denisbider

Karma: 136

denisbider Feb 11, 2010, 10:31 PM
−1 points
in reply to: UNPC’s comment on: Shut Up and Divide?

Even the maximalist (and implausible in light of other data) Rushton-Lynn hypothesis

I’ve been looking for about a decade now, but have not encountered evidence that would discredit Lynn. I have however seen a lot of evidence which corroborates his findings.

If you have evidence that discredits his work, I would appreciate it.

is perfectly consistent with aid (external provision of disease treatment, etc) having massive benefits in reducing disease and increasing wellbeing until biotech or more radical things can bypass any genetic disadvantage.

Why stop at Africa then? Shouldn’t we invest billions in animal shelters, so that dogs and cats can live long lives until we find a way to bypass their genetic disadvantage? Wouldn’t those be just as “massive benefits”?

And there’s no need to be smug.

Perhaps it came across as smugness, but I do find that every piece of news I see, either from South Africa, or from Haiti, or from Nigeria, or from Zimbabwe, or from Turks and Caicos, just adds to the pile of evidence.

Also, I myself live in a place like that. Which is why I suggest (in all seriousness!) that people should consider visiting a country like South Africa for a while.

There’s no better cure for academic distance than direct contact with the hard facts on the ground.

denisbider Feb 11, 2010, 10:21 PM
11 points
in reply to: thomblake’s comment on: Shut Up and Divide?
It is impossible to draw a clear line between races, but it is also impossible to draw a clear line between colors of the visual spectrum, and yet “red” and “blue” exist. For a non-IQ related example, people of Ashkenazim heritage are known to be at risk for certain genetic issues, while people of African heritage are known to be exposed to heart-related risks.

The concept of race (or any other word that symbolizes this concept) is statistically significant and useful—more so in countries that are much more homogeneous than the USA.

denisbider Feb 11, 2010, 10:10 PM
−1 points
in reply to: Morendil’s comment on: Shut Up and Divide?
I don’t believe that I’m shifting the goal posts; I stand behind both my original comment and the one above. They are different aspects of a greater concept.

Are you now saying that charity shouldn’t be directed to countries inhabited by races which by virtue of low IQ will be unable to make good use of it?

That’s part of what I’m saying. It should also not be directed towards the homeless and other failures.

I am in favor of a social net for those who are legitimately out of luck and soon regain gainful employment.

It still seem clear that health, nutrition and education can have major effects on IQ regardless of the extent to which IQ differences might be due to genetic factors associated with ethnicity. (Imagine raising your kids in exactly the same conditions as slum dwellers in Haiti or Africa.)

I’ve been looking for about a decade now, but have not encountered evidence that would discredit Lynn. I have however seen a lot of evidence which corroborates his findings.

If you have evidence that discredits his work, I would appreciate it.

denisbider Feb 11, 2010, 9:59 PM
−2 points
in reply to: CarlShulman’s comment on: Shut Up and Divide?
If it makes one happy to go around and cure people of TB, then one should by all means do so. However, I do not perceive this as significantly different, or more valuable, than running a huge animal shelter, if the recipient of aid doesn’t pay you back. As with an animal shelter, you are expending external resources to maintain something for the sake of it. Doing so does not contribute towards creating resources. It is a form of indulgence, not investment.

denisbider Feb 11, 2010, 9:49 PM
6 points
in reply to: Rain’s comment on: Open Thread: February 2010
Points taken, thank you.

denisbider Feb 11, 2010, 9:22 PM
2 points
in reply to: Cyan’s comment on: Shut Up and Divide?
Seems like a funny link, I’ve watched a bit of it and will continue to watch it.

But comparing the per capita GDP of $7,000 in Mauritius, vs $39,000 in Singapore...? Granted, $7,000 in Mauritius is more than $270 in Zimbabwe, but still.

The difference remains similar in PPP terms.

Also, about ²⁄₃ of the Mauritius population appear to be Asian.

denisbider Feb 11, 2010, 9:11 PM
0 points
in reply to: byrnema’s comment on: Open Thread: February 2010
But the definition of “humanity” isn’t even coherent, and is actually incompatible with shades of gray that actually exist.

Until these fundamentals are thought out, there can be lots of hot air, but progress toward a goal cannot be made, as long as the goal is incoherent.

It seems to me that the type of humanism you’re talking about is based on an assumption that “other people are like me, and should therefore be just as valuable to me as I am”.

But other people, especially of different cultures and genetic heritage, have strikingly different values, strikingly different perceptions, different capacities to think, understand and create.

The differences are such that drawing the compassion line at the borders of the human race makes about as much sense as at any other arbitrary point in the biological spectrum.

I believe that, to be consistent in valuing empathy as a goal on its own, you have to have empathy with everything. I find that a laudable position. But the sad fact is, most of us here aren’t vegan, nor do even want to be. (I would be if most people were.)

People are selfish, and do not have empathy for everything. In fact, most people pretend to have empathy for the world as a whole, whereas in fact they only have empathy for the closest people around them, and perhaps not even them, when push comes to shove.

All that having been said, and the world being as selfish as it is, when you say that you’re a humanist, that you want to better the lot of other people, and that you contribute 50% of your income to charity (just as an example), you are basically saying that you’re a sucker, and that your empathic circuits are so out of control that you let other people exploit you.

Given that we are the way we are, I think a much more reasonable goal is to foster a world that shares our values, not to foster the existence of the arbitrary people who don’t share our values, but exist today.

denisbider Feb 11, 2010, 8:46 PM
6 points
0
in reply to: Morendil’s comment on: Shut Up and Divide?
I didn’t read Guns, Germs and Steel, but I read the synopsis on Wikipedia. My impression is that Diamond discusses the reasons why civilization developed in Europe (rather than elsewhere) in the past. The synopsis on Wikipedia does not, however, discuss anything relevant to why Africa has been unable to pick up civilization after it has already been developed. Are you aware of a synopsis of Diamond’s argument that addresses specifically that?

I gave the example of Singapore specifically because it is a country that grew from virtually nothing to prosperity in a matter of decades. Japan and Taiwan could also be used as examples, and China is not faring too bad either. There are still a large number of countries in Asia that are dysfunctional, but many countries, some of them very large, have picked up the lessons of what works, and have applied them, or are now applying them, to create a functional civilization.

This, however, is not happening in Africa, nor in Caribbean (where independent), nor in the Philippines, nor in the Bronx—nor anywhere with a majority of largely African descent.

In all these places, the reverse process took place. The locals took control away from colonizing foreigners, and then instead of a proliferation of prosperity, it all broke down and fell apart. Why is that?

The short answer is: their average IQ is 70.

The long answer is:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/159368021X

If you want to be shocked some more, follow an international news source such as BBC for a few years, and pay attention to news from Africa and the Caribbean. The pieces will fall in place in time.

denisbider Feb 11, 2010, 8:29 PM
−1 points
in reply to: Rain’s comment on: Open Thread: February 2010
Since we’re doing probabilistic thinking, I would assign a great probability to the current system being imperfect, simply because (1) it is the system with which the site was designed prior to developing experience, and (2) the system is observed to have faults.

These faults seem to be fixable by making voting costlier, prompting readers to invest more thought when they decide to vote. I don’t even expect that this would necessarily improve my karma, but I think it would increase thoughtfulness, decrease reactivity, and improve quality overall.

There should probably be a daily limit to how many comments people can make, too. I think it would encourage longer and more thoughtful comments rather than shorter and more reactive ones.

denisbider Feb 11, 2010, 8:24 PM
1 point
in reply to: Rain’s comment on: Open Thread: February 2010
Perhaps I would know better to avoid that if I was more exposed to US culture, but I am originally from Europe and I tend to abhor political wars for their vacuousness, so perhaps I’m using words in ways that reminisce of politics inadvertently.

denisbider Feb 11, 2010, 8:19 PM
1 point
in reply to: mattnewport’s comment on: Open Thread: February 2010
Thanks Matt. I generally try to take this role because I’m aware that the character traits that allow me to do this are somewhat rare, and that the role is valuable in balance.

I’m also aware of the need to improve my skills of getting the message across, but this takes time to develop.

denisbider Feb 11, 2010, 8:15 PM
0 points
in reply to: Zack_M_Davis’s comment on: Shut Up and Divide?
That is generally true. In extreme cases, however, things can get near black and white. The case I was responding to does seem such an extreme case to me.

denisbider Feb 11, 2010, 8:09 PM
2 points
in reply to: Morendil’s comment on: Shut Up and Divide?
Aid in health care and education would in fact be the best way if the problem was something that can be solved with health care and education.

denisbider Feb 11, 2010, 8:08 PM
0 points
in reply to: CarlShulman’s comment on: Shut Up and Divide?
Good points. But when are they going to start feeding themselves and making their own medicines?

denisbider Feb 11, 2010, 8:04 PM
3 points
0
in reply to: Morendil’s comment on: Shut Up and Divide?
Haiti and Africa are not the way they are because anyone pillaged them. You need to read types of books you do not want to read, or try to live among them for a while, to get a glimpse of the nature of their dysfunction.

Or ask yourself this question. Many Asian countries are poor, but among them, some are marvelously prosperous. How come, though, there is no Singapore of African descent?

denisbider Feb 11, 2010, 8:01 PM
0 points
in reply to: Rain’s comment on: Open Thread: February 2010
(1) I don’t see my comments as being political. If you perceive them as injecting politics, then I suspect it’s because you are used to hearing similar things in a more political environment. My comments are about reason, empathy, charity, value systems, and how they fit together.

(2) I am unable to substantiate my positions if people don’t respond. When people do respond, then I have some understanding of the differences between my viewpoint and theirs, and can substantiate. But I don’t believe it’s reasonable to expect all possible counter-arguments to be preempted in a comment of reasonable length.

(3) The “delicate balance” argument is specious—it is a form of bias in favor of what already exists. If we had a different system, then you would be calling that system a “delicate balance”.

denisbider Feb 11, 2010, 7:45 PM
−1 points
in reply to: tut’s comment on: Shut Up and Divide?
Also, have you actually been to Africa? I recommend visiting for a prolonged period several times. You might see it in a different perspective then.

denisbider Feb 11, 2010, 7:42 PM
−1 points
in reply to: tut’s comment on: Shut Up and Divide?
Looks like you’re just going to have to build that road then.

You are focusing on the immediate needs of people now, whereas I am focusing on the dysfunctionality that’s going to continue into the future.

Freebies from the Western world aren’t going to improve the lot of Africa. The only way their lot can be sustainably improved is by them reorganizing the way their communities work. No outsider can do that, and if they don’t, no amount of external aid will help.

denisbider Feb 11, 2010, 7:37 PM
−3 points
in reply to: tut’s comment on: Open Thread: February 2010
I hear Socrates wasn’t popular either.

I’m no Socrates, but focusing on style instead of essence is incorrect.

Some of the best lessons I’ve learned were from people who were using a very blunt style.

I am not trying to appear superior, nor to gain status. If I wanted that, I would not be using a style which I know is likely to antagonize. I use a blunt style at the expense of my status and for the benefit of the message, not the other way around.

denisbider Feb 11, 2010, 7:26 PM
1 point
in reply to: CarlShulman’s comment on: Shut Up and Divide?
I’m not a Randian Objectivist, nor do I insist on everything leading to libertarian policies.

You seem to have misinterpreted me based on a preconceived notion of what other things are usually said by people who say this sort of thing. But I’m not one of those people.