Posts with Comments by pwyll
Great Depression added 6.2 years to life expectancy
Did they control for the effects of Prohibition? If not, that's a huge uncontrolled variable.
Body mass changes & personality
Think I read it in Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad Calories", but I understand fatty tissue secretes hormones, such as estrogen, that can have a feminizing effect on personality.
Debin Ma v. Kenneth Pomeranz: East Asia v. Europe
Am I misunderstanding something? It sounds like both abstracts excerpts are making the same conclusion: that northwestern europe had higher wages than central/southern europe, which had similar wage levels to china and japan.
The only difference, it appears, is that incomes increased in Japan and decreased in China during the 17/1800s.
The only difference, it appears, is that incomes increased in Japan and decreased in China during the 17/1800s.
Stefansson’s Luxury Organ
This discussion of sanity is mildly ironic since I hear Kári Stefánsson himself is, if not crazy, abusive, attention-seeking and megalomaniacal. (deCODE's HQ was featured in the Icelandic film "Mýrin" and I'm guessing it was in exchange for the mock "interview", starring a certain Kári Stefánsson, that was also in the film.
What is it about genomics company CEOs being full of themselves? I understand Craig Venter is the same, and they both share belief in Gould's daemon, too... Sad that those best placed to speak up for Watson instead piled on, I guess because their ambition would brook no threats.
What is it about genomics company CEOs being full of themselves? I understand Craig Venter is the same, and they both share belief in Gould's daemon, too... Sad that those best placed to speak up for Watson instead piled on, I guess because their ambition would brook no threats.
Linguist: I can use R, you can’t. Thus, your motives are questionable. QED.
I've seen Cozma's post (on "g" being a myth) linked to frequently on sites like Crooked Timber as a sort of holy relic to ward off the "g" vampires. They link to it, then say that if you can't comment on it, then you're not qualified to assert that g is heritable. It's an attempt to intimidate, because the post is long and full of math.
Trying to be conscientious, I took the time to go through it. The math is correct, but the premises are incorrect. Cozma's model starts by assuming a bunch of factors which are all positively correlated, then makes a big show of showing how randomly-generated numbers still lead to a g factor. This is slight of hand, because the numbers are *not* random between -1 and 1, but rather between 0 and 1. The reason that g is meaningful is that the real-world correlations are all positive, which is by no means what you'd expect from random chance.
Additionally, there was a roundup of gene-iq links posted recently which mentioned that many of them operate via the same basic mechanism. What do you get if you flip a coin many times? a normal distibution. what do you get when you flip many genes, which all operate similarly? a normal distribution. What does the distribution of IQ look like? it's normal.
Cozma's post is being linked to by people who want it to be a defense against hereditarianism, but it's actually, when you boil it down, and elegant argument IN FAVOR of heriditarianism.
That's why those impassioned postings on Crooked Timber and the like crack me up so much now.
Trying to be conscientious, I took the time to go through it. The math is correct, but the premises are incorrect. Cozma's model starts by assuming a bunch of factors which are all positively correlated, then makes a big show of showing how randomly-generated numbers still lead to a g factor. This is slight of hand, because the numbers are *not* random between -1 and 1, but rather between 0 and 1. The reason that g is meaningful is that the real-world correlations are all positive, which is by no means what you'd expect from random chance.
Additionally, there was a roundup of gene-iq links posted recently which mentioned that many of them operate via the same basic mechanism. What do you get if you flip a coin many times? a normal distibution. what do you get when you flip many genes, which all operate similarly? a normal distribution. What does the distribution of IQ look like? it's normal.
Cozma's post is being linked to by people who want it to be a defense against hereditarianism, but it's actually, when you boil it down, and elegant argument IN FAVOR of heriditarianism.
That's why those impassioned postings on Crooked Timber and the like crack me up so much now.
Important New York Times Article
"Social Realist"'s point: ("individual attribution of group characteristics is a great filter for organizations operating at scale") seems exactly backwards in light of the ever-strengthening case for racial IQ distribution differences.
Basicly, what he says we *should* be doing is what many companies *already* do - discriminate based on race. While this will give better results than not discriminating at all, due to the existance of racial IQ differences, there will be many errors made.
The *next* step is already in place as well: discriminating by educational pedigree instead of race. Doing things this way allows fewer false classifications than discriminating by race, since not every member of a group is average.
However, since a harvard degree is basically just a way of saying "I have a high IQ"; then you'll get even MORE accurate by discriminating based on IQ scores. The number of false positives and negatives is lowest using this method vs. the other two.
Certainly, if I were a high-IQ black person, you bet your ass I'd feel cheated against if I was automatically disqualified for a position based on my race. The *value* of IQ testing is it means you don't have to discriminate racially anymore!
As steve sailer has said, the solution to bad stereotypes is better stereotypes.
Perversely, the most accurate method (IQ testing) is illegal. (see Griggs vs. Duke Power Company) Racial discrimination, while often innacurate, is cheap, but illegal as well. The only legal method of discrimination is based on educational pedigree, which is horrifically expensive for the pedigree-earners. The mind boggles at the amount of money that could be saved if degrees weren't needed to serve as IQ score proxies.
Basicly, what he says we *should* be doing is what many companies *already* do - discriminate based on race. While this will give better results than not discriminating at all, due to the existance of racial IQ differences, there will be many errors made.
The *next* step is already in place as well: discriminating by educational pedigree instead of race. Doing things this way allows fewer false classifications than discriminating by race, since not every member of a group is average.
However, since a harvard degree is basically just a way of saying "I have a high IQ"; then you'll get even MORE accurate by discriminating based on IQ scores. The number of false positives and negatives is lowest using this method vs. the other two.
Certainly, if I were a high-IQ black person, you bet your ass I'd feel cheated against if I was automatically disqualified for a position based on my race. The *value* of IQ testing is it means you don't have to discriminate racially anymore!
As steve sailer has said, the solution to bad stereotypes is better stereotypes.
Perversely, the most accurate method (IQ testing) is illegal. (see Griggs vs. Duke Power Company) Racial discrimination, while often innacurate, is cheap, but illegal as well. The only legal method of discrimination is based on educational pedigree, which is horrifically expensive for the pedigree-earners. The mind boggles at the amount of money that could be saved if degrees weren't needed to serve as IQ score proxies.
Recent Comments