Not a slur against semiotics…or is it?

Check out this cartoon:

Chris Mooney points me to this article in The Washington Post about the furor erupting over this. You see, look at the crescent, an outhouse, the SLAM. SLAM~Islam, a crescent~Islam and an outhouse~House of Islam? That’s what I thought after hearing that the artist was a Christian fundamentalist. Christian evangelicals do have an alternate way of speaking within their own sub-culture, the most prominent and public tendency is to use the term “Christian” to only refer to other “Born Again” believers, especially evangelical Protestants. There are more obscure references, like George W. Bush’s use of the term wonder working power, which goes over the heads of most non-evangelicals.

My point is that the semiotician is making this way too complicated. Chris gives the guy some credit, but anyone with basic tools of logic, inference and some facts on hand could come to the same conclusion without using terms like “polysemic” to seem more profound than they are.

As for the cartoon, I think it’s pretty smart and funny, probably because I do think something stinks in the House of Islam. The semiotician says “it is a mistake to give much weight at all to the artist’s stated intention. For one thing, it discounts the strength and influence of the unconscious mind, he said. All that matters in artistic criticism, he said, is the effect of the art on its viewers: the way people interpret it. In other words, even if Hart intended no offense, the offense is there.” The dude needs to remember that Christian fundamentalists are insulted and lampooned constantly in a coded fashion as slack-jacked toothless bigoted yokels. There’s some truth in that caricature, but only conservatives make a big huff about it, and the demurs of liberal secular purveyors about the intent of this sort of depiction know exactly what they’re doing. Doesn’t take a semiotician to figure that out.

Update: My girlfriend informs me I’ve been had-this strip is in the style of this comic artist from what she’s seen of him in the past. OK, I should get a life….

Posted by razib at 06:36 PM

Posted in Uncategorized

Legacy vs. affirmative action-a question for liberal readers

Recently I stumbled upon an assertion in an e-list I’m on that legacies are typically more prepared for college than race-based affirmative action admittees. My first inclination was to respond: No, blacks at Harvard have higher test scores, etc., than legacies. But I’m having a hard time finding such data, though there are plenty of assertions that repeat this talking point, which I’ve encountered and accepted as truth since I was 17 when my history teacher in high school used it as an argument in favor of affirmative action. Does anyone know where find information on this topic? The only article that I found with a lot of numbers argued in the opposite direction:

But it must be noted that, as in the case of women and men, the academic qualifications of legacy students are generally not far below those of their non-legacy counterparts. At the University of Virginia (UV), for instance, legacies generally enter their freshman year with better high-school grades than the university’s overall pool of in-state students, though not quite as good as the out-of-state students. In their 1994 book The Bell Curve, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray report that in 1990, the average student admitted to Harvard scored 697 on the verbal SAT and 718 on the math SAT, as compared to 674 and 695 for legacy students admitted; these disparities are miniscule in comparison to those that exist between white and black admittees.

Moreover, sometimes the scales actually tip in the other direction. For example, the legacies in the current freshman class at Vermont’s Middlebury College averaged 1389 on their SAT’s – fully 33 points higher than the overall class average. The admission rate of legacies in this class was 45 percent, considerably higher than the 27 percent rate for the class overall, but much lower than the nearly 60 percent rate for blacks.

Anyhow, just a plea for more information, I am curious as to this literature. Obviously because of regression to the mean high achieving parents will have more mediocre children, on average, but I suspect that the most regressed offspring of Harvard graduates tend not to apply to Harvard….

Posted by razib at 03:29 PM

Posted in Uncategorized

Eric Raymond on IQ

Eric Raymond has had a post on IQ up for about a week. I think he is a bit under-informed about the particulars and leaves out some qualifications. Nevertheless, here is a quote:

But male/female differences are insignificant compared to the real hot potato: differences in the mean IQ of racial and ethnic groups. These differences are real and they are large enough to have severe impact in the real world. In previous blog entries I’ve mentioned the one-standard-deviation advantage of Ashkenazic Jews over gentile whites; that’s roughly fifteen points of IQ. Pacific-rim Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans etc.) are also brighter on average by a comparable margin. So, oddly enough, are ethnic Scots — though not their close kin the Irish. Go figure…

And the part that, if you are a decent human being and not a racist bigot, you have been dreading: American blacks average a standard deviation lower in IQ than American whites at about 85. And it gets worse: the average IQ of African blacks is lower still, not far above what is considered the threshold of mental retardation in the U.S. And yes, it’s genetic; g seems to be about 85% heritable, and recent studies of effects like regression towards the mean suggest strongly that most of the heritability is DNA rather than nurturance effects.

For anyone who believe that racial equality is an important goal, this is absolutely horrible news. Which is why a lot of well-intentioned people refuse to look at these facts, and will attempt to shout down anyone who speaks them in public. There have been several occasions on which leading psychometricians have had their books canceled or withdrawn by publishers who found the actual scientific evidence about IQ so appalling that they refused to print it.

Unfortunately, denial of the facts doesn’t make them go away. Far from being meaningless, IQ may be the single most important statistic about human beings, in the precise sense that differences in g probably drive individual and social outcomes more than any other single measurable attribute of human beings.

Mean IQ differences do not justify making assumptions about any individual. There are African black geniuses and Ashkenazic Jewish morons; humanity and ethics demand that we meet each individual human being as an individual, without prejudice. At the same time, group differences have a significance too great to ignore. In the U.S., blacks are 12% of the population but commit 50% of violent crimes; can anyone honestly think this is unconnected to the fact that they average 15 points of IQ lower than the general population? That stupid people are more violent is a fact independent of skin color.

And that is actually a valuable hint about how to get beyond racism. A black man with an IQ of 85 and a white man with an IQ of 85 are about equally likely to have the character traits of poor impulse control and violent behavior associated with criminality — and both are far more likely to have them than a white or black man with an IQ of 110. If we could stop being afraid of IQ and face up to it, that would give us an objective standard that would banish racism per se. IQ matters so much more than skin color that if we started paying serious attention to the former, we might be able to stop paying attention to the latter.

Sounds like someone is channeling godless. Here is the new face of evil himself. Please note, he is an open source evangelist, let’s see how long it takes for someone to try and connect Linux to racism! This would be an excellent way for M$ to engage in FUD . You think that sounds weird, check out this post over @ Samizdata titled Tranzis love Linux.

Posted by razib at 05:59 PM

Posted in Uncategorized

Asian family values

The BBC recently had a series called The Asian Family. All five programmes are online in audio format. Program 2, titled “When a Girl Marries” is set in Singapore. There are some funny segments detailing the banal realities of Singapore’s Confucian-Orwellianism on the subway. They interview some single professional women as to why they aren’t marrying and breeding. One woman says: “‘traditional’ men haven’t adjusted to the needs of modern women, but ‘sensitive new age guys tend to be irritating whiners!'” Can’t win I guess. The most bizarre moment was when one woman said that she intended to do right by her government when she was ready, referring to Senior Minister Lee Kwan Hew’s stated goal that college educated women should have more children.

Posted by razib at 05:40 PM

Posted in Uncategorized

French Funnies

I’m not much of a hawk and find some of the Francophobia distasteful in its sincerity. Nevertheless, I was just listening to the BBC, and the interviewer asked a French reporter if the French felt affected by the impact of terrorism in the wake of the Istanbul bombings. The response was, “No, we feel insulated in a way, terrorism has only touched Spain, Italy, Britain, Turkey and the United States.” I guess you need to get Belgium and Germany for the full encirclement….

Posted by razib at 03:24 AM

Posted in Uncategorized

More Cubic Bisection

pentagonal cubic bisection

The other day I asked:

Can a cube be sectioned in such a way as to create a regular pentagon?
It appears the regular hexagonal section has the greatest area of all possible sections.  Can you prove it?

I know you’ve been breathlessly waiting for the answers, so here you go.

First, no, a cube cannot be sectioned to create a regular pentagon.  The closest you can do is the figure shown above.  This is a “full house” pentagon; three of the sides are the same length, and the other two sides are the same length as each other, but longer than the other three.  {Note: it is not necessary that one of the pentagon’s vertices be coincident with a vertex of the cube.}

Second, the regular hexagon is not the section with the greatest area.  I didn’t mean for this to be a trick question, but I guess it was.  The section with the greatest area is this one:

maximal cubic bisection

The diagonal of each face is √2

Area: √2 = 1.41

Here’s the regular hexagon again:

hexagonal cubic bisection

The diagonal of each face is √2

Each side of the hexagon is √2/2

Triangles are equilateral with area √3/8

Area: ¾√3 = 1.30

There are some other candidates as well.  In the two figures above, consider rotating the section about the dashed line as an axis.  That yields the following section (a diamond, not a square):

diamondal cubic bisection

Each side is √5/2

One chord is √2, the other is √3

Area: ½√2√3 = 1.22

And continuing the rotation, this section, a square with the minimum area of any section which passes through the center of the cube:

square cubic bisection

Section same as cube face

Area: 1

Another interesting section is this one, the largest triangular section:

triangular cubic bisection

The diagonal of each face is √2

Triangles are equilateral with area √3/8

Area: ½√3 = 0.87

Finally, here’s today’s bonus question:

What is the area of the “full house” pentagonal section?

Posted by ole at 06:20 PM

Posted in Uncategorized

Good audio sites

If any of you are doing something mindless (coding, transcribing, etc.) and can listen to audio files (work at home, have your own office, etc.), I highly suggest the following sites:

BBC WORLD SERVICE programs archives. Lots of 20-40 minute specials about a wide array of topics.

NPR. No elaboration needed, but I like their search feature for audio archives, you can find obscure interviews with interesting people.

And PRI, which has a ghetto site, but the shows are sometimes interesting.

Posted by razib at 04:00 AM

Posted in Uncategorized

What do you call a black doctor?

Remember the old Malcolm X quote: Do you know what white racists call black PhDs? (answer: the n-word). In that vein of thought, this Fred Reed column is pretty brutal in its honesty:

What effect does the unmentionable pervasive scorn have on society? One result is the widespread assumption among whites that blacks are incompetent. For example, I won’t let my children (or me) within shouting distance of a black doctor. I don’t care about his color. I know how great the affirmative action is, how great the pressure not to fail blacks. Sorry. I’m not going to take the chance. Nor are a great many people. Black doctors know it.

Though I have principled problems with affirmative action, another point is that from a utilitarian perspective it has a warping affect on the discourse and interaction of individuals in this society. A realist must admit that ingroup-outgroup behavior is a human universal. Liberal societies tend not to give this tendency official sanction, but more thorough attempts to legislate it away simply have not had their intended effects either.

I friend of mine who recently graduated from medical school would talk about the people who were “characters” in class. Out of 100 students in his year he graduated 3rd in the class, so he wasn’t too shabby, and could look down with a bit of contempt and patronizing noblesse oblige at the guy who applied 6 times to the same school before he was accepted, or the woman with 2 kids and a bitchy ex-husband, or a really asymmetrically built doctor who was at the left end of the bell curve looks-wise. Nevertheless, what struck me was the nickname he and his classmates (his circle were 5 of the people ranked 1-10 in the medical school) gave the one black medical student: Token.

Of course, the word token doesn’t have the same sting because of history as what Malcolm X referred to, but it’s pretty illustrative of a certain mind-set. I asked my friend if the guy got in on quotas, and my friend and his buds weren’t really sure, but they assumed he had. Token, whose name I never found out, was considered a OK doc, not a incompetent nut-case like the 1/8 Native American woman who trumpeted her heritage constantly as if it was a talisman against rebuke, or the chubby-faced loser at the bottom-of-the-class who seemed to display a lassitude toward life. Token was no star, there were those who were dimmer lights, but nonetheless, he was the object of mirth and condescending ridicule.

In defense of my friends, the acceptance rate at their med school was less than 5% that year, and most of them also felt punished for being young as there was a recent trend for looking to those who had been “out in the world.” Anyone who was perceived as having recieved a break, or contrived to get in on lower standards, was given less than full consideration in the constellation of achievers. It didn’t matter that no one knew the test scores or GPA of the one black medical student as an undergrad, they assumed that they were low, and so imputed his standing as one who could talk to them as a peer.

This sort of attitude is the reason why I can get a bit hysterical when I talk about affirmative action. As I’ve noted before, the negative impact of affirmative action exceeds the opportunies opened for exceptionally qualified individuals of groups who tend to under-perform in any given field. On the other hand, a group as a whole might be more well-off because of the leg up given by preferences. To compenstate for the perception of different standards, hypercompetent members of “disadvantaged” groups will make explicit their achievements and qualifications (to the point where it would seem strange in those outside this group). In contrast, the less-than-stellar who benefit from affirmative action won’t disclose test scores, GPA or rebutt implied criticisms with explicit measures of performance, but will posture and assault rhetorically.

When I was an undergraduate, my university put whether to have new majors offered to a student body vote, and whenever a “studies” came up I would vote against it. My reasoning was that “studies” are havens for the less than intelligent and tend to give people who should drop out of college a safety valve. My Korean American friends joked that those too stupid for science and business majors switched to Asian Studies. A Jewish friend made the same joke about Jewish Studies. I will leave quips about Black Studies, Women’s Studies and Peace Studies out of this post, but I’m sure you’ve heard of them.

Within any group there are people who just can’t hack it. This is true among both genders and all races. But for white males there isn’t a White Male Studies-where being a White Male offers them a bachelors degree, as they “bring their own particular life experience that transcends the conventional discourse and paradigm and pushes beyond the boundaries-of-the-normal….” Among South Asians for instance, there are plenty of stupid people. Right now there isn’t a Brown Studies department, though they fit somewhat unnaturally into Asian Studies and Ethnic Studies, and other nouveau areas. There is no perception among the general population that brown docs and engineers are getting special treatment, so we don’t have to deal with the typical liberal cant on racial issues. As Imbler Volokh has observed, a dark skinned South Asian, darker that many American blacks, can still be termed “Lily White” in a culturally-slip-up. And hallelujah to that! Being an Honorary White (in some contexts) means you have to live up to the same standards! It means that when you achieve something of note, people will give you fair praise, honest praise, and people won’t dismiss you explicitly or (more often) implicitly. It means when you say something stupid, people will tell you you’re being stupid, and if the maxim that you learn from mistakes has any truth, this is crucial to intellectual growth!

Banishment from the realm of the Normal to the Oppressed can have consequences even for those who would excel. Look at Cornel West, a man who knows Greek and Aramaic, but can make millions as a celebrity professor making banal observations, but recieving enormous accolades. In an alternate universe where West could not use his race as a path to riches and prominence he would probably have been a pretty good scholar. Yes, he would have a less lavish lifestyle, but he would be less of a joke privately. As it is, I wonder if Cornel West took such a path, focusing on academic achievements, would be able to escape his destiny.

And destiny is a crucial point. To succeed on your own terms, to fail on your own terms, I think this is important for the modern humans. The current thinking on issues of race and identity are turning away from that, reverting back to an organic and tribalistic conception of worth derived from corporate standards (ie; a good black man, a good white male, etc.). To some extent black Americans will always be judged by their race. At first this was due to racism, and that still plays a part, but now, a whole world-view that places their racial identity in a causal position has emerged which shoe-horns everyone to that pathway. Conservative black thinkers are still black thinkers, reviled for their race-traitorship, praised for their conservative thought, black nonetheless in more ways that just physical appearance and culture.

The day that I start hearing a lot of talk about being a credit to my race, I’m going to try and look into that wack skin de-pigmenting process that Michael Jackson went through, better to be a deformed wack than a token. This might sound strange, after all, brown Americans
(South Asians) are well educated and affluent. The current perception about us is “positive.” But the race hustlers are ever present, and there are those who didn’t make it into medical school, law school, aren’t engineers or don’t own their own business, who have low self-esteem and so forth, and they exist as a resentful minority ready to spring into action when they can get the leverage they need. Right now they man the Minimarts and drive the cabs, their race does not give them any special opportunities. Those few with brains who end up in the humanities are already shiny prizes for their departments, a little-bit-of-color-in-the-vanilla, deconstructing forces and paradigm shifting atoms. These people are a minority, but they are active, and they exist in all “model minorities.” While the passive majority is busy about their lives, they are aiming to create a corporate structure of ethnic identity, and of course, they are ready to take on roles of leadership as the CEOs of such diffuse bodies. Once the corporation of race goes public, everyone falls under its shadows, even those who don’t buy stock. Perception starts to influence reality. Walls are put up, inter-corporate interaction becomes distorted, and the process begins to feed upon itself as the dividends of good behavior in the corporation begin to outweight dissent from corporate policy. Soon enough, even dissenters are co-opted in their own way, as they are viewed as exiles, but nonetheless, stamped by the corporation and so good moles and messengers by corporate “enemies.”

Corporations are the hallmarks of agricultural life, broadly speaking. The tribe, the ethnic group, the religious body, and so forth. The liberal individualist vision rebelled against it. But now we are seeing a slide back, the re-emergence of organismic thought, though by another name. Isn’t it interesting how people can put shackles on you, all the while telling you they are freeing you from the “mental hegemony” of our “oppressors”?

Posted by razib at 04:30 PM

Posted in Uncategorized