domain:doyourownresearch.substack.com
It wasn't really that bad, and I understand why you'd react that way. At a certain point along the craziness spectrum the optimal strategy for responding changes from "engage seriously" to "mock relentlessly."
I'm not saying you were incredibly vehement and hateful, but that you were more so than most of the linked comments in the LoTT thread. Your comment was mildly rude and low-effort but nothing crazy. You'll note that I was also downvoted for most of my responses to you.
No my opinion is not, I think 70 is close to phenotypic average SSA IQ and I consider that African Americans have somewhat similar genotypic IQ to Ivorians because most of their origin is from West Africa (maybe 5 points higher due to White admixture). If you don't like Flynn estimates, get better ones but do not shift into discussion how many degrees Nigerian Americans have (a highly selected group benefiting from race-based affirmative action).
Can you provide a source? Gottfredson puts the black-American IQ average between 85 and 90. Flynn's work is based off meta IQ analysis of IQ testing data largely from before 2000s. I have provided evidence that between then and now that in the Ivory Coast the amount of education has increased. So again, I have reasons to believe that the average IQ would have risen between when the IQ tests had their data gathered to today.
If you're not pulling from Flynn who's the most prominent source behind the 70 IQ estimate for people of Africa then where are you getting your value from? You're the one that needs to provide a source, not me. I've provided numerous sources throughout this discussion to ground this discussion and you've yet to provide anything. This 70 IQ value for people in the Ivory Coast we've been discussing stems from 2rafa's comment several posts up and they point to Flynn as the source so that's the basis for this discussion. If you're using a completely different source to base your beliefs then we can't have a discussion properly. I've made pretty clear where my ideas come from to give you the opportunity to check and you haven't done the same level of effort for me so I'm not going to just take your word for it.
If so (I am not saying it isn't), then you should drop "70 iq people are unemployable" altogether.
Perhaps you have a point here and I should be more clear with my words. - People whose genetic potential caps around 70 IQ and are raised in a Western nation are not mostly employable in Western countries where most jobs are service and intellectual-based. The job-IQ research I'm aware of is done in the US so if you limit the area to just the US you can ignore a lot of other factors that have to be taking into consideration if you try to extrapolate elsewhere. I'm not going to drop the idea altogether. I do get in the habit for talking from a US-centric perspective to thank you for helping me remember to be more specific with my words.
Many people say this, but nearly all twins studies find impact of shared environment on adults low, less than 10%. Research of education>IQ is not stigmatized. Why didn't they come with some impressive results?
And those twins both typically both graduate from high school and still get an adequate amount of nutrition. Just gonna quote Scott yet again:
We know deep biological things matter because it's genetic and correlated with brain size, we know motivation matters because stimulants can raise IQ probably by making people try harder on the test, we know abstract thinking ability matters because of Flynn effect and because people from populations where they've never been exposed to this kind of thing do much worse on tests than is plausible from biological differences alone, and test-taking skills are just a good bet.
Most likely the larger effect sizes are going from almost no education (thus almost no familiarity with abstract thinking) to some education (and some familiarity), and the smaller effect sizes are going from 10 years to 11 years of education or whatever. I wouldn't expect extra education to be very valuable to people already very familiar with abstract thinking, though I'm not sure where to draw those lines.
The difference in an environment where twins grow up in the most extreme examples (upper class America vs lower class America), that gap is smaller compared to the average child in the US and the average child in the Ivory Coast in the 2000s. Both twins still get the benefit of education, which includes learning about abstract thinking. Show me a statistically significant twins study where the twins grow up in two completely different countries with completely different standards of education, or where one gets an education and the other doesnt and yet they end up with similar enough IQ and I might think you have a better point here.
Why these are exceptions? They are just conditions with larger effects, there are many lesser conditions. If some condition drives phenotypic ability to perform well on IQ tests, why wouldn't it be drive their phenotypic ability to perform well on a job?
You know what, I think I misunderstood your point earlier and thought you were saying something else. Upon a reread on your previous posts, I think I see your point and have to agree. I believe my revised statement above should account for this properly now.
It looks to me, that I completely agreed with your point that "70 iq Ivorians not same as 70 iq Americans" and yet that you're thinking I am disagreeing and you do not like that I wrote something unflattering for SSA.
Well, my impression was you didn't agree because every time I point out the reasons why they aren't equal, you swoop in to challenge the reasoning and then you didn't explicitly say anything about your thoughts on that until your most recent response. Thank you for clarifying. I think your clarification with "genotypic IQ" and "phenotypic IQ" is actually a very good distinction because when people typically discuss IQ they don't make this distinction, and then racists will take the existing research to justify their beliefs framing it as purely "genotypic IQ" and all this does it prevent further research into IQ which is a net negative for the world since now it's controversial to do research into IQ.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
20m ago
That’s essentially correct. Morality requires knowledge, so those developments required the moral-scientific realization that humans are equal in regards to basic humanity, and that their primary nature isn’t due to their bloodline. Morality also involves mutually-decided rules of conduct, so nations formed the UN to develop rules on how to treat people (Israel is currently in violation of some UN rules). There was in fact a time when people thought that a slave’s nature was categorically different than a free person’s nature, I think you find that in Aristotle.
Perhaps this highlights the differences between old-style Jewish thought versus new / non-Jewish thought. Traditional Jews believe that God gave them all the rules that they need a long time ago, in the written law of the Torah and in the oral law (despite no evidence of an oral law in pre-first century BC Jewish life). As such there can’t be “moral developments” which hinge on human realization because this would violate a precious dogma.
AshLael
Just here to farm downvotes
22m ago
Okay, so is the answer to the hypothetical then that yes the Federalist Papers would have been legal but they would have needed to include a "I'm James Madison and I approve this message" style notification?
And those people are going to vote for who exactly? Certainly not Joe 'Mostly Peaceful' Biden -- even among throwaway votes RFK doesn't exactly appeal to this crowd, and I can't see them getting too excited about putting the 'Libertarian' in LGBTQ.
The cohort you are talking about are also the 'you don't vote, you can't complain' guys -- so I can't even see it hurting on turnout much here.
ETA: I'm not really talking about quirky geek forums here either -- if you wanna put your finger on that particular pulse I'd reccomend ar15.com -- those guys are the most law abiding, letter-of-the-law dudes you will find, and maybe even more right wing than here. I haven't had cause to be down that rabbithole lately, but I guarantee they will have something to say about this.
hydroacetylene
23m ago
I mean, republicans aren’t stripping women of rights other than the right to have an abortion. The Israeli settlers are forcibly expelling Palestinians.
You say he doesn’t understand the Israeli religious right. I’ll buy that he’s wrong- what is it, then? What’s its place in Israeli politics, its main appeal to voters, strongest policy positions?
non_radical_centrist
27m ago
LOL. Shortening Ben Gvir to ‘Gvir’ is like shortening ‘McDonald’ to ‘Donald’. You’re betraying a ridiculous lack of familiarity.
Yeah I'm not that familiar. If you want to provide a good defense of why his actions are acceptable instead of just criticzing my familiarity, go ahead.
The analogous act would be that republicans tried to overthrow American democracy on January 6th, and that your former president told you to grab women by the pussy.
Those were pretty bad too. Better or worse than Ben Gvir's? I'm not sure.
dasfoo
30m ago
This is interesting, and I might be persuaded.
Scenario A:
Let's say I mistakenly think that some completely legal act is illegal, like buying paperclips. Every time I buy paperclips for my office, I intentionally misclassify these transactions as "legal services" because I don';t want the law to know that I bought paperclips.
In this scenario, I have committed a felony, because I was attempting to conceal a "crime," and therefore fool the state, regardless of the actuality of any crime being committed.
Scenario B
Let's say I think that buying paperclips is embarassing but not illegal. In this case, I would be committing only a misdemeanor by misclassifiying the purchases, as I was not trying to conceal what I thought was a "crime?"
Scenario C
I'm not sure if buying paperclips is a crime, so just to be safe, I'm never going to admit to buying paperclips on paper. I'm going to send my lawyer out to buy my paperclips for me with his own money, and since he's my lawyer, when I pay him back, I'm going to classify the expense as "legal services," because he's my lawyer. I think I have successfully avoided admitting to the actual act and insulated myself from any crime if any crime exists. What is this? I have created layers of insulation between my willful ignorance and reality. Can intent be proven here?
...
McCain-Feingold's (and I think NY law) definitions of electioneering communications are not limited to advertisements. Famously so, given that Citizens United revolved around a case where the FEC both prohibited ads for a movie and simply showing that movie.
There are exceptions for contributions (ie costs) by independent news media reporting bonafide news, but the "stand by your ad" rules, reporting provisions, and time provisions do not have such exceptions, and some of the Federalist newspapers probably would fail the modern independence test (if only because almost all newspapers at the Founding Era were tied heavily to local political parties, or were vanity press). In practice, the FEC almost never takes such charges, because at least some would fail Mills (though Mills was about uncoordinated expenditures, and Hamilton was clearly coordinating them), but the strict text would allow them.
hydroacetylene
33m ago
Doesn’t China have like a month of good weather for crossing the strait, like all year long?
And more to the point, the reasonable move is the second scenario. Pearl Harbor is just fucking retarded. For that matter it was just fucking retarded, the Japs got their asses kicked. A Taiwan war would be won or lost by the first Chicom soldier landing on Formosa. Drawing in Japan and the US turns a major war into a really big war.
pm_me_passion
אֲנָשִׁים נֹשְׂאֵי מָגֵן וְחֶרֶב וְדֹרְכֵי קֶשֶׁת וּלְמוּדֵי מִלְחָמָה
39m ago
To make your defense more explicit, are you arguing that now that you’re done with the genocide, it has become immoral? Was it not immoral in the 19th and 18th centuries, only arbitrarily now when it’s convenient for you?
Do you think that paying Stormy Daniels to keep her quiet is "express advocacy"?
Clearly not. Accordingly, if some random individual with no connection to Trump paid her to keep quiet, that would not be a reportable expenditure.
We've been doing this question-and-answer thing for a while, and I'm still not sure where you're going with it. It seems like you think election finance law is unconstitutional under the first amendment for some reason, but I'm failing to see how and none of these hypotheticals have gotten me any closer to understanding your position.
pm_me_passion
אֲנָשִׁים נֹשְׂאֵי מָגֵן וְחֶרֶב וְדֹרְכֵי קֶשֶׁת וּלְמוּדֵי מִלְחָמָה
42m ago
Gvir
LOL. Shortening Ben Gvir to ‘Gvir’ is like shortening ‘McDonald’ to ‘Donald’. You’re betraying a ridiculous lack of familiarity.
You seem confused about the analogy, as well. The analogous act would be that republicans tried to overthrow American democracy on January 6th, and that your former president told you to grab women by the pussy. Does that make more sense now?
jeroboam
43m ago
I was wrong about Russia invading Ukraine so discount accordingly, but I think the odds of China invading Taiwan are very low in the short term.
First we have to ask whether China even wants Taiwan. Sabre-rattling about Taiwan serves as a reliable way to stir up nationalistic feelings in the people. This is useful when the dear leader starts to lose the favor of heaven. Taiwan as a rebellious province has more use to the regime than as a subdued enemy. In other words, would China capturing Taiwan be like the dog that catches the car?
But let's say that China does want Taiwan. I think in the near term, the logistics of an amphibian landing are impossible. China's military has essentially no actual combat experience (unless we count fighting Indian soldiers with melee weapons on remote Himalayan passes). While we are in the early stages of a revolution in military technology, I think the U.S. carriers groups and air superiority fighters would still win the day.
In the long term, I am much more bullish on China's chances. Demographics are a headwind, but China will still have 3 times the population of the U.S. in twenty years. Furthermore, the world's reliance on Chinese trade grows stronger every year. China is eating the world. They dominate most industries and are on a path to domination of the rest. China's spending on military equipment is remarkable, and their ability to create more grows while the abilities of the West fade. The West's existing stock of legacy material (F-35s and carrier groups) will matter less in the future.
So China can just sit back and let its advantages compound. When they have naval superiority and a more secure supply chain of natural resources they will strike. And when they do take Taiwan it may be without even firing a shot.
gattsuru
47m ago
There are some avenues for appeal where a fact is improperly admitted as evidence or testimony, or where a jury makes an improper decision of law, albeit with a fairly high standard of error...
But it doesn't really matter. Trump (probably) can't even file an appeal until after sentencing, and there's zero chance that the New York Court of Appeals will decide the case before November (and might not even hear the case before then), in the likely event that they refuse, it'll be a year or longer for federal courts to get involved, and there are extremely limited grounds where a federal court can bypass state courts.
And while a lot of the errors here are reversible, or even cause to mandate recusal by the judge, they're not severe enough to throw out the case; even a 'victory' just starts the trial over again, and Bragg will not be dropping this case.
I think a lot of the progressive legal sphere is assuming that even if this case is overturned, it'll happen after Georgia/federal documents/whatever gets him, too (or Trump will self-moot sometime), but to anyone that isn't as far buying every charge against Trump as AshLael is, there's a non-trivial chance that Trump will eventually be found not guilty of multiple different cases... in 2025 and 2026. After he's lost the election.
dasfoo
47m ago
Thanks. I'll take a look. This sounds like another one of those data dumps that tries to impress by volume but which really contains very little actionable information. But the mere presence of it with the suggestion that it's important convinces motivated bystanders who never scrutinize it themselves. You would think that if there were damning evidence inside, someone would already be highlighting it, specifically.
zeke5123a
49m ago
Let me say this in a different way. It seems quite clear that if Trump structured the transaction differently (though with the exact same economics) even under the prosecution’s theory of campaign finance law Trump would be innocent.
It is therefore again unreasonable to allow inference here. It is just so far afield if your store example to be a different category. The nature of these laws are so different we need a more exacting search for intent.
dasfoo
53m ago
If Trump were really sloppy as you allege, prosecutors would have been able to find more serious charges to bring against him.
Not necessarily. As we can see in this case, it can be really hard to create the semi-coherent appearance of a case out of a bunch of nonsense and make it just opaque enough to pay off. If a guy is racking up hundreds of little process violations because HDGAF about process, the trick is to turn those into a felony in one of the jurisdictions jaded enough to convict without ever questioning the premises. It's probably easier to charge and convict a smooth operator who is knowingly committing crimes because once you catch them in act with intent, you have your smoking gun. If someone is carelessly racking up violations by just not caring, it's going to be really hard to prove an intent that never existed.
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
59m ago
It certainly seems like wokeness has traveled far enough down the barber pole that my age cohort is starting to lurch rightwards.
What does left and right even mean here, and in what way does it influence US policy towards China invading Taiwan? In Germany, the Green party is the local wing of the US progressive establishment, and they have been considered the most militaristic party (within a US-approved framework) since Afghanistan, which earned them the derogatory moniker "olive-greens" (as in the colour of camo). There is some understanding that culturally military~right, but interventionism and globalism are now more closely associated with the left.
dasfoo
1hr ago
But that’s the entire point. You needed to do it with an intent to defraud and commit another crime. If he wasn’t thinking at all about that, then that is proof he didn’t commit the crime.
Yeah, I agree. But Trump is his own worst enemy and creates most these problems for himself. It's hard to feel sympathy for him when he is essentially dooming himself by repeating the same mistakes over and over rather than adapting -- even though I think he is being unjustly persecuted in a way that really hurts the entire country. Even if he's the least-bad part of this whole debacle, I can only shake my head in pity at mess he's put himself in.
ControlsFreak
1hr ago
I haven't read that case and I don't intend to.
I don't know what to say other than to note that if one boldly declares that they intend to remain willfully ignorant of first amendment law, then most people should probably significantly discount what they have to say concerning first amendment law.
Not a reporting requirement nor a crime, because a "Blue Lives Matter" sign does not constitute "express advocacy".
Do you think that paying Stormy Daniels to keep her quiet is "express advocacy"?
RE: Federalist papers
As usual, @gattsuru has an absolute banger of a comment. I would only add that he is citing the specifics on "electioneering communications", which is much more narrow than the extremely broad sounding statutory statement we started with on "expenditures". It is fundamentally this huge gap between extremely broad sounding statutes and very narrow slivers of actual behavior that the FEC tries to enforce (due to the knowledge that going further is likely to catch the Court's ire) that is the core of the inferential distance on this issue. Most people simply don't realize that many many many things that might at first glance appear to be a violation of campaign finance laws will never be enforced, and that if it were tried, the laws would be struck down. The core of my position is that the claims against Trump are in this category. It superficially sounds plausible that the events could be captured by campaign finance law, but if you actually had to argue the case, the law, and the Constitution all the way to SCOTUS, it would not work. It is only because they specifically didn't have to actually argue the law and the Constitution on the issue of campaign finance law (especially not in an appeals court or "court of law", rather than a trial court or "court of fact") that it was able to get to this point.
JulianRota
1hr ago
I'd lean against.
A serious move against Taiwan is likely to trigger a longer-term economic realignment away from Chinese manufacturing and towards all of their regional competitors. I'm doubtful that the Chinese economy is strong enough to weather such a thing. Main wildcard is to what extent Chinese leadership either doesn't believe it will happen, or doesn't care.
The PLAN and PLAAF don't have much recent experience AFAIK fighting blue-water naval battles, amphibious invasions, air battles against air forces that aren't total clusterfucks, etc. Trying for something like Indirect Control is taking a big risk that their bluff will be called. Their leadership will look pretty bad if they try it and it ends up being a flop. Even worse, a flop of the army and navy trying to assert control over Taiwan is much less likely to generate a strong Chinese domestic backlash against whoever did it, presuming they don't do something boneheaded like major attacks against mainland Chinese civilians.
If China wanted to be taken more seriously as a threat to Taiwan, I'd think they ought to get some practice in somewhere. They've been dealing with Africa for a while, why not pick whichever African country is being particularly annoying to them and go over and smash them? If they can't, or aren't willing, to pull that off, it makes it seem like they aren't really much of a threat to Taiwan.
pigeonburger
1hr ago
The US Navy
More importantly, they might be building a lot of frigates and are starting to build aircraft carriers, but the PLAN has basically no institutional experience. They have negligible ASW and submarine capacity, any surprise invasion plan has to contend with an unknown: how many US SSNs and SSGNs are in or in range of the South China Sea right now?
The only way the Chinese can succeed is if there is enough political hesitation to intervene from the US.
There's no conspiracy--it's just a right-leaning post of mine that (rightfully) saw a lot of pushback.
More options
Context Copy link