Scratchin Mamba

2y

"telligence is in large measure due to his or her genes and there seems to be very little we can do environmentally to increase a person's intelligence even in childhood. It's not that the environment doesn't matter, but genes appear to be 50 to 80 percent of the story. People don't want to hear this. And they certainly don't want to hear that average IQ differs across races and ethnic groups.

Now, for better or worse, these are all facts. In fact, there is almost nothing in psychological science for which there is more evidence than these claims. About IQ, about the validity of testing for it, about its importance in the real world, about its heritability, and about its differential expression in different populations.

Again, this is what a dispassionate look at what decades of research suggest. Unfortunately, the controversy over The Bell Curve did not result from legitimate, good-faith criticisms of its major claims. Rather, it was the product of a politically correct moral panic that totally engulfed Murray's career and has yet to release him."

Lein

2y

We should go back to nothing happening for decades I don't like this decades happening in weeks thing that's going on rn

the reds

2y

Socialism thread meet up

Lein

2y

We should go back to nothing happening for decades I don't like this decades happening in weeks thing that's going on rn

Womanpuncher69

2y

tag urslef i’m Joe Rogan (bald)

Scratchin Mamba

2y

"telligence is in large measure due to his or her genes and there seems to be very little we can do environmentally to increase a person's intelligence even in childhood. It's not that the environment doesn't matter, but genes appear to be 50 to 80 percent of the story. People don't want to hear this. And they certainly don't want to hear that average IQ differs across races and ethnic groups.

Now, for better or worse, these are all facts. In fact, there is almost nothing in psychological science for which there is more evidence than these claims. About IQ, about the validity of testing for it, about its importance in the real world, about its heritability, and about its differential expression in different populations.

Again, this is what a dispassionate look at what decades of research suggest. Unfortunately, the controversy over The Bell Curve did not result from legitimate, good-faith criticisms of its major claims. Rather, it was the product of a politically correct moral panic that totally engulfed Murray's career and has yet to release him."

SEGA GOON

2y

A lot of comedians moved to Austin just bc Joe Rogan did and they wanna feed off his fame

SEGA GOON

2y

A lot of comedians moved to Austin just bc Joe Rogan did and they wanna feed off his fame

Huge Hamas Fan

2y

· edited

Telegram sources saying Israel has declared a general mobilization and is calling up 25,000 reserves after their rockets killed 8 people in Gaza, including a Palestinian Commander @americana

krishna bound

2y

the only thing i will say is aside from sam harris being ed the original publication of the bell curve was never supposed to be about justifying racism

idk about Murray since he's the one who always does PR now for the book and he's kinda sus, but the other author Hernnstein's point was basically that if the bell curve was theoretically real it means "higher IQ people" are caught in a feedback loop and cannot properly understand or societally provide for the needs of others.
basically a large part of the book was that if we assume a large part of society is "low IQ", it means there needs to more social safety nets and tailored societal socialization of structures and outcomes, since high IQ people creating a derived meritocracy will always devolve into nepotism and never address underserved communities

the book was never really supposed to be about supremacy or superiority but was immediately taken that way and that'll probably be its legacy since it was promoted in a highly incendiary way and its sole legacy since has been discussions in libertarian podcast circuits

krishna bound

2y

the only thing i will say is aside from sam harris being ed the original publication of the bell curve was never supposed to be about justifying racism

idk about Murray since he's the one who always does PR now for the book and he's kinda sus, but the other author Hernnstein's point was basically that if the bell curve was theoretically real it means "higher IQ people" are caught in a feedback loop and cannot properly understand or societally provide for the needs of others.
basically a large part of the book was that if we assume a large part of society is "low IQ", it means there needs to more social safety nets and tailored societal socialization of structures and outcomes, since high IQ people creating a derived meritocracy will always devolve into nepotism and never address underserved communities

the book was never really supposed to be about supremacy or superiority but was immediately taken that way and that'll probably be its legacy since it was promoted in a highly incendiary way and its sole legacy since has been discussions in libertarian podcast circuits

Scratchin Mamba

2y

I mean that's part of it, but the main point of the book is to recommend policy that's just outright reactionary

"We are silent partly because we are as apprehensive as most other people about what might happen when a government decides to social-engineer who has babies and who doesn’t. We can imagine no recommendation for using the government to manipulate fertility that does not have dangers. But this highlights the problem: The United States already has policies that inadvertently social-engineer who has babies, and it is encouraging the wrong women. If the United States did as much to encourage high-IQ women to have babies as it now does to encourage low-IQ women, it would rightly be described as engaging in aggressive manipulation of fertility. The technically precise description of America’s fertility policy is that it subsidizes births among poor women, who are also disproportionately at the low end of the intelligence distribution. We urge generally that these policies, represented by the extensive network of cash and services for low-income women who have babies, be ended.

The government should stop subsidizing births to anyone, rich or poor. The other generic recommendation, as close to harmless as any government program we can imagine, is to make it easy for women to make good on their prior decision not to get pregnant by making available birth control mechanisms that are increasingly flexible, foolproof, inexpensive, and safe.

The other demographic factor we discussed in Chapter 15 was immigration and the evidence that recent waves of immigrants are, on the average, less successful and probably less able, than earlier waves. There is no reason to assume that the hazards associated with low cognitive ability in America are somehow circumvented by having been born abroad or having parents or grandparents who were. An immigrant population with low cognitive ability will — again, on the average — have trouble not only in finding good work but have trouble in school, at home, and with the law."

Scratchin Mamba

2y

basically a large part of the book was that if we assume a large part of society is "low IQ", it means there needs to more social safety nets and tailored societal socialization of structures and outcomes, since high IQ people creating a derived meritocracy will always devolve into nepotism and never address underserved communities

Where did u get this from tho bc it's literally the opposite

krishna bound

2y

my point's just that it wasn't written for the point of justifying racism even though that's largely how it's cited now (by both actual racists and otherwise)
that said i don't see first two paragraphs are reactionary really, only the last one is (and it blatantly is lol). saying birth control should be more widely available and encouraged and social programs shouldn't be as hard to get access to or widely restricted is almost the opposite of reactionary
that said iirc Hernnstein was a more lib author and Murray was the more conservative one so who knows who wrote what

krishna bound

2y

its what the other author besides murray literally said he wrote the book about

Scratchin Mamba

2y

When did he? And why does he advocate for the exact opposite in the book lol

Scratchin Mamba

2y

It is reactionary, unless you don't wanna call right wing economic policy reactionary but im not tryna argue about that

krishna bound

2y

you can say what you will about the reasoning but i don't think the actual policy itself is

Scratchin Mamba

2y

Cutting social welfare isn't right wing lmao?