2008 September 08 Monday
Democrats Drive Reagan Democrats To Republicans
The Inductivist says the Democrats are doing what they can to elect John McCain and Sarah Palin.
Conspiracy theory: I see that, according to the USA Today/Gallup poll, McCain is now up by 10 points. I suspect that there is a genius Republican plot going on. It's so good, Rove must be behind it. The GOP must have planted people in the media and the blogosphere and ordered them to obsess about how Palin is Alaskan trailer trash. It is brilliant: nothing is going to convince Reagan Democrats to vote Republican better than telling them that someone they identify with is low-class. It's "clinging to guns" all over again. I am truly impressed.
I thought Barack Obama was a shoo-in because of the recession and the Iraq war. But I underestimated the power of liberal elite disdain for whites who didn't go to top colleges and who are not whiterpeople (and go take the test and tell us how white you are).
The white liberals can't help themselves. They have to look down on working class whites. They need to feel superior to other whites and rural and working class whites are who they feel they are better than. So they alienate these white voters and send them into the arms of the Republican Party. Never mind that conservatives are about as smart as liberals. The liberals are determined to feel smarter. Never mind they claim that intelligence is a social construct or a product of the environment. They either don't really believe that or can hold contradictory beliefs.
>Conservatives are about as smart as liberals
You sure don't mean the conservatives that believe the Earth is 6,500 years old, or the ones that refuse to acknowledge evolution, or the ones that pushed the abstinence only education, or the ones that started the whole immigration amnesty deal, right?
This is not to say whether your statement is right or wrong, as I don't think the data you showed provides sufficient evidence, but your post is kind of "loaded" and I think it would be a bit too easy and unfair to dismiss those with the above resume as "oh, they are neo-cons, not true conservatives".
The Democrats trying to elect John McCain and Sarah Palin. Wow, that is smart. At least the Republicans will get blamed for the consequences of resource depletion.
It might be a good thing for liberalism is Obama losses. That's why I cannot vote for Obama in this election.
I'd rather the Democrats get the blame. Though Godless Capitalist makes one good point about why it would be better if McCain won at this point:
2) Second, from an h-bd realist perspective we're fighting to hold territory, not to take it. We just need to hold off the left till genomics can come through. We're going to be knocking off sacred cow after sacred cow in the next decade or so. "Race is a social construction" has now been completely dynamited by the genomic maps of Europe, the Hapmap, and all the related papers -- and that only took about 6 years time. Any knowledgeable person can now fillet an unreconstructed Lewontinite by just linking half a dozen recent vintage papers, and there will be literally hundreds by the time the decade is up.
Moreover, it's only a matter of time before the IQ/genomics correlations come down the pike, and that will change everything. But under Obama, there is a very serious risk that work on the genomics/race/IQ nexus will be outlawed or banned. Marcus Feldman and his rapid response teams are only the beginning of this...there are a lot more mutterings going on than have been made public, and left creationists will be ascendant as never before in an Obama administration. There is plenty of precedent: just look at how research into nuclear power, physical anthropology, and genetically modified plants have been brought to a shuddering halt in Europe (and slowed in the US).
It doesn't have to be an overt "ban", of course -- it can just be a series of obstacles to getting any funding for such "racist" studies. It's already well nigh impossible to study genetics, IQ, and race directly given IRB issues...all they'd need to do is apply even stricter scrutiny to the various loopholes that savvy scientists have been exploiting (e.g. Alzheimer's).
By contrast, 8 years of "hold" under a Palin administration will buy us the time we need. And it will be a "Palin administration", in that McCain will see that his popularity depends on his VP. I think amnesty is a *lot* less likely if Sarah has something to say about it.
I want to stall for time. In my opinion, I think suppressing HBD research is a good thing (as long as it does not stymie other important scientific endeavors such as life extension.) Cutting back on immigration is also necessary to stall for time too. However, I also want libertarianism to wane in this country because it is not compatible with my belief in eugenics. It seems too tenuous to allow the market to distribute access to eugenic technology. I do not see the new political left banning it, but I will imagine them to encourage others to use it.
Here is what someone posted:
"That's true. There will be more reluctance among those who are less smart to embrace GE. However, I've never thought the leaders of organizations like La Raza, the NAACP or the Democratic Party were stupid. If it can be shown that there is a serious advantage to potential kids who undergo GE, I think they will push and pull all their members to consider GE for their potential kids. Like any movement, this one will take time. But like any movement, once it gets going, even the lower functioning members will be forced to embrace the tech- if only to keep up with what their friends, neighbors or family are doing for their respective kids"
Libertarianism is not conducive to improving the human race because access to those technologies will probably be restricted by ability to pay when they are released. In the advent of eugenics, such a political philosophy has to be defeated. With McCain-Palin winning, it is an excellent price to pay.
I am not like the Kossacks who think Obama is the messiah; we need to plan for the long term though.
Does Halfsigma still endorse McCain?
As for my priorities, I want libertarianism to wane more than suppressing some unpleasant truths. However, I do not understand why GC wants more irrefragable evidence for the "inferiority" of certain population groups. (I do not see how the data will improve anyone's quality of life if released "prematurely.") If you want to stop immigration, I do not want to use race/IQ research to do it. Instead, I want to use the arguments of Borjas and exploit the sentiments of blue-collared people who do not want to see foreign languages on their ballots. I do not see why IQ should be the conveyed reason to oppose immigration when other tactics will suffice.
As for McCain-Palin, the worst they could do for the eugenics cause is to restrict abortion access by appointed "pro-life" judges. Furthermore, they might appoint some judges that prefer Lochner era policies. I do not know who to prefer, but I personally agree with Obama's political philosophy, but I do not see why the prospect of Obama acquiring more power will further that philosophy in the long run.
As for the Democratic Party in the long run, I do not want it to be a haven for secular libertarians (vs religious socialists). I wonder if people who have the Kossack's economy views will stay in the Democratic Party preventing it from going libertarian.
Left-wing transhumanism has to win in the long term.
Liberals embrace evolution but it has no effect on their belief systems. Ditto for "global warming" - liberals love their giant power-sucking homes and their fuel-guzzling private jets. And liberals advocate Marxist/socialist solutions in the face of overwhelming empirical evidence that this stuff doesn't work.
The economy right now is pretty fragile. If Congress doesn't renew the Bush tax cuts, which will be the case if the Democrats are in control, we may have a catastrophe, just as the Herbert Hoover tax increases helped stoke the Great Depression. So maybe it's best that the Dems have control so they can take all the blame.
I won't blindly defend democrats because they piss me off at so many levels, but I still think you are a bit off.
First, you are right on most democrats willing to accept the fact that evolution is both testable and observable, but not accept the corollary which is we are not all born equal (Social Darwinism). It is a hard thing to swallow, but I think it will happen at some point. On the other hand, if you are among those who deny the basic facts and believe Jesus rode dinosaurs, you still have a much longer path to walk.
Teen pregnancy: some dummies may never learn to use condoms or other contraceptives, but abstinence-only education does not work. Period. STD transmission is insanely high in the US as compared to other leading nations. People are gonna continue to have sex underage, and the best you can do is help them keep healthy by educating them.
On immigration amnesty, I think at this point both parties are equally bad even if Bush was the first one to put the idea on the national table.
You want to suppress genetic research into HBD? Why?
Stall for time to wait for what or to do what?
You can't do eugenics to uplift the children of dummies without knowing which genes to put into their kids.
"STD transmission is insanely high in the US as compared to other leading nations. People are gonna continue to have sex underage, and the best you can do is help them keep healthy by educating them."
Control for race and the U.S. comes out about the same; sorry I can't remember where I found that.
Here is the CIA World Factbook on AIDS prevalence in countries:
You'll see that culture and I.Q. together explain results. Africa is at the top, but the best African countries are much more conservative than the worst ones, usually it is Muslim vs. Animist. The very best countries overall are the middle-eastern ones. Caveats are in order, but they mostly align with other rates such as other STDs and abortion.
Abortion legalization greatly increased spread of STDs, this shouldn't surprise as the cost of promiscuity had been lowered (George Mason and FSU):
"You can't do eugenics to uplift the children of dummies without knowing which genes to put into their kids."
I do not think suppressing the knowledge indefinately is possible or desirable. However, I do not think it would do any good if the knowledge is revealed in the near future. Of course, in the long run, this knowledge will prove useful.
You aren't explaining why you think the truth wouldn't help now. Are you saying it would even hurt?
If we already had the scientific evidence in the form of locations of alleles that boost and lower intelligence and criminality and other cognitive characteristics then we could:
- start doing IVF pre-implantation genetic diagnosis.
- change immigration policy.
- start letting people know how smart their kids might possibly turn out to be.
I think all these things would have salutary effects. I think immigration policy changes would be far easier to do with more evidence of an undeniable sort.
"Liberals embrace evolution but it has no effect on their belief systems."
Why should it? Even if the soi-disant "race realism" is correct, it does not justify treating allegedly "inferior" races like scum. That is simply the naturalistic fallacy.
So we have only two choices then?
1) Make unrealistic social policies based on false assumptions about human nature.
2) Treat some races like scum.
There's not a third or fourth choice here? Choice number 1 doesn't cause damage?
Oh, and we can't very well have people all start acting like conservatives. The charitable giving would become too large.
Randall: "You can't do eugenics to uplift the children of dummies without knowing which genes to put into their kids."
But you can. You can pay people with sub-100 or sub 90 IQs to sterilize themselves after having 0-2 kids, and encourage or pay those with 100-115 IQs to have 2-3 kids and those with 115+ IQs to have 3-4 kids. Or think about Barbara Harris paying crack addicts to sterilize themselves. (I remember reading that one of the sterilized crack addicts had 14 children!).
At the every least, stupid people should not be having more children than smart people. They should be encouraged to limit the size of their brood, perhaps on neutral, over-population, quality of life concerns.
This is a bit off topic, but why is it that everyone in the hbd-blogosphere only promotes high tech eugenics? Why not the sort of low tech eugenics discussed above? (I don't know if he would like being singled out as such, but perhaps the Audacious Epigone is an exception among the hbd types in that he has said several times that low IQ people should have fewer children and high IQ people, more children).
It's very surprising to me to see someone like Steve Sailer always denouncing eugenics when the topic comes up. I've seen him cite GK Chesterton to the effect that eugenics is pointless because the super men and super women who would result would never listen to would be planners telling them whom to marry; that is he constructs a strawman wherein eugenics means state sponsored arranged marriages.
["This points out G.K. Chesterton's objection to the practicality of eugenics: if the eugenicists actually succeeded in breeding healthier, smarter, more formidable Englishmen, the first thing these semi-supermen would do is tell the eugenicists to butt out of arranging their marriages and go back to marrying whomever they loved."] Link.
I've also seen him downplay Jodie Foster's careful choice of a 160 IQ sperm donor on the grounds that the resulting kid would likely only get 12 IQ points more than if she had chosen a dad with an IQ of 100. I don't think it's good for Foster's kid to grow up without a father, but what she did is infinitely superior to what, say, Madonna did, to wit, let herself get knocked up by her personal trainer.
Anyway, sure, once high tech eugenics comes along, we can use it. But what do we do in the meantime?
Do so all you'd like! Additionally, low-tech, voluntary eugenics brings with it other benefits, most notably reducing the wealth gap. On Futurepundit, RP did a post a couple of years back on a study suggesting next to physical health, relative income is the most important factor in determining self-described happiness. If the couple with $1 million in assets has one child and the family with $50k has five, Rich Kid gets $1 million at the parents' deaths and Poor Kids each get $10k. If the Rich family has 5 kids and the Poor family only has one, then each Rich Kid gets $200k and Kid Poor has $50k. The former situation looks like Latin America or sub-Saharan Africa. The latter looks like America (or a previous version of her, anyway).
Randall is defending working class whites. That is interesting...on average Randall isn't it correct according to the Bell Curve that working class whites tend to have lower IQs?? Which means they are more criminal, have less judgment, have more out of wedlock births, tend to take care of their health less, etc?
Aren't these the folks you constantly cry about being parasites in your beautiful country? I mean if you eliminated working class whites from the population would the country not be better by several metrics? White liberals tend to live in major urban centers, be educated, and are a net positive for the government budget; isn't that right? LOL
Randall calling white liberals elitist for looking down on uneducated low IQ whites, when he is the biggest IQ elitist on the net is amazingly comical. POT MEET KETTLE.
> You can pay people with sub-100 or sub 90 IQs to sterilize themselves after having 0-2 kids, and encourage
> or pay those with 100-115 IQs to have 2-3 kids and those with 115+ IQs to have 3-4 kids.
Do so for a long time and you end up with a population of autistic nerds who can solve puzzles at a blinding speed but totally unable to do anything in the real world.
...which reminds me of the fact that Newton was considered rather dull by his school teachers (and did badly in class until 14), and was a prematurely born baby (which is known to impact IQ).
Besides, somebody has to mow the lawns and wash the dishes.
"Besides, somebody has to mow the lawns and wash the dishes."
1. People could do it themselves. You do not need an obsequious servant to do it.
2. Maybe people with high intelligence will invent devices that save labor. This is true regarding the latter.
You are missing my point: If you condescend to working class whites they'll vote for someone else. I certainly think the white working class is not as smart as me. But I do not regard them with contempt or condescension.
Parasites: They are in jail or not working or using racial preferences to make more money or buying influence in Washington DC to socialize costs and privatize profits. They aren't the white guys working as welders or car mechanics.
Washing machines can wash dishes.
I used to work at a restaurant as a food prep cook back when I was in college. I also operated the dish washing machine. I noticed that the cheese was hard to clean. I suggested jokingly to the restaurant manager that we stop serving nachos and cheese with baskets that were hard to clean. He thought about it but decided it was worth the extra labor to clean them because the baskets were attractive. Well, raise the price of labor and lots of managers would find lots of ways to cut back on the use of manual labor.
Randall, you have a very odd view of intelligence... I am not sure WHY you not feel your ideas are not condescending? (other than to make you feel better about yourself). I am not cmpletely sure but I think I MAY agree with averros (though I am not completely sure... he says things in a way that make it hard to know for sure).
I am the first to admit that intelligence is different in different people, but in the same way bees are able to find nectar while I am not and yet still I can read to book and a bee cannot, intelligence is ONLY meaningful to the particular problem it is trying to solve. All other notions of intelligence (at least in a practical sense) are meaningless.
What is your point? How do you think the world should look?
Thai, Since I have so many ideas that I write I'm not sure which ideas you think are condescending.
Regards averros: he's a pretty hard core doctrinaire libertarian. You can find lots of his previous comments on my site if you do this in google:
You say something that psychometric researchers would take issue with:
intelligence is ONLY meaningful to the particular problem it is trying to solve
About a hundred years ago Charles Spearman first came up with a theoretical formulation for human intelligence and he argued that it is a general capability and that many specialized tasks we can do are a result of this general capability. There are exceptions to his formulation such as image processing and other sensor processing. But the research since then has tended to confirm his theory of "g".
One can train one's mind to perform various algorithms. But each skill is not an intelligence. There's a general processing capability that determines how complex an algorithm you can master and how fast you can do it. Though it appears there are two main subcomponents of intelligence related to spatial and verbal reasoning.
At the same time we also have instincts and some lower level processing algorithms built in.
I am unaware of Spearman and will look him up... but I do have a pretty good understanding of the basic ideas around fractals and scaleability as they apply to intelligence and I sense that either I am misunderstanding you or I misunderstand scalability as you are mentioning it or you may be misinterpreting the general idea (there may be other permutations I am missing???).
Would you do me the honor of considering for a moment that you may be misunderstanding this idea (as I will allow that I may be wrong here as well)?
If you will consider this possibility (for even just a moment), then consider the following: If there is a basic unit of intelligence that we call 'general capability' and further this 'general capability' buildingblock is scaled over and over in fractal evolutionary process into patterns which represent 'higher' forms of intelligence (which they are-- with a MAJOR flaw in the word 'higher' which I won't get into here since it is unnecessary for this discussion), yet still the designs have certain fundamental limit issues which apply to them even as this scaling happens.
So a 'general intelligence' to which a fractal generator is applied might create a light or heavy submarine or a thin airplane, but still in will not create a heavy airplane because the fundamentals of 'heavy' and 'air' do not work together (unless wingspan is extremely long and the thrust is also very great, etc...). Similarly, another example might be how ALL computer chips have as their most basic unit a gate which is either 'open' or 'closed' (the clasic binary). Yet again a fractal scaling of these gates creates processors that can either run CPUs very well or hard drives very well but not both-- the CPU would be a very inefficient and possibly slower processor to run the hard drive and vice versa, etc...
So too does intelligence still have fundamental design limitations to it which are based on the environment the intelligence finds itself in.
So while intelligence may come from a 'general capability' building block, to which an evolutionary fractal generator has been applied to create novel cooperative higher information structures, still this does not change the fact that the intelligence itself is still only meaningful to the environment it finds itself in.
Am I making sense to you?
PS- how do I get the comments which follow mine to forward to my email? I have no way of knowing unless I check the blog from time to time. Is this possible? Do you have a link?
Oh, and the other thing about scalability is you need to think relative to what particular time fram you are talking about, since it is clear that timescale is a major issue in evolution.
Something may seem 'quicker' to you, and therefore more intelligent. But IF taking a slower approach is more likely to see yourself represented in future generations, who is smarter? Remember the sloth's evolutionary strategy.
Cooperative actions between intelligences that act in both the same and different timescales is clearly superior to cooperative actions that cleary only involve the same time scale. If you are trying to maintain the boundaries of a structure (evolutionary systems and fractals are all about boundaries), clearly the more different the cooperative information processing units of the system are, the better.
i.e. a brain + an immune system are better than just a brain alone.
You can't understand biological systems simply by thinking of them as generated by fractals. I'm a reductionist. I think you have to study the details.
You ought to read a good book on the 'g' factor. I urge anyone with an interest in intelligence and psychometric research to read some of Linda Gottfredson's reprints. In particular, Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life (PDF format). Also see her paper g: Highly general and highly practical (PDF format). Also, read the Rushton and Jensen papers here. Also, read Charles Murray's recent Commentary article The Inequality Taboo. Also, read Jensen's book The "g" Factor and Murray and Herrnstein's book The Bell Curve.
The way environments limit the development of intelligence is by selecting against any increase in intellectual ability that does not increase reproductive fitness. So lots of species stay dumb. The shark doesn't need extra IQ points to eat prey. So it does not have the extra IQ points.
An evolutionary fractal generator? I see lots of DNA getting mutated and selective pressures sorting out the mutations to decide which get propagated.
Comments emailed: Sorry, I probably need to upgrade MovableType to get some better features. Haven't had time to do that recently. Maybe over Christmas.
"You can't understand biological systems simply by thinking of them as generated by fractals. I'm a reductionist. I think you have to study the details".
Oh yes you can! Where do you think complexity comes from in the first place? http://books.google.com/books?id=eUoolrxSFy0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+origins+of+wealth&ei=5bXRSIi8HoTkygSg3uDpAw&sig=ACfU3U2-Z6x5XJrAYNpA8F0SiPXR8pPbWg#PPA79,M1