Wednesday assorted links

1. How much depression is there in poor countries?

2. “Indeed, both studies revealed that while social liberals were overall more sympathetic to poor people than social conservatives, reading about White privilege decreased their sympathy for a poor White (vs. Black) person. Moreover, these shifts in sympathy were associated with greater punishment/blame and fewer external attributions for a poor White person’s plight. We conclude that, among social liberals, White privilege lessons may increase beliefs that poor White people have failed to take advantage of their racial privilege—leading to negative social evaluations.”  Link here.

3. Noah Carl has been sacked.  And more information.

4. “What compelled you to put a waterfall of this size inside an airport?” (Singapore)

5. A review of neuroeconomic gameplay in psychiatric disorders.

6. Hacking insulin pump regulation.


2. It's too bad fake "race" couldn't be dropped from these discussions, ending both the problem and counter-problems.

It's too bad that "a post-racial society" has come to be seen as a head-fake rather than an achievable reality.

Putting on my "Cynic" cap.

They don't want a "post racial society." There's no money or power in it for them. E.G., yesterday America's Mayor Pete jetted into Harlem, NYC to kiss the ring of Rev. Al Sharpton.

I'm so old I remember when large-organization personnel evaluations, particularly supervisors, always had to include ". . . fully supports the corporation's equal opportunity policies/programs treating all persons fairly and equally." Today, outcomes need to be "fair and equal" whatever that means.

We could be generous and say that people who see discrimination against whites, blacks, or asians start in a good place, and then get a little far into the groove.

Still, some do try to rise above and speak for the disadvantaged in general, or broader coalitions.

Much easier to pick a race and beat up on it for a while.

+1. You can't keep playing the Oppression Olympics in a post-racial society.

My prediction: India will win the soccer world cup before the US becomes a post-racial society.

What is "fake race"?

It is demonstrated by the contortions in this one sentence from Wikipedia:

"Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways, some of which have essentialist implications."

So basically the "untenable" stuff I am calling fake, and the "continue" part is what I lament.

Rachel Dolezal

When I first saw a picture of that waterfall at the Singapore airport, my thought was "well, the editor screwed up - that's definitely a picture of Gardens by the Bay, not something in an airport".

I'm flying into SIN later this year, hopefully will get a chance to stop by. Even if I don't, I appreciate the fact that SOMEBODY is designing airports for something other than frustrating and stressing the user.

Opening in June. You will have to exit security first then get a skytrain, a few minutes to get there. It is on the grounds of the airport. It's not literally inside an airport terminal.

Big deal, we have huge waterfalls in the NYC subway system all the time -- oh wait, that's another water-main break

2. Duh

"while social liberals were overall more sympathetic to poor people than social conservatives": how can they know that?

Actually, it's even worse. It's a hate group whose ideology provides a plausible-sounding rationalization that their hate is morally superior to others' non-hate

Liberalism Is Hate.

It's lack of self-awareness. Fish don't know they're wet.

Correction, liberalism is stupid hate. Trump is smart love.


Hey Mouse, how's it going. Using a different handle today I see.


You really need to do a better job on your pretend Right winger act. It's transparent, not humorous and makes you look desperate.

Why the hell are you so obsessed with me? Don't you have a AOC rally to attend? So much TDS, but I guess that's what happens when your time is up.

#MAGA2020 (and beyond, Trump has kids)

"Carl has also spoken at the London Conference on Intelligence – a conference on race intelligence and eugenics which in the past has been covertly held at University College London."

What a sentence to unpack. "Covert" conferences on "race intelligence?"

And to think some people worry about where Quillete is actually going ..

A racist exists in Europe, therefore Quillete is an arm of the KKK.


That's the authors' characterization of a conference they did not attend. It may or may not be accurate. Looking at the homepage of whatever The Varsity is, I wouldn't put much stock in the opinions of its various flunkies.

There is a Wikipedia entry.

"UCL announced it would be investigating how a conference on eugenics was able to occur on their campus without the university's knowledge"

It sounds like a shady thing, but perhaps Carl was an innocent roped in. Still, what you don't want to be is the kind of person who only shouts "free speech" when racists are being shut down.

He's not a racist and no one can point to any evidence that he is

Let's say Carl and Quillette are not racists, but just think "race" should be studied.

If the real experts, the biologists and geneticists, say there are no "races" in this sense, how is this demand for study doing any good?

How is the demand not anti-science?

Do the real experts say that genus, species and sub-species are legitimate animal classifications

Are humans not worth studying and classifying

Since the real experts agree that there's no such thing as race studying "race" should not be allowed. Only a racist would do such a thing. Anybody who tries will and should be the legitimate target of a harassment campaign and driven out of academia.

So sickle cell anemia occurring at a much high rate in people with darker skin has to be deleted from the text books?

Nice job wading into a rather complex argument with an over the top authoritarian debate style. Nothing gets us further away from truth and reason than conflation and ham fisted coercion.....

You are demonstrating precisely the problem, here. Sickle cell doesn't occur at a much higher rate in people with darker skin. It occurs at a much higher rate in people with a genetic heritage stretching back to a particular geographic region. People with one parent from that region and another parent from, say, Norway will have a higher incidence of the disease than a lot of people with "darker" skin.

"Race" is a lousy construct. I'm not saying that it isn't a thing, any more than I would deny the underlying trend behind your sickle cell claim. But it is a lousy tool for sophisticated quantitative analysis, in much the same way that "beauty" is clearly a thing, but is pretty worthless as a tool of granular analysis for, say, hypertension risk.

Right, but surely the whole race discussion is about average trends?

So biologists use the term "population" instead, and since most of the outrage-mob types aren't very bright, this keeps them from getting mobbed. It's like discussing sex in medical/Latin terms so the local prudes in the PTA don't catch on.

I have no doubt that biologists and geneticists who are speaking honestly will recognize that humans from different parts of the world have different sets of adaptations.

I.E. Europeans can pretty consistently drink milk without problems, Tibetans are resistant to the effects of low oxygen environments, everyone whose ancestry is from northern regions developed skin tone that enhances absorption of ultraviolet radiation (in order to produce more vitamin from limited sun exposure).

It is unquestionably clear that humans developed biologic adaptations based on their ancestral environment. The question is whether some environments might have had a greater selection pressure on intelligence shouldn't be untouchable.

And this doesn't even begin to touch the question of cultural evolution. What is the cultural effect on intelligence (which is probably even more significant than the biologic effects. Some human cultural practices are CLEARLY better suited for success in a modern environment (asians come to mind).

One of the issues that comes up everytime this is discussed though is that, at least for intelligence, individual variation is far greater than the average differences between human sub groups

That's true, but it also avoids the "essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race [which] are untenable."

Lots of people have genetics conferences, as they can and should, without reference to archaic groupings based on gross morphology.

Says the guy who told me I should withhold my white judgment a while back. Hypocrisy much?

Not me.

Sorry, I guess I can't keep up with the multiplication of nincompoops around here.

Don’t be absurd, it’s the same person.

Same (lack of) writing style, refusal to consider logical arguments, and emotional hangups.

He capitalized the A.

Right, let's all make indirect reference to a discussion none of us can see, where Jeff feels wronged.


Because it is a slur, a non sequitur and an ad hominem at the same time?

You guys are beauts.

That’s cool.

But you’re the same person.

Running away from your own comments does not change the truth.

Carry on bear. Someone must carry the torch of Downs Syndrome.

Sometimes you are 120% troll.

You accuse me of running away from a comment you haven't shown me (and "white judgment" is definitely not my phrasing).

Does it even exist at MR?

"No results found for "white judgment" site:"

So suck it, troll.


But you’re still Bear/anonymous.

And, to my disappointment, you’re now a liar.

I had thought better of you.

By the way, willing to bet.

You’re anon/bear.

We can put up 10,000. Use Caplan as a neutral party.

Put up or shut up you obvious liar.

I said "not me" to "white judgement" and that is proven by the search, you deceitful troll.

"anonymous -- "While a certain sort of middle aged white American is going to.. "

"anonymous - "The bible says "judge not," and that's good advice for daily living."

RatInPutinsMaze - Shouldn't you be taking your own advice and not judging people."

When I say "a certain sort" I am not criticising any individual.

I am being general. And darned if people don't often step up to represent, on their own.

I suspected it was, but then I did second-guess myself a bit because the comments in this thread actually seemed slightly more lucid than normal for our beloved Californian. Also, I wanted to invoke the phrase 'multiplication of nincompoops.'

The multiplication is apparently x1.

That would work fine in a society entirely composed of objective robots with no emotional investment in their own racial superiority. Unfortunately, we live in a society with a long history of certain groups claiming that certain other groups were innately inferior, and said groups inflicting all sorts of injustices on the supposedly inferior group, resulting in certain long-standing grievances, and all sorts of emotional fucked-upness on the part of both groups. Thus, both groups have an enormous amount emotionally at stake in the question of whether one group or the other is genetically less intelligent, which makes it pretty much impossible for them to carry on such a debate in some sort of clinical academic fashion, as if nobody cared what the outcome of it was. Any attempt to have a public discussion about whose identity group is inherently more intelligent or not is only going to feed the narratives of people who are emotionally motivated and make it more difficult to get at the objective truth of the matter, not less.

What's the point? You (supposedly) prove Asians are smarter than whites. So what?

Right. it serves no purpose OTHER than to feed the narratives of people who are emotionally invested in their own racial superiority.


How does your argument above apply to discussions of major world religions--things like whether the Exodus ever really happened, the history of the writing of the gospels, etc. It seems like all the same arguments you make w.r.t. discussions of racial differences apply equally to discussions of religions.

Absolutely different on so many levels.
1. Religion isn't intrinsic to your genetic code.
2. The issue is not who is right and who is wrong, but who is innately superior/inferior.
3. There aren't any major religious conficts over whether Exodus happened or not - people either care that is did, or don't care either way. Nobody's out there who is going to be personally offended if you say it happened.
4. There isn't any major religious group in America that was historically oppressed and enslaved, based on the religious beliefs of another group.
5. There is no religious story that underlies a justification for the oppression and enslavement of a minority group. I.e. Exodus is not being used as an argument for why Egyptians should be subservient to Jews, or anything like that. It doesn't feed anyone's narrative of religious supremacy.

The only religious issue that comes close is evolution, but in that case although many people may be offended by the concept of evolution, there's no system of oppression of any group of people that was ever based on evolution being true or not.

It's not like there's a major religion that believes that only *some* people were descended from monkeys, but not others and the monkey-descendents are superior to the non-monkey descendents, and they actually held enough power in the past to enslave the group that was considered non-monkey descendents, so now they have a huge emotional stake in proving that they are descended from monkeys, but not the other group. And if there was, you can bet there would be a lot of "science" out there attempting to prove that group A was, in fact, descended from monkeys, but not group B.

Religion isn't intrinsic to your genetic code, but for a lot of people, it's a much more important part of their identity than their race. Over the centuries, a *lot* of people have been killed, and even more oppressed, over questions of whose religion is right and whose is wrong.

W.r.t. #4, I recommend reading up on the history of the Mormons. Also Jews, though anti-Semitism in the US was nowhere near as nasty as in Europe.

We have a society in which many people feel very deeply about their religion, and we live in a world in which wars have been fought and are being fought now over religious differences. And yet, we're basically okay with people questioning and investigating religious doctrines. Why is that?

One answer is that knowledge is good, so it's good to have more of it, even if that upsets some people, and shakes up some important social structures. That's the one I'd go with, but then I don't think research regarding racial differences should be suppressed.

Hard to imagine any situation where belief in one's racial superiority or inferiority has a positive outcome.

To me, this research is like pubic research in exactly what to bomb in our society in order to maximum casualties. It might be scientific for all I know, but (1) the motives of anyone strongly interested in it are highly suspect and (2) good solid research isn't going to be used for society's benefit.

Protecting infrastructure (and studying genetic based diseases) can both be done without the active funding and promotion of areas of inquiry whose detrimental effects will vastly outweigh the benefits.

It should wash out in a couple generations, as personal genome supplants racial categorization.

Of course future people will have a different set of problems, and perhaps different political alliances.

People with the right genes rather than with the right skin?

Yes. And if genetic modification becomes common practice than African Americans will get the same intelligence enhancing genes anyway. In a few generations everyone will have an IQ of 130+.

So the whole IQ thing is true and everybody is just pretending? Ok. I'll keep my mouth shut

What's the matter with studying race? Biologists need to do so (not the social scientists who deny it exists.) Medicines work differently on different races as much as they differ between the sexes. Sorry, I forgot. Sexes don't exist either.

That's not exactly true. People who share a genetic lineage may share characteristics, but only maybe.

Further complicating this is that not everyone knows their lineage (and 23andMe may give us complicated answers!)

So at the hospital ancestry becomes a screening question, but always with detailed tests to follow.

Nobody denies that the races have mixed forever, but the fact that European DNA has around 4% Neanderthal genes and Asian have some denisovan genes while African do not should be an indicator. Funny too that wikipedia has several different pages on race. Social scientist who deny it to real scientists who define it.

I feel like it's the dark ages where we can't study or discuss or even acknowledge something because it's bad. Grownups can discuss race without having to decide if one is better than the other.

How is your mental flexibility?

There’s No Scientific Basis for Race—It's a Made-Up Label

You can still discuss DNA, local populations, Neanderthals and Denisovans.

Just drop "race" as a sloppy and archaic concept, too large and imperfect a grouping for modern science.

Apparently I'm the more flexible of us two. I acknowlege social scientists do not believe in race while scientists do. You only get half that far. From wiki science page: "If the races are sufficiently different or if they have been tested to show little genetic connection regardless of phenotype, two or more groups/races can be identified as subspecies or (in botany, mycology, and phycology) another infraspecific rank), and given a name. Ernst Mayr wrote that a subspecies can be "a geographic race that is sufficiently different taxonomically to be worthy of a separate name."[17][18]"

You are just refusing science.

And for some reason you think it is cute to call population geneticists "social scientists" instead.

I was wrong, you need to have a flexible mind to say I'm refusing science for not denying science. Pretzel like flexible even.

You didn't quote a page about humans.

You did "Race (Biology)" and specifically avoided

Race is a social construct used by oppressive racists and is NOT acceptable. Except in the case of La Raza, where it's just speaking Truth to Power.

Is it racist to include the fact that black soldiers are more susceptible to frostbite in current military manuals, to ensure frostbite prevention...since there’s no such thing as race?

Or is it a form of #whiteprivilege to not include it, since that’s using whites and Asians as a baseline of “what’s normal”?

Or is this a game of whatever anyone says, he’s wrong unless he is a member of bear/anons in group?

Obviously the last one.

Better a pound of lost toes and fingers, than treating people as if race exists. Their lost limbs will be a testament to our crusade against racism.

My arguments must have been strong if you have to impersonate me to win.

The answer is that "black" and "race" are unnecessary when you can say "those who don't descend from northern peoples."

Not just morons, deceitful morons.

Those Who Don't Descend From Northern Peoples Month

Those Who Don't Descend From Northern Peoples Heritage Night

Say It Loud, I Don't Descend From Northern Peoples and I'm Proud!


Think about it.

A bit more.

Did you invite Inuit and Siberians to your "northern people party?"

Or maybe say that those with equatorial ancestry should watch out for frostbite.

Patagonians are probably cold robust, right?

Responding to Anonymous: "If the real experts, the biologists and geneticists, say there are no "races" in this sense, how is this demand for study doing any good?" End sentence with "how does collecting race data on the census and every university or job application do any good?"

It does no good at all.

Exactly. Race doesn't exist except as a social construct which I selectively invoke to further my preferred policy goals.

I know this may be difficult for you to comprehend, but it is entirely possible that a false idea of race has led to a damaging pattern of real racism in American history.

It makes you wonder what defenders of "biological race" are trying to hold on to ..

It's more what we're trying to avoid: billions of edumacation dollars and wasted years of young people's lives trying to pound square pegs into round holes.

And ending affirmative action in aviation, medicine, and engineering. I think that's kind of important.

If you end "race" you certainly end "race based" affirmative action, though of course income or class based assistance is still possible. It might even better target the "left behind."

I agree completely; that's why I think it's better to replace those old false ideas with a new false idea, which is that there's no such thing as race.

This part is good too:

"LCI was hosted in the city of Skanderborg, Denmark, in May 2018. Helmuth Nyborg has said 'we don't trust the media' to explain why conference organizers avoid public attention."

Remember that bit from a day or two ago about free speech, sunlight, and disinfecting bad ideas?

These guys want to avoid the sunlight, always a bad sign.

Or, they want to avoid mobs and harassment

Obviously what’s true is determined by popular belief.

That’s why the afterlife exists, evolution is false, in 1945 fossils were a trick of the devil, and in 1000 AD the sun revolved around the earth.

Either science is a pursuit of truth, or it’s a “what’s not taboo” contest.

Clearly there are no gays in Iran, since Iranians tell us that they don’t exist. Maybe sexuality researchers should be forced to conduct their research in Iran, since sunlight will disinfect that idea right quick.

6. It is not really about the regulation, at least according to a friend who has an insulin pump. The details are different (for example, no FDA involved), but the fact is that the manufacturers were (apparently) uninterested in providing such functionality. This is especially the case, at least according to him (he works in the software industry), for American manufacturers, who really, really don't want customers being able to do anything with their equipment. Shades of John Deere, basically - 'As an organization representing 2.5 million California agriculture jobs, the California Farm Bureau gave up the right to purchase repair parts without going through a dealer. Farmers can’t change engine settings, can’t retrofit old equipment with new features, and can’t modify their tractors to meet new environmental standards on their own.'

The next time I see him, this information might be useful though - 'A couple of other new options don’t even require Medtronic pumps—but they are currently limited in other ways. AndroidAPS, for example, runs on Accu-Chek or Dana pumps, which are approved in Europe and elsewhere, but not yet in the United States. The system also goes straight to an Android phone, eliminating the need for an extra device such as a RileyLink or an Edison. The manufacturer of Dana pumps consulted with the DIY looping community in developing its latest version.' (Yes, he has one of those extra devices, which are also apparently not that easy to find.)

'zactly, walled gardens are the thing these days. With fluff features masquerading as consumer choice. All the better to control access, extract rent, monetize data, create monopolies, and hamper brand switching my dear.

It is about regulation too, as FDA approval is required for these devices (and is likely why they aren't supposed to be hackable).

The problem is then the lack of incentive for a dominant manufacturer to improve them in line with patients needs, and not to charge extortionate rates for what seem to be fairly simple technical improvements.

"White privilege lessons may increase beliefs that poor White people have failed to take advantage of their racial privilege—leading to negative social evaluations."

That poor whites = poor ways was once axiomatic among upper class Southerners. Were they woke ahead of their time?

For awhile, many years ago, there was a spate of academics chiding "To Kill a Mockingbird" for classism in its portrayal of slutty Mayella. (As far as I know, there was never an essay titled "Was Mayella Black?" as there was with the more appealing Huck Finn but I wouldn't bet on it.) I remember reading out such an article decrying the treatment of Mayella, from the the New Yorker probably, to someone who comes from a family decidedly "Southern genteel."

He had only this to offer: "Anyone who doubts the existence of white trash has never spent any time in the South."

Now whether in the past they dominated the culture, as they do now and have for some time, is where he'd be prepared to take a stand.

"Now whether in the past they dominated the culture, as they do now and have for some time, "

The classic white trash doesn't dominate culture, in the south or anywhere else. That epitaph specifically referred to the low status uneducated poor.

Slow down there JWatts. Races do not exist but racism is fully real, as we can see by the constant Republican / libertarian terror attacks on Mosques, synagogues, abortion clinics, migrants, and truth.

Race is a social construct, but whites are collectively still guilty of using white privilege to destroy black bodies. If they think its real, their violence is real. That’s why all whites should be taxed a reparations tax of 20% gross income. Race is a fake racist construct, but they’re still white and need to pay African Americans for their violence..

Also, yellows shouldn’t be allowed in Stuyvesant. But that’s not a race. It’s a color.

Warren 2020.

slutty Mayella.

The character wasn't slutty at all. She was socially isolated and spoke to no one but her family and the occasional passer-by. The description of her was that she was one of two people in her household who could read and write and the only one who bathed regularly.

I think that's right, your recollection is better than mine; but she did put Tom into a fatally compromising position, though her motive may not have been malicious.

She, a white girl, was attracted to Tom, a married black man. He was socially inferior to her, but had to tell her no anyway. Her dad found out and made up a rape story. Mayella has to go along even though it would destroy Tom because otherwise her dad would beat her.

Fun fact: Mayella’s mom died 9 years back but she has an 8 year old brother. Mayella looks exactly like her mom. Do the math.

Y'all have done quite the close reading of "To Kill a Mockingbird," a book I last read circa 1980. It worked so well on the level of a children's book, that I read it probably a half-dozen times as a child without being the least bit clear* about what went on with Mayella and Tom, nor any idea what an old chiffarobe was, any more than the old-time three-handled family gradunza in another book I read such a short time earlier that it shared the same bookshelf.

I shied away as skating too near thin ice in our particular home from asking Mother about anything to do with the relations between men and women - choosing to take a slow route to partial understanding via my own years-long close reading of Dear Abby and Ann Landers, one in the morning paper, one in the evening - but I do remember querying her about the title, and trying to figure out what if anything Tom had to do with a mockingbird. I think she said something about innocence, harmlessness. This did not entirely satisfy, not because I didn't think Tom was innocent (of ... whatever) but because it (dimly, to me) suggested Tom was innocent in the same way that Scout and Jem were innocent, and I found that untenable. If you viewed Tom like that, he would always be vulnerable. As a naturally powerless child, the thought of Tom being an adult, with no agency, made me uncomfortable, so I tended to speed through (key) parts of the book. Besides it being upsetting - Tom ending up dead despite all of Atticus's fine talk.

*Much like the movie of "Breakfast at Tiffany's." As an adult I saw a reference somewhere to Holly Golightly being a prostitute. Say again?!

1. Surveys have always shown that countries’ happiness is highly correlated with wealth. The “poor countries don’t suffer depression” stereotype is just the “noble savage” concept recycled. The left-wing critics are not entirely wrong though; if poor countries were less poor, the people in them would also be happier.

2. Nearly every moral philosophy draws a distinction between the poor who are deserving of aid and the poor who are not. For many people, that distinction comes down to the deserving poor are people who are poor because they were born into a disadvantaged condition, while the undeserving poor are poor despite being born into a privileged condition. Of course, this is a sliding scale, as privilege is relative—African-Americans may be disadvantaged and therefore more deserving of aid compared to white Americans while being privileged and therefore less deserving compared to Africans. But it is no surprise that social liberals share this common human morality.

"share this common human morality"

Too bad it doesn't look like that in practice, and instead is just an ingroup/outgroup bias. Social liberals are biased towards outgroups, and view their poverty as caused by factors outside their control. If you go to more socially conservative countries, the bias is in favor of the ingroup, with impoverished members of the ingroup seen to be in need of help and impoverished members of the outgroup seen as less deserving.

There's nothing "common human" about this Western social liberal approach to race privilege.

That's a little simplistic. Social liberals want to expand the ingroup to include the outgroup. If you think of the outgroup as being part of a larger "ingroup" then you start seeing "outgroup" members as no less deserving than "ingroup" members, because they actually ARE "ingroup" members.

This holds abstractly, but not empirically. That's what the study about how "white privilege" learning shows in attitude to poor whites. Poor whites have become an outgroup to social liberals. They're not expanding the ingroup to include the outgroup, they're simply readjusting the factors that determine whether someone is a member of the ingroup or outgroup such that, from the social liberal grouping, certain members who once were outgroup are now ingroup and other members who were once ingroup are now outgroup.

#5 I'll give these folks credit for courage. Garage hacking is one thing for home automation. It's something completely different when your life depends on it.

3. The article at Cowen’s link states that Carl published a paper in which he concluded that the percentage of Muslims in a country’s population is positively associated with Islamist terrorism. Doesn’t it follow that the higher the percentage of any group in a population, the greater the likelihood of violence committed by the group, be they Muslims, Irish, Methodists, economists, or midgets.

Yeah, here it is:

Carl alleged in 2016 that the percentage of Muslims in a country’s population are positively “associated with Islamist terrorism across Western countries”. Carl has also spoken at the London Conference on Intelligence – a conference on race intelligence and eugenics...

So that was it, huh? I thought maybe he said all lives matter, or it's OK to be white

Well it is probably fair to say (most?) social justice warriors hate racists, but that doesn't mean that SJWs and racists are morally equivalent. Racists have the moral low ground.

There is not a limit on how many people can be wrong at once. Racists carrying Tiki torches and SJW outrage mobs hounding people out of jobs are both bad people doing destructive things--there's no contradiction in noticing this.

Well they are the racists.

We're actually talking about SJWs driving hate for poor white people, not SJWs driving hate for racists.

SJWs and racists both have the moral low ground.

I have never understood this. Why is hating people for having more melanin worse than hating people for lacking eye pigment? Or hating them for having different neurofunctionality? Clearing melanin differences are more sacred than serotonin.

But whatever, hating the poor because they cling to their guns, God, and religion; well that's so much better than getting wacky about skin pigment.


Obviously this is not the same person as the much better known Jeffrey D. Sachs.

No. The obvious example is women. In places where women greatly outnumber men there is less female violence and the percentage committed by females decreases.

More generally, a lot of conflict literature shows that small minorities both engender limited conflict by the majority nor start conflicts. This is thought to be that majority does not feel threatened and the minority feels privileged to be accepted. As the minority grows in numerical strength the majority starts to feel threatened/the minority starts to feel strong enough to risk conflict. Eventually, the majority accepts the minority as part of its own/the minority feels it has been respected or no longer needs conflict.

The thresholds at which these transitions occur are non-linear and vary by group. I have no idea if this is what Carl was investigating, but previous stuff I recall shows that Muslims tend to make both these transitions earlier than other groups.

but previous stuff I recall shows that Muslims tend to make both these transitions earlier than other groups.

Wouldn't surprise me if the former were substantiated. As for the latter, not buying.

#2 Progressives have always felt black people are too stupid to make their own decisions, so will never hold them accountable for the bad decisions. As we've seen stories where Democrats speak down to them (Rep don't) to where Dems believe they are too stupid to figure out how to get a free ID so they can vote. It's always the soft bigotry of low expectations. See, white people should know better, that's why progressives blame them where they wouldn't blame a black person.

3. yeah yeah, right wingers discover indirect systemic restrictions on free speech and hyperbolic ill-informed witch hunts only when they feel like they've been the victim of one interfering with their ability to say stupid and hateful things. Even if only in code.

Kinda forgetting that they invented the damn things.

And yeah, it's reasonable to trod carefully around eugenics, and choose your bedfellows thoughtfully if you intend to go there.

Mostly about hurt feelings. Science!
"In the Master’s email this evening, Bullock wrote: “I apologise unreservedly for the hurt and offence felt by all members of the Combination Room."

Seems like a lot of motivation over hurt feelings all around

I'm often reminded that nothing you say has any value.

Hey you are infringing on my free speech with your mobbing incitement.

So you’re saying let’s allow political tribalism to supersede free speech. Let’s allow outrage mobs to define what is allowable speech so we don’t offend anyone? You realize how dystopian that is? You realize how much coercion is embedded in that logic don’t you? And how corrupting said coercion is in the short-medium and long run???

I say let the racists and bigots of the world speak their mind. Outrage mobs will only further embolden them....

No. I'm saying lets be honest about the sources, types, and misuse of restrictions on free speech. Plus a primer of what free speech is and is not.

Retracting the appointment or speaking invitation of reprehensible people is not in an of itself a restriction on free speech. And is perfectly reasonable, whether instigated by mob protest or a subsequent criminal disclosure: free speech does not mean we need to give everyone a megaphone.

* I am not calling this person reprehensible. I do not know him. I am simply dubious of the predictable politicization and dog whistles employed by his advocates. Which seems to bear some resemblance to the protestations often used by reprehensible people.

A university has every right to decide whom to hire as a lecturer or researcher, and doing so is not a free speech issue. But if the university chooses whom to hire as a lecturer or researcher based largely on political considerations or popular protests rather than on evaluation of the quality of his work, they're doing something wrong and they're making the world a worse place. And if there are areas of science where, if you ever do any work there at all, you're permanently unable to get a good job in your field, then those areas of science will remain unexamined. If there are important insights or lessons to be learned from those areas, they'll go unlearned, because nobody wants to spend a decade being trained for a career in research and then find that he's unemployable due to doing research in some unpopular area.

Self-perpetuating institutional pathology, structural self-censorship, etc are problems for sure. I have seen it a bazillion ways in the corporate sector, not just science.

This guy may be a well meaning and competent researcher going into an unpopular place, but he has found himself among eugenicists and alt-right as his advocates. So whatever the hell he was planning on saying is lost in the right's exploitation of him as the outrage-du-jour.

In any case, my main internet comment point is that the right is merely reaping what it sowed on this manufactured outrage boycott beast, so I can't find many tears for them. The amount of psychological projection and hypocrisy they express on the question of "political correctness" and the madness of mobs is stunning.

Are you thinking of the "right-wing" mob that took the life of the most amazing scientific mind in France, in 1794?


He did some research in some areas that offend some people on the left, and so an outrage mob on the left got him fired. I don't get how this can be laid at the feet of the right.


"The amount of psychological projection and hypocrisy they express on the question of "political correctness" and the madness of mobs is stunning."

Can you elaborate? I would like to read your thoughts on this.

#2...These studies that compare liberals, conservatives, etc., are, as a rule, asinine and pathetic. The grouping itself is bullshit. And reading comments from orgasmic members of these ill-defined tribes when they trumpet their superiority based on the bogus results, is sad and embarrassing to them. What's the point? Who cares? If you feel validation from these so-called studies you need therapy.

Strange, my comment noting that Social Justice is really a hate group itself appears to have been removed. I didn't know MR censors comments.

What kind of comments do they like to censor? It seems like a lot of much lower-grade comments seem to make the cut. And much more partisan comments do too. I can't really make sense of it.

Because you are a cuck and a virtue signaling SJW.

On OpenPsych, a non-peer-reviewed journal, Carl alleged in 2016 that the percentage of Muslims in a country’s population are positively “associated with Islamist terrorism across Western countries”. Carl has also spoken at the London Conference on Intelligence – a conference on race intelligence and eugenics which in the past has been covertly held at University College London.

IOW he has cooties. Doubt there are many people of character on faculties, here or there.

from the quillete link
Tyler Cowen, Holbert L. Harris Chair of Economics, George Mason University—
“I do not know the full case of Noah Carl. But from what I can see about this matter, neither do the academics protesting him, without argument or citation. This is a classic case of a politically motivated witch hunt.”

good on ya- as we say in australia

'White privilege lessons'

Teach everyone that White Man dunnit, and give the Jews a break for a few years. Jews get a break, and then we can aim at Brazilians next time. I am waiting for the Turks turn, seems like a good culture to blame.

#2 meanwhile China is creating a database of "smart people" and openly proposing eugenics in the form of genetic engineering.

Any bets this guy finds a job in China?

Correction, that should be #3, not #2

5: "neuroeconomic gameplay in psychiatric disorders". So when people play these economics games, sections of their brains get activated in certain ways -- and different ways for people with psychiatric disorders.

But IIRC students who take more and more economics classes change the way they play those economics games. And I wonder if their brain patterns change too? (And become more similar or different from the patterns of people with disorders?)

Race is a useful category in many kinds of research, even though it's a fuzzy category that includes both social and biological things and is only correlated with the actual variables we care about. That's why it's used in all kinds of research--medical, educational, social science research, etc. Demanding that nobody use self-reported race would make a lot of research not work as well.

Comments for this post are closed