the truth in this case is that there doesn’t appear to be a link between race and intelligence.
How did You come to such conclusion ?
There is a wikipedia article on that. (Warning: it keeps changing all the time).
This battlefield of arguments failed to convince me either way so far. I may have some preliminary preferences as to what sounds more probable, but untill the mechanism underlying the genetic component of intelligence is properly explained, I say I do not know.
The solution to this problem is do something Eliezer always argues against for some reason, namely, to compartmentalize.
Does Eliezer really do that ? I got the impression, than compartmentalization is, at least at some cases, perceived as a functional model to avoid big mistakes. (Just as You suggest).
I could not swallow the weather example either. Eventually, I looked it up in the article from Meyers: “Southerners were not more likely than Northerners to adjust to a tropical climate.”
It sounds like the Northerners were not addapting better, but, rather, there was no difference between groups. If so, the word “opposite” is not fair in this context.
Not for infants.
Theoretically, that could make a difference. In my country omegaven is available, but the pack insert gives warning about insufficient experience in children.
Anyway, I still want to bet. What is a fair time span ?
(BTW, do I understand it correctly, that in the USA, omegaven is approved neither for infants nor for adults ?)
Thanks.
Young men go for violence because—in the absence of showing off their ability as provider—fight for an alpha male position via force (I will look up references if needed).
Could I have the reference, please ? Very curious about the experimental set-up.
I have recently seen this article on a drug, which is as yet not approved by FDA due to lack of controlled study. However, the proponent doctor considers the drug a life saver for babies and the existing evidence sufficient to skip the trial phase and go ahead saving lives.
I am usually fond of evidence based medicine. However, in this case, I am shaken by the fact, that the drug is already in use in Europe for some time, with no scandals. Additionaly, it is basically a mixture of lipids from fish oil, which sounds like normal nutrition to me, not a novel chemical with unpredictable effects. (Although the application is intravenous, which is not “natural”).
I believe no finding will be found, which will, in retrospect, justify the current state of denying access to it to fataly ill children patients. No side effects of the kind of “Oh, I wish I let my baby die back then !” (Disability ? Chronic pain ? Mental retardation? - I do not expect any of that… After not seeing it in Europe so far.)
I want to transform this belief into a bet in prediction book. Can anybody give me advice, how to formulate the bet ? What should be a deadline for the bet evaluation ? It will be my first bet in prediction book...
I did read one of them before and the other one after you suggested. What is the important message for me ?
“As modern neuroscience has shown, there is no correlation between cranial size and intelligence (at least between individuals of the same species). ”
Not true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_intelligence#Brain_size
Exactly. The no-criticism zone could serve the purpose of people getting to know each other. The event was for newcomers to the town, right ? “I am Suzie and I believe in homeopathy.” “I am Anna and I am scientific sceptic rationalist and atheist.” It is a pretty fast way to find a soulmate at a social gathering.
I am a molecular biologist and tend to see genetic at places, where others do not. However, in this case, i find it more simple to explain observed things by memes, not genes. The same way the comparatively unrelated languages tend to borrow words from each other, if there is geographical proximity, the changeling stories and general attitude to killing babies can be borrowed and propagated.
I am not a native speaker, so I looked up, what google says about ignorant:
adjective: ignorant
lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
(informal) discourteous or rude.
The connotation is negative. The neutral word would probably be “uninformed”.
I have a somewhat similar experience. As a teen, I prefered to spend holidays with christian groups, although the religion never made sense to me. The reasons ? No or moderate alcohol drinking, extremely rare smoking with no peer pressure to try it, possibility to sing and not embarass myself, possibility to discuss what is right and wrong and not embarass myself. Mild and more merciful manifestations of the pecking order compared to the world outside of the community. (Christian groups do have their alpha individuals, no mistake in that, but they are nicer about it). More volunteering inside this group than outside. This is obviously a comparison based on people I knew personaly, no statistical survey with standard deviatons etc. I certainly could find atheists and agnostics which would have such qualities, but that was sort of hand-picking of isolated individuals. The Christians were a ready-to-go group I could just join, if I wanted to have some fun with more people around me.
Usually, the more relaxed law on pornography is a result of general sexual liberation of the society and, consequently, there is also higher avaibality of real “non video” adult partners. So, thoretically, the porn could intensify lust, but bigger pool of available real-life adult partners can counter the effect. Some abusers, which are not really pedophiles, but use children as substitute object, are also removed from the game by availability of real-life adult partners.
However, what is the situation with child porn specifically ? Is it a stimulant or inhibitor of the crime ? Are there any countries, which first had availability of adult pornography only, and later lifted the ban on child pornography as well ? What were the statistics of child abuse before and after ?
All I am trying to say is, that the 2 papers from Diamond are not a proof for me, that the availability of child porn leads to lower rates of real-life child abuse. (Intuitively, I guess it is probably so, but it is not proven.)
Josh,
My intuition is, that viewing pictures is more a tension relief and prevents the real offence, rather than stimulating the crime. I would prefer to have hard scientific data. However, without those data, I would bet money on my stated hypothesis, rather than the opposite.
You should cite more sources, preferred are the research paper, and among them, metaanalyses, as ChristianKI correctly says.
I am not from USA, but worked there for 2 years in the past. I remember hearing about people facing prison for the possession of children pornography, and was genuinely surprised and sorry for the offenders (although I am a standard heterosexual woman). We had a long discussion with my that day US boyfriend, why is the possession punished so severely. I was surprised by the unproven, but unquestioned assumption, that having pictures stimulates the owner to commit the actual crime. Of course, pictures of children molested or having sexual intercourse should not be taken, because children should not have sexual intercourse or be molested. However, some people define children pornography very broadly, even children taking a bath, running around naked in the garden etc. Some 35 years ago, my parents photographed me naked on the beaches of Yugoslavia and it was pretty normal at those times. I would not be happy, if they were selling those pictures to strangers for pornography. However, I believe, selling their own old pictures when the child becomes adult could become legal once—if it is proven that the pictures do not increase the crime.
I would go, but if my outdoorsy friends organize something at the overlaping dates, I would give higher priority to that. So, let us say, 60 % probability of attendance.
Is someone of you here in a position, that you review research papers for scientific journal ? Has it ever happened to you, that you had an impression, the authors were lying ? How did You handle that ?
Ironic, given we had a hugging lecture at july 2012 minicamp.
It is interesting, what people inside EA find troubling, compared to people outside. (I do not identify myself as EA).
For me, the most repellent things are mentioned here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/j8n/a_critique_of_effective_altruism/#poor-psychological-understanding
In other words, self sacrifice is expected from me to the extent, that my life would suck. No, thanks.
Specifically, the issues about children:
I want to have them.
Apart from my psychological need—do the damned EA know what they are doing ? Is it really that helpful, that western middle class should have even lower population growth, than there is know ? Some people predict, that Europe, as my (our ??) children will know it, will be Islamic. I hope I will not offend the muslim rationalists, I know there are some on this site. Anyway, the culture currently associated with Islam does not seem to me like truth-seeking-friendly. It certainly will fix itself later, like Christianity fixed itself from the bigotry stage in cca 600 years. But do we really want to withdraw from the population battle entirely ? (OK, the word battle probably does not attract You altruist folks, but I do not know the other way to say it). I can imagine the counterarguments, that spreading memes inside familes is not that efficient, that children often rebel. And that memes can be spread outside the family. Well, good luck turning the significant portion of Muslim imigrants into rationalists ! USA is different from EU, but I guess withdrawing middle class from children bearing pool there is also no victory.
I mean, I do not force anybody to have children if they do not want to. It is a lot of work and resources. But to guilt anybody into not having them ? There are way too many people in that cathegory, who are lazy to have them. Why adding another incentive by making it virtuous ?