Morendil 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)

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: Morendil 11 February 2010 09:17:01PM 3 points [-]

You are definitely shifting the goal posts. 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?

Comparing the above post to your original comment, one has to wonder why you didn't start there.

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.)

Comment author: denisbider 11 February 2010 10:10:31PM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: Morendil 13 February 2010 02:07:58PM 6 points [-]

Some of that "data" is hard to take seriously when you come across quotes such as the following:

Upon reading the original reference, we found that the “data point” that Lynn and Vanhanen used for the lowest IQ estimate, Equatorial Guinea, was actually the mean IQ of a group of Spanish children in a home for the developmentally disabled in Spain.

There's a similar issue with the next lowest IQ on the list, and when you learn that the greater portion of the "country IQ" figures were obtained by averaging IQ data from nearby countries, you see how this kind of data quality issue could have contaminated the entire data set. But say I am inclined to take the data seriously and dismiss a few mistakes. This is from Wikipedia's page on "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" by Lynn and Vanhanen:

The authors believe that average IQ differences between nations are due to both genetic and economic factors. They also believe that low GDP can cause low IQ, just as low IQ can cause low GDP. [...] The authors write that it is the ethical responsibility of rich, high-IQ nations to financially assist poor, low-IQ nations, as it is the responsibility of rich citizens to assist the poor.

IOW, the authors whose work justifies your conclusions arrive at more or less opposite conclusions from yours. You're seeing a correlation, and assuming a causation in one direction, without (so far as I can see) a proper argument for that direction. Since this is one of the classic mistakes people are warned against in the sciences, I'll maintain my skeptical attitude until you adress my actual arguments.

When you do, please take into account how cognitive abilities actually develop (i.e. if you're fed, healthy and go to school you'll end up smarter than if you're starving, sick and nobody ever talks to you, and the former is more likely in a rich country).

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit