home

Saletan's Hurt Feelings

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Off Topic
Posted on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 09:02:02 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

William Saletan of Slate has received warranted and almost universal ridicule for his pathetically bad series on race, intelligence and IQ. But I got a chuckle from this from him:

Why write about this topic? Why hurt people's feelings? Why gratify bigots? Because truth matters. . . .

Heh. Saletan imagines himself able to hurt feelings. Sorry, we do not think enough of you to be hurt by you sir. You simply made a fool of yourself. As for being the holder of the truth, please stop embarrassing yourself.

< The Party Of The Common Good | Late Night: 1976 and Hotel California >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Saletan's Hurt Feelings | 38 comments (38 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    inelligence and genetics (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by diogenes on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 11:14:14 AM EST
    Just look at babies adopted at birth-their adult intelligence does not match the adoptive parents but much more matches the biological parents.  If you take "race" out of the mix everyone will agree that intelligence is substantially inherited.    

    I'll take (4.00 / 4) (#13)
    by tnthorpe on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 12:32:28 AM EST
    21st-century phrenology for $800 Alex.

    What is being suppressed by political correctness, feminism, and tenure?

    What is the TRUTH about intelligence?

    Very good, now you too can be a 21st-century phrenologist.

    Can hardly wait until poverty is found to be genetically based as well.

    If there has never been any PC pressures, why (2.00 / 4) (#14)
    by jerry on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 01:08:20 AM EST
    was tenure ever created?

    PC pressures have always existed -- it's silly to pretend that it's new, or that it doesn't exist, or to excoriate people that want to discuss them as conspiracy theorists.

    What is modern mainstream feminism hiding?  Pretty much that it's junk science and involves a great deal of needless male bashing.

    Feminism Under Fire - Ellen Klein Feminism Under Fire is the first systematic analysis of modern-day feminism and the personal memoir of Ellen R. Klein, a philosopher coming of age and coming to terms with feminism as it relates to university politics and teaching. Klein entered graduate school and the world of professional philosophy in 1984 and soon became aware of sexism existing in classrooms, texts, and the real world. She attended a national conference on feminist philosophy in 1988 and found herself questioning her commitment to feminism. As fate would have it, she left the conference determined to learn everything she could about feminist philosophy and was asked to teach a course entitled "Feminist Philosophy." Circumstances and rigorous research have enabled her to offer the critical analysis of feminism found in Feminism Under Fire.

    Restrained, if not repressed, by the current climate of political correctness, mainstream philosophers have been reluctant to attack feminism, instead relegating it to the status of a crazy aunt in the attic of the discipline. Klein climbs the forbidden steps and opens the door to a critique of contemporary feminism. She takes on the task of differentiating between feminist philosophy, non feminist philosophy, and feminist non-philosophy. She analyses feminist epistemology, philosophy of science, and pedagogy. She helps the crazy aunt down the staircase and leads her into the dinner parlour.

    Feminism Under Fire is ruthlessly analytical yet eminently accessible. Klein's lucid and provocative prose undresses academic feminism and exposes its pretensions, dogmas, fallacies, and peccadilloes. Klein recognizes the rampant sexism that permeates academia, but believes modern-day feminism is "intellectually dishonest and scandalously unscholarly" and even more oppressive toward women.


    Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Womens Studies
          Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge.

    "I find myself increasingly shocked at the unthinking and automatic rubbishing of men which is now so part of our culture that it is hardly even noticed," the 81-year-old Persian-born writer said yesterday.

    Other women that were described as feminists that came to distance themselves from modern mainstream feminism: Christina Hoff Sommers,  Camille Paglia, Wendy McElroy, Elaine Showalter, Erin Pizzey (founder first Domestic Violence Shelter), Elizabeth Loftus (debunked false memory syndrome), Karen DeCrow (Former head of NOW), Wendy Kaminer (ACLU), Nadine Strossen (Head of the ACLU), Betty Dodson: V no longer stood for vagina. It stood for violence. Sex and violence, never sex and pleasure- talking about sexual pleasure when there is so much sexual violence against women would be inappropriate, insensitive and politically incorrect. And who is to blame for all the sexual violence against women? According to feminist extremists it's still the patriarchy. Does that mean daddy or our brothers? Is it the stranger who raped us? Or is it the first man who broke our heart or the first one we married who cheated on us? Maybe it's the pope or God himself, but it's definitely mankind.

    It's very difficult to criticize V Day without sounding anti-woman or pro-violence. Dare we ask why so many feminists think women have cornered the market on being victimized by violence? Will we sound too insensitive in mentioning the violence caused by poverty, hunger, and wars that affect women, men and children of every gender? Are we to ignore all the wives who verbally abuse and dominate husbands? Shall we pretend there are no mothers who all too frequently raise a hand to punish a child? It's almost as if feminists insist on ignoring the power that many mothers wield in the home to preserve the image that all woman are helpless victims incapable of violence.

    Could we cut to the chase and say that the source of violence against women comes from the extreme fundamentalists in all the major religions including Christians, Jews, Hindus and Muslims? That all forms of authoritarianism exercised by both women and men are the source of violence along with ignorance and prejudice?

    I have called myself a feminist since the early 70s, but I think modern mainstream feminism went seriously awry in the early 90s, and there is great pressure on academics and politicians not to discuss this.

    Much of this has twisted the way social scientists observe/report the world and the political correctness seems to have effected genetic studies.

    If you read the women I've mentioned above, you may find there is no need for you to make any snide comments about conspiracy theories.

    If you consider why we have tenure, you may realize that it's clear that political correctness and pressures is an old old story.

    Parent

    Femz (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by manys on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 02:02:42 AM EST
    I have called myself a feminist since the early 70s, but I think modern mainstream feminism went seriously awry in the early 90s, and there is great pressure on academics and politicians not to discuss this.

    Feminism has gone through a lot of changes since the 70s and everybody knows this. There's a big difference between Gloria Steinem and Luce Irigaray, so don't get all article-pasty and patronizing because you're still pining for the olden days. Funny that male-bashing was much more a part of old-school feminism than the current kind, so I don't know why you (and Ms. Klein) assert that it's somehow the other way around. Then again, a critique of feminism from the standpoint of academic politics is pretty narrow and, dare I say, lazy.

    Besides all of this, you don't seem to have much of a point beyond cutting and pasting information about your friends' books. If you are indeed a guy, this is not intended to be male bashing.

    Parent

    Saletan is right (2.00 / 4) (#1)
    by chris2008 on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 09:46:57 PM EST
    I'm a progressive but Saletan is right.  It is politically incorrect to state what Saletan has stated and I understand the reasons why people don't want to deal with this aspect of life, but it doesn't change the facts.  The genes for intelligence (as well as many other human traits) are not evenly distributed among human population groups.  Genes don't explain everything, circumstances, luck, access to resources, education and many other factors are at play, but to pretend that Saletan is just being a bigot is simple sticking your head in the sand.  You are free to stick your head in the sand, its your choice, but some of us are going to move on with the debate leaving you behind.

    The fact that your responding to him with such childish language is indicative of the degree to which you are not being fact based.  You are engaging in fact free mocking that reminds me of the tactics of global warming deniers.

    Ok, let me take the first shot (3.66 / 3) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 09:50:24 PM EST
    what is intelligence?

    Parent
    you are fact free (2.00 / 4) (#4)
    by chris2008 on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 09:58:24 PM EST
    Why not read the scientific literature in the area.  It's all laid out in the main journals.  You are treating this like global warming deniers treat climate change.  You move the debate from referee journals that deal with statistics into the world of rhetoric and verbal gymnastics.  I'm not playing that game, I've got a degree in the relevant field and I'm not going to debase myself just to entertain you.  You are in denial of reality.  You are free to convince yourself and others who don't want to believe for whatever reason that you aren't in denial, just everyone else is a bigot, but you are in the wrong here.

    I completely understand why this is something that many don't want to accept.  It has the potential to be destabilizing to society, and it also is uncomfortable.  It bothered me.

    Parent

    It is laid out in RESPECTABLE journals (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 06:56:00 AM EST
    I submit that you are unfamiliar with the RESPECTABLE work in this area.

    A fool or a racist sayus what you say.

    Parent

    So you just come here to fling insults? (4.00 / 4) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 10:00:10 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm here to tell you that you are wrong (2.00 / 4) (#6)
    by chris2008 on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 10:08:19 PM EST
    I am here to tell you conclusively that you are wrong about Saletan.  I know the area very well, and I am also very left leaning and progressive.  I provided 5 references in a prior post.

    I am here to disagree with you.  I am also here to disagree with the fact free approach that is being taken.  I think it makes this blog look ridiculous.  I don't like progressives looking like idiots, but in this case, you are.

    I think that by acknowledging reality here you can then start to deal with it.  People who are in denial of reality are not able to effectively change things for the better.  I am here to suggest that you get a grip on reality, even if it is uncomfortable, because then you can help make it better.

    In psychiatry, denial is dysfunctional state.  It is something that one has to overcome.  Usually denial occurs because there is something about reality that is uncomfortable and one is scared to face.  In this case, I understand your situation because I was there.  But one has to move to accept reality, warts and all.

    Parent

    We do not accept your statements (3.66 / 3) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 07:01:10 AM EST
    because having rad the respectable and accepted scientific literature on the subject, we know you to be wrong.

    We are not interested in hearing your rehash of the nonsense.

    Sorry that we do not take you seriously but we do not.

    Parent

    clarification (1.80 / 5) (#7)
    by chris2008 on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 10:12:49 PM EST
    I am not a "racialist" nor a "white supremacist" or anything else like that.  I am merely someone who realizes that genetics plays a significant (although of course not exclusive) role in life outcomes and that genes are not evenly distributed among the human population.  Intelligence is significantly linked to specifically biology and that biology has a basis in genetics.  The reason genes are not evenly distributed is because of the difference environments the ancestors of various ethnic groups experienced.  The result is that the means of various genetically-linked traits vary between different ethnic groups.

    There is lots of mixing these days and I think the concept of "race" is relatively faulty but there are differences in group means between ethnic groups in various traits including many that are socially desirable in our Western developed nations.

    Parent

    Hundreds of words (4.00 / 4) (#8)
    by andgarden on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 10:21:28 PM EST
    and you still haven't answered my original question.

    Parent
    and you haven't responded to the papers I posted (2.00 / 4) (#10)
    by chris2008 on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 10:24:47 PM EST
    Wikipedia has lots of information on intelligence:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence

    The aspects that people look at in psychology and cognitive neuroscience studies are usually specific types of intelligence such as the "G-factor" or IQ:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_intelligence_factor

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient

    Parent

    Please (4.20 / 5) (#21)
    by manys on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 02:29:03 AM EST
    If you're going to posit IQ as some kind of definitive science then I've got an excellent Amway opportunity for you that just can't lose.

    Parent
    Ah,g (3.66 / 3) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 07:12:54 AM EST
    Do you know that even JeEnsen admits that g is not a defined term? That it is a circular term that has o connection to scientific reality?

    For crissakes, read something besides works by the Pioneer Fund and Sailer.

    Stop embarrassing yourself.

    Parent

    Yeah, I can give out 1s too. (3.66 / 3) (#9)
    by andgarden on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 10:23:06 PM EST


    Parent
    here is more on denial (2.00 / 4) (#11)
    by chris2008 on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 10:51:11 PM EST
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial

    Parent
    Look in the mirror (3.66 / 3) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 07:03:05 AM EST


    Parent
    You KNOW this? (3.66 / 3) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 07:02:42 AM EST
    The reason genes are not evenly distributed is because of the difference environments the ancestors of various ethnic groups experienced.

    Are you seriously arguing that you KNOW this?

    Man, you really are a fool.  

    Parent

    Fling insults? (1.80 / 5) (#12)
    by jerry on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 11:12:46 PM EST
    I sense that you're the one here flinging insults and trying to pick a fight.

    So far, the best I can tell, the blogosphere argument against Saletan goes a bit like this: SALETAN IS A RACIST!!!!  It doesn't come across as a real argument.  Some people point to one or two papers, but sadly, we all know that if you point to two papers, we can probably find two papers that will disagree with you.  It's rare that a scientific consensus comes from a paper or two.

    It also seems telling that many of the arguments are from science popularizers, Steven Gould, Jared Diamond, etc. who are/were scientists in their own right, but in this field were stretching a bit and telling us what others were saying, and we haven't heard from the actual geneticists themselves.  Though we do have a few like Risch who seem to believe there is something there behind the concept of race.  In the meantime the same people that bring forward Gould will just deny completely what Pinker has to say.

    Is there "race"?  The wikipedia page on race says that anthropologists came to say no only in the past ten years.  And these days, anthropology and other social sciences are sadly, in the throes of a vigorous battle of political correctness, our feminist legacy to academia.

    Before anyone tells me there is no such thing as political correctness, please tell me why we have tenure in the academy.  And then don't bother telling me there is no such thing as political correctness.

    Anyway, if it's only the past ten years that scientists that should know came to say race doesn't exist, it seems reasonable for me for others to be able to believe differently without being called on their racism.

    I would probably not measure intelligence with an IQ test, but my guess is that there are genes that code for myelin, genes that code for neural organization, genes that code for the sodium / potassium cycle, genes that code for sodium uptake, and on and on.  I would be surprised to find that different groups of people didn't have different variations in their genes that code for more or less efficient forms, and that some combination of these can be said to make a person or group more intelligent on average than another group.

    Now since the empirical evidence is that the vast majority of people get by just fine in the real world, there is no way that any difference in intelligence can be used to say some "race" is inferior.

    But I think the liberal approach should be to demand laws that make sure that genetic information cannot be used to discriminate against people, and not to simply stick our heads in the sand at this moment and say, "it's not true, it's not true, it's not true."

    It's going to take a lot more than blog fights to convince even one person, but it won't take much more than bloggers and commenters decrying people as racist to harden people and to get them to question the so-called "liberal" community.

    I greatly appreciate Chris having the guts to respond to Armando as he did.  I respect Armando, but I think this may be an instance where he's working more from his heart than from his head.

    Parent

    No (2.33 / 3) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 07:00:00 AM EST
    If you wanted to know the truth, I would not have to explain it to you.

    You pretend that scientists have not debunked the ridculous arguments of Saletan.

    You are the one who is operating in lalla land here.

    I have had this argument too many times to count. It is not worht it for me to do it again.

    Have your fantasy science if you like. I am not interested in hearing about it.

    I've read the respectable literature and know it laughs at Saletan, and you apparently. I do not need to validate again for your sake.

    Parent

    I have had this argument too many times to count. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jerry on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 11:24:54 AM EST
    That's one of the things that still sucks about blogs -- it's still way too hard to find old posts.  I am in fact pretty amazed at those bloggers that post several items every day and then when some thing comes up in the news, will remember, hey! I wrote about that exact thing three years ago and can then dig it up.

    P.S.  You're still wrong :)

    P.P.S.  I don't know why you read such ill intentions into otherwise good intentioned people or posts.  I think my point about how "scientists expected to know such stuff" only reached a majority in the past ten years, so it really cannot have disseminated to the interested lay public yet is very apt.  I apologize if for the past ten years I have been raising a family, maintaining a job, struggling through a divorce, unemployment, and several terrifying court encounters and haven't been able to keep up with those fields you think I should have.  I have a minor in anthropology and at that time there was no discussion of race not being "real", and in fact no discussion of genomics at all, which came about after I graduated.  I have a pretty good background in biology, chemistry, and molecular biology, which is why when a science popularizer like a Steven Jay Gould says something, and a geneticist like Neil Risch who studies the diseases that killed my father and that I carry says something, I tend to place a lot more importance on what Risch says than what Gould says.  I'm not ascribing bad intentions to either of them, just noting who is these days (through no fault of Gould's of course) actually doing the work in the field.)

    Now, when I went to school, we did learn about the 24th chromosome pair (which actually never existed), and how Galileo discovered Neptune but never realized it so it was (re)discovered later, and we learned how God doesn't play dice, and how the cosmological constant was Einstein's greatest mistake, and for a few years we all learned about recovered memories, and we learned all about the important mistakes and misinterpretations made by well intentioned people and actually how science progressed by that.

    We also discussed Popper and Kuhn and so I come into this debate sensing that we are at one of Kuhn's "crisis moments" where the paradigm could or may have shifted.  

    You are firmly of the point of view that the paradigm has shifted, the transition has occurred and everyone that thinks otherwise is an idiot wasting your time (or worse.)

    I am of the point of view, that I don't know if the paradigm has shifted and the transition has been made or if we are still in the crisis stage.  I see interesting cases on either side of the proposition, and I have yet to read enough papers of authority that I recognize and can understand to come to a decision.  I think there are a lot of well-intentioned, reasonably educated people in this camp.  And your shouting isn't terribly persuasive one way or the other.

    Parent

    Not true at all (3.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 11:36:00 AM EST
    I am convinced in fact of the opposite, that the knowledge on thiso suibject is almost nonexistent.

    I make NO CLAIMS as to what is actually true. It is Saletan, who you seem to be defending, who is making pronouncements.

    The fact is Saletan does not know what he is talking about. And neither did Jensen. And neither did Hernstein and Murray.

    Nor does Sullivan, Sailer and all the fellow traveling racists who claim to.

    Truth be told, you have not been paying attention to the debate imo.


    Parent

    I'm not defending Saletan, I am defending (none / 0) (#37)
    by jerry on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 01:01:29 PM EST
    people that want to legitimately discuss issues without being called racists.

    I would like to think that with what I believe is a pretty good background in this area (chem, bio, math, physics, anth) I can come in to a discussion and say that Neil Risch has some interesting things to say about this that no one has addressed and not be called a racist.  But apparently that is too much to hope for.  And argument by shout down on scientific matters is what can be expected on various pundit/legal blogs?

    I don't understand your statement that "that the knowledge on this subject is almost nonexistent."  Are you saying that for "lay" people, or for the geneticists?  (Or are you just saying that about me?)

    I'm certainly no expert in this, and if I wasn't aware there was even a debate going on because it hasn't really made the news in a big way, how can I be faulted for not paying attention to the debate?  But since Watson made his statement and that did make the news, the debate has become relatively big on the blogs.  However, my reading of many of the blogs and commenters, is that few people engaged in this debate really have the technical chops to discuss the issues, but that hasn't stopped many many people from engaging in food fights (which are almost always fun until the frozen asparagus spears someone's eyes.)

    I am no expert, but I have good reason to believe I am more educated than most people in society in the technical issues of this question, and I believe that decisions about society should be made by all the people and not just a few technocrats or bureaucrats.  And so we the people need to have places where we can discuss the technical issues in an open and productive manner.

    I would have thought that discussing the questions on blogs would be a good way to bring me, if not others, up to speed on the issues.

    Again, apparently, I am wrong about that, and I either need to STFU and let my betters decide and just run with their decisions for me, or not say anything at all in the debate until I have taken the graduate level work in genetics and statistics that you apparently have.

    My experience tells me that though IQ is a horrible measurement, and that there is no "g" factor, that intelligence is a real construct and presumably one day we may figure out how to measure what goes into that (as I suggested up above, it may be things that genes definitely can code for in terms of nerve and brain development.)

    My experience tells me that though "race" is clearly a scientifically problematic concept, genes and populations are not, and so I cannot understand why intelligence is somehow special and will not be linked to genetic patterns found in various subpopulations.

    My experience as a physicist tells me "that which is not forbidden is mandatory" so I need to see some really clear explanations of why intelligence is different, and the fact we don't have a good way to measure it now doesn't mean that will always be the case for intelligence or some component of intelligence.

    My experience as a liberal watching privacy rights and other rights decay tells me we should get on the ball now and make sure this stuff cannot be used to discriminate against people.  

    Genetic information whether related to intelligence, disease, race, or what have you, WILL be used to discriminate against individuals unless we work now to put a stop to that.

    But, when these discussions are shouted down from the beginning with cries of racism, and it's impossible we'll never even get to the point of whether we need better privacy laws.  If it's impossible to correlate intelligence with race in any manner, than we don't need laws to prevent using any such information to discriminate against anyone.  I don't want to take that chance.  And I don't want to allow any kind of genetic information to be used to discriminate against people.  I know I carry several Jewish linked disease traits.  And I suspect other diseases too, like perhaps Aspergers.  I can see all of this being used to discriminate against me or my kids.

    Two more things: it's not clear that Jensen should be in the same category as the others.  Here apparently, is Jensen's response to Gould.  It's interesting, make of it what you will.

    And also, here's an interesting paragraph or two from Paul Krugman in 1996 that I found at another blog this morning.  I don't know if he still feels the same way. (The entire article is interesting and goes way beyond the portion I am pulling from it.)

    WHAT ECONOMISTS CAN LEARN FROM EVOLUTIONARY THEORISTS

    ...I am an economist, but I am also what we might call an evolution groupie. That is, I spend a great deal of time reading what evolutionary biologists write - not only the more popular volumes but the textbooks and, most recently, some of the professional articles. I have even tried to talk to some of the biologists, which in this age of narrow specialization is a major effort....

    I am not sure how well this is known. I have tried, in preparation for this talk, to read some evolutionary economics, and was particularly curious about what biologists people reference. What I encountered were quite a few references to Stephen Jay Gould, hardly any to other evolutionary theorists. Now it is not very hard to find out, if you spend a little while reading in evolution, that Gould is the John Kenneth Galbraith of his subject. That is, he is a wonderful writer who is bevolved by literary intellectuals and lionized by the media because he does not use algebra or difficult jargon. Unfortunately, it appears that he avoids these sins not because he has transcended his colleagues but because he does does not seem to understand what they have to say; and his own descriptions of what the field is about - not just the answers, but even the questions - are consistently misleading. His impressive literary and historical erudition makes his work seem profound to most readers, but informed readers eventually conclude that there's no there there. (And yes, there is some resentment of his fame: in the field the unjustly famous theory of "punctuated equilibrium", in which Gould and Niles Eldredge asserted that evolution proceeds not steadily but in short bursts of rapid change, is known as "evolution by jerks").

    What is rare in the evolutionary economics literature, at least as far as I can tell, is references to the theorists the practitioners themselves regard as great men - to people like George Williams, William Hamilton, or John Maynard Smith. This is serious, because if you think that Gould's ideas represent the cutting edge of evolutionary theory (as I myself did until about a year and a half ago), you have an almost completely misguided view of where the field is and even of what the issues are.

    Parent

    g, race and other (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 01:06:47 PM EST
    Discuss to your heart's content.

    You say you are not defending Saletan. Then stop taking umbrage on his behalf.

    He is full of crap and does not know a darn thing about the subject.

    He pretends he does.

    Thbat is the problem.

    Parent

    OK (4.00 / 4) (#15)
    by manys on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 01:52:24 AM EST
    So, since you have a degree in a related field you should be able to distill your myriad wikipedia links down to a concise few sentences, no? I mean, being so smart and wise to the game, you can surely do better than pasting a link to a definition of "denial" and a comment that "he's right."

    Parent
    read my other posts (1.00 / 3) (#16)
    by chris2008 on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 01:59:19 AM EST
    I posted one comment with a lot of links to scientific papers (#2).  I also posted another that lays out my non-racialist views on why there are group mean differences in genetically-linked traits (#7).

    Parent
    Linkls (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 06:56:50 AM EST
    Are you unfamiliar with the links from ACTUAL scientists in the actual fields on this?

    Please stop this.

    Parent

    So? (3.66 / 3) (#18)
    by manys on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 02:03:38 AM EST
    Who cares about your silly links as placemarkers for intelligence. Make your point in your own words, if you are able.

    Parent
    rhetorical games (1.00 / 3) (#19)
    by chris2008 on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 02:16:37 AM EST
    See, science is a complex and rigorous field and you don't want to play by the rules of science because it comes to a conclusion that you don't want to arrive at.  You berate me for referencing my posts and referring you to more comprehensive sources and instead try to make this some personal rhetorical challenge that I must over come.  This is what I mean by trying to play rhetorical games.  I hope to god you realize what you are doing and you are purposely acting like a "young earth creationist" or a "global warming denier."

    Anyhow, I'm giving up on you just as I give up in discussions with those in the two aforementioned groups.  You guys are impervious to logic, because logic ends up at conclusions that contradict your pre-established and unchangeable beliefs.

    I also don't think it matters whether I convince you because science is rushing ahead in this area and a few self-referential deluded individuals on the blogosphere are not going to have an impact.  You have already lost the wider argument, you haven't realize it yet in the cliques you run in.

    Parent

    You do not know from science (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 06:57:31 AM EST
    Stop pretending you have respectable science behind you.

    We ALL know you do not.

    Parent

    Fancy words there, Tex. (4.00 / 4) (#20)
    by manys on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 02:27:03 AM EST
    Ha ha, taking your ball and going home, eh? So you get called out for not knowing what you're talking about and so you attack me as not having any concept of "science." Who's the bigot now?

    I know exactly what I'm doing. I'm giving you a critical beatdown and you're defenseless aside from your pasted links. If you know what you're talking about, then say it. Otherwise save the links for your bcc: list of annoyed cousins and ex-coworkers.

    Parent

    I disagree with most of your arguments here but (none / 0) (#32)
    by jerry on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 09:01:46 AM EST
    Otherwise save the links for your bcc: list of annoyed cousins and ex-coworkers.

    That's pretty damn funny.

    (It's not what Chris is doing, and I still side with him, but that's pretty damn funny, I've been on the receiving end of way too many of those emails.)

    I don't think the "save the links" thing is anything but a disingenuous though -- this is the net and you can click links.  If Chris hadn't provided the links, people would be saying "where are your links!"

    Parent

    Substance-free (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by manys on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 11:53:03 AM EST
    I don't think the "save the links" thing is anything but a disingenuous though -- this is the net and you can click links.  If Chris hadn't provided the links, people would be saying "where are your links!"

    He is using the links to substitute for his argument. What is more disingenuous than citing a link to the wikipedia entry for "Intelligence?" He created his account solely to reply to this thread and all he spews is links and paste. It's disingenuous to consider those to be reasoned arguments and that if people don't get it, well they should start by educating themselves on what intelligence is by reading "the scientific literature in the area." Sarcasm is no way to make a point.

    I see you hang around here and aren't a fly-by commenter, but I don't care whether you agree with me or not. Saying so means nothing. If you have any legitimate counter-arguments then put 'em up, but I couldn't care less about who you agree with, don't agree with, or how you think arguments could be better made. Just make them and save the color commentary for the Turkey Bowl.

    Sure I can click links, but people only have so much time and it's presumptuous to just paste a bunch of links and say "There, if you read these 20,000 words you'll see my point." Yeah? Well no thanks. You can have your point, just don't clog up the comments with pithy garbage.

    In short, this is all tantamount to saying, "Oh, you don't like death metal? Why don't you read the wikipedia entry about music before making a decision?" It's condescending.

    Parent

    I think enough (3.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 06:55:04 AM EST
    rather, too much has been written in terms of serious debunkiong of these fools by now.

    I have done a lot of it myself.

    Google if you like.

    I think you are full of it but I will not relitigate what has been reltigated a thousand times.

    At this point, imo, only fools and racists take your view. I will not argue with either anymore.

    Parent

    some scholarly papers (2.33 / 3) (#2)
    by chris2008 on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 09:50:21 PM EST
    Here is some supporting material that shows that intelligence has clear biological basis:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WNP-4JCSK53-4&_user=10&_cover Date=07%2F01%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C0000502 21&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=44f925815529b20e5a2f4df32bbc8cbb

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WNP-4FMBK96-2&_user=10&_cover Date=06%2F30%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C0000502 21&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f8f77fab2b5319c58c251b1bf1ca13a5

    http://www.ccbi.cmu.edu/reprints/Newman_Sternberg-chapt-2005-intelligence.pdf

    And we know that intelligence isn't evenly distributed:

    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/Jewish-Genius-10855

    And there is ongoing human evolution (adaption to the environment):

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4643312.stm

    Your post is childish and unconnected to reality that I think it may not be worthwhile to even respond to you.

    Parent

    Please stop it (3.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 07:14:12 AM EST
    Stop pretending all of your pet theories have not been thoroughly debunked by REAL scientists.

    Parent
    Saletan's Hurt Feelings | 38 comments (38 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment