April for science

[Michael Press]

1) There are exactly two sexes.
2) Race is not a social construct.
3) Green energy is a net loss.
4) Inequality happens. It is not a social construct.
5) Men and women are born different.

--
Michael Press

[unclejr]

Which April said all this?

[agavi...@gmail.com]

I agree with all but #2.

We all share the same genomic baseline with minor modifications. Hence the endless varyiance of external differences.

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

Jews in Egypt, slaves in america many moons ago say 4 is stupid. Imagine being born owned by the same sort of random chanced that landed all of us this sweet born in 20th century america deal.

Lower caste members in Hindu societies say hey that shit still happens today. And it's not because we're lazy.

3 would be wrong if it weren't stated so broadly as to be meaningless.

I wonder where hermaphrodites or xxy / xyy folks land in 1.

Basically just a wish list for conservatives. And in true con fashion, stated without any supporting evidence. "This is how we want the world to be. Therefore, this is how the world be."

Cheers.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 04:51:12 -0700 (PDT), dotsla...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Basically just a wish list for conservatives. And in true con fashion, stated without any supporting evidence. "This is how we want the world to be. Therefore, this is how the world be."
>
>Cheers.

The evidence for 2. and 4. is the attempt of liberals to change the
facts.

Hugh

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

And the variance within the genome is much greater than the average
difference between racial groups. But to pretend that there isn't difference,
and that it doesn't make a difference toward rates of poverty and crime,
is ridiculous.

--
How far can you open your
mind before your brains
fall out?

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 09:08:20 -0500, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated
American" <cons...@duxmail.com> wrote:

>On 2017-04-24, the_andr...@yahoo.com <agavi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I agree with all but #2.
>>
>> We all share the same genomic baseline with minor modifications. Hence
>> the endless varyiance of external differences.
>
>And the variance within the genome is much greater than the average
>difference between racial groups. But to pretend that there isn't difference,
>and that it doesn't make a difference toward rates of poverty and crime,
>is ridiculous.

Therein lies the mystery. How can anyone look at their parents,
perfect or imperfect, and fail to decide that they want to do better
in life.

Neither my dad nor my mother-in-law ever earned $100 per week - and I
didn't until sometime in the 50s. But I don't see the people we would
swap success and happiness with.

Of course we had an advantage over people who were not white - but how
does that explain white failures?

One example is a kid I know in AL. He had an alcoholic dad and an
abused mother. He paid his own way through school (Auburn) and now he
could buy me and not miss the money. Another spent 12 years in the
Navy to pay his way through Auburn and my house would fit in his.

Isn't it always the size of the fight in the dog?

[agavi...@gmail.com]

There is absolutely variance. I'm not yet to make assumptions that differences in population behavior are genetic.

Can't remember the Bell Curve author's name, but it's my understanding he documented difference in population; correlation, not causation.

I'm a firm believer in people's ability to change and escape their history - however it originated.

Basically nurture over nature.

(Begin the arguments of outliers)

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2017-04-24, the_andr...@yahoo.com <agavi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There is absolutely variance. I'm not yet to make assumptions that
> differences in population behavior are genetic.

There is difference in behavior of homogenous populations based
on IQ, which almost perfectly matches. It is pretty much a certainty
that IQ is predictive.

> Can't remember the Bell Curve author's name, but it's my understanding
> he documented difference in population; correlation, not causation.

Charles Murray. His data implied a heritablity of 0.5 to 0.8, which
early environmental differences disappearing as subjects aged to
adulthood. In other words, genes seemed to be .5 correlation
with heavy environmental influence in early life, but that the
environment became less important as the subject approached the
age of 18, making the coefficient move toward .8.

> I'm a firm believer in people's ability to change and escape their
> history - however it originated.

Me too. But I am also a believer that the rates of people doing that
may depend on how smart they are.

>
> Basically nurture over nature.

The controversial chapter in The Bell Curve said this:

If the reader is now convinced that either the genetic or
environmental explanation has won out to the exclusion of the
other, we have not done a sufficiently good job of presenting
one side or the other. It seems highly likely to us that both
genes and the environment have something to do with racial
differences. What might the mix be? We are resolutely agnostic
on that issue; as far as we can determine, the evidence does not
yet justify an estimate.

>
> (Begin the arguments of outliers)
>

Murray makes his own case at:

https://www.aei.org/publication/an-open-letter-to-the-virginia-tech-community/


--
There's nothing sweeter than life nor more precious than time.
-- Barney

[agavi...@gmail.com]

I really should read the book and the link.

[agavi...@gmail.com]

I had already read the link. Just reread it. Concise responses to a disappointing letter.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 10:52:42 -0500, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated
American" <cons...@duxmail.com> wrote:

>There is difference in behavior of homogenous populations based
>on IQ, which almost perfectly matches. It is pretty much a certainty
>that IQ is predictive.

What is your source?

Quote...
What Does IQ Really Measure?
By Michael BalterApr. 25, 2011 , 3:02 PM
Kids who score higher on IQ tests will, on average, go on to do better
in conventional measures of success in life: academic achievement,
economic success, even greater health, and longevity. Is that because
they are more intelligent? Not necessarily. New research concludes
that IQ scores are partly a measure of how motivated a child is to do
well on the test. And harnessing that motivation might be as important
to later success as so-called native intelligence.

Researchers have long debated what IQ tests actually measure, and
whether average differences in IQ scores--such as those between
different ethnic groups--reflect differences in intelligence, social
and economic factors, or both. The debate moved heavily into the
public arena with the 1994 publication of The Bell Curve by Richard
Herrnstein and Charles Murray, which suggested that the lower average
IQ scores of some ethnic groups, such as African-Americans and
Hispanics, were due in large part to genetic differences between them
and Caucasian groups. That view has been challenged by many
scientists. For example, in his 2009 book "Intelligence and How to Get
It," Richard Nisbett, a psychologist at the University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, argued that differences in IQ scores largely disappear when
researchers control for social and economic factors.

New work, led by Angela Lee Duckworth, a psychologist at the
University of Pennsylvania, and reported online today in the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences explores the effect of
motivation on how well people perform on IQ tests. While subjects
taking such tests are usually instructed to try as hard as they can,
previous research has shown that not everyone makes the maximum
effort. A number of studies have found that subjects who are promised
monetary rewards for doing well on IQ and other cognitive tests score
significantly higher.

End quote.

IQ test scores are influenced by motivation (among other
characteristics).

I made slightly better than average grades in high school and the
first 2 years of college because of little or no effort. I was married
the last 2 years and only 5 grades (on the quarter system) were not As
(all history which I considered a waste of time). Of course my IQ
didn't change, my motivation did. Yet I was the only 17 year old
(AFAIK) in boot camp who was selected for OCS - motivation.

Some people are industrious enough to do their best regardless. Others
are motivated only by challenge. The IQ doesn't change but the level
of success does.

Right or wrong I think a number of blacks are encouraged to quit
school. Thus the social factor changes the level of success but not
the IQ. In my era kids who worked on farms were less likely to
succeed, generally speaking. Raising crops didn't require college prep
courses. Sounds like environment to me.

If you are constatnly given what you need very few are motivated to
succeed. That's why government welfare is an abyssmal failure.

[Michael Press]

In article <b6daf4d7-4293-4c51...@googlegroups.com>,

dotsla...@gmail.com wrote:

> Jews in Egypt, slaves in america many moons ago say 4 is stupid. Imagine being born owned by the same sort of random chanced that landed all of us this sweet born in 20th century america deal.

Society builds or does not build on race.
Society does not determine race.

> Lower caste members in Hindu societies say hey that shit still happens today. And it's not because we're lazy.
>
> 3 would be wrong if it weren't stated so broadly as to be meaningless.

Wood burning is not a net loss.
But it is not green energy;
it is traditional.
In urban and suburban settings
it is a horrible pollutant.

Green energy is a net loss.

> I wonder where hermaphrodites or xxy / xyy folks land in 1.

Too bad there is no way for you to find out.

> Basically just a wish list for conservatives. And in true con fashion, stated without any supporting evidence. "This is how we want the world to be. Therefore, this is how the world be."
>
> Cheers.

You calling it a wish list exemplifies your wishes.
You wish you did not have to try to refute it.

--
Michael Press

[Michael Press]

In article <58fe1089....@news.eternal-september.org>,

I think having two parents, however handicapped,
counts for plenty. Privilege arises from a family
that help each other along. That solid core provides
me with an almost insufferable quota of confidence.

--
Michael Press

[Michael Press]

In article <20749f66-7178-45d8...@googlegroups.com>,

March for Science. Note capitalization.
<https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/22/the-ugliness-begins-watch-livestream-of-the-marchforscience-via-sciencemarchdc/>

--
Michael Press

[Michael Press]

In article <slrnofs7qa.5...@kim.perusion.com>,

"Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" <cons...@duxmail.com> wrote:

I read the open letter at the time of the Middlebury riot.
It is die straight.

We do science on ourselves (in addition to ...)
or we do not do science. Includes observation,
experimentation and peer review.

--
Michael Press

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 11:30:07 -0700, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net>
wrote:

>I think having two parents, however handicapped,
>counts for plenty. Privilege arises from a family
>that help each other along. That solid core provides
>me with an almost insufferable quota of confidence.

I agree that two parents is the optimum under normal circumstances -
normal meaning that they cooperate and work toward the same goals.

I know our sons and grandsons appreciate my wife as much as me - in
some cases more so. They say the granddaughter loves me most but I
don't get involved in girly things.

I think confidence comes from the family environment but successes get
us to the insufferable point.

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2017-04-24, the_andr...@yahoo.com <agavi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I had already read the link. Just reread it. Concise responses to a disappointing letter.

Yes. Yesterday this went up, an interview with Charles Murray:

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/forbidden-knowledge

Don't know who Harris is, but he has 800K Twitter followers and seems
to be a widely-read author. He does an extremely good job with the
interview.

--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
-- Mark Twain

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 1:03:05 PM UTC-5, Michael Press wrote:

> > Jews in Egypt, slaves in america many moons ago say 4 is stupid. Imagine being born owned by the same sort of random chanced that landed all of us this sweet born in 20th century america deal.
>
> Society builds or does not build on race.
> Society does not determine race.
>

(4) wasn't about race. It was your assertion that inequality cannot be a societal construct. That's why I included the bit about existing caste systems.

Cheers.

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2017-04-25, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <cons...@duxmail.com> wrote:
> On 2017-04-24, the_andr...@yahoo.com <agavi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I had already read the link. Just reread it. Concise responses to a disappointing letter.
>
> Yes. Yesterday this went up, an interview with Charles Murray:
>
> https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/forbidden-knowledge
>
> Don't know who Harris is, but he has 800K Twitter followers and seems
> to be a widely-read author. He does an extremely good job with the
> interview.

Just checked into Harris, and he is a liberal with views roughly like
Bill Maher. He was very fair to Murray, and said that he considers
him to be the most improperly defamed and mistreated scientist of the
last 50 years. The podcast is tremendous.

--
"I find that a great part of the information I have was acquired
by looking up something and finding something else on the way."
-- Franklin Pierce Adams