OwlFancier posted:

A "heuristic" that you prefer to use instead of actual evidence, for someone who doesn't understand praxeology you're doing a great job of practicing it.

Cingulate posted:

Sadly, we will have to rely on heuristics much more often than on thorough investigation. However, here's a simple claim I have abundant evidence for: there are a few libertarians whose ideas are very hard to refute. E.g., Nozick.

Cingulate posted:

Being against Snowden is rare amongst Libertarians. Thus, p(Being a Libertarian|Being opposed to Snowden) < p(Being a Libertarian|Being pro Snowden).
I really don't get the argument you're making. Are you looking for an opportunity to say that you think Snowden was wrong a lot?

CommieGIR posted:

But is still not grounds as an actual "proof".

CommieGIR posted:

Heuristics =/= peer review. And Murray knew his stupid hypothesis wouldn't make it through peer review

CommieGIR posted:

a really shorty novel advocating eugenics.

fishmech posted:

Once again, no, a ton of Libertarians are opposed to Snowden

Cingulate posted:

Where in the fantastic novel Bell's Curve is eugenics being advocated? Because I'm really sure it doesn't ever do that.
Of course, stuff you are just making up you'll hardly find peer-reviewed sources for!

quote:

Further tests of verbal ability have also challenged the book on this front in terms of its claims of increased "cognitive sorting."[18] In addition, the claims of "cognitive sorting" often commit one of the basic fallacies of eugenics: Conflating genotype and phenotype. The overarching thesis concerning the "cognitive elite" boils down to their deep concern that the smarties are being out-bred by the idiots. This was a perpetual claim of the eugenicists of the 19th and 20th centuries, most famously summed up in Cyril Kornbluth's short story "The Marching Morons" and recycled in the movie Idiocracy.[19]

Murray would later revisit this foreseen fate - a division between the elite and the rest - in his 2010 Coming Apart: The State of White America,[20] which argues that a vast cultural gap has appeared between wealthy and lower-class Caucasians, deriving in no small part from these groups' respective genetic inheritances.

quote:

Far more crankish, though, was The Bell Curve's further conclusion in the third and fourth parts of the book that innate intelligence plays an important role in the different socioeconomic statuses of differing ethnic groups in the United States. Arguing that intelligence is inherited in large part, and that the average intelligence of different ethnic groups can thus be assessed, the book then concludes that different ethnic groups have varying levels of intelligence, and certain groups are poor or unfortunate mainly because they are not as smart as others.[9] (Many early, knee-jerk criticisms in the media latched onto this point without addressing the rest of the book.)

Further compounding the errors made earlier on, this section of the book rather clearly hearkened back to the long tradition of "scientific racism." Herrnstein and Murray here rely on the biologically invalid concept of race, building on their already shaky neo-eugenic foundation of the "cognitive elite." A Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) review noted:

“”Anyone who flipped through the footnotes and bibliography of Murray and Herrnstein's book could see that there was something screwy about their sources. And there is hardly a proposition in their book that had not been thoroughly debunked more than a decade ago by Stephen Jay Gould's classic work on the pseudoscience behind eugenics, The Mismeasure of Man.[21][22]
A good deal of research cited in this section of the book was found to have been funded in part by the Pioneer Fund, which was infamous for its advocacy of eugenics.[23] There's really no subtlety to this. Notably, one of the sources cited favorably multiple times was J. Philippe Rushton, a psychologist who claimed "Mongoloids" were the more intelligent "race" (followed by the "Caucasoids" and then the "Negroids") and believed penis size to be inversely correlated with intelligence."

Cingulate posted:

What hypothesis that Murray actually stated? Because if it's something he actually said, I am sure we can easily find mountains of peer-reviewed papers in the top journals speaking to its accuracy.

quote:

Regarding Murray and Herrnstein's claims about racial differences and genetics, the APA task force stated:

There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation...It is sometimes suggested that the Black/White differential in psychometric intelligence is partly due to genetic differences (Jensen, 1972). There is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis.

Regarding statements about other explanations for racial differences, the APA task force stated:

The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential.

quote:

Claude S. Fischer, Michael Hout, Martín Sánchez Jankowski, Samuel R. Lucas, Ann Swidler, and Kim Voss in the book Inequality by Design recalculated the effect of socioeconomic status, using the same variables as The Bell Curve, but weighting them differently. They found that if IQ scores are adjusted, as Herrnstein and Murray did, to eliminate the effect of education, the ability of IQ to predict poverty can become dramatically larger, by as much as 61 percent for whites and 74 percent for blacks. According to the authors, Herrnstein and Murray's finding that IQ predicts poverty much better than socioeconomic status does is substantially a result of the way they handled the statistics.[25]

In August 1995, National Bureau of Economic Research economist Sanders Korenman and Harvard University sociologist Christopher Winship argued that measurement error was not properly handled by Herrnstein and Murray. Korenman and Winship concluded: "... there is evidence of substantial bias due to measurement error in their estimates of the effects of parents' socioeconomic status. In addition, Herrnstein and Murray's measure of parental socioeconomic status (SES) fails to capture the effects of important elements of family background (such as single-parent family structure at age 14). As a result, their analysis gives an exaggerated impression of the importance of IQ relative to parents' SES, and relative to family background more generally. Estimates based on a variety of methods, including analyses of siblings, suggest that parental family background is at least as important, and may be more important than IQ in determining socioeconomic success in adulthood."[26]

quote:

Evolutionary biologist Joseph L. Graves described The Bell Curve as an example of racist science, containing all the types of errors in the application of scientific method that have characterized the history of scientific racism:

claims that are not supported by the data given
errors in calculation that invariably support the hypothesis
no mention of data that contradict the hypothesis
no mention of theories and data that conflict with core assumptions
bold policy recommendations that are consistent with those advocated by racists.

CommieGIR posted:

OwlFancier posted:

But have you considered that racial scientists wrote a lot of words about their ideas on the inferiority of the african skull shape and thus they are very unlikely to be trivially wrong?

Cingulate posted:

No

Cingulate posted:

Here is what I take it you are saying, to the best of my understanding:
- Murray taking funding from the Pioneer fund and citing Rushton proves he's pro eugenics (?)
- the APA task force on intelligence agreeing to the letter with the Bell Curve claims proves Murray is pro eugenics (?????)
- something about some people who argued Murray's controlling for education when estimating the effect of IQ on life outcomes wasn't done well enough - ok, I see the point, and if you want to focus on that, I can cite paper upon paper upon paper, all peer reviewed, claiming that IQ does indeed predict life outcomes well when controlling for education
- a claim about measurement error I find bit ironic, because I think it implies IQ tests have low measurement error?

What you've not done is cite a single claim of Murray himself. If you were to do that, I'd see if I could find you a peer-reviewed source on it.

If I look up what Marx' critics say about Marx, it's gonna be a lot about Gulags and few direct quotes from Das Kapital. If I look up criticism of Chomsky, it's gonna be about how he's taken money from the Army and the Navy and how he's personally a millionaire, and no serious attempt to dissect the Propaganda Model. Is that good? I don't think so.

No

Cingulate posted:

Here is what I take it you are saying, to the best of my understanding:
- the APA task force on intelligence agreeing to the letter with the Bell Curve claims proves Murray is pro eugenics (?????)

WrenP-Complete posted:

I don't begin to have time to refute the Bell Curve - I'm giving a major job talk tomorrow - but I thought we've already had this out in like three other threads? Why is this happening again, and why in the Libertarian thread?

Cingulate posted:

Which libertarians? Assume the average libertarian is 80kg, a metric ton is 1000kg, that is ... at least 10 libertarians Fewer if you find the fatties.

Mind you, for the full argument, we'd need more than an existence proof, which I am sure we'd be able to - we'd need proportions.

WrenP-Complete posted:

I don't begin to have time to refute the Bell Curve - I'm giving a major job talk tomorrow - but I thought we've already had this out in like three other threads? Why is this happening again, and why in the Libertarian thread?

WrenP-Complete posted:

Not my bot, but a goon bot:
I don't begin to have time to refute the Bell Curve - I'm giving a major job talk tomorrow - but I thought we've already had this out in like three other threads? Why is this happening again, and why in the Libertarian thread?

Cingulate posted:

So you'd prefer the actual Nazis grow another member lest your comfortable Internet Crank Economist Mock Thread be disturbed by wrongthink ..?
But no, I won't go to Stormfront already, what with them being Nazis and such.

CommieGIR posted:

You obviously don't even read my posts, since I quoted that exact proof previously, but for your pleasure, here it is:



Here, let me help you:

HE GOT HIS FUNDING FROM A GROUP THAT OPENLY ADVOCATES EUGENICS, AND THEN PROCEEDED TO BASICALLY ADVOCATE THAT POORS ARE POOR BECAUSE OF POOR GENETICS AND BREEDING

That clear enough?


Holy poo poo, his entire book is about advocating for his HYPOTHESIS, and by publishing it in a book instead of a peer reviewed Journal, he was making an end run around peer review, which is the basis for actual science versus crank science. Crank science appeals to the uneducated and underinformed masses through mass distribution, actual science appeals to peers to help prove/disprove your hypothesis.

For instance: Here you are, advocating for Murray's claims. Why should we accept anything Murray has claimed at all, considering nearly everything he said is not only based on bad science, bad economics, and bad overall judgement?

Oh, look, here's more proof that the book is about loving Eugenics:


Murray, through his book, advocates for Eugenics. The more you continue to push his claims, the more you basically advocate for his claims about Eugenics. Understand? You don't get to SEPERATE this claim, since it was a key component of The Bell Curve's claims.

Oh, and guess what? Its almost as if they are not very good at statistics either:


So tell me, what IS Murray good at?

To summarize:

Cingulate posted:

Which libertarians? Assume the average libertarian is 80kg, a metric ton is 1000kg, that is ... at least 10 libertarians Fewer if you find the fatties.

Mind you, for the full argument, we'd need more than an existence proof, which I am sure we'd be able to - we'd need proportions.

Cingulate posted:

the APA task force on intelligence agreeing to the letter with the Bell Curve

Stinky_Pete posted:

Stop! You violated the law. Since you lack the Bitcoins to pay the DRO, you must serve out your sentence with literally 72 tons of libertarian virgins. Your non-trivially-stolen goods are now forfeit.

Cingulate posted:

It points towards not being a libertarian. reason.com is fairly straight-forwardly pro-Snowden. Rand Paul is one of the most pro-Snowden republicans. mises.org is very pro Snowden. If it didn't work is largely irrelevant, as Libertarians typically aren't consequentialists. Libertarians typically fear government surveillance, and support Snowden for that reason. Sam Harris has much fewer concerns over government surveillance - because he is not a libertarian. (He is, however, a consequentialist, I think.)

So you'd prefer the actual Nazis grow another member lest your comfortable Internet Crank Economist Mock Thread be disturbed by wrongthink ..?
But no, I won't go to Stormfront already, what with them being Nazis and such.

Cingulate posted:

Where in the fantastic novel Bell's Curve is eugenics being advocated? Because I'm really sure it doesn't ever do that.

Sax Solo posted:

"Eugenics is the answer, and should deeply inform our fertility and immigration policies -- but I only want the government to do a *little* bit of it, because I'm such a good libertarian."

Sax Solo posted:

"Eugenics is the answer, and should deeply inform our fertility and immigration policies -- but I only want the government to do a *little* bit of it, because I'm such a good libertarian."

Goon Danton posted:

Just to clarify, Cingulate, are you subscribing to the Notarized Certificate of Racism theory of bigotry, here? Like, Murray would have to literally say "I, Charles Murray, formally endorse the policy of preventing less intelligent people from breeding, in order to improve the genetic stock of humanity" for him to count as pro-eugenics? Taking money from a pro-eugenics advocacy group to write a book about how intelligence is genetic in ways that happen to line up with 19th Century skull-caliper racial science doesn't count, right?

Relatedly, would you be comfortable calling Richard Spencer a Nazi?

Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:

I only wish fishmech would criticize him on more substantive points, because that's a one-sided fight worth seeing.

fishmech posted:

Tons of them

T-man posted:

When it comes to Nazis I think you're one of the few people I'd prefer to be pissing into the tent from outside.

Mr Interweb posted:

Question: if we were to grant that Murray didn't have nefarious motives behind his book, then exactly what practical, non-racist benefits would one receive from his research, exactly?

DeBoer posted:

The implied policy and philosophical changes for such a viewpoint are open to good-faith debate. As I have written in this space before, I think that recognizing that not all students have the same level of academic ability should agitate towards a) expanding the definition of what it means to be a good student and human being, b) not attempting to push students towards a particular idealized vision of achievement such as the mania for “every student should be prepared to code in Silicon Valley,” and c) a socialist economic system. Some people take this descriptive case and imagine that it implies a just-deserts, free market style of capitalism where differences in ability should be allowed to dictate differences in material wealth and security. I think it implies the opposite – a world of “natural,” unchosen inequalities in ability is a world with far more pressing need to achieve social and economic equality through communal action, as that which is uncontrolled by individuals cannot be morally used to justify their basic material conditions.

Before we get to those prescriptive conclusions, though, we need to get to the empirical observation – that the existence of a broad distribution of people into various tiers of academic ability, at certain predictable intervals and percentages, is not some error caused by the failure of modern schooling, but an inevitable facet of the nature of a world of variability. Until and unless we can have a frank discussion of the existence of persistent differences in academic ability within any identifiable subgroup of students, we can’t have real progress in our education policy.

Frederik posted:

Some people ask me, why bother? Why not just leave this stuff alone, given that some have taken ideas in the same general orbit to truly noxious ends?

It matters that progressive people reject blank slatism because blank slatism is incorrect and we should tell the truth. But even from the most pragmatic or consequentialist perspective, we should accept the contemporary science on intelligence and heritability because doing so is the only way to effectively fight racism and white supremacy. By refusing to engage with the extant science on individual variation, we leave that field of argument entirely to those who would use it for the worst possible ends. As the authors say,

The left has another lesson to learn as well. If people with progressive political values, who reject claims of genetic determinism and pseudoscientific racialist speculation, abdicate their responsibility to engage with the science of human abilities and the genetics of human behavior, the field will come to be dominated by those who do not share those values. Liberals need not deny that intelligence is a real thing or that IQ tests measure something real about intelligence, that individuals and groups differ in measured IQ, or that individual differences are heritable in complex ways.

This is precisely my position. Don’t play to the alt-right frame; don’t help them make the case that progressives are anti-science or resistant to facts. Fight bad science with better. It is also my position, as readers of this blog know, that the assumption that all human beings have equal academic potential produces bad educational policy and leads inevitably to conservative “just deserts” economic attitudes and the social inequalities inherent to meritocracy.

Cingulate posted:

Doesn't Spencer call himself a Nazi? I know next to nothing about Spencer. I don't know.

quote:

I've debated a few things with fishmech before and it was excruciatingly annoying

Cingulate posted:

Which?

fishmech posted:

A ton

Cingulate posted:

Look, I'm not even saying I doubt there are any, I'm just asking you: which?

Cingulate posted:

Look, I'm not even saying I doubt there are any, I'm just asking you: which?

fishmech posted:

So you agree there are libertarians that don't support Snowden.

Cingulate posted:

I don't doubt there are any, which, as I've explained, has precisely zero impact on the argument I made.
But besides for the (irrelevant) existence proof, I'm asking you for an example.

Cingulate posted:

I don't doubt there are any, which, as I've explained, has precisely zero impact on the argument I made.
But besides for the (irrelevant) existence proof, I'm asking you for an example.

Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:

What are you, a goddamn constructivist?