Suppose you introduced the diseases after the US had already been settled, say in 1800?
The same thing that happened to would be white settlement in Africa. A lot of people without immunity would die of the diseases until medicine advanced enough to deal with it.
If HBD is true, then all the existing correlational and longitudinal evidence immediately implies that group differences are the major reason why per capita income in the USA are 3-190x per capita income in Africa, that group differences are a major driver of history and the future, that intelligence has enormous spillovers totally ignored in all current analyses
I think you overstate the case. HBD being true would mean the differences between human groups are large enough to be important for all kinds of things. But it doesn't have to mean that these differences are so large that they swamp every other difference! There are plenty of other, undisputed differences between human groups, which are either non-biologically heritable, or are part of their geographical environment, that could contribute to or outright cause huge disparities between the US and Africa.
As just one example, if you took the African climate, and the sub-Saharan African prevalence of human disease and parasites, and introduced it to the US in a counterfactual past, I expect US average incomes would be much lower. There are many other examples and arguments I could bring here, but I'm pretty sure you can think of them yourself.
Differences in outcomes between groups in the US, or in the EU, are a much better case than the US vs. Africa or vs. China.
As just one example, if you took the African climate, and the sub-Saharan African prevalence of human disease and parasites, and introduced it to the US in a counterfactual past, I expect US average incomes would be much lower.
Yes, mostly because the territory that is now the US wouldn't have been settled by the people it was ultimately settled by in the real world.
Original thread here.
No. Efforts at "diversity in tech" could still lead to a more optimal match of skills to jobs.
HBD does not deny that there may be biases limiting the hiring of quality of applicants, it would just deny that differential outcomes are prima facie evidence of such biases.
Theoretically perhaps. That's not how current diversity in tech initiatives are organized.
Unless you're willing to commit to eugenics of some kind (be it restricting reproduction or genetic alteration), not much of anything.
You don't actually need to do explicit eugenics to change population patterns. China had the same demographic development as Taiwan did. China's birthrate also rose directly after adopting the one-child-policy. Culture seems to be a much stronger factor then direct policies.
China's birthrate also rose directly after adopting the one-child-policy.
Is something supposed to be negated in that sentence?
Also, if we can admit HBD is true it will become acceptable to publish social science studies whose conclusions make racial differences in inteligence obvious. Maybe, that will help with the current crisis the social sciences are in.
Imagine trying to do astronomy, or physics, without being able to admit that the Earth goes around the Sun. In fact, I caould imagine a 17th century inquisitor making a similar argument to yours about "supposing heliocentrism is true", and he would have had a much better case than you do.
In both case what both you and the inquisitor fail to realize is that truths are entangled and lies are contagious. Lying about heliocentrism requires one to lie about nearly everything in physics, similarly lying about HBD requires one to lie about nearly everything in the social sciences.
Original thread here.
From experience, it results in better life quality if you call out bulls**ters without being angry inside about it.
How do you know? Do you have telepathic powers that tell you how someone doing the calling out is feeling inside?
OK, let me propose a clarification of the words we are using for this discussion:
politeness - adhering to a set of widely accepted social norms of communication
being civil - avoiding showing strongly negative emotions, or directly acting to produce such emotions in other people (in most societies, is a part of politeness)
niceness - having positive emotions directed at other people, together with the caring and pleasant behaviour that naturally result from it
So, using the above: LW is not big on politeness, and I fully support this position; LW has being civil in its established norms, and I suggest we keep it; LW norms have nothing on niceness, and I suggest we work to change this.
many of whom were never taught about the consequences of sex.
And what are the consequences of sex? Do tell.
Women (to a much grater extant than men) emotional pair bond after sex. If the resulting encounter doesn't become part of a relationship, or if the relationship falls apart, they feel seriously emotionally hurt. If this happens multiple times, eventually they lose the ability to have healthy relationships.
View more: Next
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Yes, and that would likely cause American productivity and wealth to be lower than it is in reality.
Yes, and "American" demographics would also be different.