Facing Reality with Charles Murray

They asked for an honest conversation on race, right? Enter this week’s guest Charles Murray, author most recently of Facing Reality: Two Truths about Race in America. He and guys jostle on this most sensitive of subjects, but do so with the kind of generosity you can only find on Ricochet (We let things be too chummy around here!) Rob, Peter and James also get into the G7 and a rudderless Biden on the world stage, along with Jon Stewart on Stephen Colbert’s stage. They even do their best to find some optimism, but we may need our friends at Ricochet to cheer them up in the comments!

Music from this week’s podcast: Ball of Confusion by The Temptations

Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 175 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    J Ro (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    when jobs are becoming

    You have a limited view compared to the Austrians.

    Economists, whether Austrian or otherwise, don’t seem very good at predicting/forecasting non-economic things. Such as how increasingly-automated and -technical employment is beyond the ability of many people who end up with nothing to do, no need for their labor, and nothing to be paid for. Not even paid with deflationary money.

    “Labor is more scarce than material factors of production. We are not dealing at this point with the problem of optimum population. We are dealing only with the fact that there are material factors of production which remain unused because the labor required is needed for the satisfaction of more urgent needs. In our world there is no abundance, but a shortage of manpower, and there are unused material factors of production, i.e, land, mineral deposits, and even plants and equipment.

    “This state of affairs could be changed by such an increase in population figures that all material factors required for the production of the foodstuffs indispensable—in the strict meaning of the word—for the preservation of human life are fully exploited. But as long as this is not the case, it cannot be changed by any improvement in technological methods of production. The substitution of more efficient methods of production for less efficient ones does not render labor abundant, provided there are still material factors available whose utilization can increase human well-being. On the contrary, it increases output and thereby the quantity of consumers’ goods. “Labor-saving” devices increase supply. They do not bring about “technological unemployment.”

    “Every product is the result of the employment both of labor and of material factors. Man economizes both labor and material factors.”

    —Ludwig von Mises, Human Action

    It sounds like he at least wrote that before the greatest explosions of automation and other technology.

    I suppose one could still argue that more people are needed to get at more minerals and ores, etc, but if those people aren’t capable of using the machinery that others can use to do it faster/more efficiently, then they must be condemned to do so using pick-axes and shovels.

    • #151
  2. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    J Ro (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Ernst Rabbit von Hasenpfeffer (View Comment):

    What do we do with the left end of the bell curve? These are people that certainly struggle in modern society as constituted. Both the left, who assert oppression, and the libertarian right, who assert laziness, pretend the left side of the bell curve doesn’t exist. Most people posting on this forum probably don’t have meaningful relationships with sub-90 IQ people. Maybe you don’t even really interact substantively with anyone with an IQ below 100. Half of the population has an IQ below 100 (by definition). People on the right end of the bell curve have a poor feel for the true range of IQ differences. How many of the routine actions necessary for middle class life in America, like filing taxes or securing a mortgage, are simply beyond the ability of some substantial percentage of the population? Some form of traditionalism offers these people the best opportunity to live productive, dignified, and happy lives. But such an approach is anathema to high IQ novelty seekers. Which most of us here are.

    That’s the subject I bring up in terms of things like where people who can’t really do much in this age of technology, are nevertheless expected to have some employment to pay their way. And it may actually involve a lot more people than those with sub-90 IQ.

    The past year may have been somewhat illustrative of this too: lots of restaurants etc shut down, but nobody starves because they can’t eat at a restaurant. In simplest terms, restaurants aren’t NECESSARY, and to a degree they could be said to just provide make-work employment for people who aren’t capable of doing much more than carrying plates around etc.

    I’m guessing you’re not a big tipper.

    Not really an issue since I can’t afford to go out to eat in the first place.  But that’s part of my point:  Nobody HAS TO go out to eat, in order to not starve.  So restaurants etc are a luxury that can be supported by a (mostly-)prosperous people and economy and so provide work for people who would otherwise have nothing to do that MUST be done in order to support life.

    • #152
  3. J Ro Member
    J Ro
    @JRo

    kedavis (View Comment):

    J Ro (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Economists, whether Austrian or otherwise, don’t seem very good at predicting/forecasting non-economic things. Such as how increasingly-automated and -technical employment is beyond the ability of many people who end up with nothing to do, no need for their labor, and nothing to be paid for. Not even paid with deflationary money.

    “Every product is the result of the employment both of labor and of material factors. Man economizes both labor and material factors.”

    —Ludwig von Mises, Human Action

    It sounds like he at least wrote that before the greatest explosions of automation and other technology.

    I suppose one could still argue that more people are needed to get at more minerals and ores, etc, but if those people aren’t capable of using the machinery that others can use to do it faster/more efficiently, then they must be condemned to do so using pick-axes and shovels.

    Still not getting the big picture? This is about humans, not just 21st C skilled tech workers:

    “What remains is to scrutinize the purport of the alleged Ricardo effect.

    “Ricardo is the author of the proposition that a rise in wages will encourage capitalists to substitute machinery for labor and vice versa.
    Hence, conclude the union apologists, a policy of raising wage rates, irrespective of what they would have been on the unhampered labor market, is always beneficial. It generates technological improvement and raises the productivity of labor. Higher wages always pay for themselves. In forcing the reluctant employers to raise wage rates, the unions become the pioneers of progress and prosperity.

    “Many economists approve of the Ricardian proposition although few of them are consistent enough to endorse the inference the union apologists draw from it. The Ricardo effect is by and large a stock-in-trade of popular economics. Nonetheless, the theorem involved is one of the worst economic fallacies.”

    (continues below)

    • #153
  4. J Ro Member
    J Ro
    @JRo

    (Continued from above)

    “The confusion starts with the misinterpretation of the statement that machinery is “substituted” for labor. What happens is that labor is rendered more efficient by the aid of machinery. The same input of labor leads to a greater quantity or a better quality of products. The employment of machinery itself does not directly result in a reduction of the number of hands employed in the production of the article A concerned. What brings about this secondary effect is the fact that—other things being equal—an increase in the available supply of A lowers the marginal utility of a unit of A as against that of the units of other articles and that therefore labor is withdrawn from the production of A and employed in the turning out of other articles. The technological improvement in the production of A makes it possible to realize certain projects which could not be executed before because the workers required were employed for the production of A for which consumers’ demand was more urgent. The reduction of the number of workers in the A industry is caused by the increased demand of these other branches to which the opportunity to expand is offered. Incidentally, this insight explodes all talk about “technological unemployment.”

    “Tools and machinery are primarily not labor-saving devices, but means to increase output per unit of input. They appear as labor-saving devices if looked upon exclusively from the point of view of the individual branch of business concerned. Seen from the point of view of the consumers and the whole of society, they appear as instruments that raise the productivity of human effort. They increase supply and make it possible to consume more material goods and to enjoy more leisure. Which goods will be consumed in greater quantity and to what extent people will prefer to enjoy more leisure depends on people’s value judgments.”

    —Ludwig von Mises, Human Action

    • #154
  5. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    What @jro said.

    Inflationism is for morons. lol

    • #155
  6. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Yes, I understand all of that, but it overlooks or ignores my point that many people AREN’T CAPABLE OF OPERATING that labor-saving (or whatever) machinery, or computers, etc.

    And nobody really NEEDS THEM to dig ditches, or whatever, just using a shovel.  Because one competent person with a backhoe can do the work of several incompetent people with shovels.

    Before the backhoe, even competent people had to use a shovel.  That’s no longer the case.

    What’s left now, for the people who aren’t capable of managing, repairing, or even operating the higher-skilled equipment?  I suspect that might include… oh, let’s say, up to 25% of the population.

    Do they dig ditches and find minerals etc, just with pick-axes and shovels, because it’s still more ditches being dug and minerals being found, etc, than if they weren’t doing it?  Even if the actual production is miniscule compared to that done by machinery?  And von Mises seems to be arguing that we need all the minerals and ores and stuff we can get, no matter how inefficiently.

    Do they work in restaurants washing dishes and stuff, rather than using automatic dishwasher machines, so that they’ll have “a job,” even if it’s something that isn’t really NECESSARY because – as I mentioned before – nobody HAS TO go out to eat, in order to not starve.

    Maybe as often seems to be the case these days, they become school teachers?  I suppose it might not be so bad if they only taught other people on the same level.  Not much damage can be done there.

    • #156
  7. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    kedavis (View Comment):
    What’s left now, for the people who aren’t capable of managing, repairing, or even operating the higher-skilled equipment?  I suspect that might include… oh, let’s say, up to 25% of the population.

    Peterson says its about 10%.

     

    • #157
  8. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    What’s left now, for the people who aren’t capable of managing, repairing, or even operating the higher-skilled equipment? I suspect that might include… oh, let’s say, up to 25% of the population.

    Peterson says its about 10%.

    From a quick search, that would seem to be an IQ below 81.  Frankly I think it takes more than that to operate a backhoe, etc.

    25% is an IQ of about 90.

    • #158
  9. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    What’s left now, for the people who aren’t capable of managing, repairing, or even operating the higher-skilled equipment? I suspect that might include… oh, let’s say, up to 25% of the population.

    Peterson says its about 10%.

    From a quick search, that would seem to be an IQ below 81. Frankly I think it takes more than that to operate a backhoe, etc.

    25% is an IQ of about 90.

    Kay. Peterson worries about those with and I.Q. of 83 or below.

    • #159
  10. Archibald Campbell Member
    Archibald Campbell
    @ArchieCampbell

    Two questions:

    1. Am I the only one who heard Murray drop an f-bomb at the end of his segment?  To me it was hilarious, because clearly I was focused on all of the proper things about that segment.
    2. Did I get a name-check from RufusRJones? If so, that’s pretty cool.
    • #160
  11. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Nanocelt TheContrarian (View Comment):

    @ taras So where are all those Humans with 47 chromosomes? Or Denisovans? Or Neanderthals? The comments in the link you provide do not address the direct end to end joining of two different chromosomes as appears to have occurred in Humans. Fusion of chromosomes occurs at sites other than the telomere ends. So it is definitely NOT the case that such events have been observed. The chromosome fusions that are seen are at locations other than direct telomere end to telomere end joining, with the concomitant conversion of the centromere site to not function as a centromere. None of the intermediates postulated by this commentator as part of the process of conversion to 23 Cs have ever been seen in humans.

    Calling David Gelernter a fringe crank on any topic is treading on thin ice.

    For reasons of space, I left out this sentence from the Biologos article:

    Since either a 48-pair set or a 46-pair set is preferable for ease of cell division, this population will either eventually get rid of the fusion variant (the most likely outcome), or by chance will switch over completely to the “new” form, with everyone bearing 46 chromosome pairs.

    In other words, the biologically disfavored 47-chromosome variant will, in a few generations, be eliminated in favor of 48 or, more rarely, 46.  For paleontologists to find a 47-chromosome cell preserved for several million years is almost impossible.

    To the best of my knowledge, all viable chromosomal fusions are at the ends, and that is the  kind of fusion that the article describes as “not especially rare in mammals”.

    • #161
  12. Ernst Rabbit von Hasenpfeffer Member
    Ernst Rabbit von Hasenpfeffer
    @ape2ag

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Loury is such a grown up about this stuff.

    • #162
  13. Ernst Rabbit von Hasenpfeffer Member
    Ernst Rabbit von Hasenpfeffer
    @ape2ag

    When I looked it up, I discovered that chromosome 2 is very prominent in the debate between creationists and anti-creationists.  I have little interest in this.  Creationism doesn’t seem to me to be a very useful approach to natural systems, but anti-creationists are nasty stupid people.

    • #163
  14. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Ernst Rabbit von Hasenpfeffer (View Comment):

    Creationism doesn’t seem to me to be a very useful approach natural systems, but anti-creationists are nasty stupid people.

    That pretty much sums up my view on the matter.

    • #164
  15. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Ernst Rabbit von Hasenpfeffer (View Comment):

    Creationism doesn’t seem to me to be a very useful approach natural systems, but anti-creationists are nasty stupid people.

    Do you mean people who hate G-d so much they disbelieve in him?

    • #165
  16. Archibald Campbell Member
    Archibald Campbell
    @ArchieCampbell

    Archibald Campbell (View Comment):

    Two questions:

    1. Am I the only one who heard Murray drop an f-bomb at the end of his segment?

    I listened again, and he did not drop an f-bomb. Maybe next time!

     

    • #166
  17. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Ernst Rabbit von Hasenpfeffer (View Comment):

    Creationism doesn’t seem to me to be a very useful approach natural systems, but anti-creationists are nasty stupid people.

    Do you mean people who hate G-d so much they disbelieve in him?

    The Catholic Church is anti-creationist, or at least it was back when I spent 12 years in parochial schools.  The Church’s attitude towards evolution was, “Sure, why not?  Who are we to dictate to God what methods (gravity, nuclear physics, chemistry, etc.) He uses to achieve His effects.”

    • #167
  18. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Taras (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Ernst Rabbit von Hasenpfeffer (View Comment):

    Creationism doesn’t seem to me to be a very useful approach natural systems, but anti-creationists are nasty stupid people.

    Do you mean people who hate G-d so much they disbelieve in him?

    The Catholic Church is anti-creationist, or at least it was back when I spent 12 years in parochial schools. The Church’s attitude towards evolution was, “Sure, why not? Who are we to dictate to God what methods (gravity, nuclear physics, chemistry, etc.) He uses to achieve His effects.”

    We need a definition of anti-creationism.

    • #168
  19. Nanocelt TheContrarian Member
    Nanocelt TheContrarian
    @NanoceltTheContrarian

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Nanocelt TheContrarian (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    Nanocelt TheContrarian (View Comment): On Human evolution: Can you explain to me how it happened that humans have 23 sets of chromosomes, while Great Apes have 24? In detail please. And tell me exactly what the likelihood is of that process occurring and resulting in a viable individual–and not only one, but two, of opposite sex, in the same location, at the same time, who happened to procreate. I’ll be very interested in your answer. […]

    It’s kinda neat. Here’s Wikipedia:

    Human chromosome 2 is a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. … The closest human relative, the chimpanzee, has nearly identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.

    Similarly, you can buy The Lord of the Rings in three volumes or in one, getting the same text either way.

    Most such chromosomal rearrangements result in reduced fertility and eventual elimination, but c23 lucked out — or had a selective advantage over c24.

     

    Yes. But the telomeres, the ends of the chromosome, are so structured as to prevent end-to-end joining of chromosomes. That is an event that has not been seen in any other organism. Also, simultaneously, the centromere of one set of the joined chromosomes had to cease functioning as a centromere, otherwise Chiasmic chaos would result, and the change would not be viable. Further, the change would have to have occurred in two individuals of opposite sex at the same time in the same location, to allow the possibility of mating between those individuals, to allow perpetuation of the chromosomal change. The concatenation of events to produce this change is so remote as to be virtually impossible. But it happened. Something fishy is going on. This is why David Gelernter says that Darwinian evolution, and what we know about genetics and probabilities means that something far more than random mutation and natural selection are required to explain the biome that we see around us, and in us. What might that something be? One starts to get into a quantum realm where events are influenced by strange behavior of quantum systems. This has hardly dented the awareness of biologists, let alone anyone else. Lucked out? Such luck is virtually impossible. The probabilities against it are astronomical. Again, see the book, Noesis, the book, available on Ricochet.Noesis, the book

     

    Wow!

    • #169
  20. Nanocelt TheContrarian Member
    Nanocelt TheContrarian
    @NanoceltTheContrarian

    Taras (View Comment):

    Nanocelt TheContrarian (View Comment):

    @ taras So where are all those Humans with 47 chromosomes? Or Denisovans? Or Neanderthals? The comments in the link you provide do not address the direct end to end joining of two different chromosomes as appears to have occurred in Humans. Fusion of chromosomes occurs at sites other than the telomere ends. So it is definitely NOT the case that such events have been observed. The chromosome fusions that are seen are at locations other than direct telomere end to telomere end joining, with the concomitant conversion of the centromere site to not function as a centromere. None of the intermediates postulated by this commentator as part of the process of conversion to 23 Cs have ever been seen in humans.

    Calling David Gelernter a fringe crank on any topic is treading on thin ice.

    For reasons of space, I left out this sentence from the Biologos article:

    Since either a 48-pair set or a 46-pair set is preferable for ease of cell division, this population will either eventually get rid of the fusion variant (the most likely outcome), or by chance will switch over completely to the “new” form, with everyone bearing 46 chromosome pairs.

    In other words, the biologically disfavored 47-chromosome variant will, in a few generations, be eliminated in favor of 48 or, more rarely, 46. For paleontologists to find a 47-chromosome cell preserved for several million years is almost impossible.

    To the best of my knowledge, all viable chromosomal fusions are at the ends, and that is the kind of fusion that the article describes as “not especially rare in mammals”.

    I think you are describing Robertsonian translocations in which the long arms of acrocentric chromosomes fuse at the centromere rather than at the telomeres. These translocations are very different from the head to head fusion of telomere  ends of chromosomes. This event in evolutionary history, which is far from well characterized, not well understood, and very complex, may be a unique event in evolution.  To date it defies coherent analysis, not least because the fusion site seems to not be susceptible to PCR. There is speculation that it indeed may have occurred in a small polygamous cohort of individuals at a specific moment in time.

    • #170
  21. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Nanocelt TheContrarian (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    Nanocelt TheContrarian (View Comment):

    @ taras So where are all those Humans with 47 chromosomes? Or Denisovans? Or Neanderthals? The comments in the link you provide do not address the direct end to end joining of two different chromosomes as appears to have occurred in Humans. Fusion of chromosomes occurs at sites other than the telomere ends. So it is definitely NOT the case that such events have been observed. The chromosome fusions that are seen are at locations other than direct telomere end to telomere end joining, with the concomitant conversion of the centromere site to not function as a centromere. None of the intermediates postulated by this commentator as part of the process of conversion to 23 Cs have ever been seen in humans.

    Calling David Gelernter a fringe crank on any topic is treading on thin ice.

    For reasons of space, I left out this sentence from the Biologos article:

    Since either a 48-pair set or a 46-pair set is preferable for ease of cell division, this population will either eventually get rid of the fusion variant (the most likely outcome), or by chance will switch over completely to the “new” form, with everyone bearing 46 chromosome pairs.

    In other words, the biologically disfavored 47-chromosome variant will, in a few generations, be eliminated in favor of 48 or, more rarely, 46. For paleontologists to find a 47-chromosome cell preserved for several million years is almost impossible.

    To the best of my knowledge, all viable chromosomal fusions are at the ends, and that is the kind of fusion that the article describes as “not especially rare in mammals”.

    I think you are describing Robertsonian translocations in which the long arms of acrocentric chromosomes fuse at the centromere rather than at the telomeres. These translocations are very different from the head to head fusion of telomere ends of chromosomes. This event in evolutionary history, which is far from well characterized, not well understood, and very complex, may be a unique event in evolution. To date it defies coherent analysis, not least because the fusion site seems to not be susceptible to PCR. There is speculation that it indeed may have occurred in a small polygamous cohort of individuals at a specific moment in time.

    Only mystery is why it doesn’t happen more often:

    Chromosomes normally end with “telomeres,” consisting of long stretches with several hundred repeating copies of the base-pair sequence TTAGGG, which is paired with its complementary sequence AATCCC. At the actual point of fusion, which has been identified at base-pair position 113,602,928 in human chromosome 2, one finds this sequence:

    … TTAGGGG – TTAGGG – TTAG – Fusion – CTAA – CCCTAA – CCCTAA …

    Note that the sequence switches from the base-pair TTAGGG pattern to the complementary pattern CCCTAA right at the point of fusion. It is hard to imagine a more dramatic confirmation of the evolutionary hypothesis.

    https://mathscholar.org/2018/05/chromosomes-dna-and-human-evolution/

    • #171
  22. Nanocelt TheContrarian Member
    Nanocelt TheContrarian
    @NanoceltTheContrarian

    Ernst Rabbit von Hasenpfeffer (View Comment):

    Nanocelt TheContrarian (View Comment):

    Ernst Rabbit von Hasenpfeffer (View Comment):

    Nanocelt TheContrarian (View Comment):

    I don’t so much think IQ is meaningless, as I think it is dangerous.

    This is honest and is useful context for much of what you say here. Do you think IQ is more dangerous than CRT? That’s really the choice we are presented with at this moment.

    The same. Both stem from exactly the same philosophical and ideologic perspective. They are part and parcel of the same worldview. A LeComptean/Marxist/Scientific positivism/Mechanical deterministic view that minimizes the human and leads the elite to think they can engineer a “just” and “progressive” society. That Humans are accidents of mindless evolution. That “anything goes”. Read the history of Eugenics, and the forced sterilization (and worse) of the “unfit” (read, “low IQ” individuals). The only thing that changes, perhaps, is who is in charge. All oppression. All “supremacy” of one sort or another. All tribalist. All “scientific”. They are both direct expressions of the “Enlightenment”.

    The problem with just asserting individualism is that the group differences exist. People can see them, and thanks to the Enlightenment, you can’t just hide them behind superstition and taboo. And more and more we have recorded data that shows these group differences aren’t just uninformed stereotypes. However, the biggest reason we can’t ignore them is that the CRT people are throwing them in our faces. They have a malicious explanation for the group differences. Their model asserts that I am evil and must be crushed. Not just me, but all of us. What is the counter explanation? The middle ground has been ripped up by the other side. We can’t just ignore the reality anymore. We can’t just live in a happier fiction.

    At least a part of the answer would be to figure out what Consciousness is. Everyone wants to talk about Intelligence, which is encompassed in the notion of Consciousness. Those who test IQ and analyze data have no idea what Consciousness is. Dennett tells us it is an illusion. Can Charles Murray tell us what Consciousness is, and where it comes from?  If he can, he’s keeping it a secret.  Human level Consciousness is common to us all. It is a unifying aspect of being human. Studying the “racial” differences of Intelligence is divisive and harmful to society. Emphazing our common humanity and consciousness  not so much.

    Why is there no interest in an IQ of morality?  That would seem of far greater import to our society. Thanks to the “Enlightenment” you can hide behind statistics that tell us nothing of why mass murderers obtain such political power as to annihilate tens of millions of human beings.

    You can read about my explanation of Consciousness and its implication in http://Noesis, the book

    • #172
  23. Nanocelt TheContrarian Member
    Nanocelt TheContrarian
    @NanoceltTheContrarian

    @taras

    Your link to math scholar.com provides a beautiful description of the evolutionary event that produced Human Cs 2. Thanks for the link. I would hazard a label for this event as a “singularity” (of which there are many examples) of remarkable things that can’t be fully explained. There were other events feeding in to this event, but this event leaps out from the complexities with striking definition and clarity. What this event had to do with the development of human level consciousness is hard to fathom but mesmerizing to contemplate. 

    • #173
  24. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Nanocelt TheContrarian (View Comment):

    Ernst Rabbit von Hasenpfeffer (View Comment):

    Nanocelt TheContrarian (View Comment):

    Ernst Rabbit von Hasenpfeffer (View Comment):

    Nanocelt TheContrarian (View Comment):

    I don’t so much think IQ is meaningless, as I think it is dangerous.

    This is honest and is useful context for much of what you say here. Do you think IQ is more dangerous than CRT? That’s really the choice we are presented with at this moment.

    The same. Both stem from exactly the same philosophical and ideologic perspective. They are part and parcel of the same worldview. A LeComptean/Marxist/Scientific positivism/Mechanical deterministic view that minimizes the human and leads the elite to think they can engineer a “just” and “progressive” society. That Humans are accidents of mindless evolution. That “anything goes”. Read the history of Eugenics, and the forced sterilization (and worse) of the “unfit” (read, “low IQ” individuals). The only thing that changes, perhaps, is who is in charge. All oppression. All “supremacy” of one sort or another. All tribalist. All “scientific”. They are both direct expressions of the “Enlightenment”.

    The problem with just asserting individualism is that the group differences exist. People can see them, and thanks to the Enlightenment, you can’t just hide them behind superstition and taboo. And more and more we have recorded data that shows these group differences aren’t just uninformed stereotypes. However, the biggest reason we can’t ignore them is that the CRT people are throwing them in our faces. They have a malicious explanation for the group differences. Their model asserts that I am evil and must be crushed. Not just me, but all of us. What is the counter explanation? The middle ground has been ripped up by the other side. We can’t just ignore the reality anymore. We can’t just live in a happier fiction.

    At least a part of the answer would be to figure out what Consciousness is. Everyone wants to talk about Intelligence, which is encompassed in the notion of Consciousness. Those who test IQ and analyze data have no idea what Consciousness is. Dennett tells us it is an illusion. Can Charles Murray tell us what Consciousness is, and where it comes from? If he can, he’s keeping it a secret. Human level Consciousness is common to us all. It is a unifying aspect of being human. Studying the “racial” differences of Intelligence is divisive and harmful to society. Emphazing our common humanity and consciousness not so much.

    Why is there no interest in an IQ of morality? That would seem of far greater import to our society. Thanks to the “Enlightenment” you can hide behind statistics that tell us nothing of why mass murderers obtain such political power as to annihilate tens of millions of human beings.

    You can read about my explanation of Consciousness and its implication in http://Noesis, the book

    You plug for your book more than I plug for sex robots. 

    • #174
  25. Nanocelt TheContrarian Member
    Nanocelt TheContrarian
    @NanoceltTheContrarian

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Nanocelt TheContrarian (View Comment):

    Ernst Rabbit von Hasenpfeffer (View Comment):

    Nanocelt TheContrarian (View Comment):

    Ernst Rabbit von Hasenpfeffer (View Comment):

    Nanocelt TheContrarian (View Comment):

    I don’t so much think IQ is meaningless, as I think it is dangerous.

    This is honest and is useful context for much of what you say here. Do you think IQ is more dangerous than CRT? That’s really the choice we are presented with at this moment.

    The same. Both stem from exactly the same philosophical and ideologic perspective. They are part and parcel of the same worldview. A LeComptean/Marxist/Scientific positivism/Mechanical deterministic view that minimizes the human and leads the elite to think they can engineer a “just” and “progressive” society. That Humans are accidents of mindless evolution. That “anything goes”. Read the history of Eugenics, and the forced sterilization (and worse) of the “unfit” (read, “low IQ” individuals). The only thing that changes, perhaps, is who is in charge. All oppression. All “supremacy” of one sort or another. All tribalist. All “scientific”. They are both direct expressions of the “Enlightenment”.

    The problem with just asserting individualism is that the group differences exist. People can see them, and thanks to the Enlightenment, you can’t just hide them behind superstition and taboo. And more and more we have recorded data that shows these group differences aren’t just uninformed stereotypes. However, the biggest reason we can’t ignore them is that the CRT people are throwing them in our faces. They have a malicious explanation for the group differences. Their model asserts that I am evil and must be crushed. Not just me, but all of us. What is the counter explanation? The middle ground has been ripped up by the other side. We can’t just ignore the reality anymore. We can’t just live in a happier fiction.

    At least a part of the answer would be to figure out what Consciousness is. Everyone wants to talk about Intelligence, which is encompassed in the notion of Consciousness. Those who test IQ and analyze data have no idea what Consciousness is. Dennett tells us it is an illusion. Can Charles Murray tell us what Consciousness is, and where it comes from? If he can, he’s keeping it a secret. Human level Consciousness is common to us all. It is a unifying aspect of being human. Studying the “racial” differences of Intelligence is divisive and harmful to society. Emphazing our common humanity and consciousness not so much.

    Why is there no interest in an IQ of morality? That would seem of far greater import to our society. Thanks to the “Enlightenment” you can hide behind statistics that tell us nothing of why mass murderers obtain such political power as to annihilate tens of millions of human beings.

    You can read about my explanation of Consciousness and its implication in http://Noesis, the book

    You plug for your book more than I plug for sex robots.

    Yes.

    • #175
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.