What happened to the one drop theory anyway? Funny how everyone gets whiter and whiter the more whites’ numbers diminish. First it was the Irish (in the early 1900s were not considered white)then the Italians and now it’s mixed people. They even call Indians white now! Go figure.

Soon mongoloid will be the new caucasoid. There will be only two races-black and white. Africans, black and everyone else, white.

Sailer’s article claims Asians have more in common with whites than blacks so that is why they unite more. Well if that were the case than why don’t blacks and Latinos marry more? Whites and blacks marry more than blacks and browns.

Funny how when whites have a lot to lose they stay with their own. Maybe the rest of us (blacks and new whites) should try that!

I guess I am biassed, and easily flattered, as I must be the only one he’s ever invited out to (an expensive) dinner from PP.

“I think both of you should get a blog, and do whatever two people do in blogs. Although in all honesty, he sparkled some very good posts from other people in this thread.”

Blogging would have been something I would have enjoyed doing some years back, when I suppose I too felt I had viewpoint I wanted the world to share. Now the whole thing is about spats, little ones and big ones.

The beauty of having Amir around, is he does stir things. He opens the space for debate at the risk of ridicule, and always has done. He is harmless because he is vulnerable. It shows in his every post. That is why he is so popular with the girlies.

The other thing I like about him is that he does come back, unrestrained – desperate to control debate and of course destined to fail.

I am going to speak to Trevor Phillips, who will probably tell me that it is all my fault because I am sleepwalking into segregation.

Nobody does an Amir, except Amir himself. He is conceited, naive and superficial. Not the best of combinations. And when people easily destroy his limited world-view, he becomes even more arrogant and obnoxious. He disagrees by being very disagreable.

>> But what the heck, I think you are a lovely fellow. And long may you rain on Pickled Politics. I think you should have your own blog.

I think both of you should get a blog, and do whatever two people do in blogs. Although in all honesty, he sparkled some very good posts from other people in this thread.

Fundamentally either we believe we are all equal or we do not. We are egalitarian or we are not.

If we are egalitarian then we will as a society seek to assist and compensate for each other.

If we are not we will seek advantage in as many ways as possible, drawing out as many differences as possible – much easier to do by grouping and stereotyping.

Lets not be blind. Its all economics brothers and sisters.

People make up names, and say where one mountain in a range ends and the next begins, and have arguments about whether an area has one mountain with multiple peaks and buttresses, or multiple mountains. Some of those discussions have right and wrong answers, some of them there is no objective way of settling.

As it happens, the territory of human genetics happens to be mostly fairly flat, more Holland than Scotland. Of all the major mammal species, only cheetahs are less genetically diverse than humans, and all cheetahs alive are supposed to have been descended from a single breeding pair a few thousand years ago.

In other words, it’s not especially complicated, and not that important for anyone other than population geneticists.

Problem is, all the pseudo-intellectual wankery that gets tossed around on this point sometimes makes it seem, to bright and basically well-intentioned young men like amir, like some vastly important political point that can only be settled by sophisticated use of creative ambiguity.

If you saw some UN diplomat bull-shitting about topological narratives or something while discussing exactly where the boundary between India and Pakistan lies, you would suspect he is trying to find a wording that satisfies neither, but avoids a war. So you make the deduction that war on that point is possible, that it’s a big political issue, that there’s some big dark secret here.

Thing is, I suspect most of the people pontificating on this point are, rather ironically, doing it to look clever and sophisticated, rather than to deliberately avoid stating a truth.

but I have to break it to him that there is no genetic basis for race

That isn’t strictly true. This is what i hate about genetics, its all about semantics and constantly asking ‘what do you mean by that’

You’re right the ‘black and white race’ is a social construct but using genetics to back that up is valid. Saying gene A causes a certain amount of melanin production and those that have it activated are in race x is fine. In a similar way i wouldn’t have a problem with race being defined according to hair colour, and the genes that correspond to that colour. The problems arise when people start making conclusions from that – therefore all gingers are freaks (which they are).

Broadly id accept heritability as being a factor in the attributes of an individual (and therefore ‘intelligence’) but disregarding environmental factors as playing a crucial role is quite simply absurd especially as those that defend pure heritability rely on environmental causation (the ice age made northern people plan more or whatever).

When you say “a racial group is merely an extremely extended family that inbreeds to some extent. Thus, race is a fundamental aspect of the human condition because we are all born into families” – that is very definition of a social construct my dear.

this is false. I recommend this (”Neurobiology of intelligence: science and ethics”) for a an excellent treatment of the topic.

I read the paper, i personally disagree with their notion of intelligence (yes i know its advocated by the APA, still the discussion on defining intelligence dances on, and around naturalistic fallacy). I don’t see how that article refutes the statement that there isn’t an inherently genetic predisposition to ‘intelligence’ they pretty much make that clear in the abstract, and further disagree with the notion that theres no need to educate or be educated even if you agree with heritability.

I’m not sure what you mean. that was published in Nature Reviews Neuroscience. my link was to a freely available copy of the paper. It’s worth a read (it’s not *that* technical, and the review or the references within touch on all the technical issues people seem to have with IQ–test validity, malleability of IQ, etc).

the “dispute” you link to doesn’t seem to be a dispute.

But there are many more reasons for abortion, all of them legitimate.

And I am talking not about bone cracking or head wrenching, I am talking about a small collection of cells that aren’t anything at that stage but a small collection of cells.

And, Amir, I will say to you what I say to all those who say no to abortion under any circumstances. Are you prepared to bring up and devote your life to these unwanted children, bedcause if you’re not, then tone it down a bit please.

“What do you say we lighten things up and talk about abortion? You know, I feel like I’m losing some of you here, and I want to win all of you back with this one. Let’s talk about abortion. Let’s talk about child killing and see if we can’t get some chuckles rippling through the room here. Let’s talk about mass murder of young, unborn children and see if we can’t coalesce into one big, healthy gut laugh. Ha ha ha ha!

Boy, I’ve never seen an issue so divisive. It’s like a civil war, isn’t it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent; they’re totally divided on abortion. It’s unbelievable. Some of my friends, for instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Other of my friends think these pro-life people … are evil fucks. How are we going to come to a consensus? You ought to hear the arguments around my house: “They’re annoying, they’re idiots.” “They’re evil, they’re fucks!” Brothers, sisters, come together! Can’t we once just join hands and think of them as evil-annoying-idiot-fucks? I beseech you. But that’s me …

“I’m a non-smoker. I’m pro-life. I’m a pro-life non-smoker.” Let the party begin.

Err, on-line publication?

It seems to be disputed.

See:

http://www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/IQ/NRNCorrespondence.pdf

Anyway, I am the living proof. You, any of you, could change your particular results, just as I did. Think what it would mean for you, or your society!

“Well, douglas, what do you mean by that?”

“You could casually drop into conversation down the local greengrocer that you had a huge IQ! He, or perhaps if you are really, really lucky, she, would obviously drop their oranges for you.”

“douglas, is this a realistic scenario?”

“Of course it is. My lack of social skills, halitosis and general nerdom will be flushed away in the sexual rush that everyone must feel when they realise that I am one quantile above a monkey, well, some monkeys. Not bonobos, obviously. Smart little bastards.”

“douglas, do you think your arguement holds water?”

“Err, maybe aye, maybe naw, but I’m an IQ nerd and I’d like to think it mattered. Gonna leave me alone, I hate all you good looking people who actually have a life. I’ve got my genius, and, by the way, I speak to power.”

I shall probably publish this information firstly in a profoundly scientific, and peer reviewed journal – “Train Spotters Monthly” – where I expect to find a receptive audience.

For those of you who can’t wait, and with my phenomenal IQ I can nearly read your minds here, the book is ‘How to Improve your IQ”

Always remember an IQ is not just for Christmas.

this is false. I recommend this (“Neurobiology of intelligence: science and ethics”) for a an excellent treatment of the topic.
http://www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/IQ/NRN2004_IQ.html

You reached that point a while back. Having known you long enough, I feel I can say that you are the most illogical of all. The simple fact is you do follow logical reasoning (albeit based often on a single misplaced fundamental) within a thread but cannot sustain it across threads.

But what the heck, I think you are a lovely fellow. And long may you rain on Pickled Politics.

I think you should have your own blog. We could come visit, and if not we will surely listen out for your exploits a la Young Indiana Jones, when we are all gathered round the wood fire in the drawing room of the PeePee Club

NO, No, no. Not Indiana Jones, Phileas Fogg.

And with a bit of David Niven’s panache you may have had Jagdeep as your Passepartout. Now you are stuck seeking Razib.

You might recall Phileas’ world nearly collapsed for a single misplaced fundamental.

I must agree with the others that Amir is highly amusing, but I can never read what he says. It’s like trying to eat polystyrene. It’s not just what he says, but also how he says it… Mental expansion might be good, but his incessant jargon is DEATH.