Noam Chomsky is annoying

Economics Economics Questions
101

@nirgrahamUK

They’re right, that is the reason: Not only because less intelligent people are, on average, less economically successful but also because as Watson pointed out - All the policies of the central planners of state capitalism like the World Bank and IMF have this idea Africa is on the cusp of manufacturing superconductors if only they receive enough credit and the ‘conditions’ are right.

It’s nonsense. Sub-saharan Africa should be allowed to develop organically, which means under ideal free market circumstances it will become a mass food producer. It certainly won’t become a hive of quantenary industry however. The people simply aren’t intelligent enough.

If you want to check out some decent intelligence experts who blog - You should go to gnxp.com which is run by a Bengali researcher/race realist, Razib Khan -So he can hardly be accused ‘white racism’ as well as Half Sigma, another excellent resource. Both of these blog regularly about new peer reviewed research that, for obvious reasons, doesn’t make it into the MSM.

102

they are wrong, it is not a prime reason, having less wealth than a brain surgeon does not mean you suffer african level poverty in a market with the institution of private property.

If the african continent had had the correct institution - private property, free trade. (not ‘credit’ or ‘conditions’) and the rest of the world had just what it had, it would not take all that long for the african continent to enjoy wealth far outstripping what the USA would have. Despite a distribution of ‘intelligence’ whose statistical mean is a few ‘arbitrary intelligence points’ lower than other ethnicities. (also let us not forget that people who are not ethnically ‘african’ can live in africa also)

103

Germanicus, have you read or surveyed Tom Sowell’s Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?

104

It is, sorry. See Rinderman’s research on the matter:

“In longitudinal analyses with various samples of nations, education and cognitive abilities appear to be more important as developmental factors for GDP than economic freedom. Education and intelligence are also more relevant to economic welfare than vice versa.”

Manifest, errant nonsense. Even if they had a private property based society, they’d still require superior East Asian and White intellect to exploit their resources. They do not have the cognitive ability to innovate in high technology, nor to maintain it.

In respect to what processes or mechanisms is it that persons who perform well on anyone test, in general, also perform well on many other tests, even on tests that are highly dissimilar in content and sensory and motor modalities?

The concept of intelligence depends not on the fact that people can be ranked by this test or that, but rather on the fact that, whatever the test, so long as it is cognitive in the broadest sense, a positive correlation emerges between the ranks for any two tests. If an IQ test were just a rag-bag collection of subjective cognitive tasks that did not all measure a common factor, there could be no positive manifold.

Furthermore, stating it is ‘arbitrary’ ignores the fact it has neuroscientific and genetic factors behind it. For example:

“By comparing brain maps of identical twins, which share the same genes, with fraternal twins, which share about half their genes, the team calculate that myelin integrity is genetically determined in many brain areas important for intelligence. This includes the corpus callosum, which integrates signals from the left and right sides of the body, and the parietal lobes, responsible for visual and spatial reasoning and logic (see above). Myelin quality in these areas was also correlated with scores on tests of abstract reasoning and overall intelligence.”

The Journal of Neuroscience, vol 29, p 2212

It is also linked to cortical thickness:

“In healthy adults, greater intelligence is associated with larger intracranial gray matter and to a lesser extent with white matter. Variations in prefrontal and posterior temporal cortical thickness are particularly linked with intellectual ability.”

Cerebral Cortex 2007 17(9):2163-2171

The differences are seen in children’s brain development:

“The researchers found that the relationship between cortex thickness and IQ varied with age, particularly in the prefrontal cortex, seat of abstract reasoning, planning, and other “executive” functions. The smartest 7-year-olds tended to start out with a relatively thinner cortex that thickened rapidly, peaking by age 11 or 12 before thinning. In their peers with average IQ, an initially thicker cortex peaked by age 8, with gradual thinning thereafter. Those in the high range showed an intermediate trajectory (see below). While the cortex was thinning in all groups by the teen years, the superior group showed the highest rates of change.”

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/40646.php

The fact that there are differences is not surprising when you consider new evidence of recent evolutionary change (see ‘The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution’ for a summary). For example, you see new versions of SLC6A4, a serotonin transporter, in Europeans and Asians. There’s a new version of a gene (DBA1) that shapes the development of the layers of the cerebral cortex in east Asia, as well as CHRM2, a gene described as the first “yielding consistent evidence of association with IQ across multiple studies conducted by independent research groups.” In addition to FADS2 and a few other candidate genes.

The fact you deny all of this is not surprising either, as the belief in racial equality is faith-based to begin with and is not grounded in facts, evidence, or logic. Therefore, no amount of facts or proof would be enough to sway these true believers.

Just as proof of God’s nonexistence would be met with claims that God fabricated such evidence to fool people, proof of innate differences between races on a non-superficial level is always met with claims that an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient white entity is somehow manipulating the evidence to test the faith of egalitarians.

Evidence which proves that races are inherently different already exists by the boatload, but historically speaking it takes a long time for religious beliefs to yield to facts. The Catholic Church didn’t officially admit that Galileo was right until 350 years after his death. I expect it to take at least that long for egalitarianism to reach maturity and admit at least some of its mistakes. Perhaps they will apologize for their shameful treatment of people like James Dewey Watson too.

105

No, I’m aware of what his salient points are though.

Sowell is hopelessly wrong about the Flynn effect however, he misinterprets it and takes it to mean that IQ is significantly influenced by environment moreso than by genetics, he’s wrong on this count, and he’s wrong that the Flynn effect represents real gains in g-factor intelligence. See the research on the matter:

"It appears therefore that the nature of the Flynn effect is qualitatively different from the nature of B-W [Black-White] differences in the United States… [so] implications of the Flynn effect for B-W differences appear small…"

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2004.07.002

And from Flynn himself:

"When you analyze IQ gains over time, you often find that they do not constitute enhancement of these latent traits – they do not seem to be general intelligence gains, or quantitative factor gains, or verbal factor gains (Wicherts et al, in press). In the language of factor analysis, this means that IQ gains over time tend to display ‘measurement artifacts or cultural bias’. For a second time, we are driven to the conclusion that massive IQ gains are not intelligence gains or, indeed, any kind of significant cognitive gains." (pp 27-28)

http://search.bwh.harvard.edu/concourse/900/articles/FlynnEffectDraft.doc

106

I wasn’t satisfied with his treatment of IQ either.

My point in bringing it up was simply to ask you how you disprove that Sowell’s cultural theory of poverty/prosperity is wrong? My conclusion is that they’re both correct, and my gut is really that culture is at the root. Now whether or not low IQ’s cause crappy culture…

107

@Sieben

Culture plays a role in g, but it’s a minimal role, as numerous twin/transracial/family studies have shown over the past 30-40 years. Roughly 75-80% of g is heritable.

This is just one of those things that people are going to have to accept as time goes on, because the more science reveals, the more evidence falls into the hereditarian camp.

You also have to remember there’s a twinge of bitterness too, because the fraud that was Boasian anthropology basically stated human beings are blank slates at birth. Boas himself was a Marxist, and like today’s cultural Marxist, he basically wanted to rationalize egalitarianism from a pseudoscientific perspective.

And it’s hardly like the cultural role is neglected in the MSM or indeed the mainstream in general (see the Snyderman-Rothman study for example). Every time you turn on your TV and there’s something related to biology, nurture is REPEATEDLY stressed over nature, even though we now know that this simply isn’t the case - That nature in fact plays a greater role than nurture does, we still hear these lies repeated over and over again ad infinitum.

I also find the leftist conception of culture kind of bizarre. For them it’s a very nebulous concept that exists independent of cause, when in reality culture is merely the output of a people. If you put a 1000 axe murderers on an island, they too will develop a ‘culture’ reflective of their innate ‘abilities’ and intelligence. Culture does not just magic itself into existence and start degrading a people.

108

I presume if i asked for you a citation, you’d be able to provide many, and they would basically be where twins were raised in two different cultures, and still had roughly the same socioeconomic outcomes?

Sowell Writes, and I type awkwardly from the book in my lap:

The sources 7-11 don’t seem too reliable to me… although it is likely they are primary sources. Their dates are like 40s-70s.

Anyway, how do you explain the increased IQ of other groups relative to blacks, who started off at the same IQ?

109

@Sieben

The most comprehensive review of twin studies comes from Haworth et al (2009):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19488046

As for explaining the increases in IQ of other groups, there’s no need to as they don’t represent real gains in g factor intelligence as Flynn himself stated. It is also incorrect, as Sowell stated, that developed countries had lower g intelligence in the first half of the 20th century corresponding to IQs of 70. Meanwhile, as the Rindermann paper reveals, the scores across modern nations do correspond to real intelligence differences. Likewise, extremely low IQ scores in modern Africa, unlike scores in developed countries prior to the mid-20th century, correspond to genuine deficits in g intelligence (see: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00192-7 for why they represent real deficits).

IQ cannot be taken at face value with regards to the Flynn effect, as there is some distortion due to ‘practice effect’, g factor intelligence as a whole however, doesn’t suffer from these distortions.

110

“In longitudinal analyses with various samples of nations, education and cognitive abilities appear to be more important as developmental factors for GDP than economic freedom. Education and intelligence are also more relevant to economic welfare than vice versa.”

I typed - Rinderman “economic freedom” and its a triple word googlewhack leading to this thread? who is Rhinderman that finds that smart guys in war zones enjoy higher GDP than dumber than average folks in Hong Kong?

The concept of intelligence depends not on the fact that people can be ranked by this test or that, but rather on the fact that, whatever the test, so long >>as it is cognitive in the broadest sense, a positive correlation emerges between the ranks for any two tests.

and you think this correlation can provide us with a non-arbitrary method of ‘quantifying’ the phenomenon that is intelligence?

Furthermore, stating it is ‘arbitrary’ ignores the fact it has neuroscientific and genetic factors behind it. For example:

no it does not. it is arbitrary in a similar way as a social scientist might invent a ‘happiness quotient’, no doubt environmental and genetic factors impact on ones ‘happiness’, this would not stop such a quotient from being arbitrary.

The fact you deny all of this is not surprising either, as the belief in racial equality is faith-based to begin with and is not grounded in facts, evidence, >>or logic. Therefore, no amount of facts or proof would be enough to sway these true believers.

i dont deny ‘all this’ , i understand that genetic factors play a profound role in how individuals score in arbitrary tests of what examiners decide to label ‘intelligence’. I certainly deny your downplaying institutional factors in favour of ‘intelligence’. High scoring IQ socialists that institute socialism and thereby die of starvation and mutual murder… don’t say much for your theory.

I probably need to hear you say more about ‘races’ to know whether I agree or disagree with you in the stuff you say about that. suffice it to say that categorizing human beings by race is itself a controversial topic even as noting the effects of their genetic inheritance is less so.

111

‘nature’ has a tremendous effect on who you are, you have blue eyes, nature, not nurture.

then again. i kill you. you are dead. environment has its profound effects too.

You are on shaky ground with me when you make sweeping statements like ‘nature trumps nurture’ for such reasons.

112

So you think that irish and scottish immigrants still have their base IQ of 85? If so, why are they more prosperous?

113

Huh?

Yep. I’d like to hear of a similar metric that has similar links to genetic and neuroscientific evidence behind it, not to mention its predictive qualities and the positive manifold it has with anything even vaguely cognitive.

Go on, name a metric that has all this evidence behind it.

Do they have candidate genes to back them up? Neuroscientific data? Twin studies? Transracial adoption studies? Any kind of positive manifold with other metrics?

Again, desperately trying to claim IQ/g is ‘arbitrary’ without any kind of evidence to back up your point is nothing more than a naked assertion on your part.

You are a race denier, you have an interest in denying the concept of g factor intelligence because it contradicts your egalitarian worldview that all races possess exactly equal cognitive abilities because humans stopped evolving 40,000 years ago for some reason.

The fact they hold idiotic views is a result of ivory tower thinking, it does not ‘disprove’ anything. They’re still highly intelligent individuals at a cognitive level.

It is controversial amongst multicultists who follow the church of marx and gramsci, certainly. But not among scientists, in fact they even invented a term for race denial, named Lewontin’s Fallacy. Race is a genetically meaningful description regardless, as cluster points show:

In one of the most extensive of these studies to date, considering 1,056 individuals from 52 human populations, with each individual genotyped for 377 autosomal microsatellite markers, we found that individuals could be partitioned into six main genetic clusters, five of which corresponded to Africa, Europe and the part of Asia south and west of the Himalayas, East Asia, Oceania, and the Americas

http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070&ct=1

114

Liberte

i understand not caring if strangers live or die. and that no one owes nothing to anyone. would you however lift a finger to ease the suffering of a person?? a quick painless death is one thing - suffering is another…

115

So you’re one of those individuals who thinks racial differences only extend to the superficial traits?

How do you explain this evidence?

In a study of East Asians, Europeans and Africans, Dr. Pritchard and his colleagues found 700 regions of the genome where genes appear to have been reshaped by natural selection in recent times. In East Asians, the average date of these selection events is 6,600 years ago.

Many of the reshaped genes are involved in taste, smell or digestion, suggesting that East Asians experienced some wrenching change in diet. Since the genetic changes occurred around the time that rice farming took hold, they may mark people’s adaptation to a historical event, the beginning of the Neolithic revolution as societies switched from wild to cultivated foods.

Some of the genes are active in the brain and, although their role is not known, may have affected behavior. So perhaps the brain gene changes seen by Dr. Pritchard in East Asians have some connection with the psychological traits described by Dr. Nisbett.

Non-superficial traits take no longer to evolve than superficial traits, and there is evidence for them, such as the above.

Nature is more important than nurture as far as intelligence goes. For 50 years we’ve had to listen to cultural marxists like you trumpet that all races are exactly equal in every conceivable way, that all people are equal, that the mind is a blank slate from birth… And that any unequal outcomes are because of ‘white racism’. Now the tide is turning against you, rapidly, and you don’t like it.

@Sieben

No, the point I’m making is that such groups never had IQs of 85. I’m guessing Sowell is just reprinting verbatim from Gould at that point, as he made similar arguments about Jews having low IQs in the early 20th century, which was later revealed to be nonsense. The idea that Jews tested poorly is actually based on a misrepresentation of a paper authored by Henry Goddard in 1917.

Goddard gave IQ tests to people suspected of being mentally handicapped. He found the tests identified a number of such people from various immigrant groups, including Ashkenazi Jews. Leon Kamin in 1974 reported that Goddard had found Jews had low IQ scores. However, Goddard never found that Jews or other groups as a general population had low scores. There is other information that contradicts the idea that Jews did poorly on IQ tests around this time.

In 1900, in London, Jews took a disproportionate number of academic prizes in spite of their poverty (C Russell & H.S. Lewis ‘The Jew in London’ Harper Collins 1900). Also, note that by 1922 Jewish students made up more than a fifth of Harvard undergraduates & the Ivy League was already instituting policies aimed at limiting Jewish admissions (the infamous ‘Jewish quotas’). Also, a 1920’s a survey of IQ scores in three London schools with mixed Jewish & non-Jewish student bodies - one prosperous, one poor and one very poor - showed that Jewish students, on average, had higher IQ’s than their schoolmates in each of the groups. So I’m skeptical of Sowell’s claims such groups had IQs of 85.

116

Huh?

I have since found that Rindermann has two nn’s so I can consult your source now.

Do they have candidate genes to back them up?

dont know, if being fit and healthy has a determining effect on happiness, and is in turn determined by genetics, it would seem so.

Again, desperately trying to claim IQ/g is ‘arbitrary’ without any kind of evidence to back up your point is nothing more than a naked assertion on your part.

ok, let me try another tack. what does “I have an IQ of 126” mean ?

your egalitarian worldview that all races possess exactly equal cognitive abilities because humans stopped evolving 40,000 years ago for some reason.

I don’t have this view. please stop imagining that i do.

The fact they hold idiotic views is a result of ivory tower thinking, it does not ‘disprove’ anything. They’re still highly intelligent individuals at a cognitive >>level.

but your argument is that intelligence correlates to ‘high GDP’…so… respond to that…

In one of the most extensive of these studies to date, considering 1,056 individuals from 52 human populations, with each individual genotyped for 377 autosomal microsatellite markers, we found that individuals could be partitioned into six main genetic clusters, five of which corresponded to Africa, Europe and the part of Asia south and west of the Himalayas, East Asia, Oceania, and the Americas

interesting so, european is a race and south asian is a race?, do i take it that races correspond to continents? what do you/they say about Jews and Kurds and Anglo-saxons? are they races ? are they ‘sub-races’ , If a child has parents from two races, which cluster do they go into? I’m sorry if this question is naive, yet you seem to know quite a bit about race from a scientific perspective (and intelligence). Please realise that I understand this, even as I disagree with you in certain ways you jump off from your core knowledge to other arenas where I believe I am competant to offer criticism.

117

Non-superficial traits take no longer to evolve than superficial traits, and there is evidence for them, such as the above.

yeah, i’m cool with that, you don’t have to try so hard.

cultural marxist like you.

can you back up that I am like a cultural marxist. what is a cultural marxist? and what traits do I share? have you done a cluster analysis? Its odd if im a cultural marxist since I am a profound anti-marxist, i suppose cultural marxism is an independant trait?

that the mind is a blank slate from birth.

yeah, i dont think that. maybe you’ll start talking to me rather than who you think i am ? here’s hoping.

And that any unequal outcomes are because of ‘white racism’

very funny. i dont blame you, you are relatively new here, but this is not what I argue, or would ever argue.

118

From the data I have, it actually works the other way around. For example, leftists in the 1990s claimed that ‘self-esteem’ affects IQ, and that blacks have less self-esteem, so they have lower IQ. Studies actually show the opposite, the most intelligent and richest and healthiest grouping, Asian-Americans, have the least self-esteem and the highest suicide rates in the US for example, then Whites, then Hispanics, then Blacks.

That you’re intelligent. That you are able to gather your own materials and work from those, inferring your own information from these, it’s what is known as the ‘college format’. By contrast, someone with an IQ of 80 requires explicit and ‘hands on’ instruction.

I never said such a thing, I said generally speaking it does - But that external factors can impede this.

Generally speaking.

Sub-races, there are two types of Jews racially speaking though, Ashkenazim and Sephardic.

Genetically, they fall inbetween. Think of it as a color spectrum. Red and Yellow mix to produce orange, but that doesn’t mean Red and Yellow don’t exist.

Fair enough.

119

Sowell doesn’t write anything about jews in his book. He doesn’t cite Gould… one of his citations is from H. Gordon, which references the mentally handicapped, and is presumabely what you are talking about. Although given that Sowell probably handwrote the bibliography, he’s probably aware that on its face it might look like he’s using the handicapped scores vs actual scores. In light of this, Sowell probably isn’t making that mistake unless you think he’s that dumb/biased. Regardless, there are other citations.

P.E. Vernon published Intelligence and Cultural Environment, which references the testing of normal children among different groups. Everything else is from the 40’s an unobtainable over the internet. They are case studies of I.Q. between groups as well, and apparently support the cultural thesis of prosperity.

[edit: If you think Nirgraham is obtuse, fine, but he isn’t a cultural marxist. Even if he were, its just a bogeyman label and you seem better than that]

120

Quote by AaronKilleen;“I say we send them massive amounts of birth control, regardless of what the pope says”

This ignores the fact that many people want to have kids. And lots of them. I think theres a tendency to assume the recent western style thinking in regards to having children is “default”. But cultures like that don’t think in terms of “This kid is going to cost me X amount of dollars to send to college” or whatever. Its “this child is a blessing and I wish to have more blessings.”