FlyOnTheWall
2d ago
Your example requires 4th order effects? I think anything past 2nd order starts to get into low probability land
This seems totally orthogonal to whether positive/negative rights are meaningful. You are arguing that on net, the activist's behaviour is bad for their cause, which may be true.
But I am just pointing out that the decision to not go along with their demands counts as a violation of a negative right. Because that specific 4th order effect I gave is a negative right that is being violated.
FlyOnTheWall
2d ago
Sorry, I mixed up positive/negative rights there (I have edited my comment to correct this)
But you can just reframe positive rights as negative rights, e.g.
- Positive: Trans women have the right to use the women's locker room
- Negative: People have the right not to be excluded from locker rooms on the basis of their sex
And just generally, "I have a right to X" --> "I have a right to not be deprived of X"
FlyOnTheWall
2d ago
Both are virtuous in the sense that the problems would go away if most of society adopted the habit of exercising their right to walk around public spaces. There would initially be lots of rapes/muggings, but then there would be a backlash and something would be done to get rid of the evil predators.
When people instead opt to just avoid those areas, they cede those areas to the predators.
And on an individual level, the predators would now actually have committed a crime they could be charged for (instead of just being menacing but legal)
Perhaps we mean different things by virtuous. I use virtuous to mean pro-social behaviour - there is no requirement for some sort heroism or struggle (but it includes stuff like that too)
FlyOnTheWall
2d ago
They can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think @quiet_NaN is being literal with the hypothetical here.
As in, what if a normal woman literally decided, against common sense, to walk around in a bad part of town at night in a miniskirt alone? (Sometimes it is nice to go on a night walk, and she likes her miniskirt as an outfit)
So there is no crime or even unwholesomeness involved at all on her part (I don't think this is a good analogy for Pretti though)
FlyOnTheWall
2d ago
Well actually negative rights is a pretty defined concept.
I disagree - all "positive rights" can be reframed as negative by considering nth order effects.
The argument the activist gave was a bad one - as you said, he could just not go to the party.
But what about: Corvos was encouraging society to view David Bowie as not a bad person, undermining feminism / "rape culture", and making it more likely for people to vote for right wing things, making it more likely for laws to be passed that oppress the activist. Therefore Corvos was infringing on his friend's negative rights.
FlyOnTheWall
2d ago
This is perfectly normal politics. These are simply table stakes. Government is about making people do things with the threat of violence. Which people, and why, are left to be determined by the people.
I agree. It's just that when activists bring up this true fact (at least, the part about how their side is being oppressed), I think the honest (but very uncomfortable) counter-argument is: "yes, I do want to oppress you and restrict your rights, not because I hate you, but because each of our respective rights infringe on the other's"
But WC's characterisation of "if your speech in an abstract sense might harm others in some abstract way" seems to imply the opposite - that political speech doesn't cause harm to others. I am arguing that it in fact does.
Democracy is supposed to be an alternative to murder and war, so when someone participating in Democracy as intended gets murdered for it, it's far beyond the pale.
Agreed, and I think that description definitely describes Kirk. To me, Pretti doesn't count under this, because he committed a crime, was resisting arrest, and just generally not speaking peacefully (excluding nth order effects) like Kirk was.
But to leftists / liberals, these sorts of "0000001mm away from their faces" struggles with LEOs is seen as an integral part of Democracy ("ACAB" - so it is important to constantly antagonise them to make sure they know it's not okay to ever overreach), in the same way conservatives would view people like Kirk making speeches even when parts of the speeches might come across as offensive.
And YoungAchamian is pointing out that both of these are technically legal, and to their own side, it is the right and proper way to do things, and to the other side it violates the spirit of Democracy, if not the letter.
FlyOnTheWall
2d ago
My understanding is that the legal system draws a distinction between "move, I want that seat" and "hey nigger move your bitch ass or I'll rape your ugly retarded mother,"
You've changed the hypothetical completely - originally it was someone being verbally offensive, and was talking about their own rape. Now your hypothetical person is trying to forcefully displace someone from their seat. Neither of these (not even the more banal "move, I want that seat") are okay to say - and I would be open to a self-defense argument there.
but it certainly is a sign of poor judgement.
Sure. But I disagree that poor judgement in this case amounts to any level of guilt. Even though we live in an imperfect world where crime occurs, we should avoid blaming people for being victimised to avoid legitimising crime.
Breaking into a private biker bar and shouting "rape me pussies." Yeah... that one is your fault.
If you break into a private establishment, then yes, things become grayer. I am okay with actual lethal violence in that case, and might even overlook rape - just on the principle that once you trespass you essentially forfeit all your rights.
But again, this doesn't map to the original hypothetical, because "the bad part of town" is not private property (not even at night), and the public has a (pro-social) right to be there.
...but at some point people need to understand that their actions have consequences and they become part of the blame equation.
Only if those actions are inherently bad (like breaking and entering, obstructing the duties of law enforcement, etc), if they are good/neutral, then the only people to blame are the criminals who enforce these wholly illegitimate consequences.
Yeah man, sometimes if your speech in an abstract sense might harm others in some abstract way
I did not follow the guy, but looking at his Wikipedia page, he advocated the following:
- Banning trans women from using women's locker rooms
- A ban on trans gender-affirming care ("We must ban trans-affirming care — the entire country...")
- The right for people to burn Pride and BLM flags.
- Not wearing masks during COVID
- Criminalising abortion
I have worded the above very carefully, to reflect stuff he literally said (as opposed to things that could be reasonably inferred, like "I believe marriage is one man, one woman" -> ban gay marriage)
The mechanism is not "abstract". He directly advocated for society to do things that would deprive certain people of (EDIT: positive) rights. Nor is the harm "abstract" - it is a form of harm to not let trans women use the women's locker rooms, prevent them from getting hormones, not letting LGBT people live in a society where no one burns pride flags, etc
This logic cuts both ways, e.g. the trans activist's words attempt to deprive him of the right to live in a cisheteronormative society. But this logic is sound (both ways)
I'm not really going anywhere with this, because this sort of thinking basically ends with endless conflict. I can't think of a better practical option than just tabooing this sort of inference. But I do want to point out, for the sake of epistemic clarity, that it is not as simple as you claim.
FlyOnTheWall
2d ago
Echoing my comment to @ThomasdelVasto:
As a more immediate note - if you wear a gun in front of cops you have certainly behavioral responsibilities that he did not meet on multiple occasions.
Agreed. The cops are doing an necessary job, so there is a tradeoff between exercising your rights and obstructing them from their duties.
...he did it while wearing a miniskirt and making racial slurs and daring people to assault him. This certainly doesn't ethically clear any rapists in full
It doesn't ethically clear the rapists at all. Unlike LEOs, Criminals are not a necessary part of society, and no one is ever has "behavioural responsibilities" to avoid provoking them to commit crimes. Actually it would be especially important to make sure the rapists were prosectued to the full extent of the law, to make it clear to everyone that it is never okay to commit crimes, even if someone verbally offends you.
He would also be a guilty party for being hostile and antisocial (but his guilt would be dwarfed by the rapists')
These people are explicitly trying to provoke violence. That would be like if a super hot woman walks around a crime riddled area in a bikini repeatedly telling all the men how horny she is and that she bets they'd like to get some of this.
If a woman walked around anywhere and told men "how horny she is and that she bets they'd like to get some of this", then I think she should get in (mild) trouble for some kind of public indecency (and maybe she should also get in trouble for wearing a bikini )
If she got raped/assaulted/etc, then the blame would fall solely on the attacker(s). In fact, assuming she did get victimised (and not just a bunch of disgusted looks for being obscene), she would actually be acting virtuously.
When law-abiding citizens make the selfish (but completely understandable, given modern progressive attitudes to crime) decision to just avoid "crime-riddled areas", "no-go zones", etc, it helps hide how bad those places are: whilst an actual crime incident is objective and legible in statistics, it's much harder to quantify this sort of "latent" crime which would have hypothetically taken place if someone had walked down the street at night alone, but didn't happen because they predicted that and stayed away instead.
People should walk down the streets anywhere, at anytime, no matter how vulnerable and/or sexually alluring. And the police should come down hard when a criminal preys on said person. And if a criminal keeps doing the same thing, they should be permanently removed from society - they aren't Minecraft mobs who naturally spawn whenever there is a low population density.
I think the actual distinction between Pretti and the miniskirt hypothetical is that ICE fulfills a necessary role in society, so there is a tradeoff to be made in letting them do their jobs vs preventing overreach. There is no such trade-off for a criminal.
... especially from liberals. "So... basically you want an underclass of underpaid, easily exploited labor with no real rights so your grocery bills will stay low?"
I disagree this is in conflict with the liberal (i.e. pro-illegal-immigrant wellbeing) position.
Allowing the illegal immigrant to stay in the country is clearly in their interest. No matter how bad the conditions are, we know this is a good deal for them, because their revealed preference is to stay in the country as an illegal.
They are only "underpaid" relative to a legal citizen. But the liberal isn't able to give them citizenship - so trying to get society to look the other way and let them stay is the next best thing. And ditto for exploitation.
In general I find this line of thinking - in which it constitutes "exploitation" to give someone in a really bad situation a kinda bad option - very odd. See also:
- It is morally neutral to just not help some random homeless woman (we're both doing it right now)
- It is (extremely) virtuous to give her money, no-strings-attached, so she can get off the streets and back on her feet.
- It is villainous (worse than just not helping at all) to do the above via hiring a prostitute. Even though she prefers to make the trade, this constitutes "exploitation".
The end result of this logic seems to incentivise avoiding interacting with suffering people at all.
“IQ scores by ethnic group in a nationally-representative sample of 10-year old American children” by John G.R. Fuerst, writing as “Chuck” on HumanVarieties.org, May 2023
In a 2023 paper, Mr. Fuerst tried to rank the intelligence of children across ethnic groups. But the sample size for the vast majority of groups was far too small to draw meaningful conclusions.
The sample sizes are indeed pretty small for most of the races: only 7 / 30 have sample mean std error < 1.0 (I am referring to the raw M column):
- Many adjacent ranks are close to random guessing (IQ(Chinese) > IQ(Japanese) w.p. 64%)
- And multiple testing makes this even worse (I didn't choose to compare e.g. Chinese vs Japanese before looking at the data)
But... there is an obvious and natural comparison to make, that pretty much everyone on either side would have in mind before looking at any specific data: Black vs White! The sample sizes here are 1.5k and 5.9k, so the sample mean error is less than 0.5. And the M difference is ~40, so actually the data does "support" HBD (given the sd gap here, it feels like understatement to say "supports" as if we just found p = 0.03 or something)
And in fact, as a bonus: there are 30 groups, and 2*norm_cdf(-4) * nCr(30, 2) = 0.02, so if we only take 8sd gaps as significant, we can make all the admissible comparisons simultaeneously with 98% certainty. The data supports, e.g.
- IQ(Chinese) > IQ(Dominicans) (Despite samples sizes of just 81 and 38)
- IQ(White) > IQ(Central / South American)
and many other comparative IQ statements (but not all, this is a pretty conservative analysis: IQ(White Cuban) ?? IQ(Black Carribean)) that would be completely obvious to some random redneck guy.
But the sample size for the vast majority of groups was far too small to draw meaningful conclusions.
If he'd just made a more nebulous claim like "[the] NIH Toolbox battery is fluid-intelligence loaded." (like the original paper itself conceded!), this would have been much more debatable. But instead he told a straight up untruth.
I just cannot think of a charitable take here, it seems to be a mixture between:
- McIntire is pretending to have expertise / understanding he does not have. It sure seems like he skimmed the paper, saw Chuck's disclaimer "Bear in mind that the sample sizes are often small and so the corresponding estimates are imprecise", and then changed "[some] estimates" to "[any] ranking" in his head, because they are related concepts.
- McIntire understands what the data implies, but he is running cover for the "good guys", saying random stuff like this to trick normies for the greater good (I can get behind this kind of thinking to an extent, but this brazen level of deceit feels too far)
FlyOnTheWall
29d ago
Well, sure - if he actually lied, and in fact had non-consensually made them do it, then yes it would be uncontroversially bad (because rape, irregardless of victim age, is bad)
No, I do not uncritically accept a convicted pederast's version of exactly how his act of child molestation transpired. It rather alarms me that you, apparently, do.
I concede it is very possible he lied and only gave a warped version of events to his wife to soothe his guilt. I was originally just assuming he told the full truth, since he was confessing to a crime, but I realise that sometimes even when people admit wrongdoing, they only admit to parts of it.
But this feels like a dodge - certainly what the defendent described as happening could happen. And it seems that everyone views even that as wrong. Would you be okay with it if the defendant provided objective proof that it was consensual? (e.g. by a video recording)
FlyOnTheWall
29d ago
I find it hard to believe that the behavior depicted in this particular case would inflict any permanent psychological harm on the children involved
This really isn't helping the impression that you're being a little oblivious here.
I think you are confusing 2 things:
- Thinking this kind of thing causes permanent psychological harm
- Thinking that many in society believe (or say they believe, to avoid repercussions) this kind of thing causes permanent psychological harm
I assume TK is aware of (2), but he is contesting (1). It does not seem at all obvious that this action, where there was not only consent, but the children actively engaged in the behaviour themselves, suggesting they enjoyed it ("...then allowed both children...") - would actually cause permanent psychological harm.
FlyOnTheWall
29d ago
Firstly, in the hentai, the acts described/drawn are entirely fictional, whilst this case actually happened in reality (and actually even the hentai stuff is controversial - see the debate on loli/shota and AI child porn)
And regarding whether this sort of thing is actually that bad (as you have argued in your defense downthread), you said:
It isn't as if he caused severe injuries to the three-year-old by inserting his penis into her vagina
There are 3 pretty standard arguments for this:
- It causes severe psychological harm to the child
- Children are (definitionally) unable to consent, so any child-adult sex is auto-rape.
- Sexual degeneracy like this harms society because it screws with the social fabric (though this argument is only made by right-wingers)
This case actually seems like an excellent counterexample to (2). Indeed, prior to this hearing about this case, I was only open to considering the possibility of young children (~6yo+) being capable of consent. But this seems like a very clear example of non-verbal consent from toddlers ("Defendant then allowed both children to lick the honey off his penis.")
And I'm generally pretty skeptical on all of those points, and suspect anti-pedosexual sentiments are driven in no small part by irrational disgust towards unusual sexualities.
...that being said, this is the Friday Fun (i.e. no culture war) Thread. And so you shouldn't really be bringing up this question (which, irregardless of how reasonable the response is, does evoke an offence/disgust response in many readers), even by proxy (but you could totally bring it up in the CW thread, and I encourage you to do so)
FlyOnTheWall
1mo ago
I won't comment on the object level question of how good the post is. I haven't read it properly either, and the spinoff question about AI-influenced content (specifically, on a discussion forum) is more interesting to me anyways.
There seems to be 2 competing ideas of the purpose of this forum:
- A platform for human socialising, centered around serious political discussion (see e.g. your comment)
- A place for truth-seeking (see e.g. @SecureSignal's comment)
I always just sort of assumed that truth-seeking was the primary goal of the forum (and the socialisation stuff like Wellness Wednesday kinda just happens, because we are in fact humans and not inference machines), and interpreted all the rules as acting in service to that (e.g. we get free speech, because sometimes the truth is highly offensive, etc)
But the recent discourse around AI usage seems to go against this. If this place is about human interaction, then using AI is automatically dumb, irregardless of quality, as you say downthread:
... this place is for human interaction. If you're not using your own words, what's the fucking point?
...but if we are here for truth-seeking, then it shouldn't matter if someone used AI or not, it's like retroactively deciding you don't like a dish because the chef used cumin.
As in, it still makes sense to stop reading/engaging seriously with a poster because they establish a track record of bad (irrelevant, uninformative, lies, etc) posts - but the reason should be because the actual end result is bad, not because you disapprove of the process.
FlyOnTheWall
1mo ago
Are you worried about demographic replacement, elite takeover or unintegrated criminals ?
This doesn't feel like a good description of typical reasons:
- Elite takeover: Sure
- "Demographic replacement": ...by which races? I'm guessing a MAGA would feel quite differently about Japanese vs Somalian demographic replacement.
- Unintegrated criminals: This is the most extreme example of the kind of thing conservatives are worried about. But I assume they are also worried about less egregious kinds of bad behaviour / non-assimilation (e.g. taking minimum wage jobs, nepotism, general anti-social behaviour etc)
His actions are in reaction to unintegrated criminals, primarily from Islamist nations. Why would you expect it to affect Mexico, India or the Philippines ?
But you could also view this crime through a racial lens instead of a religious one, i.e. races that have bad HBD stats (which pretty much aligns with the 3rd World) are more likely to bring problems like this
And also because he explicitly claimed he would do it in his Truth Social post: "...I will permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries..."
Apart from criminality, How does Trump define 'incompatible with western civilization' ? ... IMO, it's a whole lot of words that mean nothing.
Like most political things, it is kind of fuzzy ("what is a woman?", etc) - but I think everyone, including non-supporters, are roughly aware of what he is talking about (even if they don't like his definition)
As a rough definition, how about "compatible with a supermajority of Whites"?
Personally, I'm sick of white supremacists using motte-and-baileys to criticize immigrants.
It's revealing that Indians, Mexicans and Filipinos are the main groups they have issues with.
...
There is no venn diagram that fits all 3 groups except - "not white".
I mean... they don't seem to have a problem with East Asians (indeed, such a sentiment is fringe even on the Motte), who are a large and well-known class of non-White. Also you left out Blacks from your list (there was the whole "Haitian pet eating" thing)
Another very reasonable category that fits would be "low-IQ races". And I think it fits better, because of the general right-wing affinity towards East Asians.
If you want fewer non-whites. Just say that.
As I said, I think it is closer to wanting fewer people from low-IQ races. Irregardless, both of these sentiments lie far outside the Overton window.
On the Motte, people should be honest about what they want (and the commenters who feel either way have been forthright about this) - but in actual politics, the goal of speeches, rhetoric etc is to try and achieve a goal (as opposed to truth-seeking), so obviously you should not phrase your desire in terms of out-of-Overton-window ideas.
As for anti-Indian sentiment. Firstly, I'm not sure how real it is beyond just general anti-brown-people sentiment. And I don't think the more "storytelling" explanations (culture, nepotism, etc) given down-thread are particularly convincing.
I think the crux of anti-Indian sentiment is due to an especially low average IQ. Ideally, this would not matter, because appropriate filtering would account for it. But in practice lots of low-IQ people will manage to slip through the cracks somehow (fraud, a left-wing government loosens restrictions, etc), and then cause problems for the host country, because they are a (close to) unfiltered sample.
FlyOnTheWall
2mo ago
The anti-Semites start with the Jew-hate for basically irrational reasons, and then come up with rationalizations. That's why the bulverism and mockery; the rational arguments are just window-dressing and the anti-Semites are unreachable by any means.
I mean, I agree. But this argument is fully general for any descriptive position on reality I think is wrong (doesn't what you've said also apply to, e.g. religion?) Their reasons only appear irrational from our perspective. And symmetrically, the rest of the forum are irrational people unwilling to question the mainstream narrative.
So, if we allow people to do this sort of stuff, at best it leads to a one-sided soft-censoring of certain topics (you can advocate for X, but then you get no protection from others by the mods but are still held to the rules yourself), or worse it leads to discussion on a topic becoming totally devoid of object-level content, just both sides explaining why their opponent really said what they said.
FlyOnTheWall
2mo ago
Jews are like 2% of the US population and look white, barely anyone would notice their existence...
No? As I pointed out, they are hugely overrepresented in basically any kind of elite thing. e.g. they make up ~1/4 of all Physics Nobel prizes. I suppose they might fly under the radar for normies, but if you have any kind of intellectual inclinations, you'd end up noticing Jews (our forum is literally an offshoot of a Jewish blogger)
general Israel bullshittery.
But calling it "bullshittery" is kind of begging the question. The usual logic goes that the Jews are tricking the US government into backing a "foreign" (i.e. non-White) state's interest at the expense of American Whites. But this only makes sense if we have already established the Jews aren't really White and are hostile mimics. Otherwise the "Israel bullshittery" is just a specific kind of White advancing the interests of the White race.
FlyOnTheWall
2mo ago
To steelman: due to observations of Jewish behaviour, the anti-Semites have rationally concluded that the Jews are attempting (in a disorganised, prospiracy way) to destroy the White race, and displace it low-IQ Third Worlders who would lack the collective human capital to organise against a Jewish elite and Holocaust them.
Given this, it makes sense for a White identarian to prioritise attacking Jews instead of Black people, because without Jews there wouldn't have been mass immigration, the civil rights act, etc anyways.
Having said that, I don't think this is true. I propose a much simpler (albeit uncharitable) explanation: jealousy.
The Jews have better life outcomes than Whites. Both on average, and at the extremes, where they disproportionately occupy positions of power and prestige in the Western world. They also have a higher measured IQ than Whites, and like... I think that's just it (no need for overcomplicated theories about Jewish group evolutionary strategies inferred from Talmud quotations, etc)
Jews do better because they are (on a group-level) smarter, and people don't like feeling inferior. So they become jealous. And They make up complicated stories and theories about why they dislike X that are more flattering to their ego (And ditto for standard Black/Third World "theories" about White overachievement)
Also, I know you don't really care about the JQ either way (nor do I), but it clearly does mean a lot to anti-Semites on the forum. I think this whole pattern of discourse: where an anti-Semite, respectfully and in good-faith, states their opinions and then gets met with Bulverism ("Did a Jew bully you in school?" - seriously?), childish mockery even by actual mods ("Joo posting"), and condescending psychologisations that don't address the object-level argument at all - which has become normal, to be totally against the spirit of the Motte.
FlyOnTheWall
2mo ago
Thank you for bringing them up! This seems to be a fairly esoteric HBD claim that is stated very matter-of-factly (iirc you said in the past that you think the Tamil Brahmins have IQ on par with the Ashkenazi) by various race realists from different backgrounds.
I don't think it's an obviously crazy assertion: there are Brahmin STEM nobels, fields medalists, and the Indian per capita income in the US is extremely high: 72k vs 36k for Whites (but as I long suspected, the household income chart showing them blowing everyone else out the water is misleading - they just live in bigger households - they come in 2nd to Taiwanese, also Jews aren't listed, I'm guessing they come 0th)
And the national IQ of India is 75IQ (according to the Lynn numbers), roughly on par with Sub Saharan Africa, and they have no STEM nobels, and I don't think there are any SSA diasporas in first world countries that exceed the White household income significantly.
So I believe it is justified to complicate our model from just a single 75IQ-centered bell curve to a mixture, at least a mixture for Brahmin vs. non-Brahmin. To explain a real and significant difference from a mean 75 population.
Now the question of whether the higher IQ of the Brahmins is actually "high" (75 is a very low bar to be high from!)
The obvious thing is to look stuff up online. There is some guy called Anatoly Karlin who talks a lot about it but doesn't give any numbers. All the actual analysis I can find goes back to this paper: Lynn, Cheng 2018 Mankind Quarterly
It is too late in the night for me to go through this paper properly... so I'll just take the abstract at face value. They claim that Brahmins are more intelligent, by 5IQ points, giving an IQ of 80, i.e. on par with North Africans and Arabs (and they do indeed manage to get STEM nobels, so this feels reasonable to me now)
But wait, there is a point you did not bring up in this comment, but you (and others) bring up elsewhere. What about Tamil Brahmins?
I cannot find any estimates on this online. I suggest a crude method of estimating it though: regress IQ from STEM nobels per capita.
Let's get the Lynn IQ numbers, and also STEM nobels- I define a "STEM" nobel to be Physics, Chemistry, or Physiology or Medicine (so exclude Peace, Literature and Economics) - I got these counts by scraping the wikipedia page for nobels by country. This isn't great, as it lists by nationality instead of race. But just doing a cursory reading I didn't find much sillyness (there's a "Belarusian" winner who is Jewish, and a few Chinese / North Africans for France, but not that much, anyways this is crude - I didn't bother correcting this stuff)
We get the following plot. To clarify: a lot of countries just don't have any STEM nobels (for IQ / low population reasons, those are the red "x"s on the left of the plot. As you can see, the 0s really do span the full IQ range (it's not just SSA countries with red xes), so I think it is reasonable to discard those data points and do a linear regression on the remaining countries-as-proxies-for-races (blue dots)
The red line is just the line of best fit (minimising least squares: beta = 7.47, intercept = 142)[*], so now we just need the STEM nobel per capita for TamBrahms. If we survey the wikipedia page again, I find 4 Indian STEM nobels:
-
Venkatraman Ramakrishnan (Tamil)
-
Subramanyan Chandrasekhar (Tamil)
-
Har Gobind Khorana (not Tamil)
-
C. V. Raman (Tamil)
So 3 TamBrahm STEM nobels[**], but what about the population? This sounds easy, but I literally cannot find it online. The only quantitative information given is in the Wikipedia article, in a subsection about a specific kind of Tamil Brahmin called Iyers (but there are only 2 apparently, so close enough):
They [Iyers] are concentrated mainly along the Cauvery Delta districts of Nagapattinam, Thanjavur, Tiruvarur and Tiruchirapalli where they form almost 10% of the total population. However the largest population reside in Nagercoil, making up to 13% of the city's population
So, if we just use these cities (and assume that is most of the TamBrahms in the world), we get: (102_905 + 58_301 + 916_857 + 289_916) * 0.1 130k population So as a lower bound, let's say 1e5 TamBrahms. And as an upper bound, let's say 1e7 (this is 10% the population of all of Tamil Nadu)
So using the population estimates, and then fitting using our model we get the following IQ estimates for Tamil Brahmins (depending on population size):
pop 1e5: 108 IQ
pop 1e6: 101 IQ
pop 1e7: 93 IQ
So, using this estimation technique, in the very best case, the Tamil Brahmins have an IQ of 108 (clipping the lower end of Ashkenazi IQ estimates: 107-115, and aligning with your claim elsewhere that they are on par with Jews), and in the worst case they are on par with trans-hajnals.
I'm pretty skeptical myself of what I've written, mainly because of how I discarded all the countries without STEM nobels. But I've been putting off researching this question for almost a year now, so for my own sake at least, I thought it was worth writing down my crude estimates and resaoning on the matter, as someone who has not done any serious reading/research in race science / genetics / etc - so I can test my possibly shady thinking on this (and "quantitative" HBD in general)
So now I ask you - what is your reason to think that (Tamil) Brahmins are high-IQ? (also I would like to ask @self_made_human and @2rafa, as they make this claim too) For Tamil Brahmins is it based on similar calculations as mine? And what about for generic Brahmins? (as I mentioned, online sources just give the generic Brahmin IQ as 80. My model gives a more favourable 88IQ, but even that is not very high)
[*] As a separate interesting point, and sanity check, if we do the regression of log10(stem nobels / capita) onto IQ, we get a beta of 0.048, i.e. increasing a population's IQ by 15 makes each person 5x more likely to be a STEM Nobel. Which sounds... reasonable?
[**] The fact that 75% of the Indian STEM Nobels went to TamBrahms was also why I originally decided to entertain the sub-stratification of Brahmins into Tamil Brahmins. Even at just n=4, this seems so significant, it is reasonable to me to look into this even smaller subpopulation without risking overfitting.
FlyOnTheWall
2mo ago
Or maybe the ongoing media projects where you can't have minorities be bad guys anymore - its always a white guy somewhere at the end pulling strings. Except if its Giancarlo Esposito.
I claim a better model is that you aren't allowed to make minority characters embody (real-life) negative group-level traits.
There are more counterexamples to your theory than just Gus Fring:
- In Brooklyn 99's "The Box" (S5E14) is an episode solely focused on Holt and Jake trying to break a cold-hearted bastard Black male murderer - but Davidson portrays an affable middle-class evil. He is a dentist who got addicted to pain pills, and most of the episode he is shown outsmarting the interrogators. This is fine by my model, since he is technically a Black criminal, but not a reflection of the typical Black underclass criminal.
- Ditto for Gus Fring. No white guy behind Pollos Hermanos pulling the strings - he is the ultra-competent mastermind pulling the strings (how many times throughout the show did characters remark how evil, but clever, Gus was?). And of course, after his fall, the next business partners for Walt is a savage gang of (White) Nazis covered in swastika tattoos. Ignoring the moral valence of the characters, this is clearly an inversion of the real-world analogue (e.g. South Africa) where actually the White group is pulled down and replaced by a less intelligent Black one.
- In a sillier setting, there is the Black Dean of the other non-Greendale community college (like White Dean, he is an effete queer weirdo)
- In the Good Place, lots of the demons were minorities (Vicky, an Indian female, was the only non-side-character example iirc) But in the humourous self-aware way.
- Brooklyn 99 literally had a recurring character that was a Black male serial carjacker (Doug Judy), but he was again portrayed as an intelligent gentleman villain (sort of like a Black Neal Caffrey), he might make unreciprocated romantic overtures at Rosa, but he's not going to actually grab someone's ass or catcall.
I think my explanation makes more sense: you are allowed to show members of protected groups being villains (this is not contrary to standard progressive ideology), but you cannot show them being villanous in a way that reinforces pre-existing "stereotypes" (according to progressive ideology, the stereotypes are totally socially constructed without basis in reality, so they only exist due to media)
And actually I think it has nothing to do with villainy at all. You also cannot show them fulfilling stereotypes as good guys. In the good place, the main 4 were essentially inversions of their respective stereotypes:
- Jason is a good-looking dumb, borderline retarded, East Asian (technically Fillipino iirc, but he is obviously presented as an East Asian, and looks close enough) - that is fine, because East Asians have a high IQ (but he would not be allowed to be Black/brown)
- Chidi is a Black professor of moral philosophy. He is neurotic, bookish, non-confrontational (except for that time he punches Brent Norwalk... but that was portrayed as a man pushed to the limit and defending himself) and completely out of touch with the real world living in an ivory tower of academia. This sometimes leads to him failing others because he is paralysed by indecision - but that is fine, because it's not the stereotype (I wonder if a Jewish Chidi would be allowed?)
- Tahani is a beautiful dark-skinned upper-class British-(South Asian) socialite. She is bad because she is shallow, status-obsessed and effete. In particular, it is constantly stressed how beautiful (and tall, for some reason) she is, how many times does Eleanor (the older blonde woman) fawn over how hecking hot she is?
- Eleanor is a (White) woman. Her flaws are being lecherous, loud, rude, and gluttonous. Generally she just acts as the oppposite of a woman, and embodies the worst traits of a man.
- Janet is a (White) woman, and a literal robot. A perfectly rational calculating machine (other than that time she fell in love), at one point even consoling Michael as she assures him he has to kill her.
I suspect we'll see plenty of self-flagellation from the US 10 years down the line when it's trying to rebuild up its attractiveness for such people.
Taking what you've said at face value, possibly. If the US actually pursues going closed-borders-for-everyone, maybe it will be overtaken by China, given the slight national IQ advantage (I hedge my bets with the qualifiers because Europeans were the ones to conquer the world a few centuries ago, despite being lower IQ, so shrug)
Of course, you elide the obvious, though politically incorrect, question: What race are the immigrants? As I concede, it may be true that the US will need the best and brightest of foreign Aryans, East Asians and Jews (i.e. high-IQ races) to stay on top - but what of the best and the brightest of the Third World?
I think it is true that, for a sufficiently selective (and then properly enforced) immigration policy, we can have eugenic immigration from the Third World. But, due to HBD, the amount of additional value from Venkateshes and Bhargavas is going to be much less significant (because there are just not as many of them, and just less total human capital altogether to siphon)
On the other hand, once we hop over this fence, there is the constant danger of somehow (fraud, relaxing the bar for "skilled", etc) then allowing a less filtered, and hence dysgenic, influx. This leads to pretty serious harm - either these people assimilate (and hence lower the quality of the nation's gene pool) or you get a permanent racial underclass. In practice, this might lead to, say, your capital city becoming minority White, and the replacements actually being worse on average.
If we are looking at this purely from the perspective of national self-interest, I think this is overall a net negative. There is obviously a moral argument about helping unfortunate people who could thrive in a 1st world civilisation but were born into a low-IQ race, so it is worth the necessary overhead to carefully filter these people out and let them in (and of course, the more extreme one, which is to just let everyone in so everyone in for equality-of-opportunity reasons, and just accept the nation becoming Third World)
With the substance of my reply out of the way: why do you do this? As in, I know you are a high-IQ Third World immigrant, so I'm guessing you are not super thrilled about the recent vibe shift on immigrants: you personally haven't ever done anything bad, how unfair is it that some people implicitly blame you for (or at least associate you with) stuff like Rotherham, etc.
But you've had many conversations in the past with White identarians on this forum, so I'm pretty sure you are aware of this line of thinking, and then decide to constantly post as if you are some bluepilled liberal normie. I think it's bad form to psychologise your interlocutor, so I won't speculate why any further.
I will just ask - is there anything in what I've said that you actually factually disagree with? And I stress the word factually (since your claim that the US would fall behind and later on regret its current immigration policy is a statement about descriptive reality)
Do you not believe in HBD applied to racial groups? Do you dispute the Lynn IQ numbers as being roughly accurate? Do you dispute that IQ is a decent measure of a person's ability to function well in a society? Do you think that it doesn't make logical sense to make probabalistic judgements about groups of people on the basis of race given HBD? Do you think that the issues with Third World immigration that have occured in the past (e.g. Indians in Canada) are actually very easy to prevent if we just do X? etc
FlyOnTheWall
2mo ago
Do you have a source for more of the texts? Everything I found online was just the 3 screens in my link.
As I said, there will be some kind of backlash when lots of innocents are victimised, and their stories are told. I think somehow this would lead to the problem being solved (e.g. by increased police patrols in the area) - and I'm advocating we shouldn't blame the victims for this, because that makes society more accepting of the crime.
And I'm coming at this from the angle of how the whole of society should operate, as opposed to one-(wo)man operations where someone walks around as bait and executes street criminals.
More options
Context Copy link