the neoliberal vision of the future

[SpineyNorman]

I'd offer you a swastika armband, but apparently the people that wore those were actually socialists. It says so in their name, you know.

That's ok - they're the same thing anyway.

 

[Blagsta]

If I understand you correctly you're saying that IQ is a myth. Intelligence doesn't exist other than as a human fantasy and has nothing to do with the brain. We have really, really big brains that make up 20% of the body's energy consumption at rest but this has absolutely NOTHING to do with intelligence, and there was NO heritable factors during the evolution of man which natural selection could grab hold on to evolve a bigger brain. It just sort of happened for some reason that has NOTHING to do with heritable cognitive abilities. Is this your position?

Also, is it your position that the twin studies I cited which was authored by Bouchard et al is bogus because Bouchard co-authored a paper with Rushton, which you found ridiculous? So the twin study is completely tainted by his association with Rushton? Is that it?

The thing I always find very, very strange about all the critics of IQ research is that very few of them actually do any research on IQ themselves. I've always wondered why it is so important to quelch research in this area. Why not go the other way? Why not do the ultimate superduper comprehensive study and use a lot of resources to prove once and for all that intelligence has nothing to do with the brain? Why not do a superduper-comprehensive study of penis lengths, brain sizes and the whole enchilada just to prove once and for all that all this research is just racist bogus? Could it possibly be because there is a very real chance that such a comprehensive study with the full force of the scientific community and massive public funding would prove them right?

In the end you ARE claiming that intelligence has nothing to do with the brain, that natural selection somehow managed to evolve what we perceive as human cognitive abilities without any shred of heritability involved. The problem with this claim is that it is ridiculous and it's obvious to anyone.

What did you make of the papers I linked to about IQ, language and attachment? Third time asking now.

 

[frogwoman]

How much do you earn Onarchy? Just so I can work out your IQ like.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

"The irrational rationalising of an irrational system."

That was good stuff.

We need more anarchist nuclear power stations though ...

 

[Bernie Gunther]

What did you make of the papers I linked to about IQ, language and attachment? Third time asking now.

He's going to pretend you said something else for a few pages but will eventually link to the deliberately deceptive arguments of a loon, published via some form of wingnut welfare.

Then he'll make another absurd assertion and the process will repeat.

At no stage will he, on the basis of the last few thousand posts, engage with any substantive argument, least of all using sources that can stand up to peer-review outside wingnut welfare circles.

 

[sihhi]

If I understand you correctly you're saying that IQ is a myth. Intelligence doesn't exist other than as a human fantasy and has nothing to do with the brain. We have really, really big brains that make up 20% of the body's energy consumption at rest but this has absolutely NOTHING to do with intelligence, and there was NO heritable factors during the evolution of man which natural selection could grab hold on to evolve a bigger brain. It just sort of happened for some reason that has NOTHING to do with heritable cognitive abilities. Is this your position?

I don't believe 'intelligence' or 'brain activity' to be reducible to a series of observable pyschological tests without this materially privileging one kind of brain activity over another.

Also, is it your position that the twin studies I cited which was authored by Bouchard et al is bogus because Bouchard co-authored a paper with Rushton, which you found ridiculous? So the twin study is completely tainted by his association with Rushton? Is that it?

The Minnesota twin studies I am sure have lots of importance for many things to do with human development and biology, but they tell us nothing about race and brain activity. The total sample is 112 twins from the same zygote raised apart from various points in their early lives, even trying to understand what the different environmental factors were is a nightmare. As soon as the zygote splits they are separate organisms with separate environmental influences on them.

More importantly the question is what does it all mean. Assume there is massive variation as a result of racial origins and brain activity so my neurones are much slower because I am from Asia but yours are faster because you are north European.
Is that a good reason for you to have a nicer lifestyle and order about people beneath you?

Richard Lewinson said "even a trait that is one hundred percent heritable can easily be changed by environmental manipulation."
People with inherited bone diseases who can't walk and operate normally can have homes modified and physio so that they change their 'natural traits'.
People who can't operate machinery (assume it's inherited) can become a whizz with support from others. People with 'low IQs' (assume it's inherited) can have high IQs after training and attention.

What the 'race realists' Murray recommends is not wholescale environmental effort to ensure the reality of insufficient brain activity is overcome ASAP instead their answer is:

The technically precise description of America's fertility policy is that it subsidizes births among poor women, who are also disproportionately at the low end of the intelligence distribution. We urge generally that these policies, represented by the extensive network of cash and services for low-income women who have babies, be ended.

The point is all of this stuff leads to weakening and destroying the welfare state. That's what you want to do and why you've chosen the majority of humanity as your enemy.

The thing I always find very, very strange about all the critics of IQ research is that very few of them actually do any research on IQ themselves. I've always wondered why it is so important to quelch research in this area. Why not go the other way? Why not do the ultimate superduper comprehensive study and use a lot of resources to prove once and for all that intelligence has nothing to do with the brain? Why not do a superduper-comprehensive study of penis lengths, brain sizes and the whole enchilada just to prove once and for all that all this research is just racist bogus? Could it possibly be because there is a very real chance that such a comprehensive study with the full force of the scientific community and massive public funding would prove them right?

1. You're projecting lunacy onto other people Onar.

2. There have been many studies. Leon J. Kamin, amongst others cited earlier by others, has compiled them - IQ is not .

In the end you ARE claiming that intelligence has nothing to do with the brain, that natural selection somehow managed to evolve what we perceive as human cognitive abilities without any shred of heritability involved. The problem with this claim is that it is ridiculous and it's obvious to anyone.

Has anyone here claimed this ?!?!?

Natural selection is increasingly an irrelevance for humans, thank God, we have weedy, puny specimens procreating and we look after the offspring. We do this collectively not by battling out like animals for the right to procreate with females.

Why go back to thinking about 'natural selection' for humans? Look forward to a real future - one of collective economic democracy, not ranking humans by intelligence and letting the most 'intelligent' control the companies and wealth whilst the non-intelligent sell their labour looking for scraps.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Natural selection is increasingly an irrelevance for humans, thank God, we have weedy, puny specimens procreating and we look after the offspring. We do this collectively not by battling out like animals for the right to procreate with females..

Some great posts recently, sihhi, but I'm not so sure about this! The selection pressures are changing, but selection pressures are still there in all societies. And do we not battle out for the right to procreate? As much as we've ever done, I would suggest – it's just that those battles might take place on a dancefloor rather than a field.

Evolution works at a much slower pace than human life, but I can think of certain things that could change over time – for instance if the trend continues for more women to have children later in life, I would expect over time for the age of onset of the menopause to increase as those women who put off having children till later but whose menopause kicks in early will not have any children at all.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Actually it might be fun look at some of Harvey's recent stuff with onarchy around. Here's a starter for 10. 'Over-accumulation'

Some commentators view the current crisis as arising from problems in finance that then impinged on the wider economy; others see it as a result of issues that arose in production and then led to financial problems. How do you view it?

It's a false dichotomy that's being posed. There is a more dialectical relationship between what you might call the "real" and "financial" sides of the economy. There is no question that there has been an underlying problem of what I would call "over-accumulation" for a considerable time now. And in part the movement into investing in asset values rather than production is a consequence of that. But as the search for new forms of asset value developed you also saw financial innovation that created the possibility of investment in hedge funds and those sorts of things.

There was a long-term process in which the rich looked for reasonably high rates of return and began to invest in a whole series of Ponzi schemes - but without Bernard Madoff at the top. In the property market, stock market, art market and derivatives markets, the more people that invest, the more prices go up, which leads to even more people investing. All of those markets have a Ponzi character to them. So there is a financial aspect to the crisis but unless you ask why the most affluent were taking that path you miss out on the real problem.

You mention a crisis of over-accumulation. Can you explain that concept?

Capitalists always produce a surplus product. A healthy capitalism has to grow at 3 percent per year; the problem is to find where you can achieve that 3 percent growth. There are various blockages. For instance, if capital is confronting labour problems, then it is hard for it to find an outlet and over-accumulation occurs. If it faces problems in the market, the same issue arises. Over-accumulation is any situation in which the surplus that capitalists have available to them cannot find an outlet, whether through labour constraints, market constraints, resource constraints, technology constraints or whatever.

source

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That's good. A dose of Harvey feels like an antidote to the Onar drivel.

Arguing with him was making me start thinking on his terms.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You just googled that without having any knowledge about the topic, didn't you? If you define literacy as knowing the alphabet and being able to read your name then yeah, most Americans are literate. But if you use the much more useful term functional literacy, which involves the ability to actually understand text (we're talking about things like reading a prescription understanding voting instructions etc.) then you will find that the functional illiteracy rate is quite high in the US. (Norwegian figures are around 20% for current students).

Not so: I have some knowledge of the topic, and a fair amount of knowledge about IQ tests and psychological testing.

You make the above bald statement. So far, the only authority you cite is some anti-schooling fringe character. Got anything reputable to back up your assertions?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Remember the huge controversy surrounding the ballot counting in Florida in the Bush vs Gore presidential election? It was shown that there was systematically more ballots discarded in counties with a large black community than in white dominated counties. This lead to allegations of fraud etc. How about the very simple explanation that voting is a mentally challenging task, which involves reading instructions? If you're a functional illiterate the chance of casting a vote correctly drops significantly. Considering then that 40% of blacks in America are functional illiterates this fact alone could explain the ballot discarding pattern..

That explanation might appeal to a white supremacist. I suspect that people who can't read don't enter the voting booth in the first place, out of fear of being embarrassed by the sort of thing you're talking about.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_illiteracy.

Your wiki article begins as follows:

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can.

But it does make the point that illiteracy is often associated with poverty. Rather than simply writing blacks off as being of subnormal intelligence, you might want to look at the correspondence between institutional black poverty in the US, and functional illiteracy.

If you can find a study showing that the illiteracy rate is 40 percent amongst middle and upper middle class blacks, you might have something with which to defend your position.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Functional illiteracy is the only social parameter that better predicts criminality than low IQ. .

I think poverty is the best social parameter for predicting criminality.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Thus, all the people who rail against IQ as a "myth" and want to treat all individuals as if they have the same innate potential have contributed to the current illiteracy epidemic, and hence the crime rate. All the railing was done in the name of anti-racism, but the result has been to create MORE racial tensions in the US, not less, because people are not blind. They do see that the vast majority of prison inmates are black, and a lot of people draw quite racist conclusions from that. Thanks a lot, socialism.

You're a white supremacist, and I claim my five pounds.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Has anyone looked at this site? It's basically a "scientific racism" site.

Where else would a white supremacist look for his 'scientific' justification?

 

[SpineyNorman]

In one of his films Michael Moore talks about a report that was commissioned by Bush's governor brother that was said to show "criminals" who weren't eligible to vote. Turns out none of these people were ineligible to vote. Half of them were, however, black - given that only 10% of the population of Florida was black this was clearly targeted. The company that did the report has since admitted it was asked to produce these results. Given that the majority of blacks in Florida vote Democrat the motivation behind this is all to clear. That probably doesn't worry Onar though, since anything is acceptable if it keeps out the fascistsocialistcommunistnazi democrats.

link, includes more info on the disenfranchisement of black voters

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Agree with this. Though I think if I'd been debating him in real life I'd have lost patience a while ago, and just slapped his ignorant face.

Did you disagree with the banning of Rachamim?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

a) first of all, recent findings show that many people have Neanderthal DNA. This partially undercuts the African origins theory, and must be revised with an African origin + blending with other human races. And if Neanderthals weren't a distinct species, but a race, then it is quite possible that the Asians have a component of Homo Erectus in them. But that's a totally different matter. b) even if the genetic variation within the category of Africans is large compared to other races, this only means that it is an older race.




It implies no such thing. What "mildly inbred" means is simply that there are genes in common for the group that have totally diffused throughout the population. If the diffusion of the genes common to Africans happened long ago then all the variation in Africans since this time will not alter this common set of genes.



Ah, but HARSH environments do not necessarily foster intelligence. Eurasia is harsh in its own way: it has winters. This harshness has a special quality to it: it is highly predictable. Winter comes every year and to an animal that has no fur or natural tools this requires a lot of long term planning. That's a kind of environment that could foster intelligence. You MUST have clothes and shelter, else you die. You MUST plan for winter, else you die. Africa is harsh in a different way, namely that it is unpredictable. The climate is more or less always the same. Food spoils easily, the sun destroys buildings etc. At the same time Africa is not harsh in a specific way: it is very rich in fruit and natural growing food.



Real good argument you've got there. It was said by the WRONG people. Can't even consider an argument if it ain't said by left-approved people. No, sirree. The funny thing is that this sort of thinking is eerily reminiscent of another type of people, those who refuse to listen to anyone who has the wrong color of the skin. Racists I believe they are called. Now, it may seem like a complete paradox that a left-winger thinks exactly like a racist, but not to me. I have after all established quite clearly that there is really no significant difference between a socialist and a Nazi. Both think and judge people by what group they belong to.

You're a white supremacist, and your presence here is a tarnishment on these boards.

 

[SpineyNorman]

You're a white supremacist, and your presence here is a tarnishment on these boards.

Wouldn't you rather he was here, where his views won't gain traction and will be taken apart, than somewhere else where he might be taken seriously? And it's my view that he's not racist for the sake of racism - more that he needs to argue for white supremacy in order to justify his ludicrous ideas about economics.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Did you disagree with the banning of Rachamim?

Yeah that's a fair comparison actually, he was the Zionist equivalent ...

But I think the same argument applies there. Rach had some deeply odious views that he was willing to argue determinedly. You might be more sympathetic to his views than Onans, but there wasn't really that much difference that I could see other than the choice of inferior and superior races in his mind.

I think it's better with those racial supremacy guys to confront them openly.

Banning isn't about freedom of speech, it's about what level of shitwork mods are prepared to deal with.

 

[onarchy]

Ok so far you've had a too easy time. Time to reverse the questions. You are making a very, very strong claim here. You're not just saying that there is no evidence of systemic differences in intelligence between groups, and no evidence that intelligence is heritable in any way. No, you're making a POSITIVE claim. You're claiming that it has been positively proved that ALL people are of equal intelligence and that NO groups of people are more intelligent than others. So when Jews are so dramatically overrepresented among the rich and in other cultural areas it requires some other explanation than intelligence.

So obviously you must then have a very clear notion of what intelligence IS since you can make such definitive statements. What IS intelligence? And why is a) intelligence in principle impossible to measure? b) why is intelligence NOT heritable? and c) how do you know this positively? d) if you can't measure intelligence, how do you know that all ethnic groups are equally intelligent?

If intelligence has ZERO heritability as you claim and can not be measured, how do you explain the evolution of humans from small brains and low intelligence from apes to those bigbrained, "smart" creatures we are today? Did intelligence evolve slowly and gradually? Or did intelligence just come fully formed some 100.000 years ago or more and then remained absolutely identical for all groups?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Wouldn't you rather he was here, where his views won't gain traction and will be taken apart, than somewhere else where he might be taken seriously? And it's my view that he's not racist for the sake of racism - more that he needs to argue for white supremacy in order to justify his ludicrous ideas about economics.

No. People like this aren't just here. They're on lots of boards. He isn't here to have a discussion. He's here to spread the word.

Arguing with people like this is fun for about five minutes. Then you realize that they aren't having a discussion with you. Then you further realize that you are doing research and presenting arguments apparently to convince someone that you aren't subhuman or of subnormal intelligence.

Is that a process that we really need to take part in?

 

[onarchy]

You're a white supremacist, and I claim my five pounds.

I would have to be a very strange white supremacist that thinks that Orientals and Jews are more intelligent than whites. Maybe I'm a Jewish supremacist?

Edit: given your malevolence in deliberately distorting and misrepresenting my view I should point out that this was sarcasm, and NOT meant as an admission that I am a supremacist. Racial supremacy is a collectivistic way of thinking that is alien to an individualist as me. I judge individuals, not their skin colors. But it doesn't surprise me that a socialist believes that the only way to handle the existence of race differences is to become a racist. You are after all collectivist whose second nature it is to think in terms of groups, not individuals.

On that point I repeat my question for the third time: if massive incontrovertible evidence beyond a shred of doubt was presented to you that a) intelligence is a real and heritable phenomen and b) that there are some structural statistical differences in intelligence between ethnic groups, how would YOU react to this? Would you then conclude that you would have to become a racist? A white supremacist? Would it change the way you behaved towards individuals? Your political views?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Ok so far you've had a too easy time. Time to reverse the questions. You are making a very, very strong claim here. You're not just saying that there is no evidence of systemic differences in intelligence between groups, and no evidence that intelligence is heritable in any way. No, you're making a POSITIVE claim. You're claiming that it has been positively proved that ALL people are of equal intelligence and that NO groups of people are more intelligent than others. So when Jews are so dramatically overrepresented among the rich and in other cultural areas it requires some other explanation than intelligence.

So obviously you must then have a very clear notion of what intelligence IS since you can make such definitive statements. What IS intelligence? And why is a) intelligence in principle impossible to measure? b) why is intelligence NOT heritable? and c) how do you know this positively? d) if you can't measure intelligence, how do you know that all ethnic groups are equally intelligent?

If intelligence has ZERO heritability as you claim and can not be measured, how do you explain the evolution of humans from small brains and low intelligence from apes to those bigbrained, "smart" creatures we are today? Did intelligence evolve slowly and gradually? Or did intelligence just come fully formed some 100.000 years ago or more and then remained absolutely identical for all groups?

Is no one else listening to this clown?

Why is this being tolerated?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I would have to be a very strange white supremacist that thinks that Orientals and Jews are more intelligent than whites. Maybe I'm a Jewish supremacist?

Which Jews: the Ashkenazi? The Sephardim? The African Mahgreb Jews?

There's a conundrum: black african Jews. I wonder if that makes them smarter or stupider, or if it all just gets cancelled out?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

'Orientals'. I wonder what that means? Philippinos? Ainu? Mongolians?

 

[binka]

I would have to be a very strange white supremacist that thinks that Orientals and Jews are more intelligent than whites. Maybe I'm a Jewish supremacist?

do you think you could provide a full break down of ethnic groups and their characteristics? i think you can add sneaky and covetous to the jews, blacks are good at dancing, music and sports other than swimming, the white man is obviously honest and industrious. i have to go to bed now but if you could fill in the rest and perhaps put it all in a spreadsheet for easy reference it would be much appreciated

 

[onarchy]

Then you further realize that you are doing research and presenting arguments apparently to convince someone that you aren't subhuman or of subnormal intelligence.

I find it extremely revealing that you regard people of lower intelligence as subhuman. I don't, but you obviously do. That probably answers my question of how you would react if you were presented incontrovertible earth-is-round-type evidence that there are heritable variations in intelligence. By your own admission you would then have to become a supremacist, viewing large parts of humanity as "subhuman."

 

[onarchy]

do you think you could provide a full break down of ethnic groups and their characteristics? i think you can add sneaky and covetous to the jews, blacks are good at dancing, music and sports other than swimming, the white man is obviously honest and industrious. i have to go to bed now but if you could fill in the rest and perhaps put it all in a spreadsheet for easy reference it would be much appreciated

If there is one thing comparative psychology research shows more than anything it is that it is by far more that unites all humans than separate us. Yes, there are certain variations which stand out statistically, i.e. when viewed and averaged over a very large number of individuals in certain groups (sex, race), but what joins humans from the smartest to the least smart is that we are all the Ivy Leaguers of nature. "Subhuman" means incapable of being human. And what does it mean to be human? Does it mean to be able to create nuclear reactors and fly to the moon? Nope. It means the ability to live peacefully together and use our intelligence to produce what we need to live and prosper, using language and reason. THAT's what being human means and by that token NO human ethnic groups are "subhuman" as you guys seem to imply.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

But it doesn't surprise me that a socialist believes that the only way to handle the existence of race differences is to become a racist. You are after all collectivist whose second nature it is to think in terms of groups, not individuals.

I'm a socialist/collectivist now, am I? That's going to come as a bit of a surprise to a number of regular posters here.