@Esperanza's banner p




2 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 January 20 01:02:14 UTC


User ID: 2113



2 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 January 20 01:02:14 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 2113

The recent huge increase in the percentage of people who are LGBT suggests that at least bisexuality is a choice for 1 in 5 women. The number of gays is up 4x, and lesbians 11x since the silent generation.

The new narrative is that orientation is a spectrum. Perhaps this is true. Male homosexual acts were commonplace in Ancient Greece and Rome and I think this suggests that at least 50% of men would engage in homosexual acts if it were fully normalized. This seems very high bit I can't explain the ancient world without people being quite flexible.

Adopt a sibling's child?

This used to be common when people had large families (10+ kids) and when there were extra children lying around. The usual pattern was the youngest child, with perhaps a three or four-year age gap to the older ones. This child was often "gossiped" or given to another relative (often childless). It does not happen anymore. My parents considered this with my youngest sister.

Among Indians, especially Indian mothers, having straight hair, blue eyes, and fair skin, is considered a huge plus. Needless to say, the number of Indian guys who have these traits is fairly low. In the West, fair skin for men is not a plus. Blue eyes are a fetish for some girls, but green is perhaps preferred. Straight hair in men is actually a negative, the ideal being Fabio type locks.

Asian women are not nearly as influenced by their mothers, but they seem to prefer height above all else. Whether or not the top of their head is above or below their date's nipples seems to matter hugely. I really can't imagine why. They also do not prefer straight hair, presumably as they think they have that covered.

You might think that "white people" are the single group that does not prefer traits associated with another ethnic group, but this misses the diversity among white people. All girls with straight hair curl their hair. All girls with curly hair straighten it. Girls with gentle curls blow dry their hair straight and re-curl it, so it looks exactly as it was before. Girls who are pale desperately try to tan. Blonde girls cry over their lack of eyebrows. Freckles are a positive only when you don't have them, etc.

People want what they don't have. I think that captures most of it. I imagine that there is some women out there who is perfectly comfortable with her body. I would guess she is trans, though.

I don’t think Ratajkowski is that pretty

She is stunning in person, which actually counts for a lot. When I last met her, I was not wearing my glasses, as I am vain, so she just looked blurred, but her effect on other guys was very obvious.

an acting coach is more likely to know a modelling in agent in Southern California than in Appalachia.

That is true, but not enormously so. Modeling agents look for girls where pretty girls are.

But again, even for Emily Ratajkowski, how high is her value?

I agree with you here. She was appearing on the cover of "erotica" magazines when she was 21, which is pretty low class.

Karlie Kloss was a supermodel who married ‘up’ financially,

Financially, but arguably not socially. Real estate is weird that way, with rich people who have no class. I am sure there is an obvious example around.

I do think it is very hard to marry up several levels. Grace Kelly did it. Miranda Kerr is notable, as she was getting any younger. Natalia Vodianova seems to have done well. Class in the US has been eroding, and the levels are not as obvious as they were. I think in the UK it probably is still much more rigid.

An Appalachian Emily Ratajkowski almost certainly wouldn’t have become a model

How do you explain Pamela Anderson then? Her parents were a furnace repairman and a waitress, and she was "scouted" as she was in the stands at a CFL game. If you are pretty enough, things can happen, whether it be the prince taking interest or the beer sponsor deciding to sign you. You have to be very pretty, though, I will grant that.

Emily's parents were two school teachers. She was born in London, but it does not seem that her parents were jet-setters. Her mother does have a Ph.D. and taught at San Diego Jewish Academy. Ratajkowski Pere got a Bachelor of Fine Arts from San Diego State University and taught at San Dieguito High School, where he met Balgley, who also taught there for a time. This is a public high school, so Emily grew up in San Diego in fairly middle-class surroundings.

UCLA certainly could make a difference, but she attended for one year and was already a model. The child of two school teachers can usually get to UCLA, or another flagship college.

Looking further, Emily got into modeling when a high school acting coach introduced her to an agent and she signed with Ford models at age 14. I do not think that her entry is in any way predicated on her social class, as the acting coach at a public high school is accessible to most Americans. At 14 she was distinctively pretty, as this photo she shared shows.

I would guess that 50% of girls that pretty get introduced to agents, and the ones who are willing to do the work end up as models. Surely you know girls who were scouted?

The Cloaca Maxima looks fine to me and far superior to most sewers that I have had to work in. I will grant you the other two. I should have known that someone from New Jersey could find ugliness easily.

If there was any infrastructure then I am sure a dump would count. I do not know of any old dump with appreciable infrastructure. Even a rail line, a station, etc. would be enough.

What is the first piece of infrastructure you can think of that is ugly? All the older infrastructure, like aqueducts and bridges, are beautiful. Victorian train stations look great. Is there a pre-war piece of infrastructure that you think is not beautiful?

But her legal point rests on an empirical claim, which is that almost everyone would consider the actions of the hypothetical babysitter to be unreasonable. And that empirical claim is called into question by the survey mentioned in the article.

I think her legal point is that there are circumstances where actions are unreasonable. The fact that her example is one that people disagree on does not establish that the argument generally fails.

Consider the following: My son asks if he can use my credit card to go to a ball game. I say yes. He asks can be by someone a drink if he meets someone special. I say yes. He buys not just everyone in the stadium a drink, but everyone in every baseball stadium, and sets up a system whereby all future drinks are paid for on my dime, indefinitely. I think this is unreasonable, and I doubt that more than 15% of people would consider his actions reasonable. Ok, maybe 20% of people would be ok with this.

Is this example more analogous to paying off everyone's student loan debt? I don't know, but I do know that there are unreasonable uses of permission.

I think the best metric is possibly that spending an order of magnitude (or possibly two orders, and definitely three) higher than intended is probably suspect. A babysitter who chartered a plane to Disneyland is probably unreasonable. One that hires Justin Bieber to sing the kids to sleep is even more unreasonable (I actually know someone who had Bieber sing their kids to sleep. Beiber did it for free as a favor.) The point of the example is that there are expenditures that are so much larger than the expected amounts that they require explicit permission.

I am not sure what the intended amount of loan forgiveness was in the bill in question. If the permission was expected to be applied on an individual case basis, then blanket forgiveness is perhaps 10 million times more expensive than was intended. This is close to buying everyone in every stadium a beer.

If the bill was intended to allow the forgiveness of 100k people (all active duty servicemen), then stretching it to less than 1 million is probably not objectively unreasonable, as it is within an order of magnitude. This is analogous to my son meeting up to ten girls and buying them drinks. This is excessive but not unreasonably so.

Finland has 2% red hair, while Ireland has 10% and Scotland 13%. This is not quite as big a difference as I expected and presumably comes down to judging what counts as red hair. To have red hair in Ireland requires a lot, while the Finns might have a weaker threshold. With a weaker threshold, Ireland increases to 30%, with this being more common across the Shannon.

80% of Finns are blonde, while "A range of 27%-30% of Irish females have blonde hair, while for males it is much lower: 20%".

I would guess these numbers have changed significantly recently due to immigration. In the past, Ireland had essentially no people with brown eyes. Growing up, I knew two who I met in college. Van Morrison wrote a song "Brown Eyed Girl" when he met one on a train in London, as he was struck by how unusual it was. (Actually, this is the story Van told me, but it seems he has reneged on it, so whatever). In 1952, 0.43% of Irish people had brown eyes, and these were obviously immigrants.

The blondes in Ireland are probably partially from Viking invasions (or immigration, if you like) or related sexual tourism.

phenotypically Norwegians and Irish are very difficult to distinguish.

I would guess you are neither. There was a time I could reliably tell a Cavan man from someone from the King's County (the king in question was Phillip II of Spain). I doubt I could still do that, unless they both were farmers.

Black and white are broad groupings of different peoples and histories.

In general, this is the case, and Black people, encompassing San, Pygmies, Bushmen, Ethiopians and West Africans are extremely genetically diverse. Two bushmen are further apart genetically than the average Asian is from a European. That said, when people talk about Black people in this context they generally mean the descendants of West African slaves which are a fairly homogenous group.

White people generally mean Anglo Germans, which again are a fairly tight group. When people point to a difference, they mean the difference between these two groups.

There is very little discussion of HBD here anymore, and I paid little attention when there was discussion. What I did take away from it was that the people involved had extensive theories, and had put in a lot of work.

I do not particularly believe in HBD, mostly because I live in an environment that is very selected so every one of every race seems very similar.

And aboriginals clearly have had time to become somewhat different. But is this a shorter term phenomenon akin to adaptation rather than a longer evolutionary time.

Aboriginals have been isolated for 50k years. That is a few thousand generations which is long enough for fairly drastic changes. Whether or not there was enough difference in selective pressure is unclear to me.

I'm suspicious that any group over long enough time wouldn't select for intelligence in some form. When is G not useful in an environment.

The homo floresiensis had tiny brains and it is possible that they traded size for more calorie efficiency. I see claims that they used stone tools, but my sense is that people think they were much dumber than regular humans. A very calorie-restricted location, like an island, can lead to miniaturization of a species, and this can make them trade off seemingly useful talents, like intelligence, for reasons of efficiency.

how long do homogeneous populations exist

I think that there will always be clines, and this is visible in England for example, where the East Coast is noticeably blonder than the West. On the other hand, the longer the separation the bigger the differences will be. Some chance is involved, as the difference between Celts and Scandanvians shows. Both are obviously selected for very pale skin over the last 5 to 10 thousand years, but one group became uniformly blonde while the other got quite a bit of red hair. Selecting for less pigment, presumably to absorb enough vitamin D not to have horrible rickets, can be done by many mutations. Some claim that blonde hair spread by sexual selection as well, which is obviously culturally bound.

Can we really assume that much about our current race categorisation around genetic similarity, or are we arguing that early divergence was the key differentiator.

The major categorization, sub Saharan, New World, Aboriginal, Asian, EMEA is based on large geographical features that blocked population flow. It looks from DNA results that people in the past were more similar than they are now. For example, early Celts were brown-skinned. Once we collect more DNA, this will be obvious, I suppose. As far as I know, there are good reasons to believe that much of the differences in genetics between Asia and Europe are due to selection after leaving Africa. I think that groups in Africa have more diversity and some of this is due to Africa bing inhabited longer. The San and the Pygmies separated very 110kya ago, before humans left Africa. The other splits are earlier.

The San and Niger-Congo, Afroasiatic, and Nilo-Saharan lineages were substantially diverged by 160 kya (thousand years ago).

Humans left Africa 60 to 90k years ago, so these split predate that quite a bit.

There are arguments that claim to distinguish when divergence occurred and to be able to tell whether it was due to the founding population or not. I skipped that part.

You mention speed reaction can't be trained for, but I'm assuming elite black athletes have superior scores on these,

Why do you assume this? I will look up the results. Lynn claims that black children have slower choice time but faster movement times. IQ is related to choice time (I am told, but I have not seen anyone doubt this.).

Lynn concludes:

The result suggests that around one-third of the white advantage on intelligence tests may lie in faster information processing capacity.

Populations at the level of black v white v mixed are mixed of genetic lineages. This means tail genetics doesn't have to relate to median genetics.

I don't understand what you mean. Sorry.

Your genetic pot analogy seems a bit naive scientifically.

The idea that there would be a linear relationship comes from the assumption (or observation?) that intelligence is influenced by many genes. This is fairly well accepted in other areas. I don't know any arguments why it would not apply to intelligence, but that might be my failure.

the complexity is not engaged with

If you were around a few years ago, there was a lot of complexity, but I did not pay that much attention, and the major proponents don't post anymore.

For an example of engaging with the question, have a look at this paper. I have not checked the data, the analysis, or even if the study they are using ever happened, but it shows the kind of reasoning that HBDers do. They take seriously the kind of questions you ask.

Is what you are looking for, an analysis of a large number of genes that shows that certain genes are associated with high IQs and these genes are more common in certain populations? There are studies. I can't speak to their reliability. Alternately, are you looking for twin studies that show that identical twins are more common than non-identical twins in IQ?

The achievement gap/IQ gap between white and black people in the US is accepted by all sides. The argument is whether or not IQ is genetic, whether it is a meaningful measure, and whether the tests are fair. The arguments for each of these are many.

HBDers, whether they are right or wrong, have put in quite a lot of work.

what the evidence base is for isolated genetic pools over long history.

The evidence that some populations were isolated (genetically and otherwise) is pretty strong. We can trace DNA and know that Australia and the New World were cut off for quite a while. Similarly, we can tell that Europe and North Africa were cut off from Sub-Saharan Africa almost entirely. There is almost no Neanderthal genes in Sub-Saharan Africa, etc.

I would add the Welsh and Scots to your list as obvious nations without states. Would you consider the Gullah people in Carolinas to be close to a nation, if a little too small at 200k?

One reason that Trump does not have a scandal where he sold influence in the past is that he did not hold elective office before being President. He really did not have the chance to be corrupt in that way.

He seems less dodgy than most land developers, especially New York ones, but that is not the highest bar.

The most obvious place where he could have been worse than Biden is in Epstein-like behavior, but it seems that he is not interested in teen girls. His type is very obvious, and that has kept his troubles contained. Stormy Daniels is 44, so she was 27 when they had their dalliance. His affair with Karen McDougal was when she was 39 (which is almost respectable and obeyed the half your age + 7 rule - just). Alana Evans, who failed to show up for Trump, was 34 at the time.

Why has IQ gone up over time

The scores on some tests have increased, but the major figures seem to believe that this is due to cultural change, and that in other tests, scores have not increased. The scores with less cultural influence have seen no increase, for example.

why is it I can increase my IQ from practice?

Supposedly, practice can increase the IQ score on one test but will not have an effect on a test that you have not studied for. For example, reaction time is a measure of IQ and learning more vocabulary does not increase your reaction time (citation needed).

What is the genetics of a mixed race person in HBD,

HBDers spend a lot of time showing that mixed-race people have the IQs that are the weighted sum of their constituent races. The more white admixture, the high the IQ, etc. They look at this at the gene level rather than relying on physical features. I have no idea how valid this work is.

what level of mixing do different groups have

African Americans are about 15% white admixture, for example. This is fairly easy to measure.

how well does the tail reflect mean behaviour.

Given the population size, the distribution is fairly normal. The standard deviations may vary, of course.

The US has many different ethnic groups in it, not many different nations.

I think that quite a few (572 federally recognized ones) Native American tribes consider themselves nations.

I like Bloom's definition of a nation - the same people living in the same place. The Native American tribes on reservations definitely have this character.

I do not know if any other groups in the US are sufficiently segregated to count as a nation. I think in Canada, the Quebecois would have obviously been a nation had they split in 1995, so presumably, they were close to being one at the time.

Is that really true? Consider a threshold of 0 IQ (so 6 std dev below the mean). No-one (well, 1 in a billion) is excluded by this, but as the sets are the same, if there was predictive power before, there is after.

The skylight uses unpainted metal and glass and shows structural elements. It lacks all decoration and is monochrome. You seem to have a very particular interpretation of brutalist.

When I give an example of someone who is renowned as a brutalist, you say that does not count, because he built those long ago. When I give a modern example of an obviously brutalist building, you point to old examples to claim the architect is not brutalist. You can't have it both ways.

I honestly do not understand your gatekeeping here. The Cap Ferret House uses unpainted metal, angular geometric shapes, exposed structural elements, and no decorative elements. It has a monochrome pallet. Their other buildings have this too. This meets all the elements of brutalism. Perhaps the term is used in a different way than Wikipedia claims.

merely having rough exposed concrete pillars is not brutalism.

Unfinished concrete is one of the main features of brutalism. The others are minimalism, which this has, and exposed structural elements, which this also has. I am not sure why you think this is not brutalist.

I suppose I should check the definition.

Brutalist architecture is an architectural style that emerged during the 1950s in the United Kingdom, among the reconstruction projects of the post-war era.[1][2][3] Brutalist buildings are characterised by minimalist constructions that showcase the bare building materials and structural elements over decorative design.[4][5] The style commonly makes use of exposed, unpainted concrete or brick, angular geometric shapes and a predominantly monochrome colour palette;[6][5] other materials, such as steel, timber, and glass, are also featured.

The picture I linked to is surely minimalist, has bare building materials and structural elements are exposed. It has no decorative design. It has unpainted concrete, angular geometric shapes in the ceiling, and a monochrome pallet. Why is this not brutalism?

There is a difference between the Waters Of The United States and the navigable waters. The navigable ones are the ones that can be used for interstate commerce, and the ones connected are the WOTUS. "a relatively permanent body of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters);"

The court did not claim that wetlands were navigable, just that the clean water act applied to them.

The US definition of navigable may not be that relevant as this is a treaty, not a US law. I don't know anything about how terms in treaties are interpreted, but I imagine that the treatment must be symmetric, so if US law matters, then so must Mexican law.

I also don't know enough to tell if the Rio Grande is navigable. Allegedly it is "too thick to drink and too thin to plow."

I was not the person who brought up the Pritzker award. It seems to be regularly given to people who were famous brutalists during the height of their career.

If you look at the 2021 winners, in the prize announcement they have some recent pictures of buildings. The top right picture of "Site for Contemporary Creation, Phase 2, Palais de Tokyo, photo courtesy of Philippe Ruault" has rough exposed concrete pillars, which are brutalist.

The award says:

Retreating from white cube galleries and guided pathways that are characteristic of many contemporary art museums, the architects instead created voluminous, unfinished spaces.

Unfinished concrete is the essence of brutalism. Perhaps there was a move away from brutalism in the 90s, but it seems to be back.

I agree that their purpose is to block people. It does seem strange that there is a treaty that says you can't try to impede people crossing the border. I wonder if navigable normally refers to crossing a river rather than traveling down it lengthways.