Comments on: A Brave New World? Bah!

By: Robin Roberts

Robin Roberts — Wed, 01 Jan 2003 18:26:00 +0000

Amusing that someone calling themselves "Truth Teller" tells so many lies about Razib's expressed philosophies. Razib has posted a large mass of writings here, none of which contain anything like what Truth Teller attempts to put in Razib's mouth.

By: Truth Teller

Truth Teller — Tue, 31 Dec 2002 20:15:00 +0000

'Genetic realism' is basically a call for, at the very least, 'benign neglect' of people of color on the grounds they are inferior, at the most, genocide against them. (Which Razib recently expressed a desire for in Southern Africa.) Razib lies so much that he may confuse a not at all bright person like you, Duncie. However, anyone who has observed and seen through his obfuscations knows he hates people of color, including himself.

By: duende

duende — Tue, 31 Dec 2002 08:17:00 +0000

If you'd bothered to read the archive, Razib has mentioned that he thinks color is an inadequate way to describe race. I don't want to speak for Razib, but I don't believe that he hates anyone.

By: Truth Teller

Truth Teller — Tue, 31 Dec 2002 07:24:00 +0000

Seems to me that Razib's lengthy rationalizations always lead to the same conclusions. He believes some people (whites, who he virtually worships) are better than others. He assigns Africans and African-Americans the lowest positions in his hierarchy, claiming they are less intelligent than whites and Asians. However, there is no scientifically accepted support for his claims. So, what we have is an individual (Razib) latching on to long discredited 'scientific' racism to try to justify his personal hatred of dark-skinned people (likely including himself). Razib's views tell us a lot about Razib's sad mental state, but nothing else.

By: the_alpha_male28

the_alpha_male28 — Sun, 29 Dec 2002 19:06:00 +0000

According to the stats given here: http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/oldSATIQ.html there's about a 1 SD difference in IQ between a score of 1200 and 1300 on the SAT.

By: razib

razib — Sat, 28 Dec 2002 13:31:00 +0000

it has been noted that legislative leaders tend not to be the brightest, because those types tend to rub their envious fellows the wrong way. i suspect the same goes for executive leaders. even though al gore and george bush are about the same intelligence (bush got a 1200 on the SAT, gore a 1300something-both were mediocre students as far as grades go)-bush *seemed* dumber. similarly, though carter and clinton probably had the same IQ-carter the geek (nuclear engineering) was far less appealing than clinton the humanist (history & law). the fact that clinton liked trailer trash and desparate sluts also made him seem less intelligent-or at least less driven by the mind.

By: michael

michael — Sat, 28 Dec 2002 12:33:00 +0000

I'm not convinced Hoover, Nixon, OR Carter were particularly bad leaders. Regardless, it seems to me that social skills matter more for attaining power than g does, but g is probably more important once you are in the office. On the other hand, very high g is almost definitely linked to a number of undesirable traits, especially hubris. Someone who recognizes his own ignorance is essential regardless of what their g may be. Frankly, presidents who stay within their constitutional powers simply aren't that powerful.

By: jimbo

jimbo — Sat, 28 Dec 2002 07:05:00 +0000

Hey - who's calling Truman a dunce? Sure, he never went to college, but I'd consider him to be one of our more (self-)educated presidents. Of course, estimating IQ's of historical figures is a fool's game, but based on what I know of his bio, I'd say that Truman was a realatively high-IQ individual who was not given the opportunities early in life to persue an education, but who found his niche later in life.

I'll give you Reagan, though...

By: razib

razib — Fri, 27 Dec 2002 22:10:00 +0000

well steve,

i tend to follow the maxim that the best leaders are mildly bright and highly personable. so i tend to agree with you. that is also part of the reason that i do not subscribe to a "Brave New World Technocracy."

By: duende

duende — Fri, 27 Dec 2002 21:32:00 +0000

"But suppose the high-g group were more short, ugly, introverted and prone to mental illness?"

Steve, you've been crashing my family reunions, haven't you?

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 27 Dec 2002 21:15:00 +0000

To think a little about your thought experiment, why would the random choice from the higher g group necessarily be the better strategy? Only if other traits are held constant would it make more sense. But suppose the high-g group were more short, ugly, introverted and prone to mental illness? This would make the random choice option more interesting because now you’re essentially optimizing a far more complex problem.

Before, choosing a leader at random was simple – choose from the higher-g group. But in reality, we want as a leader a person encompassing many traits, of which g is only one of them. Hoover, Nixon and Carter were all considered exceptionally bright, but none were very successful presidents, while Truman and Reagan were relative dunces, but reasonably good presidents.

So leadership as a quality is a far more complex equation. Something like L=f(q1,q2,…qn); where the q’s are various “qualities”, whatever they are. Now, no one in his right mind (and some of us who are decidedly not of right mind) should attempt to actually define a function for leadership. This is probably why leadership is seen as a quality in and of itself – the equation is too damn complex for our brains to actually solve.

I think humans have tendency to reduce complex phenomenon to simple problems so that our brains can grind out a rough solution. That’s why people have a tendency to vote along party lines without putting much thought into who they actually vote for. Personally, I never vote for anyone with an Irish name.

By: razib

razib — Fri, 27 Dec 2002 17:00:00 +0000

N, there are different kinds.

I'm not much of a social conservative-the type that inveighs against pop culture and what not. Rather, I suscribe to REASON magazine's idea of plentitude.

Multiculturalism is a facet of our society-and generally honored symbolically more than in substance-but that is changing. Most Americans do not "practice" multiculturalism.

As far as the issue about patriotism-that did happen to conservatives like Falwell and Robertson after 9/11. It seems OK to attack American culture, just don't contrast it with someone else or say that it "had it coming"-which is what Leftists tend to do when contrasting the US with Europe or back in the old days the Socialist Utopia.

By: diana

diana — Fri, 27 Dec 2002 12:15:00 +0000

N: the British-style old conservatives are proudly anti-American.

Razib: yeah! where's the rest of you?

By: Juan ascaño

Juan ascaño — Fri, 27 Dec 2002 11:36:00 +0000

Off topic:

Razib, what happen with your previous posts??

By: N.

N. — Fri, 27 Dec 2002 07:21:00 +0000

Perhaps this is a little off-topic...

It often seems conservatives dislike the U.S as much as leftists, yet they are never accused of being "Anti-American"

Conservatives that 'abhor' multiculturalism are a good example of this; despite their obvious dislike of American culture and politics they're still reguarded as patriots.