thomblake comments on Shut Up and Divide? - Less Wrong

60 Post author: Wei_Dai 09 February 2010 08:09PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (258)

Tags: morality

Comments (258)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: denisbider 11 February 2010 08:46:47PM * 4 points [-]

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.

Comment author: thomblake comment score below threshold [+] (20 children)

Comment author: eirenicon 11 February 2010 09:12:16PM 6 points [-]

Do you have any reason to believe Lynn is a racist, or is that just a knee-jerk reaction? Lynn is too contrarian and I am too unqualified to agree or disagree with him, but I believe his work is done in good faith. At the very least, it's unreasonable to label any research into race and intelligence 'racist' just because you don't like the conclusions.

Comment author: thomblake comment score below threshold [+] (18 children)

Comment author: denisbider 11 February 2010 10:21:33PM 10 points [-]

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.

Comment author: eirenicon 11 February 2010 10:00:01PM 6 points [-]

I submit that the idea of 'race' is based solely on bad science and doesn't have any real meaning such that it can be related to anything else.

Nevertheless, the word "race" remains a useful shorthand for "populations differentiated genetically by geographic location" or what have you. If you don't think there are genetic differences between, say, Northern Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans, you are literally blind. They obviously belong to groups that evolved in different directions. That does not have to include intelligence, but it's not reasonable to refuse to consider a hypothesis just because you find it repugnant.

Comment author: thomblake comment score below threshold [+] (4 children)

Comment deleted 11 February 2010 09:56:51PM [-]

Comment author: denisbider 11 February 2010 11:11:58PM 5 points [-]

I find Flynn and Nisbett's position unconvincing. Asians are obviously different and were heavily discriminated against, yet have integrated in America regardless, and now have comparable or better outcomes. There must be a more substantial reason why Africans haven't done the same, and the most plausible reason so far for me is genetics.

Pretty much the one major argument against genetics is that people just don't want this to be the case, because it's one of the least hopeful explanations. But this is bias. Once you eliminate it, it becomes strikingly evident what the most likely explanation is.

Comment deleted 11 February 2010 11:19:48PM * [-]

Comment author: denisbider 11 February 2010 11:34:21PM * 5 points [-]

Good points. But then why don't African Americans perform much better when adopted and raised by non-African parents? If it's about parent pressure, then an African American kid adopted by Asian parents should perform at about Asian level. Why do they not?

Comment deleted 11 February 2010 11:41:49PM [-]

Comment author: denisbider 11 February 2010 11:54:27PM 3 points [-]

They do in some of the handful of transracial adoption studies, and don't in others. Rushton and Jensen et al hype the Minnesota study, because it's the one that supports their case, and note data quality problems with the other studies. Nisbett and Flynn do the reverse. But very little work is done in this area (yes, because of PC issues with funding bodies), so the data is still too thin to be very confident either way.

Agreed. More data would be nice.

I am open to a different explanation, it's just that the genetic one seems most compatible with what I do know at this time.

Seeing a prosperous and competent country arising out of Africa would surely be nice. I would prefer living in a universe like that. It's just that I don't see it happening - regardless of the aid - at this time.

Comment author: thomblake 11 February 2010 10:01:08PM 0 points [-]

phenotypic differences in IQ between groups are not caused by direct genetic effects on IQ ('direct' because of indirect effects like genetic effects on skin color which elicits discrimination, etc).

This in itself does not use the mal-formed concept of "race". I have no problem with assessing genetic influences on intelligence.

Famously anti-racist psychologists like James Flynn and Richard Nisbett disagree, and make claims about race and intelligence fairly frequently ... Are they misusing words?

No, they're privileging the hypothesis

Comment author: Cyan 11 February 2010 09:43:53PM 0 points [-]

I submit that the idea of 'race' is based solely on bad science and doesn't have any real meaning such that it can be related to anything else.

Source?

Comment author: thomblake 11 February 2010 09:53:50PM -1 points [-]

I'm not aware of a simple, accessible guide to the history of science regarding race. The AAA Statement on "Race" seems to disagree with me, claiming that the concept of "race" was based on bad philosophy and political motivations instead of bad science.

Comment deleted 11 February 2010 10:01:30PM * [-]

Comment author: thomblake 11 February 2010 10:12:40PM 1 point [-]

I disagree with him on the proper stance to take on the word "race", but I doubt our disagreement goes any deeper than that. At the end of the day, my feeling on the matter probably does have more to do with politics than linguistics.

thomblake comments on Shut Up and Divide? - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (258)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (258)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login