PYF Dark Enlightenment Thinker

The Something Awful Forums > Main > Post Your Favorite: Carefully Curated > PYF Dark Enlightenment Thinker

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Scottwatch:

quote:

People talk a lot about restoring monarchy these days, but nobody ever mentions what rule of succession we should use. The genetics community comes through and proves that optimal royal succession moves from parent to opposite-sex child.

Look man, if the statement "people talk a lot about restoring monarchy these days" accurately describes your environment, it is time to make some drastic changes, not nonchalantly post about it on the internet.

# ? Nov 28, 2015 15:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 08:10

Shame Boy: Mar 2, 2010

Wouldn't the "genetics community" also then laugh you out of the room for ignoring the tons of disabilities and deformities that centuries of monastic inbreeding caused?

# ? Nov 28, 2015 19:15

Silver2195: Apr 4, 2012

Parallel Paraplegic posted:

Wouldn't the "genetics community" also then laugh you out of the room for ignoring the tons of disabilities and deformities that centuries of monastic inbreeding caused?

I suspect Scott is being somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

# ? Nov 28, 2015 19:23

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Parallel Paraplegic posted:

Wouldn't the "genetics community" also then laugh you out of the room for ignoring the tons of disabilities and deformities that centuries of monastic inbreeding caused?

Well then clearly they are part of the Cathedral and just can't accept the latest findings in science.

# ? Nov 28, 2015 19:27

Syd Midnight: Sep 23, 2005

Cingulate posted:

Look man, if the statement "people talk a lot about restoring monarchy these days" accurately describes your environment, it is time to make some drastic changes, not nonchalantly post about it on the internet.

I feel similarly about the statement "black people are genetically inferior" but here we are.

# ? Nov 28, 2015 20:42

blastron: Dec 11, 2007; Don't doodle on it!

Syd Midnight posted:

I feel similarly about the statement "black people are genetically inferior" but here we are.

So did you actually read any of the :words:

Cingulate has been posting or are you just being stupid? We really don't need another pile of posts about how the opinion "intelligence might be heritable but social and environmental factors drown out the influence of genetics so it's currently impossible to measure" is or is not racist.

# ? Nov 28, 2015 22:26

Merdifex: May 13, 2015; by Shine

Cingulate posted:

Nutritional interventions to catch a decrease in one's intelligence potential certainly matter a lot. In Africa, where people are actually nutritionally deficient. But show me something that works in the 1st world.
Like, do - I'd find it really cool. I keep looking, but I've never seen something that replicates.
I'm not where I'm at because I'd hate for the floor to raise. I'd love to live in a society where everyone can be everything, where everybody is very intelligent (I think Scott actually does, too; Moldbug probably assumes a society split between inferior servants and the elite is better than one where everyone is elite compared to ours). I just think the evidence is pointing towards that being false.

And I think we're losing a few decent people to stuff like the Dork Enlightenment to a dumb part of our ideology by misinterpreting, or just ignore, the scientific state of the art insofar as it seemingly disagrees with our egalitarian ideals.

Schooling:

http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/education/iej/articles/v2n4/GUSTAF/PAPER.PDF
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1992-12228-001

Cross-racial adoption:

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev/22/3/317/

Cross-SES adoption:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0VDoaXaIou8dGVjb1hEZndHRW8/edit?pli=1

GxE stuff:

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/14/6/623.short
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-006-9113-4#/page-1

Bonus (mostly criticism):

http://rpadgett.butler.edu/ps320/coursedocs/Richardson-Norgate.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006322313008251

These are all the things I could remember and dig up within 15 minutes, anyway.

# ? Nov 28, 2015 23:42

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Which one of these is about an intervention causing long-term positive impact that replicates?
Cause to me it seems these are either non-interventional (as discussed by the authors!), or not long-term, or, more commonly, about a completely different question.
You don't have to post 8 papers. Just post 3, about one such intervention.

Two things to reduce the chances for misunderstandings, spoilered because I assume nearly everyone here is really sick of this.
First, surely nobody would be surprised by the observation that severely deprived children can be easily and greatly helped - such as children born to abuse or starvation. I do, however, assume that e.g. in the US, most black children are born to parents who love them and care for them with great dedication (although look at the 3rd paper you posted).
Second, to set the stakes. Rushton and Jensen say: "The culture-only (0% genetic�100% environmental) and the hereditarian (50% genetic�50% environmental) models ..." So not even extremists like Rushton and Jensen assume there is no environmental effect. Rather, they assume there is a fairly large environmental effect, but that there is also a genetic effect.
To repeat, again: the question is, does science know of an intervention that could, if applied on a large scale, greatly attenuate the black/white difference in the US? For that, it'd have to be something most people don't already have, and that causes long-term (into adulthood) improvements, and that works every time you try it (=replicates).

I promise I'll let the topic rest after we've finished off this short google-fu contest.

# ? Nov 29, 2015 02:28

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

quote:

To repeat, again: the question is, does science know of an intervention that could, if applied on a large scale, greatly attenuate the black/white difference in the US?

There was an effort from 1865 to 1877, but it was abandoned due to political pressure.

# ? Nov 29, 2015 02:31

Merdifex: May 13, 2015; by Shine

Cingulate posted:

Which one of these is about an intervention causing long-term positive impact that replicates?
Cause to me it seems these are either non-interventional (as discussed by the authors!), or not long-term, or, more commonly, about a completely different question.
You don't have to post 8 papers. Just post 3, about one such intervention.

Two things to reduce the chances for misunderstandings, spoilered because I assume nearly everyone here is really sick of this.
First, surely nobody would be surprised by the observation that severely deprived children can be easily and greatly helped - such as children born to abuse or starvation. I do, however, assume that e.g. in the US, most black children are born to parents who love them and care for them with great dedication (although look at the 3rd paper you posted).
Second, to set the stakes. Rushton and Jensen say: "The culture-only (0% genetic�100% environmental) and the hereditarian (50% genetic�50% environmental) models ..." So not even extremists like Rushton and Jensen assume there is no environmental effect. Rather, they assume there is a fairly large environmental effect, but that there is also a genetic effect.
To repeat, again: the question is, does science know of an intervention that could, if applied on a large scale, greatly attenuate the black/white difference in the US? For that, it'd have to be something most people don't already have, and that causes long-term (into adulthood) improvements, and that works every time you try it (=replicates).

Have you read the papers?

We know that adoption across SES and race does have an IQ raising effect. On top of that, Turkheimer (2003) was replicated, demonstrating the attenuation of heritability in low SES cohorts. The fact is that the Black-White IQ gap has been closing in America. But to answer your question, look at the adoption data (and there are more out there than what I have cited, and not only from America) and make up your mind. If adoption into white families (which also, let's be honest, doesn't do anything to change the fact that the adoptees are still Black, in America) can have a positive effect, and poor Whites being adopted into richer White families see positive effects too, where does that leave us? I mean, just look at the food security data for Blacks in America. I'm not claiming to find some great "intervention" with "long-term positive impact" (who knows what your criteria are, but you?). I'm pointing out what the effects of reaction norms are, making it clear that interventions are not impossible, but have to be specially designed with careful consideration given to many extenuating factors.

This is not IQ, but:

Of course, we don't have any evidence for the genetic-ness of IQ, to date not one gene with statistically significant effects, behaving according to the P = G + E model have, on any psychological traits, have been replicated. But I repeat myself. I think we agree on this, but I brought it up again since you felt the need to "set the stakes" with Rushton and Jensen's (et al.'s) hereditism, and a reality check is needed whenever that comes up.

I hope you're not a hereditist yourself, so I'll assume good faith with your citing Jensen and Rushton's interpretations of the "sides" in the race-intelligence debate. No one denies effects of genes on IQ, let alone the debate whether IQ is of any use, and whether a product of factor analysis (g) has any importance. But one only read Nisbett and Flynn, or other "environmentalists" like N. J. Mackintosh (who probably wouldn't have picked either side) to see what they really think. If the question of nature-nurture (an idiotic and non-existent dichotomy) is restricted to only the race-intelligence question, even then no one totally denies the role of genes wholesale, but even then, the evidence for the hereditarian interpretation being the explanation are slim.

I'll end this discussion for now so that we don't poo poo up the thread too much.

# ? Nov 29, 2015 03:15

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Merdifex posted:

I'm not claiming to find some great "intervention" with "long-term positive impact"

Indeed. The thing you originally replied to was not a discussion of the heritability of intelligence, but one where Nessus and I were disagreeing if amongst the interventions claimed to improve cognitive performance, there are any that are scientifically well-established and could be deployed if we were only willing to spend the money.

Because it seems we have as many of these as we have found genes that predict intelligence: none.

Merdifex posted:

I hope you're not a hereditist yourself

There is no reason to speculate regarding my position; it is clearly that the science is currently undecided. If you want to be charitable, imagine how hard I'd be at your throat if you were to argue we had settled the issue the other way around.

# ? Nov 29, 2015 10:21

The Vosgian Beast: Aug 13, 2011; Business is slow

Lots of continuing discussion about Garrett Jones� new IQ-of-nations book Hive Mind. Open borders supporter Robin Hanson says that �I must admit to now being more nervous about allowing more impatient and stupid immigrants, though as Bryan Caplan points out, that still allows for taking on billions of smart immigrants. But even if I�m now mildly more reluctant to take on certain kinds of immigrants, I�ll blame that mainly on our poor governance institutions, which give too much weight to the stupid and the impatient.� Bryan Caplan says that given some common assumptions about discount rate, open borders is still an obviously good policy. Jones answers that given Bryan�s assumptions about discount rates, open borders would still be an obviously good idea even if it set off a thousand-year dark age. You can see the full debate between them here (warning: video).

# ? Nov 29, 2015 21:42

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

So now I'm confused. For a neoreactionary, is this a pro or con for open borders? What's the consensus amongst Dark Enlightenment people; Dark Ages, good or bad? (Considering monarchy is good, natural selection weeding out the poor is good, etc.)

# ? Nov 29, 2015 22:00

Munin: Nov 14, 2004

Cingulate posted:

So now I'm confused. For a neoreactionary, is this a pro or con for open borders? What's the consensus amongst Dark Enlightenment people; Dark Ages, good or bad? (Considering monarchy is good, natural selection weeding out the poor is good, etc.)

Well, if they are fully committed to to the ancient feudal model then open borders very bad since free movements allows their Lessers to escape to less odious overlords.

But of course they are muddled on the affair since their philosophy is a self-contradictory, fantastical, bag of poo poo.

# ? Nov 29, 2015 22:11

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

I'm actually pretty sure NRx is near-universally strongly anti-immigrant, maybe with the exception of hoping to poach highly qualified and stereotypically sexually non-threatening Indian and Japanese individuals.

# ? Nov 29, 2015 22:20

The Vosgian Beast: Aug 13, 2011; Business is slow

Doesn't Moldbug have some rule about how opportunity to travel freely should be the only overarching global rule, so people can vote with their feet?

And not vote any other way, Gnon forbid.

# ? Nov 30, 2015 03:02

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

I imagine there is a fundamental tension on the problem of IMMIGRATION.

On the one hand, free market bithc, and also, America is obviously mostly full of immigrated honkies. Also, rich people tend to like immigration, as it lowers the wages of Labor.
On the other hand, Johnny Immigrant threatens the purity of the Volk with his swarthy ways and daughter-marrying, may be in thrall to his moon god, and also I imagine most actual nrx people are more Labor than they'd like to think.

# ? Nov 30, 2015 06:49

Pope Guilty: Nov 6, 2006; The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

Nessus posted:

I imagine there is a fundamental tension on the problem of IMMIGRATION.

On the one hand, free market bithc, and also, America is obviously mostly full of immigrated honkies. Also, rich people tend to like immigration, as it lowers the wages of Labor.
On the other hand, Johnny Immigrant threatens the purity of the Volk with his swarthy ways and daughter-marrying, may be in thrall to his moon god, and also I imagine most actual nrx people are more Labor than they'd like to think.

Perhaps they should find some sort of Third Position which stands between the right and the left.

# ? Nov 30, 2015 16:48

divabot: Jun 17, 2015; A polite little mouse!

Just reread the thread. Apart from extended impassioned derailments mostly courtesy Cingulate, it's a fine thread of much substance and not a few actual laughs out loud. 5 all round. Well done, chaps.

# ? Dec 1, 2015 10:33

The Vosgian Beast: Aug 13, 2011; Business is slow

Slatestarcodex must have been a much better blog before it was reasonable to expect that part of the intellectual background for posts like this is the idea that colleges infect innocent young minds with evil ~~Judeo-Bolshevik~~ Cultural Marxist ideas.

# ? Dec 1, 2015 19:02

Smudgie Buggler: Feb 27, 2005; SET PHASERS TO "GRINDING TEDIUM"

The Vosgian Beast posted:

Slatestarcodex must have been a much better blog before it was reasonable to expect that part of the intellectual background for posts like this is the idea that colleges infect innocent young minds with evil ~~Judeo-Bolshevik~~ Cultural Marxist ideas.

Yeah, this really doesn't have anything to do with the currently in-vogue notion that universities are ~~turning millennials into maladaptive PC pussies~~ ruining kids' ability to "think critically".

# ? Dec 2, 2015 21:42

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Smudgie Buggler posted:

Yeah, this really doesn't have anything to do with the currently in-vogue notion that universities are ~~turning millennials into maladaptive PC pussies~~ ruining kids' ability to "think critically".

Christ, just the thought of having to spend a meal with this turd jumping onto everything anyone says with some kind of dubious statistically based argument is enough to hit my throat with the big knife instead of slicing the turkey.

Can you imagine having that guy as your relation? As your son?

# ? Dec 2, 2015 22:43

Swan Oat: Oct 9, 2012; I was selected for my skill.

I'm his father actually.

# ? Dec 3, 2015 05:08

divabot: Jun 17, 2015; A polite little mouse!

Phil Sandifer, suffering Dork Enlightenment fatigue, posted on why scientific racists are actively horrible, I reblogged it and the rationalsphere turned it into an utter lw.txt clusterhug. There are several branches of this stupid, but here's Phil's finishing response.

# ? Dec 3, 2015 19:12

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Possibly the most Dork Enlightenment.txt sentence:

Overcoming Bias posted:

Some people like murder mystery novels. I much prefer intellectual mysteries like that in Garett Jones� new book Hive Mind: How Your Nation�s IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own

# ? Dec 3, 2015 21:19

Oligopsony: May 17, 2007

Some people like fantasy novels. I much prefer intellectual fantasies,

# ? Dec 3, 2015 21:34

Hate Fibration: Apr 8, 2013; FLÃSHYN!

divabot posted:

Phil Sandifer, suffering Dork Enlightenment fatigue, posted on why scientific racists are actively horrible, I reblogged it and the rationalsphere turned it into an utter lw.txt clusterhug. There are several branches of this stupid, but here's Phil's finishing response.

Check it out that dude who posted that stupid cat-face one liner immediately melted down on his own blog.

That my friends, is the rare cat-face of rage

# ? Dec 3, 2015 21:39

Luigi's Discount Porn Bin: Jul 19, 2000; Oven Wrangler

divabot posted:

Phil Sandifer, suffering Dork Enlightenment fatigue, posted on why scientific racists are actively horrible, I reblogged it and the rationalsphere turned it into an utter lw.txt clusterhug. There are several branches of this stupid, but here's Phil's finishing response.

quote:

Actually, my system 1 is Leftist and totally squicked out by HBD and fought it at every turn as I read more about it. I actually avoided reading about it for this reason for quite a while. So, um, counter-point.

�They�re poo poo in easily refuted ways, and moreover, in widely refuted ways.�

Can anyone link me to some of these refutations? I�ve yet to see one that was sufficiently convincing but, if you can show me one, my system 1 will love you forever.

Aww, somebody's been reading Kahneman and thinks they're hot poo poo. I'm a social-cognitive psychologist and am 95% sure that no one who actually works in the field talks remotely like this. Babby's first dual-process model I guess.

# ? Dec 3, 2015 21:58

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Luigi's Discount Porn Bin posted:

Aww, somebody's been reading Kahneman and thinks they're hot poo poo. I'm a social-cognitive psychologist and am 95% sure that no one who actually works in the field talks remotely like this. Babby's first dual-process model I guess.

Kahneman very explicitly tried popularizing the ideas. Half of the book is about how to talk about this stuff in non-academic contexts. That's a quasi-textbook implementation of the stuff Kahneman is trying to facilitate.

# ? Dec 3, 2015 23:12

Luigi's Discount Porn Bin: Jul 19, 2000; Oven Wrangler

Cingulate posted:

Kahneman very explicitly tried popularizing the ideas. Half of the book is about how to talk about this stuff in non-academic contexts. That's a quasi-textbook implementation of the stuff Kahneman is trying to facilitate.

Seriously? I haven't read TF&S. I can't imagine even saying that to someone in my department and not coming off like a tremendous douche.

# ? Dec 4, 2015 00:48

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

I assume what he is saying there is, "I want to believe in things which are not completely racist, and yet these racists make what appear to be compelling arguments that for some mysterious reason I am driven to embrace and accept. Clearly this means that the racists' arguments are somehow legitimate, and since I cannot find a critique of them which sufficiently stimulates my emotions to cancel out the allure of racism, I am forced to conclude that perhaps racism is true, and real, and good, and my friend."

Is that what's behind all this system-1 horse poo poo?

# ? Dec 4, 2015 00:52

Luigi's Discount Porn Bin: Jul 19, 2000; Oven Wrangler

Nessus posted:

I assume what he is saying there is, "I want to believe in things which are not completely racist, and yet these racists make what appear to be compelling arguments that for some mysterious reason I am driven to embrace and accept. Clearly this means that the racists' arguments are somehow legitimate, and since I cannot find a critique of them which sufficiently stimulates my emotions to cancel out the allure of racism, I am forced to conclude that perhaps racism is true, and real, and good, and my friend."

Is that what's behind all this system-1 horse poo poo?

More like "I find HBD/scientific racism repulsive so I had to make a real effort to consider the arguments for it fairly. I'm now convinced on an intellectual level but am ashamed of what I've become."

# ? Dec 4, 2015 01:01

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

His intellect can't be worth very much then. Better that he just euthanize himself in accordance with his beliefs for being dumb enough to hold them in the first place.

# ? Dec 4, 2015 01:04

grate deceiver: Jul 10, 2009; Just a funny av. Not a redtext or an own ok.

divabot posted:

Phil Sandifer, suffering Dork Enlightenment fatigue, posted on why scientific racists are actively horrible, I reblogged it and the rationalsphere turned it into an utter lw.txt clusterhug. There are several branches of this stupid, but here's Phil's finishing response.

I'm not sure if I'm reading this right, are they saying that the reason they think cultural marxists oppose race realism is because if they accepted it, they would immediately have to genocide everybody? What?

# ? Dec 4, 2015 10:23

BravestOfTheLamps: Oct 12, 2012; by FactsAreUseless; Lipstick Apathy

I'd read those blog posts if they weren't also by nerds.

BravestOfTheLamps has a new favorite as of 11:16 on Dec 4, 2015

# ? Dec 4, 2015 11:06

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Luigi's Discount Porn Bin posted:

Seriously? I haven't read TF&S. I can't imagine even saying that to someone in my department and not coming off like a tremendous douche.

There is a conclusion after every chapter giving explicit examples of how to talk about this, with the examples looking (in form, not content) very much like the thing you went mad at.

Nessus posted:

Is that what's behind all this system-1 horse poo poo?

Just for the record, there probably isn't any psychological (plus anthropological, economic and sociological) research in the world that's better than Kahneman (& Tversky)'s work leading up to the system 1/system 2 story.

# ? Dec 4, 2015 12:29

The Vosgian Beast: Aug 13, 2011; Business is slow

I'm the little voice in your head that whispers "If HBD isn't just racism, why did they have to change the name from race realism?"

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

I'd read those blog posts if they weren't also by nerds.

I have bad news about the SA forums

# ? Dec 4, 2015 12:40

divabot: Jun 17, 2015; A polite little mouse!

Luigi's Discount Porn Bin posted:

Aww, somebody's been reading Kahneman and thinks they're hot poo poo. I'm a social-cognitive psychologist and am 95% sure that no one who actually works in the field talks remotely like this. Babby's first dual-process model I guess.

To be super-nice, that poster's 17. The Tumblr rationalist cluster is terrifyingly young. Smart kids seeing these ideas and, knowing nothing else as yet, swallowing them whole.

grate deceiver posted:

I'm not sure if I'm reading this right, are they saying that the reason they think cultural marxists oppose race realism is because if they accepted it, they would immediately have to genocide everybody? What?

One of them says they encountered that stdh.txt in the wild, therefore it both happened and is typical and therefore is important. It turns out their standards of evidence in practice aren't very good.

# ? Dec 4, 2015 13:14

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

divabot posted:

To be super-nice, that poster's 17. The Tumblr rationalist cluster is terrifyingly young. Smart kids seeing these ideas and, knowing nothing else as yet, swallowing them whole.

In principle, the outcome of reading the book the guy is referencing should first and foremost make you humble and careful.

# ? Dec 4, 2015 13:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 08:10

fatherboxx: Mar 25, 2013

The Vosgian Beast posted:

I'm the little voice in your head that whispers "If HBD isn't just racism, why did they have to change the name from race realism?"

If they are that opposed to politcal correctness, why do they juggle politically correct terms to define themselves?

# ? Dec 4, 2015 13:43

The Something Awful Forums > Main > Post Your Favorite: Carefully Curated > PYF Dark Enlightenment Thinker

«‹›478 »