You can have the best-educated black man in the world, and if you ask him to identify his race at the beginning of a test, his score's going to drop away from what you'd expect of a white guy at the same SEI.
You can have the best-educated black man in the world, and if you ask him to identify his race at the beginning of a test, his score's going to drop away from what you'd expect of a white guy at the same SEI.
Probably not, but your study won't (http://isteve.blogspot.com/2010/01/stereotype-threat-scientific-scandal.html) get published unless you come to this conclusion.
VDARE.com, or VDARE, is a website that advocates reduced immigration, especially illegal immigration, into the United States. Former Forbes editor Peter Brimelow supports the site through his VDARE Foundation. The viewpoints on the site range from immigration reduction to anti-immigration to discussions of race.
The name VDARE and the site's symbol, the head of a white doe, refer to Virginia Dare, the first child born to English immigrants in the New World.[1] Soon after her birth she disappeared with the rest of an early English settlement, and legend says she transformed into a white doe.
VDARE has been designated a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).
My main concern is that the consequences of ST theory render ANCOVA unsuitable, and yet ANCOVA is still used quite often (e.g., Gonzales et al., 2002; Keller, 2002). In light of ST theory’s emphasis on individual differences, it seems unlikely that ST only affects the means of the dependent variable (i.e., effects are identical for each subject within a cell) and leaves the covariance structure unaffected. Therefore, measurement models in which such effects are explicitly modeled (e.g., structural equation modeling) appear more suitable in analyzing ST effects.
It actually has nothing to do with the point Mustang was trying to make. I think he didn't even bother to read it before linking it, or he didn't understand it. It's not a metareview at all.
QuoteIt actually has nothing to do with the point Mustang was trying to make. I think he didn't even bother to read it before linking it, or he didn't understand it. It's not a metareview at all.
Correct on all four points.
What do you think of the APA's conclusion that there is a black-white IQ gap but the cause cannot be determined? If stereotype threat cannot account for the entire difference (http://www2.uni-jena.de/svw/igc/studies/ss03/sackitt_hardison_cullen_2004.pdf) and blacks from the highest SES score lower than whites from the lowest SES (http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/pppl1.pdf) isn't it likely that genetics contributes to the difference?Source: Wikipedia.
QuoteIt actually has nothing to do with the point Mustang was trying to make. I think he didn't even bother to read it before linking it, or he didn't understand it. It's not a metareview at all.
Correct on all four points.
What do you think of the APA's conclusion that there is a black-white IQ gap but the cause cannot be determined? If stereotype threat cannot account for the entire difference (http://www2.uni-jena.de/svw/igc/studies/ss03/sackitt_hardison_cullen_2004.pdf) and blacks from the highest SES score lower than whites from the lowest SES (http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/pppl1.pdf) isn't it likely that genetics contributes to the difference?Source: Wikipedia.
No, it's not, not at all.
Stereotype threat is not specific to black-white either.
Rushton has not only contributed to American Renaissance publications and graced their conferences with his presence but also offered praise and support for the "scholarly" work on racial differences of Henry Garrett, who spent the last two decades of his life opposing the extension of the Constitution to blacks on the basis that the "normal" black resembled a European after frontal lobotomy. Informed of Garrett's assertion that blacks were not entitled to equality because their "ancestors were ... savages in an African jungle," Rushton dismissed the observation as quoted "selectively from Garrett's writing", finding nothing opprobrious in such sentiments because the leader of the scientific opposition to civil rights had made other statements about black inferiority that were, according to Rushton, "quite objective in tone and backed by standard social science evidence."
I don't think you've adequately established your SES points at all.
The second paper you linked is intended to argue that stereotype threat alone does not explain race performance differences, and rather that socieconomic and systemic prejudice explanations should be recruited as well.
QuoteI don't think you've adequately established your SES points at all.
Here (http://books.google.com/books?id=UW9cjBo_nCIC&pg=PA246&lpg=PA246&dq=race+ses+iq&source=bl&ots=rNtaVMBq7M&sig=NIL_zoydX5jksl1MJPI1Gt0NPyw&hl=en&ei=_POlTe3XM8ny0gHztpCACQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false), page 272. The difference between black/white cognitive ability is much greater than the difference between high/low SES black IQ. If you believe Jensen then here (http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/02/race-iq-and-ses.php) is evidence of greater correlation between both family and race and IQ than SES and IQ.QuoteThe second paper you linked is intended to argue that stereotype threat alone does not explain race performance differences, and rather that socieconomic and systemic prejudice explanations should be recruited as well.
Do we at least agree here on the first half of that sentence?
If you genuinely believe what I think you believe, and you think there's strong scientific evidence for it, I'm not sure this is a conversation worth having.
There is probably a simple method to disprove this "blacks are dumber than whites 'cause of genetics", which is to test people about their "blackness" in genes and in actual semblance, and then test them for their competence. If we are lucky, there is a discernable scientific difference between "black semblance" and "black genetics" (people may seem whiter than their genes "are", and vice versa), and then one could eventually compare this difference with their results and see if there is a statistical divergence or not.
In the end though, the conversation is actually moot. Because if the trouble is partially indeed due to genetics, then this information in itself is really unproductive, and perhaps counter-productive. If genes do cause issues here, then that means there is "nothing" we can do to destroy the difference between ethnics. So it is of no surprise that racist conservative people will try to prove this theory and diminish the case for any others, while liberal people like Stephen Jay Gould get pretty upset at books like the Bell Curve.
ED: Basically I am highly skeptical of positions that strongly depart from 'we don't know' right now
Yes, I believe blacks are genetically inferior. Gasp. Let me do CPR, you look like you're having a heart attack. So? Are you going to debate me or post contradictory evidence? Or just say "you're wrong"? I would appreciate it if you at least questioned the legitimacy of the studies I presented some more.
Smarter, better educated people think more about their choices in life and are more likely to try and do things on their own, rather than listening to what someone says to them.The thing is that the US public education system (which, surprise, is dominated by liberals) has so crippled people's ability to think for themselves that you rarely see any rational debate on the internet, especially forums. Usually arguments on HLP end up devolving into competing arguments from authority, and more emphasis is placed on citing your sources than on articulating a cogent position.
The remedy is to read more. Read the source texts (not commentaries on them) for both your side and your opponents' side. Read enough that you can defend your position competently even if you forget half the stuff you read.
(this is not directed at The E; he just happened to post before I did)
Sound points regarding the nature of debate on this forum.
On the topic of the education system, that's personally my first target for reform. The current system does not encourage creative or different thought. You are meant to learn the material to get higher numbers which in our system somehow = better students/people/learners/thinkers. Obviously this is proving to be a fallacy, and what's worse, I think that most every kid in the US feels how BS the education system is, but they feel like they *have* to do it because that's how everyone before them did it. I don't think people realize how new a lot of our educational practices are, relatively speaking.
Smarter, better educated people think more about their choices in life and are more likely to try and do things on their own, rather than listening to what someone says to them.The thing is that the US public education system (which, surprise, is dominated by liberals) has so crippled people's ability to think for themselves that you rarely see any rational debate on the internet, especially forums. Usually arguments on HLP end up devolving into competing arguments from authority, and more emphasis is placed on citing your sources than on articulating a cogent position.
The remedy is to read more. Read the source texts (not commentaries on them) for both your side and your opponents' side. Read enough that you can defend your position competently even if you forget half the stuff you read.
(this is not directed at The E; he just happened to post before I did)
Sound points regarding the nature of debate on this forum.
On the topic of the education system, that's personally my first target for reform. The current system does not encourage creative or different thought. You are meant to learn the material to get higher numbers which in our system somehow = better students/people/learners/thinkers. Obviously this is proving to be a fallacy, and what's worse, I think that most every kid in the US feels how BS the education system is, but they feel like they *have* to do it because that's how everyone before them did it. I don't think people realize how new a lot of our educational practices are, relatively speaking.
"Stupider" people are more likely to simply go along with what they're told and believe in happy stuff the goverment/religion of choice/the man/whatever tells them to do.
Guess which cathegory would be preferred by the goverment?Spoiler:I'm generalising a LOT here. But that doesnt really invalidate my point much.
QuoteYes, I believe blacks are genetically inferior. Gasp. Let me do CPR, you look like you're having a heart attack. So? Are you going to debate me or post contradictory evidence? Or just say "you're wrong"? I would appreciate it if you at least questioned the legitimacy of the studies I presented some more.
I don't think you need to worry, sneering's not really exertion enough to give me a heart attack
And yeah, I feel like the consensus of the entire scientific community that there's inadequate evidence to determine the genetic basis of intelligence (combined with the well-known biological truth that there is no such identifiable concept as 'race' in the shockingly homogeneous human population) is enough to question the legitimacy of your studies. Your position is clearly based on prejudice supported by selectively drawn 'evidence'.
I don't really see what else there is to say.
On the topic of the education system, that's personally my first target for reform. The current system does not encourage creative or different thought. You are meant to learn the material to get higher numbers which in our system somehow = better students/people/learners/thinkers. Obviously this is proving to be a fallacy, and what's worse, I think that most every kid in the US feels how BS the education system is, but they feel like they *have* to do it because that's how everyone before them did it. I don't think people realize how new a lot of our educational practices are, relatively speaking.Smarter, better educated people think more about their choices in life and are more likely to try and do things on their own, rather than listening to what someone says to them.
QuoteYes, I believe blacks are genetically inferior. Gasp. Let me do CPR, you look like you're having a heart attack. So? Are you going to debate me or post contradictory evidence? Or just say "you're wrong"? I would appreciate it if you at least questioned the legitimacy of the studies I presented some more.
I don't think you need to worry, sneering's not really exertion enough to give me a heart attack
And yeah, I feel like the consensus of the entire scientific community that there's inadequate evidence to determine the genetic basis of intelligence (combined with the well-known biological truth that there is no such identifiable concept as 'race' in the shockingly homogeneous human population) is enough to question the legitimacy of your studies. Your position is clearly based on prejudice supported by selectively drawn 'evidence'.
I don't really see what else there is to say.
That the DNA differences between individuals is greater then the DNA differences found when comparing races against each other?
Your position is clearly based on prejudice supported by selectively drawn 'evidence'.
QuoteThat the DNA differences between individuals is greater then the DNA differences found when comparing races against each other?
There are still group differences.
That the DNA differences between individuals is greater then the DNA differences found when comparing races against each other?
QuoteThat the DNA differences between individuals is greater then the DNA differences found when comparing races against each other?
There are still group differences.
The point being that they are negligable. All group differences you might encounter are cultural.
Yes, I believe blacks are genetically inferior. Gasp. Let me do CPR, you look like you're having a heart attack. So? Are you going to debate me or post contradictory evidence? Or just say "you're wrong"? I would appreciate it if you at least questioned the legitimacy of the studies I presented some more.
Yes, I believe blacks are genetically inferior. Gasp. Let me do CPR, you look like you're having a heart attack. So? Are you going to debate me or post contradictory evidence? Or just say "you're wrong"? I would appreciate it if you at least questioned the legitimacy of the studies I presented some more.
QuoteThat the DNA differences between individuals is greater then the DNA differences found when comparing races against each other?
There are still group differences.
The point being that they are negligable. All group differences you might encounter are cultural.
Not the color of your skin.
Yes, I believe blacks are genetically inferior. Gasp. Let me do CPR, you look like you're having a heart attack. So? Are you going to debate me or post contradictory evidence? Or just say "you're wrong"? I would appreciate it if you at least questioned the legitimacy of the studies I presented some more.
For posting something so asinine, so openly racist, so fundamentally unsupported by scientific evidence, consider yourself warned.
Yes, I believe blacks are genetically inferior. Gasp. Let me do CPR, you look like you're having a heart attack. So? Are you going to debate me or post contradictory evidence? Or just say "you're wrong"? I would appreciate it if you at least questioned the legitimacy of the studies I presented some more.
I say he's free to say it. The worst thing it could do is offend you if you let it.
Seriously folks; race just really doesn't matter anymore to anyone besides the people who care about it - and I feel that that number is dwindling rapidly. Yes it'll always be there, but I doubt it'll be at the forefront like it was, say, 30 years ago.
For posting something so asinine, so openly racist, so fundamentally unsupported by scientific evidence, consider yourself warned.
I say he's free to say it. The worst thing it could do is offend you if you let it.
Yes, I believe blacks are genetically inferior. Gasp. Let me do CPR, you look like you're having a heart attack. So? Are you going to debate me or post contradictory evidence? Or just say "you're wrong"? I would appreciate it if you at least questioned the legitimacy of the studies I presented some more.
For posting something so asinine, so openly racist, so fundamentally unsupported by scientific evidence, consider yourself warned.
Seriously folks; race just really doesn't matter anymore to anyone besides the people who care about it - and I feel that that number is dwindling rapidly. Yes it'll always be there, but I doubt it'll be at the forefront like it was, say, 30 years ago.
Isn't there a thing called social darwinism somewhere around somewhere?
percieved intelligence differences. As in percieved trough educational tests.
Like the IQ ones. If you complete one at a high score, it does not mean you are smart persé. It simply means you are good at silly puzzles.
I am very, very sorry for violating your right to free speech, but racism, especially if it comes equipped with pseudoscience, is something I will never, ever let stand.Isn't there a thing called social darwinism somewhere around somewhere?
If it is social, then it can't very well be genetic, can it?
percieved intelligence differences. As in percieved trough educational tests.
Like the IQ ones. If you complete one at a high score, it does not mean you are smart persé. It simply means you are good at silly puzzles.
I disagree. I wouldn't be surprised if the average american black is not as smart as the average american white or american asian, but I believe its due to cultural differences. Its similar to culture of poverty theory.
I also think that iq is a pretty good measure of intelligence.
Can I post yet?
It had something to do with genetics applied to the social structure. The Nazis used social darwanism as scientific evidence for their practices.
If I would have worded it differently no one would be freaking out. How about the thesis that cultural or genetic factors are responsible for the black-white IQ gap?
(black people, for whatever reason, have really uproarious Sunday church gatherings, and if I had to choose between that or a solemn white person meeting, well I'll bring my loudest singing voice). At the end of the day though, it just doesn't matter anymore.This just means they're very capable of taking something so dreadfully boring and making it entertaining. "Race" dont enter into it if you ask me. Hell, while i still was sorta-catholic, i'd have killed to make sunday church-goings less dreadful....
(black people, for whatever reason, have really uproarious Sunday church gatherings, and if I had to choose between that or a solemn white person meeting, well I'll bring my loudest singing voice). At the end of the day though, it just doesn't matter anymore.This just means they're very capable of taking something so dreadfully boring and making it entertaining. "Race" dont enter into it if you ask me. Hell, while i still was sorta-catholic, i'd have killed to make sunday church-goings less dreadful....
So can we go back now to the topic at hand and return to bashing creotards?
So can we go back now to the topic at hand and return to bashing creotards?I'm pretty much interested in UT's response to this....
Smarter, better educated people think more about their choices in life and are more likely to try and do things on their own, rather than listening to what someone says to them.The thing is that the US public education system (which, surprise, is dominated by liberals) has so crippled people's ability to think for themselves that you rarely see any rational debate on the internet, especially forums. Usually arguments on HLP end up devolving into competing arguments from authority, and more emphasis is placed on citing your sources than on articulating a cogent position.
The remedy is to read more. Read the source texts (not commentaries on them) for both your side and your opponents' side. Read enough that you can defend your position competently even if you forget half the stuff you read.
(this is not directed at The E; he just happened to post before I did)
Sound points regarding the nature of debate on this forum.
On the topic of the education system, that's personally my first target for reform. The current system does not encourage creative or different thought. You are meant to learn the material to get higher numbers which in our system somehow = better students/people/learners/thinkers. Obviously this is proving to be a fallacy, and what's worse, I think that most every kid in the US feels how BS the education system is, but they feel like they *have* to do it because that's how everyone before them did it. I don't think people realize how new a lot of our educational practices are, relatively speaking.
"Stupider" people are more likely to simply go along with what they're told and believe in happy stuff the goverment/religion of choice/the man/whatever tells them to do.
Guess which cathegory would be preferred by the goverment?Spoiler:I'm generalising a LOT here. But that doesnt really invalidate my point much.
Cultural factors, certainly. Individual genetics, probably. Racial genetics though? Incredibly doubtful.
A bit of trolling on my end here, i'm sure you'll understand.Cultural factors, certainly. Individual genetics, probably. Racial genetics though? Incredibly doubtful.
I wouldn't say "incredibly" doubtful. There are already correlations between race and observable characteristics like skull size (which has a small IQ correlation) as mentioned in my sources, above and beyond SES and nutrition effects.
Cultural factors, certainly. Individual genetics, probably. Racial genetics though? Incredibly doubtful.
I wouldn't say "incredibly" doubtful. There are already correlations between race and observable characteristics like skull size (which has a small IQ correlation) as mentioned in my sources, above and beyond SES and nutrition effects.
There are much larger correlations between gender and observable characteristics, including skull size and the actual neural composition of the brain; yet no consistent, biologically isolated functional or performance differences have ever been observed.
I'd say you're a downright dolt who shouldnt be let anywhere near anything of importance and who first of all should need to be gagged and thrown into some dark corner to be forgotten by the rest of the humanity, which will march onwards, past your idiotic sentiments of "racial superirority/inferiority". Setting you on fire in the process is very much optional.
There are far more correlations between testable intelligence and social factors than there are correlations between race and testable intelligence. Any difference due to genetics you want to postulate is swallowed whole by the huge randomizer that is upbringing.
You know he'll just say he's trolling if pressed too far.
Cultural factors, certainly. Individual genetics, probably. Racial genetics though? Incredibly doubtful.
I wouldn't say "incredibly" doubtful. There are already correlations between race and observable characteristics like skull size (which has a small IQ correlation) as mentioned in my sources, above and beyond SES and nutrition effects.
Cultural factors, certainly. Individual genetics, probably. Racial genetics though? Incredibly doubtful.
I wouldn't say "incredibly" doubtful. There are already correlations between race and observable characteristics like skull size (which has a small IQ correlation) as mentioned in my sources, above and beyond SES and nutrition effects.
If you so ardently believe that one's race confers some natural bonus or penalty to intelligence, how do you propose that information be used? What policies would you advocate in light of the studies that you've cited?
He's going for cutting off affirmative action. Isn't that obvious?
Several schools have low black graduation rates as mentioned in the source. These schools should roll back AA and admit blacks more selectively to boost graduation rates. Example: U of M, 21 percentage point rate difference. Negative consequences? Fewer college graduates overall. When AA reduces overall college graduation rates, that's too much.
Where does Mustang19's own racial group fall on his spectrum of intelligence? Is his group at the top, at the bottom, or somewhere in the middle?
Several schools have low black graduation rates as mentioned in the source. These schools should roll back AA and admit blacks more selectively to boost graduation rates. Example: U of M, 21 percentage point rate difference. Negative consequences? Fewer college graduates overall. When AA reduces overall college graduation rates, that's too much.
Several schools have low black graduation rates as mentioned in the source. These schools should roll back AA and admit blacks more selectively to boost graduation rates. Example: U of M, 21 percentage point rate difference. Negative consequences? Fewer college graduates overall. When AA reduces overall college graduation rates, that's too much.
Alternatively, prejudice and cultural discomfort drive black students out of the school. The solution? More affirmative action to help integrate the campus further!
Base Attributes
Attribute M F
Strength 50 40
Intelligence 30 30
Willpower 30 30
Agility 40 40
Speed 40 40
Endurance 50 50
Personality 30 40
Luck 40 40
Base Attributes
Attribute M F
Strength 30 30
Intelligence 50 50
Willpower 40 40
Agility 40 40
Speed 30 40
Endurance 40 30
Personality 40 40
Luck 40 40
Mustang19:
Nonetheless I'd like to see a study where ST, culture, and discrimination are all controlled for showing no genetic component to average group IQ.
Thanks TG, I think this thread needed that. :PQuoteMustang19:
Nonetheless I'd like to see a study where ST, culture, and discrimination are all controlled for showing no genetic component to average group IQ.
I'd like to see you propose a way to properly execute such a study in order to remove those unwanted variables.
Several schools have low black graduation rates as mentioned in the source. These schools should roll back AA and admit blacks more selectively to boost graduation rates. Example: U of M, 21 percentage point rate difference. Negative consequences? Fewer college graduates overall. When AA reduces overall college graduation rates, that's too much.
Waiting on approval... here, I'll edit in some responses.
@Luis:
Schools should not be under political pressure to raise minority admittance and they should set their own AA policies. Regardless of why rates are lower, the important thing is keeping the overall graduation rate up.
@bob:
At the bottom. Asians and Jews, and especially Ashenkazi Jews, consistently average high in intelligence. People with certain genetic disorders like torsion dystonia have high average IQs as a group. It's unlikely these differences are due entirely to culture or discrimination.
@GB:
That's possible, and there should be more research on this approach. Nonetheless it should be either/or- admit more black students to increase integration or implement color-blind admission. As it is AA is responsible for lower graduation rates.
@watsisname:
Use all the techniques regularly used to control for these variables. Control for ST by not having a stereotype priming condition. Find black students of high or middle SES from an all-black or almost all-black school to control for discrimination. All the black students must be adopted and raised by white parents of high or middle SES to control for culture.
That would be rather complicated to implement I admit. But I would be satisfied if black children adopted by whites and not given ST priming were shown to have average IQ.
So then my question is, even if you do a study such as this, how is it in any way useful?
Thanks TG, I think this thread needed that. :PQuoteMustang19:
Nonetheless I'd like to see a study where ST, culture, and discrimination are all controlled for showing no genetic component to average group IQ.
I'd like to see you propose a way to properly execute such a study in order to remove those unwanted variables.
IQ has been proven to be misleading and not a real measure of "true" intelligence. It's rather silly to try and judge human thinking on a sliding scale - is someone who has an IQ of 150 more creative than an IQ of 50? It's not a measure of processing power in a computer.
So then my question is, even if you do a study such as this, how is it in any way useful?
What happens if someone refuses to get tested (such as myself)? Is refusing the test tantamount to admitting the failure of the test?sure is a nice future you got there...
Let's have a philosophical conversation here; let's assume that in the future, everyone is required to have an IQ test, or rather, everyone who applies to a job must put down their IQ number, since there is apparently a weak correlation between IQ and job performance, and everyone only wants to get the theoretically best performing people.
Now let's assume I come along, with an N/A. Is that transferred to a 0? How does the IQ test account for individuals who used their intelligence to generate a logical reason for not wanting to take the test (whatever that reason may be)?
What happens if someone refuses to get tested (such as myself)? Is refusing the test tantamount to admitting the failure of the test?sure is a nice future you got there...
Let's have a philosophical conversation here; let's assume that in the future, everyone is required to have an IQ test, or rather, everyone who applies to a job must put down their IQ number, since there is apparently a weak correlation between IQ and job performance, and everyone only wants to get the theoretically best performing people.
Now let's assume I come along, with an N/A. Is that transferred to a 0? How does the IQ test account for individuals who used their intelligence to generate a logical reason for not wanting to take the test (whatever that reason may be)?
What happens if someone refuses to get tested (such as myself)? Is refusing the test tantamount to admitting the failure of the test?Local Mensa representatives here would like to make people think that that is true. It would certainly help if 90% of their membership here wasnt filled with hipster gits who lack anything better to do, and whose parents have constantly dumped boatloads of cash their way.
Local Mensa representatives here would like to make people think that that is true. It would certainly help if 90% of their membership here wasnt filled with hipster gits who lack anything better to do, and whose parents have constantly dumped boatloads of cash their way.
What happens if someone refuses to get tested (such as myself)? Is refusing the test tantamount to admitting the failure of the test?
Let's have a philosophical conversation here; let's assume that in the future, everyone is required to have an IQ test, or rather, everyone who applies to a job must put down their IQ number, since there is apparently a weak correlation between IQ and job performance, and everyone only wants to get the theoretically best performing people.
Now let's assume I come along, with an N/A. Is that transferred to a 0? How does the IQ test account for individuals who used their intelligence to generate a logical reason for not wanting to take the test (whatever that reason may be)?
Well then it would be up to the bureaucracy that establishes procedures for those kinds of contingencies. I've never even heard of a job that tested for IQ, but there are jobs which have entrance tests. I know you're trying to start a new discussing here but I can't think of anything to say other than that human resources would have to incorporate the quality of your reasoning into your judgments... but this sounds like a rather silly situation. In practice if something like this came up the employer probably would either throw out your application or assume that your intelligence is statistically average.
I don't think MENSA is too much serious business. I've never been to a meeting but it from the newsletter it seems like a lot of drinking and laser tag.
I'm a very bitter man, dontcha know? :pLocal Mensa representatives here would like to make people think that that is true. It would certainly help if 90% of their membership here wasnt filled with hipster gits who lack anything better to do, and whose parents have constantly dumped boatloads of cash their way.
Being a part of Mensa is a good way to open doors for someone, but there's still that group of pretentious assholes who do it just to hold it over everyone else's head.
But every job, every group has people like that.
If you think GPA matters after college (except for applying to grad school) you are clearly in college and have no experience in life.
I don't think GPA an accurate measure of intelligence. Im in high school and it GPA seems to be more about regurgitating facts and formulas for tests and quizzes. Iv got a friend who is quite frankly not all the bright and has no common sense and yet she has a high GPA. the opposite is true to. I don tthink GPA shows problem solving ability or creativity
I think it's definitely possible for fairly dumb people to have a good GPA. On the other hand it's rare for smart people to have a low GPA unless they're mad depressed or something. Therefore GPA is at least a decent cutoff.
UT, in your case I assume your professor had plenty of previous graded work from you an already had an idea what he could expect from your paper. So in that case if he believed that you were turning in the paper to make a statement and not because of any lack of ability it would be reasonable for him to suppose that your ability and understanding of the material were unchanged from past assignments. He might as well just drop the grade and let your average stay the same.
I think it's definitely possible for fairly dumb people to have a good GPA. On the other hand it's rare for smart people to have a low GPA unless they're mad depressed or something. Therefore GPA is at least a decent cutoff.
I think it's definitely possible for fairly dumb people to have a good GPA. On the other hand it's rare for smart people to have a low GPA unless they're mad depressed or something. Therefore GPA is at least a decent cutoff.
I think it's definitely possible for fairly dumb people to have a good GPA. On the other hand it's rare for smart people to have a low GPA unless they're mad depressed or something. Therefore GPA is at least a decent cutoff.
I wouldn't say "incredibly" doubtful. There are already correlations between race and observable characteristics like skull size (which has a small IQ correlation) as mentioned in my sources, above and beyond SES and nutrition effects.
I wouldn't say "incredibly" doubtful. There are already correlations between race and observable characteristics like skull size (which has a small IQ correlation) as mentioned in my sources, above and beyond SES and nutrition effects.
So what, exactly, is the correlation between IQ and skull size?
But that future is not that far off from today, I would say. If you wanted to stretch it, look at our education system; everyone wants to get good numbers (GPA score) because it proves that they're smart, so that they can go to a good university to get a good GPA to prove that they're smart, so when employers look at you they only want to see that you went to a good university, and some even want to see your GPA (I actually had an employer ask me for mine after I sent them an application and I told them that I refused to give it).You were offended that an employer would discriminate on academic performance?
genetic predispositions toward schizophrenia or Down syndrome
inb4 slippery slope & hitler
We seem to be running out of entertaining discussion.You appear to have a rather interesting definition of this, brother.
But that future is not that far off from today, I would say. If you wanted to stretch it, look at our education system; everyone wants to get good numbers (GPA score) because it proves that they're smart, so that they can go to a good university to get a good GPA to prove that they're smart, so when employers look at you they only want to see that you went to a good university, and some even want to see your GPA (I actually had an employer ask me for mine after I sent them an application and I told them that I refused to give it).You were offended that an employer would discriminate on academic performance?
I wouldn't say "incredibly" doubtful. There are already correlations between race and observable characteristics like skull size (which has a small IQ correlation) as mentioned in my sources, above and beyond SES and nutrition effects.
So what, exactly, is the correlation between IQ and skull size?
.25 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4NTHN31-1&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1718014694&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=edf244a875c4acbf285b6ffeeb6bc39d&searchtype=a) in this study. You can Google (http://www.google.com/search?q=iq+skull+size&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) it too.
genetic predispositions toward schizophrenia or Down syndrome
Is there one? I mean, is there a clinically proven, 99.99% accurate test to determine whether a) such symptoms will manifest in any children and, b) an accurate test to determine whether you are predisposed to pass them on, even if you yourself do not exhibit any symptoms?Quoteinb4 slippery slope & hitler
Go ahead. Tell us what you really feel. And then find arguments just why you should be spared, if all the idiocy you advocate really should be enforced.
It's impossible to do what you're suggesting by the means you're suggesting without compromising basic human rights.
Gene therapy on the other hand would be a much more humane approach.
It's impossible to do what you're suggesting by the means you're suggesting without compromising basic human rights.
Gene therapy on the other hand would be a much more humane approach.
Except the exact genes involved in many heritable disorders are unknown, and using gene therapy without consent violates human rights anyway.
Except the exact genes involved in many heritable disorders are unknown, and using gene therapy without consent violates human rights anyway.
And wouldn't be possible anyway, because in a population of more than 7 billion people, there is no way to enforce your bull****.
Unless you present experimental evidence of eugenics reducing adaptive value, all either of us can give are theoretical arguments. There are simply no studies on this.
The thing is, no such policy has ever been tried before on a large scale.
Untrue.
QuoteUntrue.
Okay, are there studies proving that eugenics reduces adaptive fitness or has no effect?
That's not the question. The answer to the question you should be asking is in my last post. But if you want it spelled out, the question you need to ask is, does reducing population diversity on a given allele or constellation of alleles reduce fitness, often in unanticipated ways.
QuoteThat's not the question. The answer to the question you should be asking is in my last post. But if you want it spelled out, the question you need to ask is, does reducing population diversity on a given allele or constellation of alleles reduce fitness, often in unanticipated ways.
Are you going to present a study proving this?
It nonetheless reduces crop loss from disease for practical purposes. That is the purpose of this kind of plant breeding.
Monocultures are susceptible to disease, but a polyculture approach is more effective. If you believe human eugenics will be counterproductive, do you believe plant eugenics, plant breeding, and the Green Revolution were all counterproductive?
isn't polyculture the same as just leaving stuff alone
If you didn't understand the post, just say so. Don't try to continue the discussion using only the parts that you got at a glance.
Now, back to eugenics on humans, we'd probably have to institute similar measures if your idiotic plan would be implemented.
But why should we? Why should we deliberately introduce something we can have for free if we do not remove it?
QuoteNow, back to eugenics on humans, we'd probably have to institute similar measures if your idiotic plan would be implemented.
But why should we? Why should we deliberately introduce something we can have for free if we do not remove it?
If overall fitness increased the policy would be worthwhile. That is what happened with the GR.
You cannot boost a generic trait like disease resistance. There are far too many diseases operating on far too many vectors for that. In plant biology, you can boost a species resistance against specific conditions, but you can't make a plant completely resistant against everything.
'if it works, then it would work'
You have completed your descent into logical collapse.
Eugenics need not aim to reduce heterozygosity. It can also be used to increase the prevalence of less common genotypes.
here is little disagreement that the Green Revolution acted to reduce agricultural biodiversity, as it relied on just a few high-yield varieties of each crop.
This has led to concerns about the susceptibility of a food supply to pathogens that cannot be controlled by agrochemicals, as well as the permanent loss of many valuable genetic traits bred into traditional varieties over thousands of years. To address these concerns, massive seed banks such as Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research’s (CGIAR) International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (now Bioversity International) have been established (see Svalbard Global Seed Vault).
There are varying opinions about the effect of the Green Revolution on wild biodiversity. One hypothesis speculates that by increasing production per unit of land area, agriculture will not need to expand into new, uncultivated areas to feed a growing human population.[40] However, land degradation and soil nutrients depletion have forced farmers to clear up formerly forested areas in order to keep up with production.[41] A counter-hypothesis speculates that biodiversity was sacrificed because traditional systems of agriculture that were displaced sometimes incorporated practices to preserve wild biodiversity, and because the Green Revolution expanded agricultural development into new areas where it was once unprofitable or too arid. For example, the development of wheat varieties tolerant to acid soil conditions with high aluminium content, permitted the introduction of agriculture in the Amazonian Cerrado ecosystem in Brazil.[40]
Nevertheless, the world community has clearly acknowledged the negative aspects of agricultural expansion as the 1992 Rio Treaty, signed by 189 nations, has generated numerous national Biodiversity Action Plans which assign significant biodiversity loss to agriculture's expansion into new domains.
'if it works, then it would work'
You have completed your descent into logical collapse.
If it was not for the GR India and Pakistan would have had a much harder time maintaining enough agricultural production to feed their people. The loss from reduced disease resistance was far outweighed by yield gains.
you can't make the argument for human eugenics, concede.
I took a class on plant genetics but I guess I wasn't paying attention. Well, in the absence of studies on the cost/benefit analysis of eugenics programs I can't say you win. But I say that you've proven a human eugenics program to be an excessive risk to take without further research. I know this is totally irrelevant, but I'm curious, do you believe with confidence that the Green Revolution was ultimately counterproductive?
I know this is totally irrelevant, but I'm curious, do you believe with confidence that the Green Revolution was ultimately counterproductive?
Yeah, I agree, haemophilia is a good trade off for higher IQ.
Uh it was actually my avatar last week because I am the best at driving people nuts
Royalty and the aristocracy basically practiced eugenics for centuries. Hereditary disease (hemophilia, the Hapsburgs, etc) was more common in some cases but my 2 second Google search can't find any information on royalty/aristocracy average IQ. It would be interesting to see a study on that, even if environmental factors would be confounding variables.
It's known that higher IQ individuals have fewer children. Does anyone think that this will ever overpower the Flynn effect and lead to reduction in overall IQ? inb4 xkcd
Because I was merely curious if aristocracy actually worked.
If it did, why do we have so many democracies? Why are first-world aristocracies largely relegated to fodder for paparazzi?
Aristocrats, as a whole, are no more and no less intelligent than Joe Average. Thankfully, they are no longer in positions where the comparatively sheltered upbringing commonly associated with nobility can lead them to make decisions about the fates of the people they supposedly rule.
This is arguably wrong. You are skipping quite a few steps there, namely that people who are well off tend to have fewer children in general (regardless of IQ) and that people with high IQs tend to have demanding jobs that they prioritize over procreation.
If it did, why do we have so many democracies? Why are first-world aristocracies largely relegated to fodder for paparazzi?
I meant "work" purely in a eugenic sense.
QuoteAristocrats, as a whole, are no more and no less intelligent than Joe Average. Thankfully, they are no longer in positions where the comparatively sheltered upbringing commonly associated with nobility can lead them to make decisions about the fates of the people they supposedly rule.
cite
QuoteThis is arguably wrong. You are skipping quite a few steps there, namely that people who are well off tend to have fewer children in general (regardless of IQ) and that people with high IQs tend to have demanding jobs that they prioritize over procreation.
That's even more concerning if well off people tend to have other desirable traits for job performance like motivation and self-control. And whatever reason given for this trend doesn't change it's effect on the gene pool.
Same here. If whatever inbreeding they went through gave them qualities that would make them more fit for rule, why aren't they ruling?
It's quite simple, this. People tend to have more children if they do not have a lot of social security through their own work, or guaranteed by the society they live in. Children are an investment in the future, with the unspoken (and oftentimes unconscious) expectation that those children will be around to take care of you once you've grown too old to take care of yourself.
Now, in modern society, people with high intelligence tend to have jobs that provide a larger income, and therefore more security, thus reducing the need for children to take care of you in your old age. And then there are people who do not want to take the time off to raise children for whatever reason.
Snail: Improvement of genotype to promote greater ability and health without net undesirable tradeoffs.
Snail: Improvement of genotype to promote greater ability and health without net undesirable tradeoffs.The implicit assumption here is that eugenics can actually work (and that something can therefore work eugenically).
Okay. Well my original question had to do with potential decline in future generation's IQ due to natural selection.
Snail: Improvement of genotype to promote greater ability and health without net undesirable tradeoffs.The implicit assumption here is that eugenics can actually work (and that something can therefore work eugenically).
Okay. Well my original question had to do with potential decline in future generation's IQ due to natural selection.
Here's an interesting point: We send our most able people to do the most dangerous work (such as, in space). Which subsequently gets them killed. That's a potential decline right there.
We've been doing that for agriculture for the past 10 thousand years. I'd say that it works pretty well. Not that it should be desirable.Well human eugenics, slightly different.
The implicit assumption here is that eugenics can actually work (and that something can therefore work eugenically).
We've been doing that for agriculture for the past 10 thousand years. I'd say that it works pretty well. Not that it should be desirable.Well human eugenics, slightly different.
For example, a state that has the power to sterilize any child who doesn't have an iq over 95, all else being equal, will score much better in just two generations. Of course, "all else" is not "equal" at all. But for the sake of argument.
QuoteFor example, a state that has the power to sterilize any child who doesn't have an iq over 95, all else being equal, will score much better in just two generations. Of course, "all else" is not "equal" at all. But for the sake of argument.
Or they'll all turn into drooling morons because they've accidentally killed the alleles involved in some kind of partial dominance or simultaneous expression.
QuoteFor example, a state that has the power to sterilize any child who doesn't have an iq over 95, all else being equal, will score much better in just two generations. Of course, "all else" is not "equal" at all. But for the sake of argument.
Or they'll all turn into drooling morons because they've accidentally killed the alleles involved in some kind of partial dominance or simultaneous expression.
In what way? If you get to control the human breeding process and have enough quantitative criteria in order to be able to make the most efficient choices, you will be successful.
In what way? If you get to control the human breeding process and have enough quantitative criteria in order to be able to make the most efficient choices, you will be successful.
It sounds so reasonable and intuitive to the untrained mind: First you need to understand all the parts and then you can just manipulate anything to do whatever you want it to do.
Yet... we completely fail at micromanaging much less complex systems. Once a system reaches a certain level of complexity all top-down planning simply falls apart.
If you read some general systems theory and advanced organization & management theories based uppon the former you will quickly learn just how limited top-down planning really is.
Furthermore... the most spectacular screwups always tend to involve people who intuitively assume that their top-down planning just has the work because they are so sure that they didn t miss a variable.
Well guess what.... missing a single variable could not only spell the end of the human race if you are tinkering with the genome, history (and related statistics) tells us very conclusively that the moment you implement top-down planning it's pretty much a given that you miss the more variables the more complex the system you attempt to manipulate gets... and consequently the actual outcome differs more and more greatly from the intended one.
Bottomline: We re are much more likely to conolize the whole solar system before we understand the human genome well enough to manipulate it completely "safely" - if its even ever possible at all. Note the word: "safely". It's the keyword.
Heck, we can't even model weather or the economy all that well yet and you want to start manipulating isolated variables in a system as complex as the human body which by itself is only part of the larger system of the human race.
It's about as deluded as watching an episode of Star Trek just to state that you don't understand why we didn't build FTL Starships yet as that would clearly make sense. ;)
I.e.: You have an idea and a goal and maybe even good intention... but the more relevant fact is: you have not even a hint of understanding of how the whole thing actually works.
To get a deeper understanding of just idiotic the manipulation of complex systems that you can't even properly describe yet actually is, I would wholeheartly recommend Niklas Luhmann's criticism of prescriptive theories in social or economic systems.
Mustang19 here. I was screwing about in my profile and got locked out of my account by sending a verification email to an address that doesn't exist. Don't worry about me, the mods should be on the case. :nod:
I appreciate being called an adult but I believe you vastly overestimate my age. Irregardless, as far as I can tell nothing was ever proven wrong or right in this thread. We've basically come to the conclusion on both the IQ gap and eugenics that, "no policy changes are warranted because although Mustang19's insane hitler ideas may have merit no conclusive empirical research is available to justify risks". I'm still curious about why people have been so quick to accept cultural explanations of group IQ differences over genetic ones even though hardly more support is available for the former.
In what way? If you get to control the human breeding process and have enough quantitative criteria in order to be able to make the most efficient choices, you will be successful.
It sounds so reasonable and intuitive to the untrained mind: First you need to understand all the parts and then you can just manipulate anything to do whatever you want it to do.
Yet... we completely fail at micromanaging much less complex systems. Once a system reaches a certain level of complexity all top-down planning simply falls apart.
What do you think would happen to the population as a whole if such people were stopped from breeding?
Hey Marcov, I'm sure you're a great guy. But why care about what people think of you on the internet? HLP is positively geriatric compared to any image board, but you still need a thick skin from time to time. I would just let it go if I were you.
That's because all other causes have been eleminated. Untill there is solid evidence that cultural difference is not the cause, we'll assume that that is the case. Its the same as with some theories involving physics, especially when the field was still young.
QuoteWhat do you think would happen to the population as a whole if such people were stopped from breeding?
There's something about that mentally and physically handicapped people usually don't get to reproduce. The nazi's killed them because it simply was too expensive to keep them alive.
And there's a thing. I am also mentally handicapped, although there are some benefits to society for me being so. You can't just say 'we will sterelize all the mentally handicapped', since then you'd also remove a lot of potential benificial genes.
Also, lol@captcha implemented to try to slow this thread from going on to 50+ pages /conspiracy
Any sort of eugenics program will, inevitably, lead to a less varied genepool.
Do we need to go over this again with you, Luis? Or are you capable of reading the damn thread by yourself? Short version: Any sort of eugenics program will, inevitably, lead to a less varied genepool. The less variance there is, the higher the risk that you have vulnerabilities against disease vectors. Given that the only way to correct this stuff is to reintroduce variance that you previously removed, it's not a good idea to remove variance in the first place.
QuoteAny sort of eugenics program will, inevitably, lead to a less varied genepool.
Not if the program specifically aims to increase genetic variability, eg, use desirable genotypes from foreign societies.
If one were to believe this, one could even end up saying silly things as "there are no bad genes". Of course there are bad genes, worse and better gene pools. The problem is not knowing this, as I think it should be rather obvious to anyone. The problem is knowing which gene pools are actually better or worse. The problem is not "ontological", but "epistemological".
You and others claim that we should not touch the gene pool "ever", because that would create a "disturbance in the force", so to speak, and all hell would break loose. I don't buy that. It is an hypothesis that bases itself on the premise that the human gene pool is not robust enough to survive some tweakings, which is something that flies in the face of the whole process of evolution. I think there are too many movies out there about the "hubris" of science, and then people eat that idea that we are too stupid to understand any process so we should just do nothing dangerous. This is an idea deeply ingrained in our generation.
But the problem is, we will eventually mess with the human gene pool. And those who won't will be left behind, crusading about disturbances in the force and other worries. Mankind will just ignore this and move on, just as it has done the past millenia. And our grand grand children will thank us for that.
If one were to believe this, one could even end up saying silly things as "there are no bad genes". Of course there are bad genes, worse and better gene pools. The problem is not knowing this, as I think it should be rather obvious to anyone. The problem is knowing which gene pools are actually better or worse. The problem is not "ontological", but "epistemological".
The quality of a gene pool is determined by its size. Making the pool smaller by breeding out things may increase short-term fitness, but will decrease long-term fitness. For reference look up the Green Revolution, and why there are seed banks for crops. AS WAS POINTED OUT IN THIS THREAD.
QuoteYou and others claim that we should not touch the gene pool "ever", because that would create a "disturbance in the force", so to speak, and all hell would break loose. I don't buy that. It is an hypothesis that bases itself on the premise that the human gene pool is not robust enough to survive some tweakings, which is something that flies in the face of the whole process of evolution. I think there are too many movies out there about the "hubris" of science, and then people eat that idea that we are too stupid to understand any process so we should just do nothing dangerous. This is an idea deeply ingrained in our generation.
Given that our understanding of genetics, and how alleles interact, is still incomplete, and given that any experiments like that would need to run over multiple generations, and given that us humans are terrible at that sort of long term planning, WHY THE **** DO YOU THINK WE CAN START TINKERING WITH IT SAFELY?
As our experience with such experiments in other, much more robust lifeforms show (Crops, again), once we start something like this, we can never, ever stop. You want to take control of a process that has run very well for millions of years without large-scale intervention; The implied hubris is staggering.
QuoteBut the problem is, we will eventually mess with the human gene pool. And those who won't will be left behind, crusading about disturbances in the force and other worries. Mankind will just ignore this and move on, just as it has done the past millenia. And our grand grand children will thank us for that.
Maybe we will, maybe we won't. It all depends on advances in the relevant sciences that haven't materialized yet.
Do we need to go over this again with you, Luis? Or are you capable of reading the damn thread by yourself? Short version: Any sort of eugenics program will, inevitably, lead to a less varied genepool. The less variance there is, the higher the risk that you have vulnerabilities against disease vectors. Given that the only way to correct this stuff is to reintroduce variance that you previously removed, it's not a good idea to remove variance in the first place.
If one were to believe this, one could even end up saying silly things as "there are no bad genes". Of course there are bad genes, worse and better gene pools. The problem is not knowing this, as I think it should be rather obvious to anyone. The problem is knowing which gene pools are actually better or worse. The problem is not "ontological", but "epistemological".
QuoteAny sort of eugenics program will, inevitably, lead to a less varied genepool.
Not if the program specifically aims to increase genetic variability, eg, use desirable genotypes from foreign societies.
Define "desirable". And then disentangle the "desirable" parts from the ones you do not want. Until you can do that, stop wasting your and our time by dreaming about it.
greater ability and health without net undesirable tradeoffs.
So, I guess I just want to start with two simple questions; what is wrong with my generation, and why do we all assume that genetics can change your skin color, but nothing else?
To examine the latter of the two, and to do this we need to go way back to the very beginning; when humanity first spread out from the African continent and began to evolve separately but in parallel with his brethren on other continents. For the purposes of this section, I will speak only of the African and European subsets, as they are the best example of how the differences in the evolution of the different races, and what effect that has on society today.
Let's begin with the African continent; a harsh but bountiful environment; probably the most suited to dealing with humans as a threat - there are a lot of things that can eat you in Africa, and while some areas are covered with forest, in many areas this is not the case. This is a place where numbers are small and the competition is brutal and constant - so the creatures that evolve there will be the best suited to whatever micro environment those conditions provided to them. It's a place where that's constantly being scorched by the sun, and most lethal traumas are physical, produced from a physical blow as opposed to a fall.
For instance, let's look at it from the perspective of a human. A human being that evolves in an environment where it's constantly sunny will tend to have darker skinned people survive more often, due to the excess melanin in their skin. It'll also mean that their structure will be physically larger, taller to see over the vast landscapes and give more surface area for heat radiation. Their bones will be thinner for running and faces flatter so as to deflect blunt force blows. If it does not have a lot numbers to rely on (small tribes), have mostly close-in warfare (biting, clawing attackers and opponents with simple weapons made from the scraps of an arid environment), and have little contact with creatures outside of their small range.
....
Their bones will be thinner for running and faces flatter so as to deflect blunt force blows.
I don't understand why you think this is an argument. We've been messing with the gene pool of our food for thousands of years, and I'm yet to see anything other than benefits to that.
I'm not saying that an efficient "genetic program" would be stupid enough not to understand the necessity of keeping banks of genes stored somewhere. If there are "bugs" in the process, correct it. As I SAID IN THIS THREAD, you'd have to manage the process, adapt, etc.
Where did I stated the term SAFELY? I even said dangerous. I also fail to see where our ignorance of all these processes created an agricultural holocaust. You don't need to understand the whole process if you have simple algorithms and reliable feedbacks. You speak about "long term" which is a good point, but then again this point also has the other side of it.
What if you don't tinker with the gene pool? There are also unintended, and possibly dangerous, consequences to that. Because of our sucessful health programs in the world, the pressures against genes that cause disease and deaths in the young, etc., no longer apply. The gene pool will inevitably "diverge" and occupy that landscape of possibilities as well. Which in turn will create a lot of finantial hurt in the health system.
The hubris that calls itself mankind and civilization, a whole process that altered the face of the earth in infinitesimal time scales compared with the hundreds of millions of years of evolution. I find it marvelous. And if mankind is to die out like the 99% of the species ever lived here, I'd rather risk it and have it with a bang, than just cowardly die out in a whimper.
You honestly believe we won't mess with our own genes within a hundred years?
Here's a paper I wrote awhile ago. I sent it to a professor of mine for his thoughts and never received a response. Maybe it's relevant to this discussion? I just remembered it. To be honest I'm not even sure of what the whole thing says anymore! :)QuoteSo, I guess I just want to start with two simple questions; what is wrong with my generation, and why do we all assume that genetics can change your skin color, but nothing else?
To examine the latter of the two, and to do this we need to go way back to the very beginning; when humanity first spread out from the African continent and began to evolve separately but in parallel with his brethren on other continents. For the purposes of this section, I will speak only of the African and European subsets, as they are the best example of how the differences in the evolution of the different races, and what effect that has on society today.
Let's begin with the African continent; a harsh but bountiful environment; probably the most suited to dealing with humans as a threat - there are a lot of things that can eat you in Africa, and while some areas are covered with forest, in many areas this is not the case. This is a place where numbers are small and the competition is brutal and constant - so the creatures that evolve there will be the best suited to whatever micro environment those conditions provided to them. It's a place where that's constantly being scorched by the sun, and most lethal traumas are physical, produced from a physical blow as opposed to a fall.
For instance, let's look at it from the perspective of a human. A human being that evolves in an environment where it's constantly sunny will tend to have darker skinned people survive more often, due to the excess melanin in their skin. It'll also mean that their structure will be physically larger, taller to see over the vast landscapes and give more surface area for heat radiation. Their bones will be thinner for running and faces flatter so as to deflect blunt force blows. If it does not have a lot numbers to rely on (small tribes), have mostly close-in warfare (biting, clawing attackers and opponents with simple weapons made from the scraps of an arid environment), and have little contact with creatures outside of their small range.
....
*Snip*
You can read the rest on my page:
http://invertedvantage.tumblr.com/
"Decadent modern society"? "Living is easy"? Seriously?
Here's what I think about that.
Bull. ****.
How old are you, exactly? Only someone who has no RL experience to speak of would say such a thing.
12. Working conditions and hours are much better than they were in, say 1900 or before.
Discipline and traditional values developed under difficult preindustrial conditions died out and weren't replaced in decadent modern society where living is easy.
You also said,QuoteDiscipline and traditional values developed under difficult preindustrial conditions died out and weren't replaced in decadent modern society where living is easy.
Which is something you really, really should think about again. Because it's incredibly wrong.
What values do you think have died out? And what makes you think that living today, with a large and growing number of people suffering from future shock, is easier than living 50 or a hundred years ago?
What does that have to do with values? What does it have to do with discipline?
Noone is arguing that work conditions haven't changed, they have. But you are arguing that a) modern work conditions are easier and b) that certain values that were instilled by said working conditions do not apply today. And on top of that, you described modern society as "decadent", thereby implying that the old ways were better. Defend that statement.
Living today is easier since the work week and working conditions are much better.
QuoteLiving today is easier since the work week and working conditions are much better.
Hmm. I find that I would probably have a much easier life living as a blacksmith in the middle ages then I have in today's society, where I have to deal with a multitide of complex situations, ocassionally simultaniously. That, and many people are expected to do so 24 hours a day, even though they might not be at work at the time.
Rising crime rates since 1960.
There is another problem. What you describe as 'good genes' now, could turn out to be 'awfully bad genes' later, just because of a change in enviroment. For example, some people with a lot of attention to detail are subject to information overload. There was hardly any information overload 50 years ago, so the extreme focus these people was a benefit. Now, with people being required to sample lots of data at once, those people have trouble keeping up with society, and suddenly, these cases have become 'autists', while they would never have been detected as such 50 years ago.
There are a lot of cases in crops where selecting for one trait has led to the elimination of others which later on turned to be quite usefull. For example, some fast-growth plants can less-then-perfect soils completely lifeless and practically turn the land into a barren wasteland. Since there's been exclusive selection for crops that grow fast and big, this problem became overlooked, and people with less-then-perfect-soils now have to deal with a small problem: The plants which could grow on their soils have become rather rare.
QuoteThere are a lot of cases in crops where selecting for one trait has led to the elimination of others which later on turned to be quite usefull. For example, some fast-growth plants can less-then-perfect soils completely lifeless and practically turn the land into a barren wasteland. Since there's been exclusive selection for crops that grow fast and big, this problem became overlooked, and people with less-then-perfect-soils now have to deal with a small problem: The plants which could grow on their soils have become rather rare.
Nice example.
Noone is arguing that work conditions haven't changed, they have. But you are arguing that a) modern work conditions are easier and b) that certain values that were instilled by said working conditions do not apply today. And on top of that, you described modern society as "decadent", thereby implying that the old ways were better. Defend that statement.
a) modern work conditions are easier
b) that certain values that were instilled by said working conditions do not apply today
Hmm. I find that I would probably have a much easier life living as a blacksmith in the middle ages then I have in today's society, where I have to deal with a multitide of complex situations, ocassionally simultaniously. That, and many people are expected to do so 24 hours a day, even though they might not be at work at the time.
People in better conditions are more productive. Happiness is pretty intuitive.
To flesh out one of the examples I've mentioned (lower saving rates, church attendance, crime) the combination of rising incomes and rising crime rates after 1960 (followed by a fall to levels still higher than pre-1960 up to today) suggests changes in the degree of social control society exerts to deter crime.
QuoteThere are a lot of cases in crops where selecting for one trait has led to the elimination of others which later on turned to be quite usefull. For example, some fast-growth plants can less-then-perfect soils completely lifeless and practically turn the land into a barren wasteland. Since there's been exclusive selection for crops that grow fast and big, this problem became overlooked, and people with less-then-perfect-soils now have to deal with a small problem: The plants which could grow on their soils have become rather rare.
Nice example.
Pages were spent discussing that condition already. You should have picked up on that.
QuoteHmm. I find that I would probably have a much easier life living as a blacksmith in the middle ages then I have in today's society, where I have to deal with a multitide of complex situations, ocassionally simultaniously. That, and many people are expected to do so 24 hours a day, even though they might not be at work at the time.
Maybe so, but the majority of people in the middle ages were serfs and farmers. Now there are workaholics in modern society but must people work an 8 hour day indoors.
But look, this is obviously not a debate. You are not going to change your position, why are we even having this discussion?
But look, this is obviously not a debate. You are not going to change your position, why are we even having this discussion?
QuoteTo flesh out one of the examples I've mentioned (lower saving rates, church attendance, crime) the combination of rising incomes and rising crime rates after 1960 (followed by a fall to levels still higher than pre-1960 up to today) suggests changes in the degree of social control society exerts to deter crime.
No it doesn't. Stop trying to reduce epiphenomenal complex symptoms to simple morality tales.
Serfs and farmers do not have to deal with multiple complex situations simultaniously, and are not expected to keep up to date with everything in order to function at work and in society. Today, we have to. Its the second part of the point I was trying to make.
I don't understand why you think this is an argument. We've been messing with the gene pool of our food for thousands of years, and I'm yet to see anything other than benefits to that.
EXCEPT that we can never, ever STOP tinkering.
We can increase crop yield, we can increase resistance against certain diseases or climates, but we can not leave these things alone lest they get wiped out due to a new attack that hits these plants where they are weak. Now, in plants, this is easy to do, and even beneficial for us, but do you want to do the same things with humans?
Please address the issue of how to do a large-scale genetic engineering program on humans so that it is controllable within the average humans planning horizon. You need several generations of engineering before you can see benefits, which means that you'll have to wait 20 or more years before you can be sure your tinkering has actually worked, and EVEN THEN, you can't be sure it did because you cannot raise lots of humans in a controlled environment.
But why spend all this time and effort managing something that is able to self-correct?
Let me remind you, most of the conditions that you want treated via gene modifications can also be treated safely and reliably via medication. If I would have to choose between taking pills, and undergoing genetic modifications, I know I'd choose the pills, because I know that we don't know all that much about how all this gene stuff works together.
Personally, I'd rather leave off the banging and continue living, but that's just me I guess. Look, your whole argumentation seems to be based on technological optimism. Which is good, any SF fan has that in spades, myself included. But where is the skepticism you were so proud of in that other thread?
I'm quite sure we will. However, I am equally sure that, for the reasons outlined above, it will not be something that will be large-scale. Individuals may opt to have their genes modded, but entire societies? Not in my lifetime, I think.
But look, this is obviously not a debate. You are not going to change your position, why are we even having this discussion?
Because it's fun, and you're playing ball.QuoteTo flesh out one of the examples I've mentioned (lower saving rates, church attendance, crime) the combination of rising incomes and rising crime rates after 1960 (followed by a fall to levels still higher than pre-1960 up to today) suggests changes in the degree of social control society exerts to deter crime.
No it doesn't. Stop trying to reduce epiphenomenal complex symptoms to simple morality tales.
Do you have an alternate explanation? Just curious, not being passive aggressive or anything.
You also said,QuoteDiscipline and traditional values developed under difficult preindustrial conditions died out and weren't replaced in decadent modern society where living is easy.
Which is something you really, really should think about again. Because it's incredibly wrong.
Might be related to the fact that now we don't have bandits everywhere and are not in constand need of armed protection.QuoteSerfs and farmers do not have to deal with multiple complex situations simultaniously, and are not expected to keep up to date with everything in order to function at work and in society. Today, we have to. Its the second part of the point I was trying to make.
Look at it this way. I don't think many people today would want a serf's work.
Rising crime rates since 1960.
Do some reading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States) (and think about places other than the US, too)
People in better conditions are more productive. Happiness is pretty intuitive.
There's actually been some work done on the heuristic and genetic factors that create this illusion that 'things were better in the old days'.
Yeah I think it's pretty obvious, it involves drugs, immigration, and the economy
Might be related to the fact that now we don't have bandits everywhere and are not in constand need of armed protection.
ed: falling church attendance from 1900 to 2000 okay
Mustang, please stop this. Go out, and grow up a bit. Like, another 12 years. Then we can have this discussion again.
Look this thread has basically turned into 'clash of the worldviews' and that's not going to go anywhere
I think he meant to say Marcov not Mustang
ed: but basically I don't think there's any reason to think the world has GONE SOFT HOMG, we still get **** done. If there are big problems that worry me they're systemic rather than individual.
This thread is basically about racism, which is a concept so large that there WILL be a clash of world views, unless there's a race-detector in the HLP which allows only people of the accepted race to register.
I think he meant to say Marcov not Mustang
ed: but basically I don't think there's any reason to think the world has GONE SOFT HOMG, we still get **** done. If there are big problems that worry me they're systemic rather than individual.
I think you're exaggerating what I'm saying. I'm discussing the minor effect of cultural values on productivity not going 11111SOCIAL DECLINEONEONEONE
I think you're exaggerating what I'm saying. I'm discussing the minor effect of cultural values on productivity not going 11111SOCIAL DECLINEONEONEONE
And yet, the vocabulary you use is straight out of the "everything was better in the past", "kids these days have no values" playbook. And you are not discussing anything, you are just assuming stuff without any facts to back you up.
just that increasing crime rates, reduced religiosity, lower savings rates, and so on were partially related to changes in cultural values.
Increasing individualism lessened the need for religion, reduced social stigma against crime, and made people less willing to defer current consumption for future consumption.
I think he meant to say Marcov not Mustang
Increasing individualism lessened the need for religion, reduced social stigma against crime, and made people less willing to defer current consumption for future consumption.
This sounds a bit weird, like you are bashing Marcov out of the sake of bashing marcov, he actually made decent points back there...
How can increased individualism lessen social stigma against crime, when crime is still bad for an individual as much as a group?
That's a hypothesis but I don't think it's a substantiated one. Do you honestly think increasing collectivism would make those things better?
How is lessened need for religion a bad thing?
How is currnet consumption related to individualism, as individuals with to much current consumption can essentially kill themselves off just the same? Has it not always been as such?
same with crime, savings as well as discipline are partly a learned behaviors. another explanation is that increasing prosperity made saving for catastrophic events (eg unemployment) less necessary.
Because Marcov is like 12 and Mustang clearly isn't?
That's a very american argument.
Being in a group of like-minded individuals, however, does. It doesn't matter if you're actively religious, or in a sports club, or just have a very good work atmosphere, if you are regularly engaged in group activities, your mental stability will increase.
Also, Mustang, you haven't answered my question. Are you trying to say it was better back then, or it's better nowadays?
Because Marcov is like 12 and Mustang clearly isn't?
That's not the point. As I said, why? What makes you think Mustang would be older?
You have accepted the fact that you are, indeed, doing this for the simple fact that you want to stimulate your stereotypical attitude by repeatedly pointing out that I'm 12, which isn't contributing, in any manner, to the topic at hand.
The age bias that I see is going on here is plain crap. For one, how the **** should you shove someone away for the insane judgement that he's basically a little kid. Talk to an 80 year old and see how foolish he can be, if you get my point. You should never, ever, shove away one's argument just because of your belief that your adversary is a preteen.
This age bias should be swiftly removed from the argument at hand, before it starts stimulating flame wars. This is, by my judgement, a useless rant just to claim your victory over the debate.
that's a very german response.
Certainly, it doesn't matter what you call it, social cohesion helps.
Because Marcov is like 12 and Mustang clearly isn't?
That's not the point. As I said, why? What makes you think Mustang would be older?
The age bias that I see is going on here is plain crap. For one, how the **** should you shove someone away for the insane judgement that he's basically a little kid. Talk to an 80 year old and see how foolish he can be, if you get my point. You should never, ever, shove away one's argument just because of your belief that your adversary is a preteen.
Being in a group of like-minded individuals, however, does. It doesn't matter if you're actively religious, or in a sports club, or just have a very good work atmosphere, if you are regularly engaged in group activities, your mental stability will increase.
Putnam then contrasts the countertrends of ever increasing mass-membership organizations, nonprofit organizations and support groups to the data of the General Social Survey. This data shows an aggregate decline in membership of traditional civic organizations, proving his thesis that U.S. social capital has declined. He then asks the obvious question "Why is US social capital eroding?" (par. 35). He believes the "movement of women into the workforce" (par. 36), the "re-potting hypothesis" (par. 37) and other demographic changes have made little impact on the number of individuals engaging in civic associations. Instead, he looks to the technological "individualizing" (par. 39) of our leisure time via television, Internet and eventually "virtual reality helmets" (par.39).
Why is it that in the HTL forums, only moderators seem to have the ghastly habit of proclaiming* the age of their interlocutors as if it's anything related to "good manners"?
*inventing.
QuoteCertainly, it doesn't matter what you call it, social cohesion helps.
But using church attendance as a meterstick doesn't work, because it's only measuring one type of social activity. I submit to you that there are more things you can do with your time than go to church.
Basically everything I'm saying can be summed up by selecting a society that has strong traditional values- say, the Amish- and pointing out things like their lower crime and suicide rates. Do you think this is a valid comparison?
Amish populations have higher incidences of particular genetic disorders, including dwarfism (Ellis-van Creveld syndrome),[26] various metabolic disorders,[27] and unusual distribution of blood-types.[28] Amish represent a collection of different demes or genetically closed communities.[29] Since almost all Amish descend from about 200 18th century founders, genetic disorders from inbreeding exist in more isolated districts (an example of the founder effect). Some of these disorders are quite rare, or unique, and are serious enough to increase the mortality rate among Amish children. The majority of Amish accept these as "Gottes Wille" (God's will); they reject use of preventive genetic tests prior to marriage and genetic testing of unborn children to discover genetic disorders. Amish are willing to participate in studies of genetic diseases. Their extensive family histories are useful to researchers investigating diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and macular degeneration.
That's part of it, but I don't think that online communication substitutes for closer families or face-to-face interaction. And the issue of family values is it's own thread.
Basically everything I'm saying can be summed up by selecting a society that has strong traditional values- say, the Amish- and pointing out things like their lower crime and suicide rates. Do you think this is a valid comparison?
I also think that even if strong social groupings had benefits in reducing crime and suicide, you could obtain the same benefits with very nontraditional values like group marriages or gay partnerships or whatever, because the benefits derive not from a characteristic of the traditional structure but simply by building close social bonds and providing a support network.
Actually, yes. If a 12 year old tries to lecture me about how much easier life today is, then the best he can hope for is to be laughed at. Because you lack experience in the matters which you discuss, simple as that.
Wrong. If you are too young to have first-hand experience of the topics, then you have no business spouting your opinions, because whatever you are thinking? It's almost certainly not correct.
Just saying that the things you talk about are not valid globally. And since this is an international community, well....
Because your posts are insubstantial and content-free and his aren't?
No, but you can discard arguments because they're incoherent and ignorant and then figure out it's because the person making them is 12
Source (http://www.civitas.org.uk/press/prcs38.php) on UK crime rates; they went up too. Inequality didn't increase much nor did immigration, although drugs may have had something to do with it.
In 1955 fewer than 500,000 crimes were recorded by the police in England and Wales. By the end of the 1960s there were over 1.5 million. By the end of the 1970s there were 2.7 million (p.xii).
Sad to say, I'm sensing the Oh-So-Superior Syndrome of yours that may be the cause of your proud Trollface. You declare that Mustang's posts are incoherent and ignorant. Prove it, it looks like you've won the debate, which isn't really, since Mustang is STILL sorting out several arguments off his ass. You haven't won, so you can't say that.
THis might also mean that the police has simply gotten better at doing their jobs.
Arresting people for drug crimes inflates the official crime statistics.
Arresting people for drug crimes inflates the official crime statistics.
Including assaults, murders, rapes, etc?
Even if the urbanization rate went from 30 to 80% that could only explain part of the increase in crime.
US urbanization rate (http://books.google.com/books?id=AocFrcJHaogC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=urbanization+1960+us&source=bl&ots=IqOIMF2qXT&sig=6_bLBruhmDJJsAEuC8EL5i4hQBY&hl=en&ei=fHmoTcWKDsydgQfo79nzBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=urbanization%201960%20us&f=false)
1987 is too recent, E. I know crime rates went down recently. They're still above 1960 levels.
The thing is that crimes peaked most rapidly post 1960 during and after the counterculture then went down a bit and leveled off at a still-higher point. It's also interesting to note that this happens across several industrializing societies with different levels of inequality and immigration.
I just can't see a cultural argument for rising crime rates when crime rates have peaked and fallen - if one trend is continuing in one direction but the other has reversed it's hard to argue for any kind of link.
The thing is that crimes peaked most rapidly post 1960 during and after the counterculture then went down a bit and leveled off at a still-higher point. It's also interesting to note that this happens across several industrializing societies with different levels of inequality and immigration.
But that's co-incidence (not chance, literally simultaneous incidence), not causation.
The thing is that crimes peaked most rapidly post 1960 during and after the counterculture then went down a bit and leveled off at a still-higher point. It's also interesting to note that this happens across several industrializing societies with different levels of inequality and immigration.
But that's co-incidence (not chance, literally simultaneous incidence), not causation.
It pains me that social sciences have to rely so much on correlational evidence. I still think that societies with a high degree of cohesion and collective norms, like the Amish or a variety of other (viable, lasting) communes are good case studies.
Sure, but culturally, it was all about the Worker's World, do it for your comrades, a collective regime of peace and love!
Oh man, stay away for a couple of days and there's a massive thread.
There was one thing that caught my attention in this thread:
Who was it who brought up the thermal evaporation several pages back? If only thermal management viewpoint is considered, I would expect the opposite - i.e. larger people in cold areas and small people in temperate regions. Larger people have greater surface area (quadratic dependency), which dictates the cooling effect. Unfortunately, heating is dictated by the volume of the person (cubic dependency), and dominates. This is partially supported by my own experience, Southern people (towards Equator) really tend to be smaller on the average - and the mammals living in the Polar areas tend to become larger. I suspect it would be possible to make two Southern Chinese out of me, considering shoulder width and (ahem) body mass - and I'm not even a large person in Scandinavian terms.
Note that this all might be invalidated due to the effect of nutrition.
I read somewhere once that people are small around the equator, then grow larger further north, and then go small again near the north pole, due to limbs being shorter in order to keep them warm (its why snow foxes have much smaller ears then desert foxes, for example).
So have we pretty much come to the conclusion that the generally accepted academic explanation for the post-60s industrialized world crime spike has even less evidence than the bonehead social conservative moralizer explanation? And they say the LIEberal Elite controlling our education system is just a conspiracy theory, lol.
While we're on the subject I'd like to point out that weakening of social norms and Battuta's explanations can interact. Reduced job security and immigration can both weaken social norms. Weakened social norms can increase drug use and vice versa. You can't deny, though, that your grandma has a point when she talks about the "good old days", when everyone worked twelve hours a day in a factory for a few slices of bread but at least there wasn't as much crime and people were polite. I'd also like to pounce on GB's earlier claim that happiness keep going up. Actually, if I remember correctly self-reported happiness scores have been almost perfectly stable for the past 50 years and female happiness has actually gone down. So no substantial difference there.
If you look at the Wikipedia graph of the US crime trend that GB provided it meshes pretty well with something a Republican might have drawn. The counterculture, and crime, was biggest in the 60s and 70s. Then people get bored with it, people vote for Reagan on his traditional values schtick, and the crime rate falls through the 90s and 2000s as Fundies take over. You'd only expect a linear trend if social norms continued to weaken indefinitely, but I don't think that's the case. Specific values are changing (like homosexuality) but overall social cons have gained strength in recent years. Just my non-liberal-arts-educated opinion.
That wouldn't explain why it rose, though, after 1960.
So have we pretty much come to the conclusion that the generally accepted academic explanation for the post-60s industrialized world crime spike has even less evidence than the bonehead social conservative moralizer explanation? And they say the LIEberal Elite controlling our education system is just a conspiracy theory, lol.
You can't deny, though, that your grandma has a point when she talks about the "good old days", when everyone worked twelve hours a day in a factory for a few slices of bread but at least there wasn't as much crime and people were polite.
I'd also like to pounce on GB's earlier claim that happiness keep going up. Actually, if I remember correctly self-reported happiness scores have been almost perfectly stable for the past 50 years and female happiness has actually gone down.
If you look at the Wikipedia graph of the US crime trend that GB provided it meshes pretty well with something a Republican might have drawn. The counterculture, and crime, was biggest in the 60s and 70s. Then people get bored with it, people vote for Reagan on his traditional values schtick, and the crime rate falls through the 90s and 2000s as Fundies take over. You'd only expect a linear trend if social norms continued to weaken indefinitely, but I don't think that's the case. A few specific values are changing (like acceptance of homosexuality) but overall social cons have gained strength in recent years. Just my non-liberal-arts-educated opinion.
That wouldn't explain why it rose, though, after 1960.
You spelled it wrong, I didn't say a thing about rednecks
Haha look at this ****ing heatmap (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/US_Violent_Crime_2004.svg)
Yeah those crime hotspots are clearly related primarily to the breakdown of family values. Must be all those radical leftist immigrants.
I'm not looking for a simple answer.
t's just that the usual explanations - immigration, drugs, the economy - are even weaker than what I'm saying. No doubt multiple factors were involved, but changing values was probably one.
but changing values was probably one.
You spelled it wrong, I didn't say a thing about rednecks
Yeah, well that heatmap wasn't very redneck-state friendly.
Then why do you keep presenting them? You just wrote a lengthy post presenting a simple answer.
What basis do you have to say that? You've presented no counterevidence at all. You haven't even established that these are the standard explanations.
seems to have any backing at all beyond the fact that you saw a graph and you think values changed in that era so they must be connected. You're starting from a conclusion and working backward to fit the evidence.
You continue to confuse correlation with causation.
Why don't we all go read 'Criminology' by Larry J. Siegel who has presumably done infinitely more research and come back when we're done with it.
I just don't buy any argument about 'counterculture' causing it in the 60s. Crime waves are a historical phenomenon which occur again and again and there weren't any time traveling hippies to make it happen. Maybe all the long-running wars and revolutions and civil rights movements and ghetto uprisings and drug rings and bursts of immigration and other crazy **** in the 60s has something more to do with don't you think
even in ones with minimal non-European immigration until recently (like Germany)
Just to interject here, but this statement:even in ones with minimal non-European immigration until recently (like Germany)
is just flat out wrong, given the large number of turkish (West Germany) and asian (East Germany) immigrants. Germany's economic turnaround in the 50s and 60s was largely enabled by actively inviting millions of immigrants, and it was only recently that the immigration laws were made more strict. After WW2, Germany became an immigration country, and is attracting people from all over the place.
Also note that the official crime statistics show that, while immigrants as a whole make up a disproportionately large slice of the criminal population, that same slice is getting thinner every year.
Haha look at this ****ing heatmap (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/US_Violent_Crime_2004.svg)
Yeah those crime hotspots are clearly related primarily to the breakdown of family values. Must be all those radical leftist immigrants.
c) that a fifth of the 80 million people currently living here have non-german ancestors, and d) as I have pointed out, Germany only became a centre of immigration AFTER WW2.
Why do you think they're not responsible for crime waves?c) that a fifth of the 80 million people currently living here have non-german ancestors, and d) as I have pointed out, Germany only became a centre of immigration AFTER WW2.
Yeah, but most of those immigrants are Europeans and I don't think they are particularly responsible for any crime waves. You would be the one to enlighten me if they are.
Why do you think they're not responsible for crime waves?
I assume that they're less discriminated against and can fit into society, like the difference between living in the US as an Australian versus living in the US as a Mexican or Ethiopian. In other words, because they're white and they're given a warmer welcome.
even the native population, in the US at least, is committing more crimes.
2) Perceived threats to American society and values
Now that might be a valid explanation. But it's still a toss up between mores versus economy/immigration, in the absence of evidence either way.
It's not a toss up because a complex explanation that jives with similar historical explanations for national or global trends is simply more probable than a univariate explanation which has never worked for any phenomenon I'm aware of.
Also I just want to address that Amish thing. If you made the entire country Amish it would either turn into a system exactly like what we have today or explode in flames and starvation death. It's not comparable.
It's not univariate, there is a lot involved in the formation and transmission of "social mores" beyond a single concept. And there is no more evidence of drugs/immigration/economics "working for any phenomenon" to a greater degree.
The Amish aren't against all technology, just ones which disrupt their lifestyle. They still have a light manufacturing industry, use some aspects of modern agriculture, and so on. You wouldn't have video games anymore but there wouldn't be any flames or starvation either. Of course this is assuming everyone voluntarily decided to live Amish, you can't force something like this.
That has nothing to do with why they'd fail. There is no efficiency or resilience built into their social structure. They benefit from Dunbar's number and could not function as a national society.
Bro I think you should read a history book. Those big systemic factors are what explains everything.
They basically model how the entire country lived in 1800, and it's possible for people to adopt most of the policies that they use to maintain social integrity (ban TVs, go to church, spend time with family, etc).
So GB, do drugs "explain everything" and how would I know from reading a history book?
edit: okay opium wars blah blah blah i was trying to make a joke jesus
No the whole point is that no one thing can explain everything. Especially something as big as a crime wave. The reasons people go into crime are incredibly complex. It's not as simple as them being bad people or some kind of individualist streak.
Genetics too. Some vast proportion of crimes are committed by the same small percentage of men who father most fatherless kids - they have some notable genetic traits.
But past that there's simply no reason to say that something is worth of no consideration. We simply have no reason to believe it was a factor, as opposed to all these far more tangible and easily observed forces and causations. It is far easier to argue that something like rising income inequality or a spike in race tensions or Vietnam was the cause of the spike. Even spikes in Europe and Japan are explained by particular incidents and trends locally, not a general global change in attitudes.
Traditional values never existed. They never were an entity, just a mirage. America has never had a society which operated on any of the standards I imagine you would cite as traditional values. There has always been too much heterogeneity and too much realpolitik for these notional values to survive in a general sense.
Look at past huge crime waves. What caused them?
QuoteLook at past huge crime waves. What caused them?
True, but how big are these crime waves, usually? Is it normal for them to last decades? This is also kind of irrelevant if you take drugs/immigration/economy to be long term trends as well.
Go read the book, I forget. Big. I don't think you have reason to say there's been a crime wave that lasted decades. And I don't understand what your last point is after.
QuoteGo read the book, I forget. Big. I don't think you have reason to say there's been a crime wave that lasted decades. And I don't understand what your last point is after.
Crime wave? That might not be an appropriate term. But crime is much higher than it was in 1960. I've been calling it a "spike". Are we good on terms now?
I don't see how this "Crime" issue can go anywhere near the declaration that today's life is harder than yesterday.
c) that a fifth of the 80 million people currently living here have non-german ancestors, and d) as I have pointed out, Germany only became a centre of immigration AFTER WW2.
Yeah, but most of those immigrants are Europeans and I don't think they are particularly responsible for any crime waves. You would be the one to enlighten me if they are.
Well I think you can't rule out the possibility that this crime elevation is just a natural consequence of structural changes. Urbanization, for instance, is always going to push the crime rate upwards. Or it could be an income inequality problem. Or a loss of low-end jobs as they go overseas, leaving those at the bottom of the ladder fewer options. Comparing two points in time isn't as illustrative, I think, as looking at the contours of the map.
Sure, job security is less than it was, but unemployment has been steady the last 50-60 years and poverty has fallen a lot.
Well I think you can't rule out the possibility that this crime elevation is just a natural consequence of structural changes. Urbanization, for instance, is always going to push the crime rate upwards. Or it could be an income inequality problem. Or a loss of low-end jobs as they go overseas, leaving those at the bottom of the ladder fewer options. Comparing two points in time isn't as illustrative, I think, as looking at the contours of the map.
Well, those were factors, but like I said a few times before looking at other countries/the severity of the spike there's probably other things at work too.
I guess there's little else to say. But it's interesting to look at what happened in New Orleans after Katrina versus Japan after the earthquake. Here's the Huffington Post trying to worm (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/17/japan-earthquake-2011-why_n_837126.html) it's way out of a collectivist-society explanation for the lack of looting in Japan, and another (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12785802/) article from the BBC. Culture's gotta be involved bro.
GB, I'm not 100% sure of the social conservative take but econ/drugs/immigration (I'll just start saying edi) doesn't seem that strong either. Sure, job security is less than it was, but unemployment has been steady the last 50-60 years and poverty has fallen a lot. Immigration can't explain it since the native US population is responsible for the majority of the increase. Drugs might be convincing, but cultural norms about drug use have changed a lot too. For instance marijuana was something deviant bohemians did in the 40s and 50s until it gained a degree of social acceptance in the 60s. To the skim readers out there, I'm not saying pot turns people into violent lunatics, rather that the "drugs causes crime" line of causation is more complicated. So I'm not seeing a whole lot of support for these explanations either.
Now would you please read the ****ing book.
If you can keep your bros educated, or give them something to do aside from education, you're not going to see as much crime. And there are big structural factors which impact your chance of doing that.
Nothing makes the case for university reform more convincingly than the Sorbonne, focus of the student uprising in May 1968 as well as the rioting last spring. One in 10 of its students never goes to lectures, having signed on only in order to qualify for free health benefits and generous student discounts at cinemas and museums.
Under egalitarian rules that are a legacy of the 1968 student uprising, anyone passing the baccalauréat school leaving exam - the pass rate is 80% - is guaranteed a place in a university. Under the same egalitarian rules, university education is free, but this means that the universities never have enough money.
At the Sorbonne, founded in 1257 by Robert de Sorbon, a theologian, there is no cafeteria.
There is not even a student newspaper. Worst of all, however, is the high dropout rate: 45% of Sorbonne students do not complete their first year and 55% do not graduate.
**** off, you ignorant little american twerp.This was, of course, the best way to word this disapproval of Mustang's post.
You're unemployed and I make bank every hour to argue with you while my skilfully designed STATA scripts do their thing so I feel like you shouldn't be dissing higher education. :colbert:
If I could party for four years off of other people's money while getting my BA in Basket Weaving I would totally jump on it.There certainly are people who would play the system, but there's also a lot of people who want to do something with their lives, and the ridiculous cost of education is keeping them from doing that.
Why waste time saying that criminals are bad people when you could be figuring out how to stop them from becoming bad people in the first place? Why waste effort attacking ~IMMORALITY~ when you're not bothering with the actual factors that cause crime?
You forgot that there are only two sides to any issue, the purpose of any discussion is to win, and anyone who graduated college has been brainwashed by the Liberal Elite and received an education solely to craft well-concealed lies.
You take me too seriously, that was another ****ty troll.No, no, no, no!
You forgot that there are only two sides to any issue, the purpose of any discussion is to win, and anyone who graduated college has been brainwashed by the Liberal Elite and received an education solely to craft well-concealed lies.QuoteWhy waste time saying that criminals are bad people when you could be figuring out how to stop them from becoming bad people in the first place? Why waste effort attacking ~IMMORALITY~ when you're not bothering with the actual factors that cause crime?
You take me too seriously, that was another ****ty troll. I agree entirely with what you said and my whole tromp through this thread was about coming up with cultural causes for social symptoms, and how boosting church attendance is the solution to all ills.
You forgot that there are only two sides to any issue, the purpose of any discussion is to win.
How can you even define "winning"
Actually I feel like that point deserves expanding on to help explain why conservative attitudes tend to be so problematic.
QuoteIf you can keep your bros educated, or give them something to do aside from education, you're not going to see as much crime. And there are big structural factors which impact your chance of doing that.
Do you think that this is part of the reason crime rates are lower in Europe, with everyone getting a free liberal arts degree mill education from 80-90% graduation rate public colleges? Sounds like a good plan.
There are many things about conservative policy which are valuable elements of a self-regulating system.
I don't really feel like arguing with you. If I could party for four years off of other people's money while getting my BA in Basket Weaving I would totally jump on it. If you want to read more on the neoliberal argument for education which is meant to apply regardless of international comparisons here's the OECD (https://community.oecd.org/docs/DOC-24601/version/2) talking about it. Otherwise, meh.
edit: nevermind, that link wants you to buy stuff
I don't really feel like arguing with you. If I could party for four years off of other people's money while getting my BA in Basket Weaving I would totally jump on it. If you want to read more on the neoliberal argument for education which is meant to apply regardless of international comparisons here's the OECD (https://community.oecd.org/docs/DOC-24601/version/2) talking about it. Otherwise, meh.
edit: nevermind, that link wants you to buy stuff
The thing is that well educated people usually tend to give a lot more back to society once they are pretty highly educated. It more then pays for itself. Then there's the whole moral argument about being who you want to be, but lets not go into there.
I don't really feel like arguing with you. If I could party for four years off of other people's money while getting my BA in Basket Weaving I would totally jump on it. If you want to read more on the neoliberal argument for education which is meant to apply regardless of international comparisons here's the OECD (https://community.oecd.org/docs/DOC-24601/version/2) talking about it. Otherwise, meh.
edit: nevermind, that link wants you to buy stuff
The thing is that well educated people usually tend to give a lot more back to society once they are pretty highly educated. It more then pays for itself. Then there's the whole moral argument about being who you want to be, but lets not go into there.
That's the point in mentioning GDP per work hour, it's actually slightly less in France.
The process of disaggregating variables would be tortuous, but suffice it to say I don't see how a liberal arts degree generates enough improved productivity to balance out four less years in the work force.
I don't see how a liberal arts degree generates enough improved productivity to balance out four less years in the work force.I'm not sure you understand what liberal arts means...
It is always good for people to get a degree in a productive field, but I don't think cultural studies or anthropology really qualifies. ed: No offense if you happen to be studying that. Just random examples.
It is always good for people to get a degree in a productive field, but I don't think cultural studies or anthropology really qualifies. ed: No offense if you happen to be studying that. Just random examples.
So what in your opinion is a 'productive career field'? Just because anthropologists, historians, and biologists don't immediately make a product that can be sold or used, it doesn't mean they aren't productive or don't benefit society in the long run.
If we didn't have career fields where people spend days compiling and analyzing mountains of data specific to one aspect of human society, we wouldn't be able to make good policy. If we didn't have historians and economists analyzing causes for recessions, we wouldn't be able to prevent them. If we didn't have market researchers, major companies would go bottoms up selling the wrong type of product.
In the end, you can't tell people what they can or can't pursue an education in. But you can advise them on what the market needs, and what will be most beneficial for them.
Basically, this whole thing can be boiled down to "we need really good college advisers and some students with decent foresight". Most of the time, people do make good decisions with their majors, and most don't just go through higher education for the yucks.
Kinda ironic that as far as economics goes, the American business environment punishes anyone who doesn t take the short-term / quartly earnings view and business schools specifically utterly fail to provide any kind of long-term business politics or planning competency with their case study based farce of a curriculum.
"Researchers" is too broad, but the other fields? Yes, they don't, at least in proportion to the number of graduates in these fields. If they were able to produce something of economic value- a product, an idea, expertise, a patent- they're entirely free to market it. Well, let's just say that the number of applicants exceed job openings and self-employment opportunities are minimal in these fields.
edit: Opportunity costs, more economically productive things to do with your time, etc. is what I'm saying.
Now that's what they'll be hired to do once they lead up a publicly traded company. You can run the company into the ground on paper profits, winning the next shareholder election is all that matters.
I'm not an economist but my unexpert opinion is that public ownership of corporations should be restricted if allowed at all. Dividends are enough, you don't need people who might only own the stock for a year or two voting on how to run the company.
But the point is not that it may or may not be usefull to society (if we let people dictate what they should learn, we wouldn't be a democracy), the point is that everyone who is mentally capable of doeing something should be allowed to do it. If someone is not capapable of doeing something, like becoming a geologist, just because of financial reasons, that is wasted potential and a dream shattered.
Now, I have yo uheard saying what's bad about the system applied in most european countries, but I did not hear you saying what you think is better. So. What do you think is better?
Along these lines it must also be questioned whether the bail-outs during the financial crisis did any good at all. De Facto we bought ourselves a couple of years before the same problem will come back to bite us in the butt... only that the bubble that is gonna burst is gonna be even bigger then and the government will be weaker and less able to respond to the acute humanitarian crisis following the financial breakdown. I.e. the longer this farce is kept up, the harder the fall is gonna be... that's the longterm view that everyone is too scared to acknowledge.
The extreme short-term view is something specific to the US... lots of companies in other countries (Germany, Japan, etc.) also use shares for funding, yet take a much more longterm view. (Comparative Management and Organisation research is very conclusive regarding that fact.)
But the point is not that it may or may not be usefull to society (if we let people dictate what they should learn, we wouldn't be a democracy), the point is that everyone who is mentally capable of doeing something should be allowed to do it. If someone is not capapable of doeing something, like becoming a geologist, just because of financial reasons, that is wasted potential and a dream shattered.
Now, I have yo uheard saying what's bad about the system applied in most european countries, but I did not hear you saying what you think is better. So. What do you think is better?
Well it's better that every bum gets admitted than a large portion of potential engineers and scientists never get an education. But government regulation of universities is part (http://www.highimpactuniversities.com/rpi.html) of the reason why there are so few European schools in the world top 100, so I'd pick the US model if it means better quality universities.
The bailout had to be done to prevent the biggest collapse since the great depression, and it didn't fundamentally change incentives either. Sure, some institutions got bailed out, but there were even more (Lehman, New Financial, American Home/Freedom Mortage, Madoff, Charter, Mervyns, Netbank, Terra, Sentinel, Washington Mutual...) that were allowed to fail. TARPs did cover some people's asses, but most people who invested in real estate before the crisis probably lost money overall. It's not so much that everyone's going to take insane risks all the sudden because they have a small chance of making a profit after paying off the next TARP, but that the business cycle is a fundamental problem of every industrialized market economy, ever. Financial crises aren't unique to the US and their are many factors that cause them that are far more significant than whether or not people expect a bailout.
Despite such mock doubts about the Minister's sanity, the National Assembly last week approved his plan, although only after a highly emotional debate. The program adds up to the most sweeping revision of higher education in France since Napoleon established the imperial university system in 1808. Aimed at preventing a renewal of the kind of riots that shut down the universities last spring, Faure's program also attacks the bureaucratic rigidity of the highly centralized system. His reform bill, which will not take full effect for at least a year, specifically indicts the "inhuman dimensions," "immobility," "isolation," and "superficial and arbitrary examinations" of the present system.
Stripping the Ministry. Faure's reform seeks to remedy those ills by stripping the central education ministry of its powers to select the presidents of each of France's present 23 universities, appoint their professors, determine their curriculums, draw up and grade exams, dictate teaching methods. Most of those powers will shift to regional and local university councils, which will include teachers, students, and even outside educational experts and political leaders.
Talking about business cycles is all and well like talking about storms and tornados that are a fact of life, if i may use that analogy,... but this perfect Storm heading our way? Nope... we didn't have something like this. The Great depression is gonna look like childs play when this monstrous bubble that makes up the current financial sector bursts. Which is the whole point... the buildup has been longer than ever before in history.
I'm not into the whole "US versus Europe" thing, though, since that discussion is all about overgeneralizations. Now if you want to compare two specific countries, that's fine.
Got a source on that, other than Glenn Beck?
It's still an exaggeration to say that the Fed is running the country into the ground. The worst case scenario I see is us turning into Japan. I mean rising private debt levels are something to be concerned about and stagnation is likely, but that's probably about as exciting as it's going to get.
Even that wouldn't be accurate, because the economy grew 2.8% last quarter and inflation is merely 2.1%. Growth is a little slow, yeah, but it's picking up. And inflation is practically ideal, at least for now. What really sucks for people is the high and persistent unemployment. For once it's even harder to get a job than it is in "Europe" (oops again).
Although social democracies tend to have good job security it's hard for young people to get an entry level job in the first place.
/me seriously considers moving toTenesseTennessee.
I live in the US and I've had two jobs before. It's pretty easy to get hired in normal times and there's minimal government paperwork other than the stupid I-9s (citizenship/visa verification). Overall though if I was the average working class person I'd prefer to get one job and not worry about loosing it all my life even if it makes it a little harder to get employed. Isn't the Netherlands doing some kind of economic liberalization like a lot of other EU countries, rolling back the welfare state and so forth? What do people over there think?
'Old Men are the Future'
Got a source on that, other than Glenn Beck?
I'll help you with your ignorance in 3 easy steps:
1st: Don't use Glenn Beck in a discussion. (That was a period, with emphasis) - and especially not to gloss over your own ignorance with some kind of silly insult.
2nd: Open a textbook on national economics and read up on the goals and function of a central bank.
3rd: Look at what the Fed is doing. Check the current interest rates. If necessary: Read up in your textbook what the inevitable dangers of such behavior are.
Once you got the basics and are willing to leave the insults out, we can gladly continue to discuss on a more in depth basis.
Frankly... I'm at a loss of words that people still don't get it. I mean the financial crisis by itself hardly came as a surprise if you've been following the scientific discourse of the last decade.
And Kontratieff will hardly save us from our own long lasting irresponsible behavior - if that was your hope.