude about science if he told another "just so story" about cave men would be equally retarded.
poor education systems => ignorant populations => ignorant political leadership => poor education systems

Posted by: gussnarp | October 28, 2010 2:47 PM

@yanshen71786 Is that supposed to be an argument for racism? That's how it reads to me. I don't think anyone would argue that evolution led to people with different skin colors and physical features, but there is no evidence for differences that justify treating human beings differently. You are the one attempting to force science to do his bidding here, and it's disgusting.

Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED | October 28, 2010 2:49 PM

Great, now racists are coming here and spreading shit... gah.

P.Z., you need to stop attracting the crazies. Leave off your 'Eu de Asshat' cologne, mkay? It's bringing in the fucknuggets from miles around.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon | October 28, 2010 2:52 PM

Wow. Randy's argument is such maximum bogosity that it really needs a new descriptor. Fortunately, one just popped into (out of?) my head --

Industrial strength Bozonium!

Flippin' clown.

Posted by: KCS_SPPF | October 28, 2010 2:54 PM

HA! PZ, you need to give this science crap and write fiction. Think "Intellectual Dave Barry". You'd probably make a lot more money. Anyway, is there an evolutionary utility that explains this Randy doofus?

Posted by: CatherineCanny | October 28, 2010 2:54 PM

How exactly is he wrong about evolution?

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | October 28, 2010 2:57 PM

Yahoomess:

Congressman Randy has no idea of what he is talking about.

Crudely Wrott:

Industrial strength Bozonium!

Posted by: monado | October 28, 2010 3:02 PM

Does anyone else find it odd that apparently women and children aren't people?

The stay-at-home scenario does happen, supposedly. Albinism is five times more common in Tanzania than in Europe, supposedly because albino men can't stay out in the sun for hours so they tend to stay around the village, with predictable results.

Posted by: gussnarp | October 28, 2010 3:03 PM

CatherineCanny - Seriously? For starters, evolution is unguided. In Randy's formulation he suggests that having homosexuals around might be useful, but not how being homosexual might be a useful reproductive adaptation. The homosexuals in his scenario would not be breeding, so they would not pass on their homosexuality (assuming even that homosexuality is heritable in such a simple way). The only way that his usefulness of homosexuality would result in more homosexuals would be if people actively decided they wanted more homosexuals and somehow changed their own DNA to create homosexual children. Or if they actively forced the homosexuals to breed. But he's suggesting that the whole reason for having gay people around is so they won't breed with his females. So it makes no sense at all. Heck, we can't begin to breed for a trait like homosexuality with our current knowledge of genetics, cavemen certainly couldn't. It's just wrong in every way.

Posted by: yanshen71786 | October 28, 2010 3:06 PM

*Correction

I meant to say that if you encounter an individual and his or her race is IRRELEVANT in determining how you treat him or her, then you're not a racist.

Posted by: gussnarp | October 28, 2010 3:09 PM

@yanshen71786 - I'm not going to bother much with you, but I should point out that nowhere does PZ argue for being dispassionate. Reason need not preclude passion, and when someone demonstrates a complete separation from reason, like Randy does, or like dredging up the unspecified specter of a scientific justification for racism, when such a thing has long been discredited, there is plenty of reason to be emotional and to call a moron a moron and a racist a racist.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/O.jullMj0I2VvJaxMMVeNKSfOPf73voLSxJAe9PdlOWwi8Y-#258ec | October 28, 2010 3:14 PM

Yes I see that now Randy is not a congress critter I had to go read that again. I plead diminished capacity as I was adversely affected by the "Industrial strength Bozonium!"tm It seems I have an allergy to it and my brain tends to spin out and my fingers(mouth) engages too soon sometimes even gets me in more trouble.

uncle frogy

Posted by: Jeffrey A. Myers | October 28, 2010 3:20 PM

@ Mattando8

It's ALWAYS conservatives and fundies throwing a tantrum.

You just don't understand judicial activism. Judicial Activism is when liberal judges execute their constitutional authority under Article III and interpret the law.

When conservative judges execute their constitutional authority to interpret the law, they are simply engagin in the judicial process. See the difference!

Conservatives by definition cannot engage in judicial activism which is why Conservatives have no problem overturning established precedent in the blink of an eye when it suits their ideologicla predisposition. Citizens United, Heller, etc.

Posted by: Mr Ed | October 28, 2010 3:23 PM

Dear Hunter Gatherer;

I never thought this would happen to me but one day when I was left back from a hunt...

Posted by: Silent Service | October 28, 2010 3:26 PM

ROTFLMFAO!!!

Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac) | October 28, 2010 3:35 PM

Well, I suppose that it's just good sense to help the women "make hair pretty", after you've them to muss it up. That way, Mr. Randy Bigspear won't suspect a thing.

Albinism is five times more common in Tanzania than in Europe, supposedly because albino men can't stay out in the sun for hours so they tend to stay around the village, with predictable results.

Yep. They are harvested for components to be used in magic rituals. You don't want your stay-fresh magical-body-parts supply to wander off while you're out hunting. So, in our evolution, you can see that there use to be a utility for albinism, but that was when we were savages and we aren't savages anymore. So, albinism is obsolete.

Obviously, for ultimate utility, evolution should have selected for your homosexual men to also be your albino men. It's more cost effective, that way. Two birds, one stone.

Posted by: barb wireless | October 28, 2010 3:40 PM

"They are running rampant. They are doing vicious stuff. … Read Shakespeare’s Othello."

...because everyone knows Shakespeare is the root of all evil. Is this a new version of the 'Slipknot made them do it' argument?!

Posted by: Sal Bro | October 28, 2010 3:45 PM

So, yanshen71786, can you please clarify how your claim that

evolution occurred on modern human beings, possibly leading geographically isolated groups to have evolved a different set of mental and physical traits

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/O.jullMj0I2VvJaxMMVeNKSfOPf73voLSxJAe9PdlOWwi8Y-#258ec | October 28, 2010 3:48 PM

yanshen71786 Author Profile Page | October 28, 2010 2:43 PM

The problem is that while conservatives refuse to accept evolution as a whole, liberals and especially men like Mr. Myers and his followers, will refuse to entertain the notion that evolution occurred on modern human beings, possibly leading geographically isolated groups to have evolved a different set of mental and physical traits(I guess the mental part is the controversial one)

that is what you started with I do not have any of the data but from what I have learned the differences in race which is what you are clearly talking about are almost completely insignificant and mostly superficial.
exceptions would include cycle cell, blood type milk allergy, diabetes.
for athletics questions I would look at the Olympics history paying close attention to economic development and resources devoted to sport.
same would be for intellectual development.
primitive technology does indicate intelligence. I have no intention of beating a dead horse with you but unless I completely misunderstood what you said so I will stop and enjoy reading the rest of the comments.

uncle frogy

Posted by: CJO | October 28, 2010 3:55 PM

If different groups or individuals were different in meaningful ways, then there would be a basis for treating people differently.(This to me makes no sense whatsoever. I find it an abhorrent and repulsive line of reasoning and call upon all liberals to repudiate this kind of thinking. Just because someone is smarter than someone else, doesn't mean that we should discriminate against the less intelligent person! If you think otherwise, boy are you a bigot indeed).

Liberals? This is the explicit argument of, for instance, The Bell Curve, that policy decisions regarding the education gap between white and black children in this country should take into account an innate deficiency WRT intelligence on the part of black people. Tell fucking Charles Murray to repudiate this line of thinking.

And you're confused about the liberal argument (or, more likely, it pleases you to construct a strawman version of it). What you're accusing your liberal opponents of is basically an argument from consequences: that racial differences, if found to exist, would justify racism, and since we abhor racism, obviously the state of affairs where the differences exist cannot be the case.

First, it's not that "different groups or individuals" are not "different in meaningful ways", it's that these differences don't correlate to the superficial markers (primarily skin color) that are used in making the arbitrary socially constructed divisions of race. In a nutshell, whatever such differences there are don't track with race, whereas discrimination and social injustice DO, therefore let's look to these societal structures for our answers as to how to confront the fact that some groups are disadvantaged in our society.

Nobody but racist conservatives argue that innate, biological differences between groups justify the discrimination and social oppression found in the status quo.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/O.jullMj0I2VvJaxMMVeNKSfOPf73voLSxJAe9PdlOWwi8Y-#258ec | October 28, 2010 3:56 PM

oh no I did it again!

primitive technology does NOT indicate intelligence.

uncle frogy

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | October 28, 2010 4:04 PM

A general rule of thumb: if you have to implore everyone to calm down before you make your argument, you're probably about to say something very, very stupid.

Brownian's Law

Posted by: yanshen71786 | October 28, 2010 4:09 PM

Has anyone considered the remote possibility that in the far future we may be able to genetically engineer human equality? Just a thought. However, if we ever want to accomplish such a thing, we would have to first and foremost study and acknowledge potential group differences. My guess is that once we have the technology to engineer human equality, liberals will abandon their dogmatic point of view and jump on board with the rest us. I suspect that most liberals aren't necessarily against the notion of group differences in and of themselves. They're mostly against the idea of "genetic determinism". Stephen Jay Gould even stated as such.

Posted by: yanshen71786 | October 28, 2010 4:14 PM

By the way, let me state for the record that IF meaningful group differences existed, I would be in complete favor of developing the requisite technology in order to help eliminate these disparities. It's extremely disheartening seeing certain groups of people lag behind others in the United States.

I know that PZ has expressed great skepticism regarding the possibility of the Singularity, something which I am also highly skeptical of myself. But at the least, it's an interesting thought experiment to contemplate the possibilities of the transhuman future.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/O.jullMj0I2VvJaxMMVeNKSfOPf73voLSxJAe9PdlOWwi8Y-#258ec | October 28, 2010 4:20 PM

we may be able to genetically engineer human equality?........They're mostly against the idea of "genetic determinism"
sorry but I think you use words and ideas you understand but only slightly
I have no idea of where even to start
try finishing high school or get a GED and try your local community college to get the basics first before you go off and start speculating about human breeding
uncly frogy

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | October 28, 2010 4:22 PM

By the way, let me state for the record that IF meaningful group differences existed, I would be in complete favor of developing the requisite technology in order to help eliminate these disparit

Bullshit.

Such technology exists. It's called income redistribution, and it includes taxation to pay for universal education and healthcare.

These are the technologies that exist today that work to eliminate group disparities, and conservatives like yourself act against them whenever they're brought up.

So don't fucking shovel us a pile of horseshit and tell us it's a pony. Some of us have worked in barns.

Posted by: yanshen71786 | October 28, 2010 4:28 PM

I warned against people becoming childishly emotional and hostile. As PZ has stated, we all have a commitment to intellectual honesty and reason. Furthermore, as mature men and women, we also have a commitment to maintaining a modicum of decorum when discussing our ideas with others.

So let me stipulate the following. You won't find me insulting anyone personally on this forum. Even when someone insults me directly, like in the post above which states that I should try to obtain my GED first before talking about things I don't fully comprehend, I won't retaliate. I was taught that one should be intellectually honest and rigorous, but also civilized in one's discourse with others. These are values I hold to be sacred.

When someone disagrees with my ideas, I'll try to address them substantively. Unlike Mr Myers and his followers, I won't insult anyone here personally.

Posted by: theshortearedowl | October 28, 2010 4:30 PM

Calling your argument stupid is not emotional. It is a statement of fact.

Posted by: yanshen71786 | October 28, 2010 4:38 PM

Brownian, the problem with your reasoning is that you assume that disparities in outcome are necessarily the result of systemic oppression. If your premise were false, that would cast serious doubt on the validity of your moral assertions.

I think that most people don't realize that a tiny fraction of people create almost everything of value for society. And this wealth trickles down to everyone else. It's true that there's a lot of income inequality today, but that's only in a relative sense. In absolute terms, even the poor in America today are far better off in absolute terms than even the wealthy were in the past. Consider the following, the Industrial Revolution probably resulted in one of the greatest upliftings of human living conditions in history. A tiny fraction of the elite were so productive that they managed to develop technologies which radically improves the lives of countless millions of others. Maybe those elites themselves became far richer than everyone else, but once again, this relative inequality should be tempered by the contemplation of the absolute gains created for everyone.

It's true that the US has significant income inequality. But it's also true that it's one of the wealthiest nations in ABSOLUTE terms. If one examines data, one finds that even the lower portions of the income distribution in the US is better than economically than the poor in most places around the world, and this includes the developed nations of Western European, Japan, South Korea, Singapore,etc.

This is why I'm often flummoxed by the way that liberals demonize the elite or lash out against rampant income inequality. We need to remember to think in both absolute and relative terms. My own personal suspicious is that one will generally tend to have large income inequality in more innovative nations, like the US, but that also those nations will tend to be the richest in absolute terms as well.

Posted by: Numad | October 28, 2010 4:41 PM

You have to appreciate yanshen71786's dedication to fabricating a narrative for his trolljacking of the thread.

Posted by: broboxley OT | October 28, 2010 4:43 PM

people are still evolving. Go take a tour of a medieval castle. Look at the weight a man of the line was supposed to drag around to a battle. Unless one is a top line professional athlete or a genetic knuckledragger todays folks couldnt drag it more than 30 yards before looking for a beer and a taxi.

Many different societies look at gays differently some more accepting than others. Apparently this guy doesnt know that he has hunted, partied with, worked beside gay folks. I have had gay friends watch my kids, didnt appear to rub off so to speak but some American Native cultures dont make a big deal out of it, Yupiks are one of them.

Posted by: Dr. I. Needtob Athe | October 28, 2010 4:44 PM

That's not a monkey, it's an ape!

Posted by: David Marjanović | October 28, 2010 4:47 PM

Is that really just a function of the omnipresence of patriarchy?

Of course. So is the fact that the Bible only mentions lesbians once, and that in a context where it's not clear if what they do is considered a sin or the consequence of a sin.

Straight men, you see, tend to like imagining lesbians having some fun, while the thought of gays going at it is outright offputting. (Straight women, or rather any women, don't get to talk in the patriarchy, so they can be hidden in this parenthesis.)

And don't get me started about closeted gay homophobes who only think of one thing all day long...

The problem is that while conservatives refuse to accept evolution as a whole, liberals and especially men like Mr. Myers and his followers, will refuse to entertain the notion that evolution occurred on modern human beings, possibly leading geographically isolated groups to

Stop right here.

There have never been geographically isolated groups of humans more modern than hobbits, except the Easter Islanders for 400 years and the native Tasmanians for maybe 14,000 years. All geographic variation in humans is clinal. There are no races, unless you want to call the native Tasmanians one race and everyone else one other race.

How exactly is he wrong about evolution?

In a long list of ways. For instance, he tries to explain why there are gay humans, as if only humans could be gay. In fact, homo- and bisexual individuals have been found in all vertebrate species that have been observed long enough (400 so far). Next, comment 55 is right. Then, if homosexuality hasn't been an advantage for 10,000 years, it should be about extinct by now...

Pharyngulites - don't bother with CatherineCranky. It deliberately pretends not to understand the most basic things, and it's a drive-by. You'll literally argue for 200 comments and it will never return to answer them. It gets off on this. Do not give it its pleasure.

1) I have SIWOTI syndrome. You can't do anything about that. :-)
2) Here on Pharyngula, we feed the trolls till they explode.
3) You're familiar with the concept of collateral wisdom, aren't you?

I have a much better definition. A racist is someone who believes that race is a factor in determining the worthiness of any particular individual.

Let me guess... you call yourself a "racialist"?

Then let me laugh in advance.

Furthermore, as mature men and women, we also have a commitment to maintaining a modicum of decorum when discussing our ideas with others.

So let me stipulate the following. You won't find me insulting anyone personally on this forum.

You misunderstand.

We don't care about whether you insult anyone.

We care about whether you have a point and evidence for it.

As long as you do, insult away. We are "mature men and women", we can take it. Decorum is a smokescreen.

I think that most people don't realize that a tiny fraction of people create almost everything of value for society.

Evidence?

And this wealth trickles down to everyone else.

Evidence?

A tiny fraction of the elite were so productive that they managed to develop technologies which radically improves the lives of countless millions of others.

Millions of people worked harder than ever before, so hard that they managed to enrich a tiny fraction of the elite... it took legislation to shovel some of that wealth back down.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | October 28, 2010 4:51 PM

I warned against people becoming childishly emotional and hostile.

[Files nails; waits for the dumbass tone troll to quit whining and make a point worth considering.]

As PZ has stated, we all have a commitment to intellectual honesty and reason.

[Notices hangnail. Tries to chew it off.]

Furthermore, as mature men and women, we also have a commitment to maintaining a modicum of decorum when discussing our ideas with others.

[Leaves desk to go find scissors.]

You won't find me insulting anyone personally on this forum.

[None in the supply cabinet. Starts rooting through coworkers' cubies.]

Even when someone insults me directly, like in the post above which states that I should try to obtain my GED first before talking about things I don't fully comprehend, I won't retaliate.

[Finds pair. Cuts nail too sharply. Wipes off blood with Kleenex and hand sanitiser.]

I was taught that one should be intellectually honest and rigorous, but also civilized in one's discourse with others.

[Texts girlfriend; makes plans for dinner.]

These are values I hold to be sacred.

[Ooh, a forwarded email. Yawn. Already read it.]

When someone disagrees with my ideas, I'll try to address them substantively.

[Shreds some old mail.]

Unlike Mr Myers and his followers, I won't insult anyone here personally.

It's Doctor Myers, not Mister, you whiny, fucking hack.

Worry less about insults and more about not being fucking wrong or get off the fucking internet, you dumb, cowardly little shit.

Nobody here cares what your momma taught you, or what you hold to be sacred. Go fuck yourself and your mom, you pedantic, supercilious asshole.

The day some fucking conservative race realist lectures me on fucking values....

Posted by: waynerobinson4 | October 28, 2010 4:53 PM

I'm sorry, but this post has given me this non-politically correct image of a limp-wristed homosexual hitting a sabre-toothed tiger with his handbag ...

Actually, I'd think that it would be a very good tactic to pretend to be a homosexual and be left behind to protect the women (and gain unrestricted access) whilst your competitors go out into the dangerous environment ...

Posted by: yanshen71786 | October 28, 2010 4:56 PM

mikerattlesnake

can you explain why im a racist?
ive stated that i believe that everyone should be treated equally regardless of the circumstances and ive suggested that we engineer equality amongst groups if need be. i've also stated that it pains me to see certain groups lag behind others in the US. if you can point out where exactly the racism lies in those statements, I'd appreciate it. thanks

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | October 28, 2010 4:58 PM

Unlike Mr Myers and his followers, I won't insult anyone here personally.

Posted by: AnthonyK | October 28, 2010 5:03 PM

I think that most people don't realize that a tiny fraction of people create almost everything of value for society

Posted by: Stephen Wells | October 28, 2010 5:07 PM

Can somebody direct yanshen to a copy of "Guns, germs and steel" before it makes more of a total arse of itself?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 28, 2010 5:09 PM

I'm shocked at how hostile and aggressive people are being in this thread. When I debate people of East Asian descent, the conversation is usually vibrant and challenging, but without the sheer degree of utter hostility and invective that people are directing towards me here. Perhaps there are personality differences between Europeans and East Asians? I've always wondered whether or not the far greater degree of European aggressiveness/hostility explained why Europeans conquered and enslaved the Native Americans and Africans, while countries like China and Japan chose relative isolation.

The Great Gazoo has spoken

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | October 28, 2010 5:10 PM

i've also stated that it pains me to see certain groups lag behind others in the US.

No it doesn't. You think it does, but it doesn't. If it did, you'd bother to learn something about such groups, rather than simply suggesting from your armchair that we should perhaps consider whether or not racial differences explain the lag and how we can solve the problem by breeding the black out of them (although you're careful to call it 'genetic engineering'.)

I'm shocked at how hostile and aggressive people are being in this thread.

So? You seem naive, and a tiny bit stupid. Lots of things probably shock you.

Posted by: CJO | October 28, 2010 5:11 PM

I think the who delight in their iPods and their PS3s would be shortsighted to enjoy the accouterments of the modern lifestyle without at least being appreciative of the hard work and dedication that a few of the elites put in, in order to advance civilization.

What a steaming crock of self-serving horseshit. What about the thwelve hour a day hard work and sweatshop dedication that poor Malaysians put into actually, you know, manufacturing these consumer electronics so that we North American and European elites can sit around and congratulate ourselves on what an advanced civilization we've financed on the back of centuries of slave labor and otherwise exploited workforces?

Get this straight: the jobs that these elites you so idolize put so much hard work and dedication into are considered rewarding in all sorts of tangible and intangible ways compared to 12 hour days in a sweatshop, and they are massively disproportionately compensated in material terms.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | October 28, 2010 5:14 PM

yanshen, in the unlikely event you're really listening: the hostility is because, with probability 1, anyone who shows up here and talks about race realism and being open to the evidence and liberal biases and whatever ends up proposing such devastatingly innovative hypotheses as "white people are smarter than black people".

If you actually have anything interesting to say about, I don't know, alleles for better elimination of salt through the kidney being more prevalant in littoral populations, then have at it.

Posted by: Numad | October 28, 2010 5:15 PM

yanshen

"I'm shocked at how hostile and aggressive people are being in this thread."

Somehow, I strongly doubt that.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | October 28, 2010 5:21 PM

I'm shocked at how hostile and aggressive people are being in this thread.

Honestly, if that's the case, then, as I noted before, you're better off never wondering about people again since you're so obviously clueless about how they work.

For starters, don't derail a thread with an off-topic argument, preface by stating that anyone who reacts at all emotionally to your claims is irrational, and then proceed to offload every trite, racist cliché as if you're the first to dare to consider it.

Seriously, if you're really that obtuse, then leave the discussions about human behaviour to those of us who can navigate society without making fifty psychosocial blunders before we get out the front door.

If you're not, and can actually function reasonably well in the company of other primates, then stop lying.

You're not fooling anyone save yourself.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | October 28, 2010 5:25 PM

Another round of Mollies for Brownian #105, please! That was perfectly executed.

Posted by: zielonka97 | October 28, 2010 5:28 PM

I think the who delight in their iPods and their PS3s would be shortsighted to enjoy the accouterments of the modern lifestyle without at least being appreciative of the hard work and dedication that a few of the elites put in, in order to advance civilization.

The greatest measure of "advances in civilization" is the iPod or a PS3?

If that is true, then the human species is more thoroughly fucked over than I thought.

I would LIKE to think that "advances in civilization" are more along the lines of decreasing infant mortality, improving treatment of diseases, increasing the proportion of the population with access to adequate clean water and sanitation, etc. instead of measuring it by how many bright shiny toys we have from various foreign sweatshops.

Posted by: Ichthyic | October 28, 2010 5:31 PM

I'm shocked at how hostile and aggressive people are being in this thread.

nurse!

A fainting couch and a double set of clutching pearls, STAT!

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | October 28, 2010 5:39 PM

A fainting couch and a double set of clutching pearls, STAT!

Keep a third set ready, nurse: Yanshen's heart bleeds for the social inequality in the US, which will be solved when the liberals get on board with the rest of humanity in recognising the inferiority of the mudbreeds.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | October 28, 2010 5:42 PM

Unlike Mr Myers and his followers, I won't insult anyone here personally.

You know what I find insulting? Narcissistic assholes with delusions of adequacy asserting shit and telling me it's pumpkin pie.

Your patronizing attitude in the face of overwhelming intellectual force is far more insulting than me telling you to fuck yourself with a decaying porcupine and a set of matching hedgehogs.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | October 28, 2010 5:49 PM

Seriously, we need a website to place all such kind of quotes for the world to laugh at.

That need has been fulfilled.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | October 28, 2010 5:53 PM

Posted by: Mattir (only more so) Author Profile Page | October 28, 2010 5:51 PM

Josh, check out comment #107. DaughterSpawn has been giggling over this and the faaaabulous cave paintings for an hour now.

Oh yes! That's the kind of thing that came into my head, too. That and a conversation between CaveFag and CaveHag that starts out, "Oh, girrrrrrl, he got primitive on my ass last night. . .."

Posted by: Katharine | October 28, 2010 6:17 PM

This is the first time I've ever seen what appears to be an Asian anti-white racist. Whoa.

That shit is funny.

Also, yanshen appears not to understand dick about genetics, environment, or their impacts. People who actually research the impact of genetics on intelligence agree that the genetic differences between races' intelligence are 1) not generalizable from average to individual and 2) statistically insignificant.

Ayn Rand's only useful quote was a good one: it matters not whether they are white or black, only if they have a brain.

The converse is also true: whether you're white or black, if you're an idiot, you're an idiot.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | October 28, 2010 6:18 PM

"But I also believe that homosexuality is bad thing … homosexuality is obsolete."

So, let me get this straight. It's obsolete, so it's a bad thing? Seriously? That's why we should keep same-sex couples from marrying? Because their sexual orientation is obsolete?

That is the worst line of reasoning ever. Never mind the silly and faulty premise. The conclusion just doesn't follow.

You know what's obsolete, Bucko? Your concept of marriage. Difference is, your concept is marriage is obsolete because it's a bad thing.

Posted by: yanshen71786 | October 28, 2010 6:23 PM

I'm amused that people here are criticizing me for my patronizing attitude, when I've been repeated insulted and denigrated in just about every single post. I've had people suggest that I complete my GED before I talk about things I don't comprehend and also have had people tell me to go fuck my own mother. And yet people here are complaining that I'm being the ass. Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black, no?

By the way, my support for genetic engineering would apply to all racial groups. I think that even whites of Europeans descent could benefit by being brought up to the level of Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians. Already in California, where there's a fairly large East Asian population, white European Americans are beginning to lag behind. See here.

http://wsjclassroom.com/teen/teencenter/05nov_whiteflight.htm

"By most measures, Monta Vista High here and Lynbrook High, in nearby San Jose, are among the nation's top public high schools. Both boast stellar test scores, an array of advanced-placement classes and a track record of sending graduates from the affluent suburbs of Silicon Valley to prestigious colleges.

But locally, they're also known for something else: white flight. Over the past 10 years, the proportion of white students at Lynbrook has fallen by nearly half, to 25% of the student body. At Monta Vista, white students make up less than one-third of the population, down from 45% -- this in a town that's half white. Some white Cupertino parents are instead sending their children to private schools or moving them to other, whiter public schools. More commonly, young white families in Silicon Valley say they are avoiding Cupertino altogether.

White students are far outnumbered by Asians at Monta Vista High School in Cupertino, Calif.

Whites aren't quitting the schools because the schools are failing academically. Quite the contrary: Many white parents say they're leaving because the schools are too academically driven and too narrowly invested in subjects such as math and science at the expense of liberal arts and extracurriculars like sports and other personal interests.

...

Some whites fear that by avoiding schools with large Asian populations parents are short-changing their own children, giving them the idea that they can't compete with Asian kids. "My parents never let me think that because I'm Caucasian, I'm not going to succeed," says Jessie Hogin, a white Monta Vista graduate.

At Cupertino's top schools, administrators, parents and students say white students end up in the stereotyped role often applied to other minority groups: the underachievers.

Ms. Gatley, the Monta Vista PTA president, is more blunt: "White kids are thought of as the dumb kids," she says.
"

If you pay attention to what's going on today, you'll notice that there's a huge over-representation of Jews, East Asians, and Indians in the elite high IQ academic competitions in the United States, such as the International Math Olympiad, the International Physics Olympiad, the Intel Science Talent Search etc. Also, Silicon Valley has a fairly significant Asian American workforce as well. My concern isn't just for African Americans. I'm also concerned about the European American children who are increasingly beginning to lag behind in our meritocratic society.

Posted by: Katharine | October 28, 2010 6:33 PM

Oh for fuck's sake.

Part of it is cultural, yanshen.

I am a whitebread paleface. I have an IQ in the profoundly gifted range. I am headed for grad school to get a PhD in biology. I have an awesome GPA, great SATs. When I was a rugrat, I was a National Merit Commended Student, was a member of two subject honor societies as an undergrad, nearly had a good enough GPA to make the national high school honor society, and got to the regional science fair. As a college student, I am consistently at the top gradewise in my classes; I have not had a test in any class less than an A this semester (in which I am taking two particularly rigorous classes in my major, among other things).

I came from two parents whose IQs were about one and three standard deviations above the average. Both have masters' degrees. One is an ABD.

I come from a family that values education. Both of my parents are extremely supportive of my goal to be a biologist.

I cannot tell you how many white people I come across who are fucking dullards and whose parents are fucking dullards and whose parents are about the most anti-intellectual pieces of shit you will ever meet.

In Jewish, Asian, and Indian culture, there is a greater emphasis on education on average than among non-Jewish Europeans. I find it lamentable that non-Jewish Europeans have less of a great emphasis on education on average.

We are most definitely not blank slates, but you have no idea how much one's post-birth experiences - here's a hint: poorer people have worse nutrition and are more likely to have their brain development affected by traumatic experiences - affect a person.

Posted by: alexcharltonderrida | October 28, 2010 6:34 PM

Gays not able to fight? Has this guy not heard of ancient Rome?

But the primary premise of this guy's argument seems to be that a predisposition, lifestyle or behaviour has to be beneficial to society or the human race in order to be sanctionable, which is obviously false (Playing golf isn't useful to society either), so the argument has absolutely no merit. It's hard to begin to criticise this argument any further for that reason. So many holes.

Posted by: andrewblairesch | October 28, 2010 6:35 PM

Yanshen is *so* not for real. This is high art, folks - some kind of morality play on the topic of Asian eugenics & the decline of an empire. Can't wait till the show premieres... probably in a SF back alley near my house.

But for the record, anyone who takes IQ scores seriously should read Stephen Jay Gould's "Mismeasure of Man." Great book.

By the way, my support for genetic engineering would apply to all racial groups. I think that even whites of Europeans descent could benefit by being brought up to the level of Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians.

lol

Posted by: broboxley OT | October 28, 2010 6:40 PM

#147 you are confusing first and second generation immigrant ambition for brains, two more generations you will be hanging on the corner smokin doobs with the white black and latino kids like everyone else.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/O.jullMj0I2VvJaxMMVeNKSfOPf73voLSxJAe9PdlOWwi8Y-#258ec | October 28, 2010 6:42 PM

all the "anecdotal evidence" you stated says nothing about race genetics or any effects of evolution at all. They all do say things about the politics of race relations and the sociological differences of different cultures.
all that crap you are talking about is cultural and not biological.
that is why I said you have no idea what you are talking about.
culture is not biology it is learned behavior. Why you fail to understand the difference I do not know nor do I care. maybe some else here can explain it to me or maybe get you to understand it.
Try biology 1A, introduction to Sociology, Anthropology 1A. then try again there is more understanding of the world than is to be found in economics alone

uncle frogy

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | October 28, 2010 6:49 PM

I'm also concerned about the European American children who are increasingly beginning to lag behind in our meritocratic society.

And you're showing your concern by being uneducated on such matters?

You put forth your 'musings' such as...

I've always wondered whether or not the far greater degree of European aggressiveness/hostility explained why Europeans conquered and enslaved the Native Americans and Africans, while countries like China and Japan chose relative isolation

...as if you were completely unaware of the research into such topics, and you claim to be 'concerned'?

You're concerned about your own sense of security and ego, nothing else.

Posted by: legistech | October 28, 2010 7:00 PM

If you pay attention to what's going on today, you'll notice ...

And your conclusion from this is that certain groups are genetically superior to other groups, because clearly genetics is the only thing that could ever possibly cause a difference in performance. Not culture or diet or economics or environment or pre-natal care or focus on specific linguistic activities or any one of hundreds of other factors.

Do you realize you're not following a logical train of thought to your conclusion?

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | October 28, 2010 7:15 PM

Not really, Katherine. The CE are far too busy thinking of cool stuff to do the whuppin' of the dummmies into line. That's the BE's business.

And seriously, I object to the "dumber" idea. I really doubt that anyone in the working classes in 1800s got an IQ test and let off their 15 hour day of manual labouring if they were smart. Case in point, pretty much all my ancestors until the last 2 generations. My great-great-grandmother was one of those coal-mining women who got the Victorians in a tizzy - not because pregnant women were dragging coal carts around in the heat and dirt and cramped conditions of a mine for hellishly long days for starvation wages, but because they took their SHIRTS off in the heat! And yet, curiously, her descendants turned out to be very intelligent. Makes me wonder if she really was that dumb...

Posted by: yanshen71786 | October 28, 2010 7:32 PM

@nejishiki

You can give everyone a decent life by not interfering with the way that the cognitive elites operate. Let them create new wealth through scientific and technological innovation and let that wealth trickle down to everyone else. There may be income inequality in a relative sense, but I can assure you that in absolute terms everyone will be made better off.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | October 28, 2010 7:40 PM

It's funny how many racists want to justify their racist views with science, then when they get called out on their racism they can just claim their arguments aren't being met... Despite the repeated takedowns that accompany the mocking.

Posted by: Ternon | October 28, 2010 7:42 PM

I'm surprised that a lot of people here simply accepted the idiotic stereotype of gay men being effete, seriously, left behind to take care of women and children??

I thought it was clear by now with all the media exposure of accomplished military gays and other gay subculture that in fact feminine gays are quite a minority and not only that, straight men have the same percentage of feminine men.

It is a simple flaw/advantage of the mind to tether itself to the most pronounced feature of a certain category and use it is as a foundation to for generalization for easy navigation.

Posted by: lilith | October 28, 2010 7:53 PM

I know it is just one small detail in a story full of holes, but I have to say that non-the-less: do those people actually think the women of that time just set in the cave and waited for the men? It's amazing to see how people take the streotypes of the 1950's and just assume this is the natural order.

Posted by: broboxley OT | October 28, 2010 8:04 PM

Let them create new wealth through scientific and technological innovation and let that wealth trickle down to everyone else.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | October 28, 2010 8:18 PM

You can give everyone a decent life by not interfering with the way that the cognitive elites operate. Let them create new wealth through scientific and technological innovation and let that wealth trickle down to everyone else. There may be income inequality in a relative sense, but I can assure you that in absolute terms everyone will be made better off.

What a delightfully quaint notion. Is this achieved through phlogiston or the aether?

Here's what the modern, cognitive elites think of your just-so story.

Posted by: co | October 28, 2010 8:30 PM

I've always wondered whether or not the far greater degree of European aggressiveness/hostility explained why Europeans conquered and enslaved the Native Americans and Africans, while countries like China and Japan chose relative isolation

Ah, yes, because the Mongolian Empire was such a puny thing, and Japan hasn't produced things like, oh, I don't know... the war in the Pacific?

Posted by: nejishiki | October 28, 2010 8:35 PM

#165
Your assurance means nothing to me. I'd need to believe that inequality is moral, not simply that it might lead to positive outcomes, i.e. 'the ends don't justify the means.' I'd also need to believe that inequality is necessary for progress, which has not been shown.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | October 28, 2010 8:36 PM

That makes one wonder how China, despite being poorer on a per capita basis than certain African countries even, manages to dominate every elite high IQ competition in the world(International Math Olympiad, International Physics Olympiad, etc)

Because China is small, and so has certain inherent efficiencies?

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | October 28, 2010 8:43 PM

LOL @ Brownian. "Are you food?" That's a literal, not figurative LOL

Posted by: ronsullivan | October 28, 2010 8:47 PM

Mattir, up in the 80s: "A general rule of thumb: if you have to implore everyone to calm down before you make your argument, you're probably about to say something very, very stupid."

Brownian's Law

I second that motion.

I also wonder whose creations our newest troll is playing on that hypothetical iPod. Ooooh, L33t stuff! Sniny!

All that trickle-down stuff, wow, never heard that term before. Doesn't the rain smell funny though? A little bit like ammonia?

Posted by: broboxley OT | October 28, 2010 8:52 PM

#178

That makes one wonder how China, despite being poorer on a per capita basis than certain African countries even, manages to dominate every elite high IQ competition in the world(International Math Olympiad, International Physics Olympiad, etc)

On September 15th, at the 2010 Summer Davos Forum held in Tianjin, Lee Kaifu, former Google China president and now the president and CEO of Innovation Factory, suggested that it is very unlikely that China will foster entrepreneurial success with the likes of Apple Inc. and Google Inc anytime soon. "It is unlikely for at least 50 to 100 years. China needs to reconfigure an entirely new way of educating their young before something like this can be achieved," Lee is reported as saying.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | October 28, 2010 8:55 PM

Gah, more canards! Two things. Firstly this isn't a choice between free market capitalism and communism. There are plenty of different models out there. Sedondly, free markets don't exist. Can't use child labour? Can't use slaves? Have to provide a standard of care to employees? You don't have a free market...

More canards to justify increasing inequality...

Posted by: Jennifer | October 28, 2010 8:57 PM

Heck of a job Brownian.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 28, 2010 8:59 PM

But at the least, it's an interesting thought experiment to contemplate the possibilities of the transhuman future.

Posted by: Ogvorbis, Parenthetical Death | October 28, 2010 9:02 PM

Trickle-down economics has not only made the rich richer and the middle-class poorer, it has also destroyed what upward mobility existed. From the 1930s through the 1970s, the US created a world-class infrastructure -- power, roads, communications, schools, affordable universities (yes, this is a generalization and I am quite aware that many areas of the US missed out on some of these infrastructure improvements) -- through very high taxes on the wealthiest. Additionally, government-financed research, especially in areas in which there was no promise of short- or medium-term profitability, gave the United States the lead in virtually all high-technology fields, including the high-paying jobs that went along with them.

For the last 30 years the United States has been consuming the fixed physical plant created during the mid-20th century. Cutting taxes on the rich has not decreased the need for government spending within the US. It has, however, forced a choice between keeping up adequate funding on mass-transit (used by the poor and middle class) and tax cuts for the rich, between affordable college and tax cuts for the rich, between keeping the roads in good condition and tax cuts for the rich, between public schools and tax cuts for the rich.

Trickle-down has failed in every promise made in the early 80s -- it did not increase tax revenue, it did not make government smaller and more efficient, it did not improve government response, it did not increase investment in manufacturing jobs, it did not increase investment in new companies, and it did not eliminate the national debt. It did decimate working class families, put college out of reach of many working class families, make the rich richer, and starved the government of funds needed in case of natural or economic disasters.

As for the actual topic at hand, I know there are anthropologists out there. Has the scenario described above ever been observed in any hunter-gatherer society ever studied?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | October 28, 2010 9:12 PM

Consider that every centrally planned Communist economy has utterly failed. Free market capitalism on the other hand has flourished.

I'm beginning to think yanshen71786 is some flavor of looneytarian. They're generally the ones who think economies are either laissez faire free markets or Stalinist controlled economies. Looneytarians have problems seeing any other choices.

Incidentally, the Japanese economy, the second richest in the world, is also one of the most controlled.

Posted by: Katharine | October 28, 2010 9:18 PM

I see yanshen can't be arsed to look up basic economics nor figure out that nobody is advocating communism, that aside from his ignorance of basic neuroscience and developmental biology.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 28, 2010 9:22 PM

Yawn, another morally bankrupt liberturd, showing their yellowbacked striped colors. What a loser. Try finding a blog where you supplying actually scientific data and showing real cogency isn't required, like it is here. Boy, what a boy loser.....

Posted by: yanshen71786 | October 28, 2010 9:24 PM

@Katharine

That has to be the most unsubstantiated assertion I've ever heard Katharine. It's true that an average value can be misleading if there is significant variance in the underlying distribution. However, you've offered no evidence that the kids who represent the Chinese teams in competitions like the IMO come from the upper portions of the income distribution. Clearly you've just pandering to your own ideological biases here.

By the way, almost everyone has missed the point that I'm making. I'm not a free market fundamentalist. I don't believe in perfectly efficiently markets. I believe that governments need to intervene here and there in order to guide the economy along. I'm making a vastly different assertion, that a tiny fraction of cognitive elite generate most of the value for society. I think you're likely to find that to be true in basically any society on Earth.

If anything, I want governments to intervene so as to make science and technology jobs more financially lucrative. I would love it if we could shift the wealth from the business elite to the cognitive elite. What I don't agree with is the liberal desire to spread the wealth around to everyone.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | October 28, 2010 9:29 PM

What I don't agree with is the liberal desire to spread the wealth around to everyone.

Heaven forbid the stupid factory yokels should actually be able to go to the doctor and like, not die and stuff.

Posted by: broboxley OT | October 28, 2010 9:31 PM

#195 not ed zachery scientific but anecdotal anyway
http://ne2ss.typepad.com/northeast_twospirit_socie/2006/08/homosexuality_a.html plains indians

samoan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fa%27afafine

Posted by: McLeod | October 28, 2010 9:31 PM

PZ needs to watch more Armstrong and Miller, then he would truly understand caveman knowledge and ideology!

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | October 28, 2010 9:35 PM

What I don't agree with is the liberal desire to spread the wealth around to everyone.

Heaven forbid the stupid factory yokels should actually be able to go to the doctor and like, not die and stuff.

Posted by: otrame | October 28, 2010 9:46 PM

Well now I've read the thread and oh, too bad. The original thread about the evolution of gays got derailed by a racist fuckwit. Damn. Those are never any fun and even when we try to sharpen our teeth on them they leave a terrible taste in the mouth. I'm disappointed. I've been saving that Cabeza de Vaca quote for months.

*pouts

P.S. Brownian definitely gets the raised tentacle salute and at least one internet for several of his comments here.

Oh, and Yanshen, I got tired of arguing against what you are selling here about the time my eldest was born--about 35 years ago, so just fuck off. You are a creep and worse than that, you are boring. To modify Shakespeare a bit: nothing you have done on this thread will become you like the leaving of it.

Posted by: otrame | October 28, 2010 9:55 PM

And for those of our visitors who can't get the definition of ad hominem straight in their heads, most of my last paragraph was ad hominem , except the last sentence, which was a simple statement of fact.

Posted by: nejishiki | October 28, 2010 9:57 PM

#186
If the choice is between authoritarian communism and the US as it is, I'll take the US for obvious reasons, as would any sane leftist you could ask. Even in China there was never equality of outcomes. There are, however, other ways of doing it. There are many European countries that are less stratified than the US, and others in Asia. I think these point us in the right direction. Now on to a few responses:

Would you rather have everyone be equally poor? Or would you rather have most of be fairly well off in absolute terms, but with a tiny minority that's disproportionately wealthy?

The cognitive elites generate basically everything of value and these people are probably a few percent of the population at most.
Is it moral for everyone to be equally wealthy when a few people create most of the wealth?

Unfortunately, I'll probably be away from keyboard until tomorrow night, but if you're not banned before then we can pick this up.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/c8vgv20epfOnyZYgaPKrcYfDk4TekTh7#ed6d2 | October 28, 2010 9:58 PM

@yashen, the human genome project has thouroughly debunked biological notions of race, finding that amoung those who we group as 'races' the genetic variation between groups is no greater than the genetic vartion of individuals of the same group (even when going to groups half way across the world), as well as finding that human groups have mixed DNA significantly throughout human history. DNA markers traceable to specific individuals can be found across continents. What you are spouting has nothing to do with the science, it is simply the old southern racist notion that the races have never mixed, despite the fact that they have and continue to do so. Social definitions of race are intensely arbitrary. Who is and is not 'white' can vary within the space of a single decade (Arabs were grouped as white on censuses a decade ago, whereas now they tend to be considered a different 'race'), and by phenotypical expression in single families. Due to the phenomena of rape of women of color, the one drop rule, and 'passing', any genetic study of americans demonstrates with extreme speed that most 'black' americans have significant european ancestry and a substantial minority (possibly as high as a full third) or white americans have 'recent' (as in a few hundred years old) african genes. In no way are these distinct groups, they are, in fact, often close relatives, in both a genetic and personal sense. Any in depth study of the geneology of a black american (with the exception of recent african immigrants) family quickly finds gaps for those relatives who have 'passed', becoming socially white and intermarrying with whites, and then having children who consider themselves part of a white race. When you take these odd clasification notions to a even more minute level, they become even more extreme in their absurdity. My father is always socially considered white. Always, and every single piece of legal paperwork he fills out says he is white. My uncle is never considered white socially, and every single piece of legal paperwork he fills out says that he is native american or biracial. Guess what? They have the exact same parents. My father's external appearance takes after his light skinned and light haired Irish father, my uncle's external appearance takes very much after their Cherokee ancestry. This is what makes one of them white and the other nonwhite, despite the fact that they are literally brothers. My uncle married a woman who has one white parent and one chinese one, who takes after the asian parent in appearance. Guess what? She's also not considered white, ever. So, I have a non-white cousin who has a full half of her genes (at minimum) from northern europe. There are millions of examples of this across US history. One prominent one is the slave woman who had numerous children with Thomas Jefferson. She was, in fact, his wife's biological half sister. So, Jefferson's children with his wife were white slaveholders, but his children with his wife's half sister were black slaves. A 'white' american and a 'black' american can very well have the exact same amount of recent (as in a few hundred years) african and european genes. It's all about the skin tone and the cultural decisions of ancestors, not about actual genetic makeup.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | October 28, 2010 10:08 PM

YW, bobroxley. It's a lovely site, because you can see the 450 year old original and have the translation right there. Plus it's a great story.

It is an excellent story. Thanks for the link.

Posted by: yanshen71786 | October 28, 2010 10:25 PM

Well I suppose PZ could ban me. But that would be a shame, because as far as I can tell, I've tried to be as polite as I can in voicing my contrarian opinions in this thread. I don't hate anyone because of their ideology or race or gender. If someone fundamentally adopts a different set of moral axioms from my own, I can agree to disagree. Usually when I engage with people who have a vastly different viewpoint from my own, I tend to pick up a few interesting things here and there, and I learn more about how others approach real-life issues.

It's true that I have no conception of the notion of political correctness. But that's only because I've learned to pursue dispassionate reason to the fullest. This by the way, was also what PZ advocated at the beginning of his post, hence the very reason that I even bothered to interject my thoughts into the conversation here.

I have no strong preconceptions about the way the world should be. Rather, I observe the way that the world is and see if smart people can't figure out a way to improve upon the human condition, given the constraints that nature realistically imposes upon us. Hence, I've advocated for studying group differences, with the idea that maybe, just maybe, we can genetically engineer equality if need be at some distant point in the future. After all, I'm a transhumanist at heart. I believe that the human condition is one that should be overcome by any means possible. This is why I've urged liberals to be more open minded to the possibility of potential group differences, because usually I've realized that what liberals fear the most is the idea of genetic determinism, the notion that our genetic makeup significantly determines the range of our outcomes in life. I believe that these fears are misguided and have always advocated my transhumanist philosophy. The human condition isn't one to be feared or reviled, but rather one to be overcome.

Now, if that kind of thinking makes me a racist or a bigot in the eyes of people here, so be it. Because I've never particularly cared about my own reputation. I care about solving real life problems. If we can improve the well-being of certain groups through genetic engineering, then hey why not do it? It would be the humane and enlightened thing to do. If people want to demonize me for even daring to suggest the possibility of group differences, so be it. My reputation is irrelevant to me. All I care about is improving the human condition, bringing blacks, Hispanics, and whites all up to the level of the Jewish and East Asian American population if need be. I've already alluded to many of the areas in which Jews/East Asians have already disproportionately displaced white Americans from the most elite sectors of American life, but I'll articulate upon those trends even more in a future post. For now though, I just want to lay out my basic philosophy and approach to life. If that annoys PZ to no end, he's free to ban me should he so choose. It's his blog. I for one though would harbor no ill-will towards him or anyone else, despite the massive amounts of verbal abuse that have been heaped upon me all throughout this thread.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | October 28, 2010 10:28 PM

despite the massive amounts of verbal abuse that have been heaped upon me all throughout this thread.

Oh, cry us a river, cupcake.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | October 28, 2010 10:34 PM

I care about solving real life problems. If we can improve the well-being of certain groups through genetic engineering, then hey why not do it?

Because you have no fucking clue what you're talking about, and it won't help?

As has been amply demonstrated (and backed with research) in this thread, you are wrong. The genetic variance you imagine as responsible for the variations in academic performance simply do not exist.

You're simply wrong, and unwilling to admit it, and unable to present actual peer-reviewed research to back up your claims.

Now, you might be able to talk about genetic engineering on the whole human race. But first you'll have to figure out how genetics works, and specifically how to improve intelligence through genetic manipulation. Since we don't even understand how genetics builds a brain yet, that'll be pretty damned hard.

But I'm sure you have a solution.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | October 28, 2010 10:41 PM

This is why I've urged liberals to be more open minded to the possibility of potential group differences, because usually I've realized that what liberals fear the most is the idea of genetic determinism, the notion that our genetic makeup significantly determines the range of our outcomes in life.

Dude, you won't find many who disagree with that. Of course our genetic makeup significantly determines the range of our outcomes in life. I have a niece who was born with Angelman's syndrome. She doesn't stand a chance to be physically self-sufficient, let alone ever program a computer.

Where you will find resistance is in the idea that particular ethnic groups have a significant variance in intelligence based on genetic components. Why will you find resistance? Because research has shown it to not be true.

It's not because we're liberal. It's because we're educated. We can read and understand the research. It's really just that simple.

I believe that these fears are misguided and have always advocated my transhumanist philosophy. The human condition isn't one to be feared or reviled, but rather one to be overcome.

What the fuck is a "transhumanist philosophy?" How does it differ from regular ol' philosophy? Or are you using philosophy in the sense of, "Shit I think of when I'm stoned?"

And personally, I find the human condition something to be enjoyed and relished. If you fear or revile it, or think it's something to be overcome, you're doin' it wrong.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | October 28, 2010 10:42 PM

The claim of being unPC really is little more than wanting the freedom to be racist and get away with it. People don't attack racism to conform with the ideal of being PC, but because they truly feel that racism is a bad thing. What's worse is when people try to hide their prejudice behind science as if it vindicates them.

The problem is not political correctness, the problem is that people pretend there exists a metaphysical barrier that is preventing them from speaking the truth when in reality they're just espousing nonsense with an excuse to why it's not accepted.

You're talking shit, stop it!

Posted by: yanshen71786 | October 28, 2010 10:47 PM

@nigel

Well in the case that I'm wrong, then liberals will have to present a compelling plan to help reduce these racial disparities. As far as I can tell, not much that liberals have tried has worked. The usual reasons offered up, i.e. socioeconomic status, etc usually have failed to pan out. That is, usually even when adjusting for socioeconomic status, blacks, Hispanics, and whites will tend to lag behind East Asians and Jews.

No one likes seeing any group lag behind another. I suppose it's actually a good thing that liberals and so called race realists approach this issue from different perspectives. Hopefully one of us is right and can identify precisely what causes these group disparities, and once these reasons are identified, work to eliminate them. Like I always say, the more different approaches taken to a solve a problem, the better.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE | October 28, 2010 11:01 PM

Nigel The Bold ponders:
What the fuck is a "transhumanist philosophy?"

Imagine a philosophy based on Kurtzweil's view of the future. In which everyone's got butt-plugs made of pure computronium, bodies are optional, "wealth" is based on how many facebook friends you have, and nobody talks they just tweet, fart, or bleat (whatever Twitter evolves into) And in that rosy transhumanist future, everthing works just great, because everyone does what's best for them, and somehow everyone agrees that what's best is that the overclass does its thing and the underclass has it done to them but smiles about it. It's like Ayn 'I love the moral purity of serial killers' Rand rewritten by Steve 'I can afford to jump the line on liver transplants' Jobs.

In other words, it's bullshit with a thin but appealing wafer-thin crust of appeal to shallow thinkers.

Posted by: yanshen71786 | October 28, 2010 11:50 PM

"Funny how the "some ethnic groups are more intelligent than others" fucksticks invariably subscribe to a belief system in which they are members of the "superior" group.

Anyone wanna bet what "yanshen"'s ethnic heritage is, based on his posts?"

It just proves how emotionally sensitive certain issues are. It's extremely hard to be dispassionate and objective about these sorts of things. Also, I think it's fairly obvious that I'm Chinese American.

You know, I hope I'm actually enlightening some of the white liberals here by providing details on just how displaced European Americans have become in the most productive sectors of American life. I know that most of the racial discourse in the United States has basically been black and white, for understandable reasons. But that's a shame, because it leaves out a lot of European American children, who are increasingly unable to compete in America's multicultural meritocracy. .

Consider the following. Jews and East Asians make up around 5% of the total US population, but often approach 50% of the undergraduate study body at Ivy League and other elite schools. This leaves the remaining 95% of the US population who are black, white, and Hispanic to fight over the other 50% of the spots. Given the fact that affirmative action helps to boost the numbers of blacks and Hispanics enrolled at these elite universities, what you're beginning to find is that non-Jewish European Americans are actually the most under-represented group at these top schools, relative to their actual percentage in the population at large.

Now I can assure you that kind of analysis is something that has rarely if ever crossed the minds of most white liberals. But even more telling is the case of California, where the number of East Asian Americans in the UC system skyrocketed after the passing of proposition 209. Basically now there have been recent moves by the UC administration to try to limit the number of Asians, while boosting not only the black and Hispanic enrollment, but also the white one. This has undoubtedly angered many Asian americans. See here.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-04-24-university-california-asian_N.htm

"A new admissions policy set to take effect at the University of California system in three years is raising fears among Asian-Americans that it will reduce their numbers on campus, where they account for a remarkable 40% of all undergraduates.

University officials say the new standards — the biggest change in UC admissions since 1960 — are intended to widen the pool of high school applicants and make the process more fair.

But Asian-American advocates, parents and lawmakers are angrily calling on the university to rescind the policy, which will apply at all nine of the system's undergraduate campuses.

They point to a UC projection that said the new standards would sharply reduce Asian-American admissions while resulting in little change for blacks and Hispanics, and a big gain for white students.

"I like to call it affirmative action for whites," said Ling-chi Wang, a retired professor at UC Berkeley. "I think it's extremely unfair to Asian-Americans on the one hand and underrepresented minorities on the other."

Now, this would seem to be an outrage. After all, America should be a meritocracy right? Consider further the following study by Thomas Espenshade, which asserts that were affirmative action policies to be removed at elite universities, the number of whites would largely remain the same, while the number of Asian American students would vastly increase at the expense of blacks and Hispanics. What this suggests is that liberals have actually shifted most of the affirmative action burden onto Asian Americans, in their attempts to boost the number of black and Hispanic students. This would seem to be absolutely perverse as a matter of principle. After all, affirmative action is supposed to be a policy which rectifies past historical discrimination which blacks and Hispanics have had to endure at the hands of European Americans(ironically, this ignores the fact that Asian Americans endured the same kinds of racism from white Americans).

See here for information regarding the Espenshade study.

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2009/10/affirmative-action-numbers.html

Look, all of this information is relevant because I think that by simplistically viewing things in terms of black and white, liberals are causing great harm in this country, especially to groups like Jews and East Asians who ironically were also discriminated against by whites in the past! Well the Jewish quotas at elite universities are a thing of the past. But it looks like discrimination against East Asian Americans has only just begun. How bad will it get? Only time will tell.

Posted by: Danno Davis | October 29, 2010 12:07 AM

I got a real hearty chuckle out of this one. Thanks, Peezee.

Posted by: imherefromtheinternet | October 29, 2010 12:30 AM

This yanshen is still here?

but why?

Posted by: OurSally | October 29, 2010 2:33 AM

More likely this happens: as soon as the machos are out of sight Caveman PZ organises women and kids to build a handy mammoth trap, so they can have a constant supply of food without having to run after it. While waiting for the mammoths they invent agriculture, pottery and so on.

Posted by: yanshen71786 | October 29, 2010 3:21 AM

@Leah

There's actually no evidence of strong selective immigration amongst Chinese American immigrants in particular or East Asian American immigrants in general. While there are many rural farmers and migrant workers who toil away in manufacturing "sweatshops", there are also probably a few hundred million people who are relatively well off and who engage in higher end labor, comparable to what one might find in a developed nation. Your exaggerated depiction of China is not only misleading, but also offensive to anyone of Chinese descent.

There's plenty of high end talent in mainland China, which is probably why China dominates all of the high IQ international competitions, like the International Mathematics Olympiad or the International Physics Olympiad. And this despite the fact that the country has a nominal per capita GDP lower than that of certain African nations. Heck, even North Korea has won 6 individual gold medals at the IMO in only 7 competitions, which is more than many if not most of the Latin American and African nations and more than quite a few of the smaller European nations as well.

Now, I'd love to hear a liberal explain how North Korea, quite possibly one of the poorest and most oppressive places on planet earth, where huge numbers of people constantly starve under a brutal totalitarian dictatorship, could possibly have produced more individual gold medal winners at the International Math Olympiad than countries like Finland or Denmark or Iceland, which are some of the wealthiest nations in the world.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/O.jullMj0I2VvJaxMMVeNKSfOPf73voLSxJAe9PdlOWwi8Y-#258ec | October 29, 2010 5:01 AM

look yanshen71786 how many times on this thread alone have you asked and been ANSWERED that same question I am sure you must have heard this stuff before.

the answer has nothing to do with race, genes or biology and everything to do with social issues cultural issues.
Just like a creationist you keep asking the same dam question and making the same assertions regardless of how many times they are answered.

you sir are by definition a fool

uncle frogy

Posted by: Laurent Weppe | October 29, 2010 5:12 AM

Now, I'd love to hear a liberal explain how North Korea, quite possibly one of the poorest and most oppressive places on planet earth, where huge numbers of people constantly starve under a brutal totalitarian dictatorship, could possibly have produced more individual gold medal winners at the International Math Olympiad

The same way South Korea produced so many great Starcraft players: take a game, treat it way too seriously, and consume too many ressources teaching kids how to win competitions.

Of course, it has its advantage: You can give epic keyboard skills to the next generation... or have a random douche telling everyone that your corrupt barelly surviving dictatorship is in fact the secret breeding ground of the übermenschen of tomorrow

Posted by: jschmeau | October 29, 2010 5:21 AM

While reading yanshens comments, I found that adding "Grasshopper" to the beginning of each rant helps. As if it's giving me a lesson for which I should be supremely grateful. It's oozing so much condescension it should come with a box of tissues.

Posted by: Merridol | October 29, 2010 5:39 AM

Yanshen reminds me of a guy in my Organic Chemistry class, a few years ago. When it came out in conversation (not one he was originally involved in, actually) that I'm part Chinese, he informed me that this must be the reason I was getting good grades. Soon after, he advised me not to swear as, according to him, my response wasn't ladylike.

I did better than him in Biology, too, for fairly obvious reasons.

Posted by: John Morales | October 29, 2010 5:54 AM

Laurent, point taken: evolution was, indeed, briefly invoked before the debouchment into racialism and genetic determinism.

Posted by: Usagichan | October 29, 2010 6:12 AM

Do you maybe think that social factors like culture or education could have something to do with why individuals with talents in areas the culture values could have something to do with who gets discovered, promoted, educated and trained?

Absolutely this.

Too much nonsense is attributed to the 'race' [non]issue. We are all one 'race', and the sooner we stop worrying 'who has stars upon thars' the sooner we can get on with the more important business of improving ourselves.

Once we accept that these issues are cultural, you know what? We could actually change things! We can value education, rationalism and humanity. We can passionately defend and promote these values - and strange enough, that's just what PZ and the regulars here do.

Posted by: grudgedk | October 29, 2010 6:24 AM

I wrote it because PZ articulated the need to be dispassionate and reasoned, with regards to our intellectual discourse. I pointed out that this is hard to do, because in reality most people become emotional when they contemplate facts which challenge their a priori world-view.

Unlike Mr Myers and his followers, I won't insult anyone here personally.

Anyone can do it too, look; Unlike yanshen71786 and his followers, I'm not a hypocrite. Hrm, for some reason that sounds like a personal insult, I wonder why that is...

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | October 29, 2010 6:40 AM

This is still going? Wow, just wow. Yanshen your ideas about race and genetic determinism are scientific absurdities. You're making your case based on artificial groupings and superficial similarities and giving way too much credence to genetic ability when empirical data on the topic is pointing to the contrary.

If your conjectures were true then we should be able to see it through global adoption. It shouldn't matter about culture, that is to say if a child was born of Chinese parents then adopted in America then we should expect that Chinese baby on average to do better than non-Chinese babies in a similar socio-economic setting. Otherwise it's like saying that the American education system is the best because they win the most Nobel Prizes. post hoc, ergo propter hoc... So where are these studies that eliminate the culture element?

Posted by: Laurent Weppe | October 29, 2010 7:27 AM

Laurent, point taken: evolution was, indeed, briefly invoked before the debouchment into racialism and genetic determinism.

followed by

For a second there I thought the word you used was 'bedouchment' - which would still be (even though it isn't an actual word) an apt description of the situation...

How long until Bedouchmentism becomes part of internet's slang?

Posted by: Katharine | October 29, 2010 7:48 AM

Are there records online of statistics regarding entrants in the competitions yanshen is mentioning?

Posted by: Tessa Brown | October 29, 2010 8:12 AM

Hey guys! I just realized this story totally explains lesbians as well. Clearly, lesbians evolved so that women wouldn't get bored sitting around in the cave waiting for the menfolk (since, obviously, they wouldn't be doing anything useful or essential to the group's survival, like, say, gathering the vast majority of the food...)

"Oh, yeah Caveman Randy. I'm totally going to miss you. Now you go off and hunt that mammoth, you manly, manly man, you. I'll stay here with Cavewoman Laura and Cavewoman Marie and, uh... pine. Yeah, pine."

Posted by: Katharine | October 29, 2010 8:16 AM

Curious how no one asked Randy for citations.

Posted by: FossilFishy | October 29, 2010 8:19 AM

You know, the beatdown of Yanshen, while entertaining and very informative, isn't nearly so satisfying as the one dished out to Max, Posterboy of Male Privilege. To me the blows Max took made a satisfying boinging noise while Yanshen's just produce a dull thud.

Hmm, maybe this needs to be studied, perhaps the paper could be titled:

Head of Bone or Head of Brass?; Synæsthesia and the Pharyngula Troll

Posted by: Katharine | October 29, 2010 8:24 AM

You're a condescending, pretentious wanker with a martyr complex, did you know that? And stupid to boot: perhaps you haven't noticed, but "polite" is not particularly valued here.

Perhaps more to the point: Stylistic whining is no excuse for a lack of substance.

Posted by: Franklin Percival | October 29, 2010 8:37 AM

yanshen71786 #190

Any evidence for your assertions so that we can have an argument? If not, please feel free to fuck off and die, quietly and elsewhere.

Posted by: Professor Frink | October 29, 2010 8:47 AM

It's cool Yanshen, it's cool. Don't take the comments too personally. People have strong opinions about certain things you are disputing - mostly scientists, who "dabble" in social thinking, but are ultimately convinced that all authoritative propositions must stem from the scientific orthodoxy.

I don't agree with everything you say, but if you need an impartial voice stating that you aren't being racist, bigoted, or whatever, then I think that is abundantly clear to anyone upon reasonable reflection.

Posted by: Stanton | October 29, 2010 8:55 AM

I don't think we've seen any black supremacists or Latino supremacists yet. The scavenger hunt continues.

Posted by: KG | October 29, 2010 9:14 AM

Katharine,

A fellow named Terman published studies indicating correlation between IQ and life outcomes which indicated that IQ is correlated with educational attainment, less children produced (no mention of fertility), and less likelihood of time in prison, at the very least.

Anyone ever mention to you that correlation is not causation? All these measures would also correlate with height, which is a lot easier to measure.

My personal opinion on IQ testing is that it is a good rough indicator of intelligence and that intelligence clearly is not equal across humanity - though race, sex, et al. do not have an effect on IQ, there is an approximately 50% genetic component to it.

Such a figure is meaningless: heritability can only be measured for a specified population. You should take a look at the Flynn effect, which shows shifts in IQ scores of over 1 standard deviation over periods of decades.

Posted by: Katharine | October 29, 2010 9:26 AM

Nope, not a scientist. But not deficient in reading comprehension either. That was one of my best sections on the LSAT, in fact. But I can admit maybe I've missed something that you can shed light on. Can you expand your criticism to include particulars of my alleged deficiency so that I may improve?

Oh shit, so you're a shyster.

Posted by: Katharine | October 29, 2010 9:39 AM

Back to criticizing Frink:

So you think it's not somehow racist for yanshen to cite differentials in race and achievement and at least from what I can tell chalking it up to innate differences? The guy is clearly ignorant of data suggesting that the causes are purely cultural.

Posted by: Roebaby | October 29, 2010 10:41 AM

This just-so story is so funny! I love how straight men think that its ok for their women to be close with gay men when in reality gay men are a straight man's worst nightmare. Where do you think a woman hides her best secrets and deepest thoughts? With a best girl friend or guy friend. What makes gay men so dangerous in the equation is that they have a way to play both sides. They can be extremely close to women without a care from a significant other and yet they are still men and have male tendencies. Just seems funny to me.

Posted by: yanshen71786 | October 29, 2010 10:51 AM

I have a pet theory. A just so story, if you will. I've always wondered whether or not Europeans angered more easily and were more hostile, aggressive and confrontational in general. I think we're seeing ample evidence of this hostile streak in this thread.

I wonder if this kind of hostility was one of the major reasons behind the history of Western racism and colonialism, i.e. if you're this hostile towards someone just because of an ideological disagreement, imagine how hostile you might become to someone who had an entirely different culture or was of an entirely different race!

Now, it's true that European Americans lag behind East Asian Americans on many metrics relevant to my thesis. They have higher incarceration rates, are more likely to commit violent crimes, are more likely to abuse drugs, have higher illegitimacy rates, have lower educational attainment, and in general score lower on virtually every test of academic performance relative to East Asian Americans. What this suggests is that there may be underlying behavioral differences between the two groups.

I'm always fascinated by the different ways that different groups act or behave. One person here proclaimed that politeness wasn't a value here. I can tell. I wonder if this utter disregard for politeness is cultural, genetic, or some combination of both? Does that explain the persistent warfare and conquest which consumed European nations, while countries like China and Japan chose relative isolation(until of course Western aggression eventually forced Japan to open up and engage upon the Meiji restoration).

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | October 29, 2010 11:12 AM

Lovely how yanshen simply assumes that everyone who comments on this blog is European.

Also am amused that the troll is comparing China and Japan when it comes to isolation. Those are very different situations. Japan, being an island nation, was going to be more isolated than any continental area. But even that was not absolute, witness the Ainu.

As for the Chinese, they had a tendency to absorb societies into their own.

What does one expect from a person tossing up nonsense and then compares the objection to foolishness to western colonialism.

Posted by: yanshen71786 | October 29, 2010 11:25 AM

@PZ

Thanks for the response Professor Myers. I've always admired the work you've done over the years and your dedication to the New Atheism movement, both of which I think are profoundly important. I particularly liked your dictum that we really fully committed to reason, something I've also believed strongly in.

By the way, I'm mostly inured to the kind of hostility that I've encountered on this website, including your personal insults of me. Growing up as an Asian American, racism was definitely part of my life experience. So to encounter a hostile majority really isn't anything which I'm not familiar with or used to. Furthermore, I've speculated that there may be a biological basis for the more aggressive and hostile nature of Europeans relative to East Asians. So I try to keep these things in mind when interacting with others.

Personally, I believe that mature men and women should be able to dispassionately discuss their differences without resorting to name calling or other hostile behavior. It's one of the values that I'll be imparting to my children, because I believe that if we're ever to move beyond petty tribal differences, we have to stop seeing the world in terms of "us" versus "them".

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | October 29, 2010 11:29 AM

Yanshen, do you know the difficulty of looking at a single statistic for two large populations and determining whether it varies significantly. OK, now imagine that you have 10 statistics or 100 statistics to compare. How do you determine whether differences are significant, particularly when 1)distributions are broad; and 2)it is not clear which statistics are truly meaningful for the populations. Now that is just to determine whether there ARE differences. To establish causation, you have to look at correlations and then model relationships, and that means you have to develop a mechanism. There is NO mechanism involving evolution that operates in only a few generations, especially when populations are not isolated.

So I can only conclude that independent of which population you come from, that like all racists you are on the protion of the IQ distribution that is shallow and gently rising.

I conclude with a quite from H. L. Mencken:

"Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong."

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | October 29, 2010 11:31 AM

Nigel,

He could do all that.

Or he could just fuck off.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | October 29, 2010 11:39 AM

Nigel,

He could do all that.

Or he could just fuck off.

I don't think he has the fortitude or intellectual stamina to do either of those experiments. Hell, he doesn't have the true intellectual grit to address any of the direct evidence presented against his assertions. His narcissism won't even allow him to consider that he might be, you know, wrong. His non-existent understanding of the subtleties of genetics seems to be equal to his lack of understanding of environment on physiological development.

So I don't think he could do any of that.

I guess that leaves him with "fuck off."

Let me go fetch the porcupine from the freezer.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | October 29, 2010 11:42 AM

Carlie said in respect of Guns, Germs and Steel:

It has pretty pictures in it, so it should be close enough to your speed for you to get it.

I just checked on Amazon. There is an abridged audio version, so he could learn from it without having to deal with all those long words.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | October 29, 2010 11:50 AM

What white liberals don't know is how angry some East Asian Americans have become by the way that we're increasingly held to higher standards than the rest of the American population.

That's okay. You're obviously not aggressive, like those of us of European and Native American decent. I don't think there's much for us to worry about.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | October 29, 2010 11:57 AM

How the fuck is the term "asian" any use in comparing academic performance ?

Asia goes from Istanbul to Vladivostok and takes in a huge range of ethnic groups along the way.

I seem to recall the history of that vast area not being exactly very peaceful. In fact I rather suspect it has been just as bloody as Europe, which would kind of give the lie to claims Asians are not as aggressive as Europeans.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | October 29, 2010 12:24 PM

Yanshen,
I sympathize with the way asians have been treated in the US. Hell, they weren't even allowed to naturalize as citizens until 1954! And nobody denies that Asians have achieved tremendous success academically. The question is why?

The problem with looking for a genetic explanation is that there just isn't a genetic mechanism that would explain such differences that is consistent with the history of our species (e.g. common recent origin in Africa, populations not isolated, environments not drastically different...).

There ARE cultural explanations. They have to do with what sorts of achievements are valued in different cultures and the resources the different cultures put into educating their spawn. Culture operates on much shorter timescales than does evolution. Maybe you should look there?

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | October 29, 2010 12:32 PM

In the UK there is a statistically significant difference in how children of parents of Indian origin compare in academic achievement compared to those of Pakistani or Bangladeshi origins.

There is a quite simple explanation for the difference, although the solution is not as simple. Indians who have settled in the UK are far more likely to have higher socio-economic status than Pakistanis and Bangladeshis who have settled in the UK. Or to put it simpler terms, Indians tended to be professionals such as doctors whereas the Pakistanis and Bangldeshis tended to be manual workers. What was being measured had nothing to do with genetics and everything to do with parental expectation. It is a cultural difference.

There is also a difference in the UK in the academic achievement of black boys compared with black girls. Black boys perform worse in exams and in testing. That is very unlikely to be a genetic difference.

Posted by: CJO | October 29, 2010 1:07 PM

yanshen,

Why don't you come up with some better metrics of "achievement" than self-selecting to be involved in various brain-power competitions? It's not that many Asian Americans aren't excelling in the academic environment and at a disproportionate rate, it's that any of what you've cited has fuck-all to do with genetics. You're assuming your conclusion before you've even looked at other correlated factors.

It's lost up there somewhere, and I can't be arsed to dig it out of the rest of the bilge you've spewed, but earlier you implied that East Asian immigrants in the US were subjected to the same kind of racism as blacks and latinos, making it (to you) all the more obvious that Han Chinese are the genetic ubermensch.

While I will not claim that the lagacy of prejudce and racism against Asian immigrants isn't on it's own a blot on our history, the claim is utter nonsense. East Asians, and Chinese in particular, have by and large directed their own immigration, formed large fairly insular communities here contributing to the ease of economic advancement, and these communities have maintained contact with communities in China. Please reconsider your snide insinuation that this in any way resembles the means by which the ancestors of today's African Americans came to these shores. And don't equate prejudice and discrimination with centuries of chattel slavery followed by systematic disenfranchisement.

The success of East Asians in this country is a great thing, don't misunderstand me, and it's been an uphill battle. Kudos to the Chinese, et al, for sure. Good show. But don't pretend you've had to overcome anything like what African Americans have.

Posted by: yanshen71786 | October 29, 2010 1:22 PM

@BigDumbChip

There are plenty of dark skinned Indian Americans who are extremely brilliant. I've repeatedly highlighted the fact that Jewish, East Asian and Indian Americans disproportionately dominate the elite high IQ competitions in the United States. Obviously skin color in and of itself has nothing to do directly with intelligence. The real question is whether or not geographically isolated groups who were subjected to a certain degree of non-random mating could have evolved a differing set of mental or physical attributes.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | October 29, 2010 1:28 PM

Yep, it has to be him. He tells the same story of the evolution of gayness among cave people on that video.

Posted by: yanshen71786 | October 29, 2010 1:32 PM

In fact, when you consider only Indian Americans and East Asian Americans, in relation to European Americans, you might deduce that the lighter the skin, the worse off a group is! Just another way of looking at American society from beyond a simplistic black-white point of view.

Posted by: yanshen71786 | October 29, 2010 1:43 PM

@Nigel

We already have adoption tests and other pieces of evidence supporting the hereditarian position. Usually liberals try to explain away these results. In the case of adoption studies, liberals will say," oh but but we can't PROVE that the environments that these children were raised in were truly the same, etc.

Your entire post is a bit of a caricature. You basically demand that people be raised identically in every single possible way, to an absurd standard that you know can't possibly be satisfied in real life. I've even heard liberals argue that because 2 individuals occupy different spatio-temporal coordinates, there's no way in theory to assert that any 2 people can ever grow up the same way. Talk about absurd. If we demanded that absurd degree of certainty, we'd pretty much have to junk most of our scientific theories. It's almost as if liberals are saying... "but but the genetic hypothesis is ONLY a theory", in the same vein that Creationists say that evolution is just a theory and basically demand an ungodly degree of certainty that validates every single claim of evolution, before they agree to accept it.

You also demand that we understand precisely how the genome functions in determining intelligence. That would indeed be a daunting task. But inferring a genetic component to IQ though is undoubtedly much easier.

There's already an extremely subtle way in which we can infer a genetic component for IQ amongst races. It's called regression to the mean. The children of parents who belong to a lower IQ will have on average lower IQs than the children of parents who belong to a higher IQ group, even when both sets of parents have identical IQs themselves.

Posted by: Iris | October 29, 2010 1:52 PM

Just slogged through this thread. For a genetically superior intellect, yanshen sure isn't too sharp.

The main issue that I want liberals to think about is how their views can be falsified. How can you disprove the notion these group differences aren't biological and are the rest of culture? It seems that a liberal will just automatically invoke culture as a means of explaining away every disparity, in effect rendering their hypothesis unfalsifiable.

The liberal, i.e., "reality-based" view that the group differences you're babbling on and on about (ironically in a thread about misunderstanding evolutionary biology) aren't biological and are the result of culture is a falsifiable hypothesis, genius.

Now, here's the important part that your biologically superior intellect is, inexplicably, unable to grasp: It has not been falsified. On the contrary, the evidence that exists (such as adoption studies, analyses of human genomes, etc., etc., ad nauseum) points to its correctness.

Here's what I'm wondering: to what extent is narcissism biologically determined?

Posted by: CJO | October 29, 2010 2:13 PM

A hypothesis isn't falsified just because liberals become hostile and declare that it's false

You're not responding to the arguments, you're just claiming that no arguments have been made. The only one "declaring" anything without evidence or argument is you.

I know it can be hard to remain objective when one wants to validate a particular world-view.

Fuck, but you're a condescending git.

Posted by: yanshen71786 | October 29, 2010 2:19 PM

Here's another reason why I'm often amused when liberal atheists lash out against "genetic determinism".

Well, what about physical determinism? What if the laws of nature are purely deterministic such that given an initial set of starting conditions, everything else inevitably follows? And even if there was true quantum randomness, that still wouldn't seem to give us free will. After all, the "I" seems to be an illusion, something which is nothing more than an aggregation of particles behaving either deterministically or probabilistically, and certainly not something which can transcend physical reality itself and exert true libertarian freedom. In that sense, even were quantum randomness to be validated, a human being would be no more "free" than a rock or a tree or anything else that would be part of nature. Whenever people start getting hysterical over the bane of genetic determinism, I'm always amused that they aren't more attuned to the foundational philosophical issues regarding the very nature of free will itself.

Posted by: Ewan R | October 29, 2010 2:25 PM

There's already an extremely subtle way in which we can infer a genetic component for IQ amongst races. It's called regression to the mean. The children of parents who belong to a lower IQ will have on average lower IQs than the children of parents who belong to a higher IQ group, even when both sets of parents have identical IQs themselves.

I would have thought that if the kids tend to have an IQ closer to that of the group to which they belong rather than to their parents this would be evidence of societal basis for IQ rather than genetic - it points way more to either kids of one group being treated differently, or for the groups being segregated such that their educational opportunities are dissimilar, or a combination thereof.

All that said though, citation needed.

Posted by: Iris | October 29, 2010 2:30 PM

If you think that the biological argument has been falsified, then you're seriously mistaken about the facts my naive and soundly refuted opinion.

FTFY.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | October 29, 2010 2:32 PM

There's already an extremely subtle way in which we can infer a genetic component for IQ amongst races. It's called regression to the mean. The children of parents who belong to a lower IQ will have on average lower IQs than the children of parents who belong to a higher IQ group, even when both sets of parents have identical IQs themselves.

How does that account for environmental (societal and developmental) variance? Regression to the mean in IQ studies assumes similarities in environment. This works for heritability from parents to children, but only because it is assumed the environment is similar between them. The only thing you can do is compare the respective measured heritability between the different populations. You can't judge the absolute genetic component of intelligence.

According to Sternberg, et. al., studies of heritability of intelligence result in differing estimates of heritability depending on the environment of the study.

Moreover, there is much published evidence indicat- ing that heritability estimates vary across populations. For example, estimates of the heritability of IQ in Russian twin studies conducted in the Soviet era tended to be higher than comparable estimates in the United States (Egorova, 1988; Grigorenko, 1990; Iskoldsky, 1988). This observation made sense: Environmental variation in Russia under the Soviet regime was constrained; consequently, heritability estimates were higher.

This isn't about "liberal" (whatever the fuck that means) bias versus your own bias. This is about the extreme difficulty in separating genetic from environmental factors.

If you think that the biological argument has been falsified, then you're seriously mistaken about the facts. A hypothesis isn't falsified just because liberals become hostile and declare that it's false…

Dude, you have some serious problems with comprehension. Did you even fucking read what she wrote?

Let me give you a refresher.

The liberal, i.e., "reality-based" view that the group differences you're babbling on and on about (ironically in a thread about misunderstanding evolutionary biology) aren't biological and are the result of culture is a falsifiable hypothesis, genius.

Now, here's the important part that your biologically superior intellect is, inexplicably, unable to grasp: It has not been falsified. On the contrary, the evidence that exists (such as adoption studies, analyses of human genomes, etc., etc., ad nauseum) points to its correctness.

See what she said? She basically called you out on your lie misunderstanding. The model in which cognitive variance is influence far more by environment than by genetics is a falsifiable claim. That is, it makes predictions about the kind of data we'll find. (Such as that mentioned in the link I provided.)

So far, that's the kind of data we're finding.

She said nothing about the evidence falsifying your precious little fantasy of genetic superiority. She simply said the evidence tends to support environmental factors as the leading cause of variance in measured IQ.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | October 29, 2010 2:37 PM

Yanshen, You don't listen so well. How does that figure into IQ.

OK, doofus, LISTEN: We have an observation--that Asians/Jews/insert pet group are over-represented in many academic competions and in some professions requiring academic success.

We have two hypotheses. Hypothesis one explains the difference in terms of the values and culture of the Asian/Jewish vs. European-descent kids. Oh, and look, there's a mechanism that shows how this could come about that is well documented, researched and established.

Hypothesis 2 says it is genetic. Oops! There is no genetic mechanism that would explain such differences emerging in only a few generations that is consistent with the history of Homo Sapiens.

Sorry, Yanshen. Hypothesis 2 loses. In fact Hypothesis 2 can't even come up with a prediction we could test to see if it is valid. Hypothesis one predicts that differences would decrease for children in a home that values academic achievement and when their oportunities are equalized--and that is precisely what we see. Do you even know what science is?

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | October 29, 2010 2:49 PM

No, no, no, nigelTheBold, CS. I quite clearly stated that a hypothesis is falsified when liberals become hostile and simply declare that it is false.

*rolls eyes*

Oh, for fuck's sake. Now it's my reading comprehension that's in trouble.

I apologize for the misunderstanding. It's actually quite clear, now that you've pointed it out.

Posted by: yanshen71786 | October 29, 2010 2:59 PM

Can someone explain to me what the detrimental environmental factors are that contribute to Western European nations, which are amongst the wealthiest in the world, to have a lower measured average IQ than China, which is poorer than even some African nations?

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | October 29, 2010 3:06 PM

Yanshen, are you really that thick? OK, what does the Chinese kid get praised for when he comes home from school:

1)throwing a touchdown pass
2)getting an A on a test?

Posted by: MadScutter | October 29, 2010 3:15 PM

#337 - Citation for "Western European nations [...], have a lower measured average IQ than China."?

And the environmental factors have been repeated multiple times in previous posts.

While some of the factors are related to economic status, that is not the only one. As multiple people have pointed out, cultural values play a significant role as well.

The fact is that, at least at this time, and considered as a whole, edumacation and academic performance are not nearly at the top of the list of cultural values in the good ol' USofA. However some of the subcultures within our society generally rank those values at the very top. (Guess which ones).

Posted by: Iris | October 29, 2010 3:20 PM

a_ray:

Yanshen, are you really that thick? OK, what does the Chinese kid get praised for when he comes home from school:

1)throwing a touchdown pass
2)getting an A on a test?

You forgot:
3) Praising Jebus.

And yes, yanshen really is that thick.

Posted by: Iris | October 29, 2010 3:37 PM

I want someone to articulate a concrete set of detrimental environmental factors that would counteract the 10x nominal per capita income advantage that many of the richest nations in Western Europe have relative to China, to the effect that China actually has a recorded IQ on average of somewhere around 6-7 points higher than most of the European nations.

Just riffing off the top of my head:

1) brain rot from media saturation (TV in particular).
2) relative level of woo infestation, including cultural traditions.
3) valuing of athleticism/sports vs. academic achievement/intellect.
4) environmental toxins, particularly hormonal.
5) homogeneity of political values (e.g., one party/Communist vs. diverse/democratic)
6) social consequences of perceived slacking.

I'm sure I could go on - and I have zero background in the social sciences. But for some reason, I'm fucking bored.

Posted by: CJO | October 29, 2010 3:41 PM

Now, now. Let's not go overstating the economic disparity. China, while in the midst of a massive urbanizing trend, still has a significant rural population, and a corresponding income gap. I would bet anything that a disproportionate number of urban Chinese are the ones taking most of the IQ tests. So, you're weaseling. You're looking at China's GDP as a whole, but neglecting that it's among the comparatively well-off urban elites that most of the IQ data is coming from, not a broad distribution across urban and rural areas. I'm sure there's still a disparity, but I'm also sure it's nowhere near as large as you'd like it to be for your case.

Furthermore, the demand for "a concrete set of detrimental environmental factors" WRT to Western Europe is silly, and you know it. There could as easily be a concrete set of IQ test result-enhancing cultural practices and values among upwardly mobile, educated Chinese urban elites that could account for the difference.

Posted by: yanshen71786 | October 29, 2010 4:04 PM

@Ichthyic

I'm motivated first and foremost by intellectual curiosity. Since you seem to repeatedly question my intelligence, I graciously ask for your help in clearing up my confusion. Why does Western European consistently lag behind China on IQ tests, despite the seemingly obvious fact that Western Europe is far wealthier and developed?

@CJO

"You're looking at China's GDP as a whole, but neglecting that it's among the comparatively well-off urban elites that most of the IQ data is coming from, not a broad distribution across urban and rural areas."

Can you cite that this is the case? I wouldn't be surprised if there were geographical differences in IQ within China(in fact this is almost certain to be true, given the fact that higher IQ individuals are the ones who disproportionately migrate to the coastal regions), but the score obtained in IQ and Global Inequality was an aggregate of various administered exams throughout the country.

Asking for a concrete list of detrimental environmental factors holding back Western Europe IQ wise relative to China is certainly no worse than someone demanding that we understand precisely how the genome contributes to IQ before can infer that IQ has a genetic component.(In my opinion, the latter is far sillier.)

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | October 29, 2010 4:11 PM

The relevant adoption studies exist.

Posted by: yanshen71786 | October 29, 2010 4:20 PM

*Correction to the above post

...what one often FINDS is that...

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | October 29, 2010 4:31 PM

I'm always saddened when people devolve into such bitter disputes and always strive to avoid them throughout the course of my own daily life.

Look, one thing is valued above all else here.

Intellectual honesty.

We have asked for references to research to back up your claim that genetics is the primary component. You want to extend an olive branch? Extend some references and citations instead.

As has been repeatedly demonstrated (via references and citations) the current research indicates the variance between IQ test results (which are non-commutative -- SEE Gould, The Mismeasure of Man) can be adequately explained by environmental factors (and poor methodology).

The problem is, there is no way to currently separate out the genetic vs. environmental contribution to variance in intelligence between populations. You have not presented one. Regression to the mean is sufficient to put an upper bound on the heritability of intelligence, but in this case is not a proper tool for measuring genetic differences among populations.

So. You still have yet to produce a single method to distinguish between environmental factors (of which the effects on intelligence are well-documented) and genetic factors (for which the only measurement we have is heritability).

On the side of the "liberals" (whatever the fuck that means) is evidence that indicates environmental factors have a large influence on intelligence. On your side, you have an upper bound of the heritability of intelligence (at roughly 0.75 or so).

Tell me again how you plan on sifting out the genetic component of the IQ of a population?

I'm always saddened when people devolve into such bitter disputes and always strive to avoid them throughout the course of my own daily life.

I'm always saddened when obviously intelligent people cling tenaciously to outmoded ideas with no evidence to support their claim -- it's especially bad in the face of contrary evidence.

I'm not claiming there is no genetic component. All I'm saying is, there is plenty of evidence to support environmental factors. So much so, it's going to be damned difficult to determine if there is a genetic component.

So I'm also claiming that, by championing a genetic factor with the absolute certainty you express, you are showing yourself to be either willfully ignorant, or intellectually dishonest.

Posted by: Muse | October 29, 2010 4:40 PM

Yanshen - my question still stands. How are you determining this "genetic" group? Are Han Chinese different from Mongolians? Or are they all lumped into East Asia. What about India and Bangledesh? How about the Middle East (still Asia) or the Mizrahi Jews, are they Asian or Jewish?

We can't have a real conversation on this without defining terms. Please tell me what your groups are and where and how you a drawing the boundries? I'll even take a few representative groups - you don't need to line out all of them.

Posted by: Ichthyic | October 29, 2010 4:47 PM

Look, I harbor no ill-will towards you.

I don't fucking care.

I bear tons of "ill will" towards intellectually dishonest, pearl clutching, couch-fainting racists like yourself.

FOAD.

don't like it?

you know what to do.

Posted by: Ewan R | October 29, 2010 4:48 PM

So I decided to attempt to do yanshen's digging for him a little, turned up the followinh paper which shows huge discrepancies in math ability (which is obviously a component of IQ testing, albeit not the whole thing) which in my opinion illustrates part of the why of China scores higher in IQ tests - they train their schoolkids in areas which are likely to improve scores on IQ tests

study here

And another piece of scientific literature which discusses the gap

Which suggests that time spent doing math bizarrely correlates with an ability to... do math - would you not concede perhaps that such a correlation holds out across all subjects, and therefore across IQ such that genetic determinism in terms of IQ is utterly meaningless when the populations in question put absolutely different emphasis on education and socialising.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | October 29, 2010 4:55 PM

You seem to be arguing that China is so poor that people work desperately hard to become wealthy. Or at least that's the general gist of the argument you're making, as far as I can tell.

That just makes me wonder why then liberals always go on about how low socioeconomic status is a serious hindrance to real life outcome.

Posted by: drbunsen | October 29, 2010 5:00 PM

yanshen666:

I observe the way that the world is

No, you don't. Not even close.

geographically isolated groups

Over genetic timescales, they're not. Idiot.

I know it can be hard to remain objective when one wants to validate a particular world-view.

Objective doesn't mean unemotional. It means hewing to the evidence. People here are getting emotional with you, asshat, because of your persistent failure/refusal to do so, or to even understand how to do so.

In terms of the evidence available, calling you a dumbass, ignorant, arrogant, condescending racist fucktard with delusions of intellectual competence is far more objective than any of the non-evidential übermensch fantasies you are spewing.

Follow the science, not your narcissistic self-regard and your obsession with the non-existent genius, originality and relevance of your trite "theories". Hint: cherry-picking your data from fucking op-eds from the WSJ is not science.

Read #219. There is no statistically significant genetic difference between humans of different "races", period. That is the science. Your entire argument rests upon the false premise that there is, before you even get to IQ. Take that away, as an objective interlocutor would, and there is nothing left to prop up your delusion but your own narcissistic inability to see the objective world beyond your own self-glorification.

I have a hypothesis which is amply supported by such evidence as is available: you suffer from a clinically diagnosable narcissistic or other personality disorder and desperately need an intervention.

Course, you won't see it that way, because it's everyone else that's at fault - especially those damn libruls (whoever the fuck they are - are they descended from Liberians?)

if you encounter an individual and his or her race is IRRELEVANT in determining how you treat him or her, then you're not a racist. ... I've speculated that there may be a biological basis for the more aggressive and hostile nature of Europeans relative to East Asians. So I try to keep these things in mind when interacting with others.

Fucking racist.

how predictive it is / a purportedly higher IQ group / also ends up doing better in real life. ... 10x nominal per capita advantage that Western European nations have over China

In spite of higher IQ, China is 10x poorer? Wow, how did that happen? It's almost as if there were some other factor(s) in play ...

Naaaah, that can't be right. It's all IQ, and IQ is all genetics. Therefore, China is rich, and Finland is poor. Except ... wait ... oh how confusing. My poor white brain can't cope with the intellectual challenge my superior Asian brother has presented. Guess I'd better go back to beating up on some aboriginals.

When I debate people of East Asian descent, the conversation is usually vibrant and challenging, but without the sheer degree of utter hostility and invective that people are directing towards me here.

Posted by: drbunsen | October 29, 2010 5:06 PM

spamshen666:

Europeans conquered and enslaved the Native Americans and Africans, while countries like China and Japan chose relative isolation.

Wow. You are as spectacularly, breathtakingly ignorant of history as you are of genetics, sociology, statistics, economics and your own incompetence.

Now, could one of you fine Pharynguloids please show me how to do a proper Gumbyquote?

Posted by: CJO | October 29, 2010 5:13 PM

Can you cite that this is the case? I wouldn't be surprised if there were geographical differences in IQ within China(in fact this is almost certain to be true, given the fact that higher IQ individuals are the ones who disproportionately migrate to the coastal regions), but the score obtained in IQ and Global Inequality was an aggregate of various administered exams throughout the country.

No, I can't cite anything. You don't know where the Chinese IQ data is coming from, given the best you can do is the perfectly uninformative "an aggregate of various administered exams throughout the country." Neither do I.

But, in regards to the Western Europe vs. China question, it's not hard to see some salient socio-cultural differences that could account for the discrepancy. As has just been noted, Chinese educational institutions place a great deal of emphasis on training students in those areas most likely to enhance IQ test outcomes, while Western European educational institutions provide more instruction in the liberal arts and European languages and literature, subjects not associated with the abstract reasoning skills rewarded by IQ tests. Furthermore, beyond the GDP argument I made above, a selection effect could be occuring, within China, as far as who actually is administered IQ tests. IQ tests are mostly given to children, in school. Western European nations have longstanding compulsory state-run educational institutions. Very nearly everybody attends a relatively standardized primary and secondary school, and we should expect that IQ tests are administered roughly equally accross regional and socio-economic lines. The sample from China is likely more self-selected, with relatively well-off and well educated urban coastal elites with high aspirations for the academic success of their children arranging for a disproportionate number of IQ tests.

Posted by: yanshen71786 | October 29, 2010 5:15 PM

@drbunsen

It's pretty obvious that isolation and Communist Maoism were fairly significant reasons why China had been so poor for most of recent history.

But the salient fact is this, since China opened up to free market reforms in 1978, it's recorded 3 decades of GDP growth averaging 10% annually! There just might be a reason why East Asian nations, despite enduring colonialism and despite being roughly as poor as most African nations in the early 1960s, have become vastly more developed and wealthier compared to those same African nations.

"Asians are too polite to tell you you're a fucking retard, even when you are a fucking retard, retard. It's a genetic thing. "

There's some nugget of truth to that. Blacks and whites are a lot more hostile and confrontational in disposition than East Asians. Even Gottfried Leibniz noticed this stark behavioral difference back in the day when he remarked how the Chinese were so much more peaceful in nature as compared with the constantly warring Europeans.

@nigel
I'm sure there are environmental effects affecting IQ; the only question is how much of the variance in IQ can we properly attribute to environmental factors?

What I suspect is that if more liberals compared not just black Americans to white Americans, but white Americans to people in mainland China, much of the conventional wisdom proffered would be cast somewhat into doubt. Most Americans would be shocked to contemplate the fact that even African Americans in the lower classes enjoy a greater standard of absolute living than many people in China today!

Posted by: Ichthyic | October 29, 2010 5:17 PM

man, two inane trolls.

is it time for another Survivor round?

Posted by: Ewan R | October 29, 2010 5:23 PM

But once again, the question would be the same as before. Did the geeky un-athletic nerd shun sports because he was no good at it to begin with? Or was the fact that he was unathletic actually the result of him having shunned sports?

Thats all kinds of ridiculous. We're discussing IQ here, which is an average ability, so looking at how well stars perform is completely meaningless - you'd be better looking at how mediocre players perform - I can guaranfuckingtee you that in a population where you train 5 hours a week as compared to a population where you do not train at all that the average ability in the sport will be higher - it's so obvious that I'm willing to make the statement sans any scientific evidence whatsoever.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | October 29, 2010 5:26 PM

yanshen71786, what I don't get is why you think this proves anything? Even if you're conjectures were true, what would that mean in terms of real world outcomes?

Posted by: yanshen71786 | October 29, 2010 5:32 PM

@Ewan

Here's the thing. We should think of IQ as a necessary but not sufficient requirement for success in real life endeavors. That is to say, without a sufficiently high IQ, one faces serious handicaps in terms of attaining certain outcomes. But, even given a relatively high IQ, one must also put in the requisite amount of work if one is to succeed.

Now here's some evidence to challenge your assertion about athletics. China, which runs a rigorous athletics training program has scarcely produced any world-class runners. Tiny Jamaica on the other hand, with a population of only 3 million has produced quite a few. Per Steve Hsu's observations...

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/06/fast-times-in-jamaica.html

"Ever wonder how Jamaica, a country of 3 million people, can compete with the US and totally dominate all of Europe and Asia when it comes to the sprints? China has spent billions on a Soviet-style sports program that selects promising athletes at a young age and sends them to special sports schools. When Liu Xiang won the 110 hurdles at the last Olympics, Chinese officials referred to his gold as the "heaviest" of all medals won by Chinese in Athens. There is no lack of Chinese desire to win sprint gold -- Liu Xiang is the biggest sports star in China after Yao Ming! Similarly, the US and Europe have far more money than Jamaica for training facilities, coaches, scholarships, stipends, etc. World class athletes in Jamaica train on a grass track and in weight rooms with rusty barbells. Most US high schools have superior facilities. "

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 29, 2010 5:43 PM

Yawn, what an evidenceless, but overposting idjit. I think the fool is a shyster, as he used a phrase often used to describe trials. But then, law trials have nothing to do with science, or the truth for that matter. And this fool has no understanding of science, how it works, and no desire to learn.

First of all fool, science is not a liberal activity, so you keep lying on that point. And that puts everything you say into the classification of lies until show otherwise with scientific evidence. Science has people from all over the world, and political spectrum, and by using a set methodology, tries to remove personal bias and keep focused on the evidence. And, like the CSI TV shows, follow the evidence where it leads. You have a conclusion, and keep trying to justify it with nonsensical thinking and sophistry, but not solid scientific evidence. So far no evidence from you, and you must prove your point with solid evidence. Which means present some, and be refuted by it too. I suggest you try Google Scholar.

Posted by: Ewan R | October 29, 2010 5:49 PM

Now here's some evidence to challenge your assertion about athletics.

How does that challenge my assertion in any way shape or form? You're looking at the extreme end of the scale so things will be skewed (compare all the mediocre sprinters from each country for a fair comparison, also for instance given that there clearly are racial differences in height etc one would hardly be surprised that the Chinese struggle to compete in sprints)

If you look at country performance in the olympic games by overall spend on training I imagine a different story would emerge - indeed the Chinese (who you appear to want to paint as a nation of geeky inadequates) having only participated in 8 olympic games sit awfully high in the all time medal achievers - with 2x the medals/games as the GBR (3rd place, relatively heavy sports investment) and 50% the medals/games of the US (not surprising given the massive investment in sports in the US) (I dont have time to calculate all nations but on first glance it would appear that on a medals per games basis the Chinese are 3rd after the USSR and US, which makes a mockery of the suggestion that their heavy investment in sports has not paid off)

Here's the thing. We should think of IQ as a necessary but not sufficient requirement for success in real life endeavors. That is to say, without a sufficiently high IQ, one faces serious handicaps in terms of attaining certain outcomes. But, even given a relatively high IQ, one must also put in the requisite amount of work if one is to succeed.

No, here's the thing - we should think of IQ as a meaningless construct based on ones ability to take IQ tests highly correlated to your training to take tests similar to IQ tests. We should remove IQ from any general conversation about intelligence as it has the same place there as discussion of Barney the dinosaur has in paleontology.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | October 29, 2010 5:56 PM

Did you know that height correlates with greater earning potential?

Here's the thing. We should think of tallness as a necessary but not sufficient requirement for success in real life endeavours. That is to say, without a sufficiently tall physique, one faces serious handicaps in terms of attaining certain outcomes. But, even given a relatively tall physique, one must also put in the requisite amount of work if one is to succeed.

Posted by: yanshen71786 | October 29, 2010 6:03 PM

Correlation doesn't always imply causation, but it certainly be suggestive of it. The key thing is to analyze the scenario carefully.

I doubt that shoe sizes correlate well with SAT scores. East Asians are much smaller than African Americans on average and in all likelihood have smaller feet as well. But East Asian Americans score much higher than blacks on the SAT. Also, East Asians are shorter on average than both blacks and whites, but still outperform both groups academically and in terms of real life income.

Posted by: Joffan | October 29, 2010 6:07 PM

Um, yanshen, if you're saying that (some) people with smaller feet tend to do better on SATs, that's probably enough for a correlation, on a big sample. It doesn't matter whether the slope is positive or negative.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 29, 2010 6:10 PM

Again, why does it matter so much to you? I don't get your motivation.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | October 29, 2010 6:15 PM

Did you know that stereotypes can accept performance?

Posted by: yanshen71786 | October 29, 2010 6:26 PM

@Nerd

I'm also extending to you an olive branch here. Let's try to discuss our differences rationally, without necessarily demonizing the other person as the "them" instead of the "us". I promise you that I'm not the spawn of Satan and that most people in general find me to be a pleasant and decent person in real life.

Posted by: otrame | October 29, 2010 6:33 PM

Okay, look guys, it is clear that poor Yanshen, for whatever reason, needs to think he belongs to a "superior" "race". He's hardly alone in this desire, it's pretty common. And it is also clear he feels a need to convince us all of this. He has spent many hours attempting this and a few of us have had some fun poking him. But as entertaining as that has been, his screeds just get more tl;dr as time as gone on. SO....

Yanny-kins, you win. You've convinced me. My mostly North European genes* are clearly inferior to yours. There. Feel better?

For the rest of us poor inferior non-Asians, let us all remember the you cannot reason a person out of an opinion that they did not reason themselves into (my quick search shows that statement as "origin unknown").

Oh, and Yanny-luv, I really, really, really meant it when I said you've convinced me your race is superior to mine and if you don't believe me I am going to get HOSTILE. I can't help it. It's in my genes.

*Well, there is that one Comanche --i.e. Asian--great, great granddad--probably why I can actually read and write.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 29, 2010 6:42 PM

Let's try to discuss our differences rationally, without necessarily demonizing the other person as the "them" instead of the "us".

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | October 29, 2010 6:57 PM

This is not to suggest that there's no genetic component to intelligence. It would be absurd to think that. But to talk of races as being discrete entities or even monolithic ones is putting superficial boundaries around people and then making generalisations that apply to some of the in-group members and neglecting that those generalisations work for out-group members too. Genetically it makes no sense, yet we do put those artificial restraints over people through the way our minds work.

What I don't get is why there are people who are so obsessed with race and racial determinism. Why? Why does it matter? Let's take the case that someone from Asia is on average more genetically gifted at mathematics. And lets ignore the studies that show the role of good teachers and psychological means of performance (such as confidence, playing to stereotypes, or giving more personal responsibility [turns out that if you tell people mathematics is innate they are less likely to try]) and say yes that it's genetically determined. What ramifications does this actually have? If it doesn't have any, then why the fuck are we wasting so much time arguing over it?

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | October 29, 2010 7:07 PM

I spend as much time debating Creationists as I do liberal Creationists, because in both cases I value reason above all else and certainly would never subordinate it to any notion of political correctness.

Posted by: CJO | October 29, 2010 7:19 PM

Fuckin' delusional narcissists, how do they work?

I'm through with this stupid shit.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 29, 2010 7:29 PM

Still not citing the peer reviewed literature idjit fuckwit yanshen71786. How do you expect to be taken seriously, until you show you are being scientific, by citing the peer reviewed scientific literature. What a sophist loser...

Posted by: yanshen71786 | October 29, 2010 7:35 PM

@Nerd

I've followed past threads here before. Basically anything that's cited which contradicts the liberal view point is somehow discredited, i.e. the author was a racist scumbag or oh but wait you see the authors didn't absolutely positively prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the two kids grew up in the same kind of environment so therefore we can't infer anything, etc etc

It's a losing proposition trying to cite the empirical literature on liberal forums. I suspect that you've already seen the debates unfold in the past, the sources which have been cited before, and have long made up your mind about what you will and won't believe in.

Posted by: David Marjanović | October 29, 2010 7:57 PM

I'm shocked at how hostile and aggressive people are being in this thread. When I debate people of East Asian descent, the conversation is usually vibrant and challenging, but without the sheer degree of utter hostility and invective that people are directing towards me here. Perhaps there are personality differences between Europeans and East Asians? I've always wondered whether or not the far greater degree of European aggressiveness/hostility explained why Europeans conquered and enslaved the Native Americans and Africans, while countries like China and Japan chose relative isolation.

:-o

Did you really not know that China and Japan simply did their imperialism on the same continent, like Russia, instead of overseas?

What happens if I say that the reason why China and Japan didn't acquire overseas empires is ultimately one man?

(Russia didn't acquire colonies overseas, unless you count Alaska, because it lacked access to ice-free harbors. Similarly, Austria didn't because it simply came too late to the game, gaining access to the sea some 200 years after the Americas had already been carved up, for instance.)

And you can't blame the Pacific half of WWII on the Meiji restoration. That would be silly, and you know it full well.

Many west European countries produce far more patents per head of population than than the USA.

Bookmarked.

You can give everyone a decent life by not interfering with the way that the cognitive elites operate. Let them create new wealth through scientific and technological innovation and let that wealth trickle down to everyone else. There may be income inequality in a relative sense, but I can assure you that in absolute terms everyone will be made better off.

Evidence, please?

And what about when trickle-down economics was actually tried under Reagan and Bush Jr?

That makes one wonder how China, despite being poorer on a per capita basis than certain African countries even, manages to dominate every elite high IQ competition in the world(International Math Olympiad, International Physics Olympiad, etc)

First, a-million-to-one odds happen eight times a day in New York City. I expect China to have more exceptionally good mathematicians and physicists and chemists simply because it has more people.

Second, communism. I participated in the national Chemistry Olympics of Austria in 2000. Come on, everyone knows how China wins the International Chemistry Olympics: by locking promising students in, stuffing them with university-level chemistry books day and night, and not letting them out till they know the books by heart. East Germany did the exact same thing till it stopped existing, with the same success. I'd bet real money that North Korea now does it, too.

It's a bit funny how communist countries so often are those where the state puts the most effort into national prestige.

Consider that every centrally planned Communist economy has utterly failed. Free market capitalism on the other hand has flourished.

And there are no places in the world other than Somalia and North Korea. No, sir.

"Free-market capitalism" is a cover term for a very wide range of systems. Sweden isn't the US, Austria isn't Australia, France isn't Canada, New Zealand isn't New Guinea...

The second claim, which is the one that I'm making, is that a tiny fraction of the cognitive elite, as opposed to the business elite, generate almost all of the real value for society. While these people don't make anything near the amount that people in business make, they're still fairly well off compared to most of society as a whole. What I want to do is to shift the wealth from the business elite to the scientific elite, the ones who are actually creating value. What liberals want to do is spread the wealth around to everyone, regardless of whether or not they've contributed to the creation of value.

And actually making stuff doesn't "contribute[...] to the creation of value"?

I hate to cite Karl Marx at you, but...

The reason being gay has evolutionary advantages is that it gives a mother a potential foster parent (her gay son) for her grand children if any of her daughters die in childbirth (which many (if not most) women eventually did).

I've already mentioned how wrong-headed this is. You try to explain why there are gay humans, as if only humans could be gay! You should try to explain why there are gay vertebrates. See comment 103.

Human male homosexuality, at the very least, is correlated to above-average female fertility in the same family. It thus appears to be, in part, a side effect of an allele that confers an obvious Darwinian advantage.

Well I suppose PZ could ban me. But that would be a shame, because as far as I can tell, I've tried to be as polite as I can in voicing my contrarian opinions in this thread. I don't hate anyone because of their ideology or race or gender.

Impoliteness is not a bannable offense. Hate is not a bannable offense. Passion is not a bannable offense. Harboring ill will is not a bannable offense. Not being xiào is not a bannable offense (sorry, it's too late at night to look for the character, and I don't have an IME).

Here is the list of bannable offenses. I'm... somewhat surprised you haven't figured out how to look for it.

[...] I've learned to pursue dispassionate reason to the fullest.

Dude...

You haven't even learned to pursue evidence.

Personally, I believe that mature men and women should be able to dispassionately discuss their differences without resorting to name calling or other hostile behavior. It's one of the values that I'll be imparting to my children, because I believe that if we're ever to move beyond petty tribal differences, we have to stop seeing the world in terms of "us" versus "them".

It is deeply... insulting... to your own intelligence that you equate name-calling with "seeing the world in terms of 'us' versus 'them'".

The real question is whether or not geographically isolated groups who were subjected to a certain degree of non-random mating could have evolved a differing set of mental or physical attributes.

You never replied to comment 103.

We already have adoption tests and other pieces of evidence supporting the hereditarian position.

Then cite that evidence already.

even were quantum randomness to be validated

Not that it matters to any of the discussions you try to have here, but... it has been. There are no hidden variables.

But then again we can introduce a third comparison into the equation and ask ourselves why poor African nations don't react to poverty in the same way that the Chinese do.

That has a lot of reasons. The legacy of colonialism and the lack of Confucianism with its worship of learning are among them. An important one, however, is lack of political will. Almost no countries in Africa seriously count as democracies. Oh, sure, most have regular elections and not even all that much fraud, but completely artificial nations where the political parties are identical to peoples have little chance of escaping the vicious circle of one man gaining power and doing everything to keep it for the rest of his life. More educated people tend to be less willing to accept a dictator, so dictators don't fund education adequately...

The legacy of colonialism includes things like la Françafrique – corruption scandals that span dozens of countries, oil and mining companies, several decades, and entire national budgets. That kind of thing can keep a country down, way down. China has started participating.

are people who are fairly good at math to begin with more likely to devote more time to the subject?

Please.

In a school system where you don't take subjects like in the USA but have subjects, schoolchildren are going to spend precisely as much and as little time doing math as the curriculum prescribes.

"Asians are too polite to tell you you're a fucking retard, even when you are a fucking retard, retard. It's a genetic thing. "

There's some nugget of truth to that. Blacks and whites are a lot more hostile and confrontational in disposition than East Asians.

It's cultural. Wǒmen bú xiào a. :-|

Even Gottfried Leibniz noticed this stark behavioral difference back in the day when he remarked how the Chinese were so much more peaceful in nature as compared with the constantly warring Europeans.

"Even"?

Leibniz wrote during an epoch when it was fashionable in Europe to look at China through rose-colored glasses and to consider it some kind of utopian meritocracy where people (...well, men, but never mind...) advanced to positions of power by passing tests rather than by being the son of the previous office holder. They overlooked that the tests were about completely irrelevant subjects (classical literature and philosophy for civil servants... what for?), that class still played a big role (peasants could hardly ever afford to have a son learn enough literature to pass such a test, or even to have him learn enough characters to fucking read it), and that every change of dynasty came with pretty impressive wars. Oh, and, the Tàipíng Revolution hadn't happened yet; imagine 25 million dead people. "Uttermost peace" indeed.

ABSTRACT—Kindergartners in China showed greater numerical knowledge than their age peers in the United States, not only when tested with arithmetic problems, which Chinese parents present to their children more often than U.S. parents do, but also when tested with numberline estimation problems, which were novel to the children in both countries.

How unrelated to each other are these mathematical abilities really?

Here's the thing. We should think of IQ as a necessary but not sufficient requirement for success in real life endeavors. That is to say, without a sufficiently high IQ, one faces serious handicaps in terms of attaining certain outcomes. But, even given a relatively high IQ, one must also put in the requisite amount of work if one is to succeed.

You simply assert that we should think of IQ this way.

And you don't even try to present any evidence for that assertion.

This is worse than calling people demented fuckwits. Much worse.

China, which runs a rigorous athletics training program has scarcely produced any world-class runners. Tiny Jamaica on the other hand, with a population of only 3 million has produced quite a few.

It does have a very good program to train world-class runners... and the sport is so popular that few if any world-class talents will be overlooked in Jamaica, while millions of them will be in China because they're, I don't know, unemployed migrant workers who never get to run.

I was impressed by how early the differences manifested themselves.

Such things are very easy to bring about by culture. For instance, Japanese traditionally learn to read and write hiragana from their mothers at the age of 3. Being a syllabic script, it's easier to grasp at that age than an alphabet. I taught myself to read shortly before my 5^th birthday, after I had learned all the letters (and all the traffic signs and the few car brands I had encountered and so on...), and people parade me around as some sort of genius...

What we really need is a dialogue carried on in the spirit of mutual respect.

Often, politeness – even respect – is just a cover for intellectual dishonesty.

Politeness is a useless distraction from science.

Posted by: David Marjanović | October 29, 2010 8:09 PM

petty tribalism

You are the racialist tribalist in this thread.

Liberal Creationists? What the fuck?!?

In stark but unsurprising contrast to his constantly repeated assertions, he's trying to insult us. :-) Like he did in his first comment, he's saying we're all as stupid as creationists. So much for "dialogue in mutual respect" and all that.

If that is what you believe, then why are you here? You are wasting your valuable genetically elite time. Shouldn't you be out saving the world or winning a math contest?

Or making purebred East Asian children and undermining the one-child policy in order to raise the world's average IQ. <mock> <mock>

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | October 29, 2010 8:22 PM

Fucking IQs, how do they work?

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | October 29, 2010 9:25 PM

@413

An aside, but i never understood the logic of eugenics. I'd think anyone with even a basic understanding of genetics even a folk version gleaned from animal husbandry would be aware of hybrid vigor and the problems with stagnant breeding populations. Shouldn't a human eugenisits want to promote interracial couplings so as to cultivate a population with good diverse traits that are capable of adapting well?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 29, 2010 9:30 PM

Shouldn't a human eugenisits want to promote interracial couplings so as to cultivate a population with good diverse traits that are capable of adapting well?

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | October 29, 2010 9:36 PM

@419

The fact that I my mind is not registering realist==racist is confusing the hell out of me right now.

Posted by: yanshen71786 | October 29, 2010 9:47 PM

@Ing

Well I guess I'm used to hearing just so stories by now.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | October 29, 2010 9:54 PM

@423

*roll* You fail you communication check...what was it you're trying to say again?

For reference Justso==story we told
research==research. STFU

People who are a bit too emotionally sensitive could use a bit of toughening up in the real world, if you ask me.

Really? You really want to play the 'toughen up' card in the same breath as you whine about being butt hurt because people call you a racist?

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | October 29, 2010 10:00 PM

Yanshen is a great example of racist blinders syndrome. He's so drenched in the racist crap that he sees it as realism the real world denies. When the rest of people who live in reality try to inform him of facts they're "not being realists" and "liberals who just want to make all the races feel good and equal but they're really note". It's presuppositionalism; what he agrees with is realism, anything else is idealistic denial. It's just like creationism. There's no way to explain it to his dumb ass because any facts he doesn't like his brain eschews as false. The fact that the thread's point was 'you really need to know about evolution in order to talk about it and trying to do so without to justify bigotry is not science, it's bigotry' is lost on him. You could print it on a mile wide banner and he would look past the point as if it wasn't there.

Posted by: Ariel from Canada | October 29, 2010 10:11 PM

A couple of points regarding race:

1. The concept of human races makes little to no biological sense. Biological categories have real meaning; species are populations capable of interbreeding; genus's are groups of species more closely related to each other then other living organisms, etc. In terms of human beings, within group categories that are biologically meaningful simply don't exist.

2. As has been mentioned before, within group variation in humans exceeds between group variations.

3. Human variation does not cluster. This means traits you associate with certain races do not actually vary in tight relationships. Even things like skin colour and hair type have extremely loose genetic relationships.

Thinking about human beings in terms of race just doesn't make sense anymore. It's an outdated mode of thinking, and as one of my favourite professors used to say, if the colonialists had walked all the way to Africa, they probably never would have concieved of the black race and the white race. When you go from Egypt to the Congo, you see slow gradations of skin color, facial shapes, etc.

Even 100 years ago there was little concept of a "white race". English and Irish were often thought of as seperate races. The whole concept simply has nothing whatsoever to do with science.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | October 29, 2010 10:14 PM

Also on eugenics...am I the only one who notices that for some reason Caucasion always seems to be treated as the baseline? If they were going for accuracy wouldn't an ancestral African ancestry be the base line with all other ethnicity modifications of that 'design'? Since we know now that non-africans share a possible heritage with neanderthal this is especially baffling.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | October 29, 2010 10:16 PM

For those of you playing at home, this is likely where yanshen71786 seems to get getting his data.

That's the only thing I can come up with that seems to hit most of yanshen's talking points. And since yanshen himself (I'm assuming a male for the sake of convenience; sue me if I'm wrong) resists any kind of reference or citation, I figured I'd point out which thoroughly-debunked source he seems to have placed up his ass, so he might easily pull his assertions from the appropriate location.

Posted by: drbunsen | October 29, 2010 10:21 PM

racist surrealist, yankchain8675309:

Asians are too polite to tell you you're a fucking retard, even when you are a fucking retard, retard. It's a genetic thing.

There's some nugget of truth to that.

Fucking sarcasm, how does that work?

It's pretty obvious that isolation and Communist Maoism were fairly significant reasons why China had been so poor for most of recent history

Would those be environmental factors you're citing there?

Leibniz

I'm sorry, what? Would you like to give us Avicenna's views on string theory next?

even were quantum randomness to be validated

Oh, boy. "Science" really is whatever you say it is in your sad, deluded fantasy world, isn't it?

Wake up buster. There's a world beyond the end of your nose where lives this thing called evidence. Look into it.

David Marjanović #411:

Often, politeness / is just a cover for intellectual dishonesty

No, Narcissus here really is convinced he's doing the world a favour by bringing his revelation before us. His passive aggressive "politeness" hides nothing but the rotting heart of an emotional and intellectual cripple. I've spent enough time around narcissists to realise they really do believe their own hype, at least superficially.

hate

I'd be surprised if you were capable of hate, or love, or passion, or compassion.

But really, yankstain3141, why are you wasting your time berating this bunch of liberian librarians? Shouldn't you be publishing in Nature, or founding your Master Race colony at the north pole?

Nigel:

I don't think he has the fortitude or intellectual stamina to do either of those experiments.

On the contrary, he seems just the kind who would be eager to begin work on your Great Experiment at #296 as soon as possible. You know, for science, and the Greater Good, and the Advancement Of Man, and all that. I'm sure he could round up a few peasants in Manchukuo who aren't creating anything of value right now.

I note that you haven't addressed this:

There is no statistically significant genetic difference between humans of different "races", period. That is the science. Your entire argument rests upon the false premise that there is.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | October 29, 2010 10:31 PM

Shouldn't you be publishing in Nature, or founding your Master Race colony at the north pole?

That's precisely where he should be founding his Master Race colony.

At least, according the the sorts of studies he seems to like.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | October 29, 2010 10:40 PM

I'm sure he could round up a few peasants in Manchukuo who aren't creating anything of value right now.

Well, considering he has stated that only about 1%-5% of the world's population produces anything of value, there's a whole lot of folks available for his experimentations.

I still maintain he doesn't have the intellectual stamina, though. These sorts of things take rigorous planning, and meticulous execution, and obsessive-compulsive documentation. Now, he has the obsessive-compulsive thing down to a 'T'. I suspect it's the rigorous planning that's going to be a sticking point for him -- it takes a bit of understanding of the field in which you wish to explore.

So far, he's demonstrated … uhm, what's the opposite of knowledge? Not 'ignorance.' That's simply a lack of knowledge. No. I'm looking for a word that is literally the opposite of knowledge, not merely its absence.

Posted by: Laurent Weppe | October 29, 2010 10:43 PM

Shouldn't you be publishing in Nature, or founding your Master Race colony at the north pole?

That's precisely where he should be founding his Master Race colony.

And then, Global warming would cause all the Ice to melt and the colony to drawn...

This north pole idea is clearly an attempt made by those evil liberal untermenschen to kill the master race in its infancy

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | October 29, 2010 10:49 PM

'Bullshit' comes pretty close, though.

That's it! Thank you.

I can now sleep easily.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | October 29, 2010 11:00 PM

I remember on another thread someone who was trying to argue for the deviancy of homosexuals, trying to find a factual basis to support his prejudice. He was cherry picking data that fit his position, but it didn't actually support his real goal that was to argue for the illtreatment of homosexuals. The problem is that while OUGHT necessitates IS, one cannot go from IS to OUGHT. His justification of treating homosexuals poorly was a wasted effort.

Even if we take the principle that there's such thing as race and race is monolithic, what does that say about how we OUGHT to treat people of different races? This is what I don't get about people fixated on a scientific foundation of race, it doesn't actually seem to achieve anything in terms of real outcomes. Like the commenter arguing on the evils of homosexuality I can't see to what ends such arguments are other than to justify one's own preconceptions.

This is why I ask why bother. In terms of ethics it's a non-argument to begin with, so what point does it serve? Why is so much effort put into arguing this ethical non-starter?

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | October 29, 2010 11:37 PM

@446

Yanshen is the Uwe Boll of racists?

Posted by: John Morales | October 30, 2010 12:11 AM

[OT]

WanderedIn, no worries.

Transhumanism is a nice aspiration (though I see cyborging a type of prosthetic, thus itself rather primitive), but needs to be tempered with realism.

Yes, I too like to think humans are at the cusp of being able to bootstrap ourselves into a less primitive state, one not so beholden to disability, decrepitude and unchosen mortality.

Alas that I was born in these early days of civilisation.

Posted by: drbunsen | October 30, 2010 5:51 AM

nigelTheBold #443:

'Bullshit' comes pretty close, though.

That's it! Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit#In_philosophy

The liar/ knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead/. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress... He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.

Laurent Weppe #446:

he just believes to be skilled enough to hide them from us, and that, with enough arabesques of words, he will eventually be succesful.

If he were ever successful, it would be entirely by occident.

nigelTheBold #433

this is likely where yanshen71786 seems to get getting his/ talking points.

STOP: Hammer time!

Posted by: John Morales | October 30, 2010 6:51 AM

drbunsen, since we're in the fifth century of comments, I guess a little topical derailment is not excessively untoward.

So. Transhumanism is not about uploading, but rather about improving our condition.

It's not a moral philosophy like humanism, despite the apparent terminological similarity.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 30, 2010 8:38 AM

I think for yanshen71786, "liberal" also means one of the "Politically Correct" crowd, where everybody must be the same, and discussions of race and racial differences are precluded due to politeness. By discussing these issues, it makes him edgy and smarter than the PC crowd. But he reminds me of the loser Hypershit. He had/has personal problems he needs to work out, and this blog, or any other blog, is not the place to do so. Also, he overestimates his smarts by a huge amount.

Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory | October 30, 2010 10:15 AM

Posted by: yanshen71786 Author Profile Page | October 28, 2010 4:38 PM

I think that most people don't realize that a tiny fraction of people create almost everything of value for society...

Consider the following, the Industrial Revolution probably resulted in one of the greatest upliftings of human living conditions in history. A tiny fraction of the elite were so productive that they managed to develop technologies which radically improves the lives of countless millions of others.

Are you including the tens of thousands of men, women and children toiling 12+ hours a day in factories or down the mines among the "tiny fraction of people create almost everything of value for society"?

Oh, and lots of the people who invented the devices that led to the industrial revolution were not part of "the elite", and many didn't even become part of "the elite" afterwards (among other things, due to lack of patents allowing the pre-existing elite to benefit from their inventions without having to develop ot pay for them themselves).