* structural oppression and actual differences can both exist at the same time! They're not contradicting each other!
- * People who are mad at Murray about this book aren't really bad about the SNP scatterplots; they're still mad about Ch. 13 and 14 of _The Bell Curve_, and they think Murray is "hiding the ball"
* I don't know how to build a better world, but my first step is to go a little meta and talk about why we can't talk, and take seriously the possible harms from talking, rather than just asserting that free speech and civil discourse is Actually Good the way the likes of Cofnas/Winegard/Murray do (being a nobody blogger probably helps; I have an excuse)
+
+
+ * women and courage
* A few things are actually _worse_ than the ball-hiders make it seem ("treat ppl as individuals" doesn't work; "IQ isn't morally valuable" doesn't work)
* Embryo selection looks _really important_; I don't want to give amunition to racists, but I need to talk about that—and the recent Dawkins brouhaha says we can't even talk about that; and the ways I'm worried about eugenics being misused aren't even on the radar
-
+* Murray says polygenic scores are like GDP ... I bet Ben and Michael would have something to say about that analogy!
+* "genders have been identified"
+* Hyde/Fine binary notes: p. 388
* need to talk about individual differences being non-threatening
-Galileo and Darwin weren't _trying_ to undermine Christianity—they had much more interesting things to think about—but religious authorities were _right_ to fear heliocentrism and evolution: if the prevailing coordination equilibrium depends on lies, then telling the truth _is_ a threat and it _is_ disloyal. And if the prevailing coordination equilibrium is basically _good_, then you can see why purported truth-tellers striking at the heart of the faith might be believed to be evil.
-Instead of just getting _the right answer for the right reasons_ (which can conclude _conditional_ answers: if what humans are like depends on _choices_ about what we teach our children, then there will still be a fact of the matter as to what choices lead to what outcomes), everyone and her dog has some fucking _agenda_.
+"I realize I am writing in an LGBT era when some argue that 63 distinct genders have been identified," Murray writes.
-—and the people who claim not to have an agenda are lying. (The most I can credibly claim for myself is that I try to keep my agenda reasonably _minimalist_—and the reader must judge for herself to what extent I succeed.)
-The start of the introductions to the sex and race parts of the book do the obligatory historical context-setting of emphasizing that old-timey patriarchy and chattel slavery were Actually Really Bad.
-Needless to say (it _should_ be needless to say), I agree that old-timey patriarchy and chattel slavery were Actually Really Bad. However,
-I feel like Murray's overall positioning strategy is trying to have it both ways: challenging the orthodoxy, while downplaying the possibility of any [unfortunate implications](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnfortunateImplications) of the orthodoxy being false.
+https://www.econlib.org/archives/2011/06/the_ideological.html
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+—and the people who claim not to have an agenda are lying. (The most I can credibly claim for myself is that I try to keep my agenda reasonably _minimalist_—and the reader must judge for herself to what extent I succeed.)
I think this is sympathetic but [ultimately ineffective](http://zackmdavis.net/blog/2016/08/ineffective-deconversion-pitch/). Clueless [presentist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(literary_and_historical_analysis)) conservatism of the form, "Old-timey patriarchy and white supremacy were Really Bad, but that's over and everything is Fine Now" is unlikely to satisfy readers who _don't_ think everything is Fine Now, and suspect Murray of standing athwart history yelling "Stop!" rather than aspiring to Actual Social Science.
[conditional probability "Emacs shirt" vs. "is female", no principled distinction]
-The first 20% of the _New York Times_'s review of _Human Diversity_](https://archive.is/b4xKB) is dedicated to casting aspersions on _The Bell Curve_.
-
+is dedicated to casting aspersions on _The Bell Curve_.
effect size: standardized units may be practically useless (if of 1 yr of education reliably led to $1 of income)
Similarly, being Charles Murray is a lot more fun than being J. Philippe Rushton—and Murray knows it.
-Hyde/Fine binary notes: p. 388
+
http://zackmdavis.net/blog/2019/05/the-typical-set/
[parental SES also tracks parental genes]
-Murray says polygenic scores are like GDP ... I bet Ben and Michael would have something to say about that analogy!
+
Cognitive Enhancement and Network Effects: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11406-020-00189-3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wyyfFfaRar2jEdeQK/entangled-truths-contagious-lies
-https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XTWkjCJScy2GFAgDt/dark-side-epistemology
https://arbital.greaterwrong.com/p/rescue_utility
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Aud7CL7uhz55KL8jG/transhumanism-as-simplified-humanism
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/faHbrHuPziFH7Ef7p/why-are-individual-iq-differences-ok
And, again, socio-psychological facts like character assessments are precisely those for which we have the _most_ reason to distrust each other's judgement: if I like Mary, I might say favorable but false things about her even if I would never tell a lie about homotopy groups. In the absence of a objectively calibrated compassion-o-meter, psychological scientists who want to study individual differences in compassion are mostly limited to doing statistics on people's verbal self-reports and other-reports—but if you don't trust what people _say_, it's at least not _obvious_ whether or how much more you should trust statistical analyses of what people say, in accordance with the ancient dictum: ["garbage in, garbage out."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out) Probably the neuroscientists are working on the compassion-o-meter, but they too face the problem of ensuring that their interpretations of their brain scans actually mean what they say they mean.
+
+Jensen—
+> the test must measure, in addition to the construct it purports to measure,
+some other characteristic or factor that is completely uncorrelated with the construct and on which the major group, on the average, exceeds the minor group A typical example is the case in which the major and minor groups differ in their native language. A person’s native language is presumably not correlated with the construct of intelligence. If the test involves the native language of the major group exclusively and the minor group has a different language, the test will most likely be positively biased in favor of the major group. In other words, the test is measuring something (in this case a specific language) in addition to the construct that it purports to measure, which condition favors the major group
+
+https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Intelligence_Test_of_Cultural_Homogeneity
+
+Draw-a-Horse Pueblo
+
+> That is, the order of item difficulties should be expected to differ between racial groups.
+
+> the items that discriminate most between whites and blacks are the same items that discriminate most between older and younger children within each racial group.
+
+> In general, for children and adults alike, it is found that those test items that best discriminate individual differences in general mental ability among whites are the same items that best discriminate differences in general ability among blacks, and they are also the same items that discriminate the most between whites and blacks.
+
+> Gordon and Rudert (1979)
+
+> The effect of black dialect as compared with standard English on the IQs of black lower-class children was investigated in three studies by Quay (1971, 1972, 1974), who had the Stanford-Binet translated into black ghetto dialect by a linguistics specialist in black dialect. No significant difference (the difference actually amounts to less than 1 IQ point) was found between the nonstandard dialect and standard English forms of the Stanford-Binet when administered by two black Es to one hundred black children in a Head Start program in Philadelphia (Quay, 1971).
+
+> For example, in the United States only about 9 percent of physicians and dentists are women, whereas in the Soviet Union the figure is close to 50 percent.
+
+
+Thermometer and statistical discrimination in machine learning
+
------
This was the linkpost description text I initially drafted, before deciding that the "Straussian coyness" I [occasionally]() [succumb]() to is ultimately unbecoming.
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff