Grand New Party draws very heavily on secondary sources, which means not only studies and reports but also books, magazine articles, newspaper columns, and so forth, and as a result we attempted to give nods throughout not only to the direct sources for data, policy ideas, anecdotes, etc., but also to the writers who called them to our attention in the first place. And so I should apologize to Steve Sailer, who correctly suggests that a passage about the UK's crime and illegitimacy rates, which appears on page 161 of GNP, draws on data points that I first encountered in an April 2005 column he wrote about the British working class. I should add that failing to credit Steve for calling the data in question to our attention was entirely my oversight, and not Reihan's; if there's another edition of the book at some point, I'll make sure that the oversight is corrected.
« Generation Kill | Main | Generation Kill (II) »
Credit Where Credit Is Due
14 Jul 2008 10:52 am
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://38.118.71.136/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/22621
Comments (105)
"I should add that failing to credit Steve for calling the data in question to our attention was entirely my oversight, and not Reihan's..."
Well, of course it wasn't Reihan's oversight. I doubt anyone named Reihan Salaam spends much time hanging out at the vdare site. It didn't take a psychic to figure out that you were the one scouring Steve Sailer's archives for fudged data, performing the Replace All function from "white working class" to "working class", and conveniently forgetting to include the name "Steve Sailer" from the footnotes.
Mustn't let anyone get the wrong idea about the Party of Sam's Club.
Lo, there shall be a cleansing of the Republican Party, and it shall emerge as a Grand New Party, and Steve Sailer shall be its Julius Streicher.
Meet the Grand New Ross, same as the old Ross.
From the malignant Steve Sailer's piece (as linked to by Ross: "Of course, Republicans have been winning the family vote recently. In 2004, George W. Bush carried 25 of the top 26 states grouped in terms of white “total fertility rate” (number of babies per woman per lifetime), while John Kerry was victorious in the bottom 16."
Apparently the only "family vote" that matters to Sailer comes from white families.
Is there still someone out there who thinks the prick is something other than a racist?
Now we know why Ross is so friendly to Steve.
Unconscious or otherwise, that's plagiarism.
LaFollette Progressive,
Actually, a lot of South and East Asians are extremely racist towards Black people.
Moe,
I'm pretty sure that Ross isn't a racist, which is why it frankly puzzles me why he persistently quotes and links to the professional racist Steve Sailor.
Professional suggests he makes a living from it. Given the begging on the home page it seems unlikely.
ML&J writes: Apparently the only "family vote" that matters to Sailer comes from voting families.
Fixed it for you.
"Apparently the only "family vote" that matters to Sailer comes from white families."
Your assumption is incorrect. He did look at Blacks and found a poor correlation between their votes and years married. In short, he found that since 1992, whites vote increasingly along cultural lines while blacks are completely absent from the "Cultural Wars"; they don't give a flying fig in other words. Read Sailer's articles that ran in "The American Conservative" and can be found on his site.
Like him or not, he did find the highest correlation for voting patterns in the 2004 election that has ever been found by *any* social scientist.
LaFollette Progressive writes:
"I doubt anyone named Reihan Salaam spends much time hanging out at the vdare site."
Someone named Razib Khan over at the Gene Expression website might disagree with you.
Sailer's claims regarding "illegitimacy" in the UK is probably moot. These days it is quite common for Northern European couples to have children without ever getting married.
---
What matters is whether these relationships are stable. As I recall Americans (especially white working class Southerners!) have higher divorce rates than Scandinavians even when one accounts for cohabitation. So I think Andrew Sullivan has a point: the white working class folks who tend to loudly proclaim their "morals" and Christian faith actually seem to have a bigger problem with dysfunctional families, teenage pregnancy etc. than "latte liberals" living in Blue states or over here in "Old Europe"!
MARCU$
Grouping the UK with Scandinavian countries on the grounds that both are (sort of) in Northern Europe is inherently dubious, and certainly the data on stability of unmarried couples in the UK is conclusively negative.
As for Red State America having worse social problems: if you read Ross's book, you'll find that point made at length in support of their thesis. As they put it, such social conservatism is a rational response to the havoc wreaked by social breakdown. Saying that latte liberals with stables families don't have it as bad hardly refutes this point.
In that post your mentor calls Obama 'Barry Half-White'.
Cunts. Both of you.
Licker-of-Sailer's-bung Staash says: "ML&J writes: Apparently the only "family vote" that matters to Sailer comes from voting families.
Fixed it for you."
No, you left out Sailer's specific reference to "white."
Do you ever post here when it's NOT in defense of your master Sailer, Staash? How long have you had his initials carved on your hindquarters? And isn't it convenient that his initials are SS?
Emma quotes and replies: ""Apparently the only "family vote" that matters to Sailer comes from white families."
Your assumption is incorrect. He did look at Blacks and found a poor correlation between their votes and years married. In short, he found that since 1992, whites vote increasingly along cultural lines while blacks are completely absent from the "Cultural Wars"; they don't give a flying fig in other words."
My "assumption" is based on Sailer's own specific wording from the cited article, chuckles. He doesn't say anything about "Blacks" there, now, does he?
"Like him or not, he did find the highest correlation for voting patterns in the 2004 election that has ever been found by *any* social scientist."
Correlation to what? Could you at least try to make sense when you're defending your racist pal?
"Like him or not, he did find the highest correlation for voting patterns in the 2004 election that has ever been found by *any* social scientist."
Sailer is not a social scientist, but I'll bite. Where is it which states this? it doesn't count if it's his own site.
That was as mangled as Emma's post, sorry - anyway, where was such a statement made? And for what patterns?
Why you're touching Steve Sailor of VDare is wholly beyond me. Perhaps you're not familiar with VDare. Perhaps you're too young to recall Brimelow, who founded VDare. Maybe you're not picking up on why the site is named for Virginia Dare, aka "the white doe," or how that particular story has been used in white racialist literature. Well, here's Brimelow's version: "At one point, I planned to pay homage by bestowing [Virgina Dare's] name on the heroine of a projected fictional concluding chapter in Alien Nation [Brimelow's 1995 book], about the flight of the last white family in Los Angeles." Let's count the things wrong with that sentence.
I guarantee, however, that some significant portion your readership is picking up all of these undertones and are fully aware of VDare's history. And you're not looking better by the association.
No-one calling Steve Sailer a racist has provided an operational definition of "racism." My guess is that if I queried those who call him that for a definition, they would respond that 'thinking blacks are genetically prone to lesser intelligence than whites is an example of racism.' Aha, so racism is a purely empirical matter now, instead of a moral one? Great way to set up your values for defeat. This is like saying "I believe in the rights of man because we are the only life in the universe." It's perfectly possible that we're the only life in the universe, but you're making a joke out of your entire political/moral philosophy by hinging it on an *empirical issue*. I happen to believe the group gaps in IQ are environmental, not genetic, but I read Steve's blog with great interest because of the *Data* and *Analyses*, because I actually *like* hearing alternative views argued with reason and clarity. I don't agree with his paleoconservative views. I don't care about immigration, I want obama to win the election. But I still read him, because he's not a "racist" (my definition-- someone who judges individuals solely on the basis of their group). You reject his data and analyses using every logical fallacy that you can rationalize (appeal to consequences, ad hominem, appeal to hipness, etc.) because you don't want to confront his empirical arguments.
a functional moron who can't figure out how to avoid repeat postings on a message board,
the atlantic blogs' comment features have scalability issues. try posting on yglesias' blog for example. double-posting is no evidence of tarditude :-)
You've barely figured how to post
how did i know that whoever replied would begin with this cheap shot? wow, you got me, my refresh button skills are lacking.
a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits
if you actually read his writing, you'd see that this isn't his belief. he thinks that the primary determinant of human traits is being human. he thinks that the primary determinant of *variation* between people is genetics. and lastly, he believes that a major component of the variation in genetics can be summed up by grouping people into "races" (a sentiment i disagree with somewhat, but respect as a viable position).
and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
yep, so it hinges on an empirical question.
If you actually read his writing also, you would know that he does.
He just called the person you allegedly support "Barry Half-White", and we have
"Let the good times roll" is an especially risky message for African-Americans. The plain fact is that they tend to possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus they need stricter moral guidance from society.
In contrast to New Orleans, there was only minimal looting after the horrendous 1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan—because, when you get down to it, Japanese aren't blacks.
and
Q. Isn't there an Ebonics IQ test on which blacks outscore whites?
A. You can make up a test asking, say, "Do you eat, drink, or shoot a '40'?" on which inner city blacks might outscore Korean-Americans.
There are quite a few more, in the articles you've already read.
It is his belief, but he wraps it in pseudo-science, which seems to fool people like yourself.
Don't be so fucking naïve, and stop being a useful idiot.
ben g, a functional moron who can't figure out how to avoid repeat postings on a message board, writes
yes, clicking submit twice the first time i post on this blog is surely a sign of my cognitive ability.
Your own definition is fucking retarded, by the way. One can be a racist and not judge people SOLELY by their group. What if you judge them LARGELY by their group?
People's groups affect them to varying degrees, be it through genetics or culture. Everyone would acknowledge this. According to you, one can be called a "racist" when one's world-view is too group oriented, as opposed to focused on individuals and ideological abstractions.
You are right though, if you're implying that my definition was too vague. A better one would be: "Someone who, even when confronted with the individual characteristics of a given person which deviate from that person's group, continues to judge that person primarily as a member of their group (be it black, jew, white, whatever), without regard to those characteristics."
He just called the person you allegedly support "Barry Half-White"
Newsflash: Barry Obama has a white mother.
You quote sailer: The plain fact is that they tend to possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus they need stricter moral guidance from society.
Ok, Sailer is making two claims here, both of which I disagree with. 1.) Blacks are, on average, genetically predisposed to lower intelligence than other populations. 2.) People with lower intelligence need the guidance of society.
Both claims are debatable, but aren't debated because of social restraints on what is considered civil to discuss. You can barely argue *against* it without raising a few eyebrows.
YOU are the useful idiot who is preventing a coherent liberal response to folks like Sailer emerging. Taboo-ing debate of important and controversial issues doesn't make them go away, it only makes "paleocons" form echo-chambers around one side of the argument.
James, your entire argument at this point has devolved into ad hominem and appeal to ridicule.
and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
just want to add that i skimmed through this sentence. "superiority" is not empirical but subjective and essentialist. steve speaks out explictly against the idea of one race being superior over another. his contention is that individual traits--namely intelligence and aggressiveness-- vary between population groups.
I'm not tabooing it.
I'm saying he is vermin - and if you just ignore those statements I quoted, and think they have no bearing on his 'work', then I don't think I have anything else to say you. You conveniently ignored the '40' quote though.
If you bring out a 'study' which says Jews control the world, I don't have to provide a 'coherent liberal response' - the burden of proof would be on yourself - so as with Sailer. He has not proved a single thing.
A few examples - there are countless more - from an earlier post I did - as you still havent cracked the search function:
"Ashkenazi (European) Jews appear to verage the highest—maybe around 110-112—followed by Northeast Asians (105), and then by gentile white Europeans and North Americans (100)"
The data set Sailer uses is highly flawed in its methodology, for example, in Taiwan, an 'ad hoc' test of 480 people appears to be given the same weight as a CPM test of 43,825 people.
Let's assume it's accurate, however, because these are too good to not point out:
Two tests in Zimbabwe for the same age group in the same year yielded a pre-flynn result(the use of which in sailers data is somewhat arbitrary, unsurprisingly) of 67.2 and 72.1.
My favourite is:
East Germany 103
West Germany 95
A bigger discrepancy than between Asian and Europeans apparently.
There are loads of gaps if anyone bothers to look - but it gives him more credence than he deserves. We are only talking about him now because Ross stole from him.
PS - it's great you are using the ad hominem argument, as you had already used up all your straw men in your first post.
clarence carter lacks class. that is all :-)
What a difference a day makes Clarence (my edit, but your words)
...the personal insults are unnecessary...you go to town like eighth graders in a locker room. Grow up.
Posted by Clarence Carter | July 13, 2008 11:14 PM
Hector (mostly) gets it. The rest of you are frothing idiots. That is all.
Posted by Clarence Carter | July 14, 2008 5:52 PM
You hypocritical shitbag.
If you bring out a 'study' which says Jews control the world..
that's an awful analogy. Sailer's work falls well within the range of peer-reviewed scientific opinion. genetic IQ gaps? mainstream scientific debate. group gaps in levels of aggressiveness? same. which makes claims that are well within the range of opinions of the scientific fields hes citing.
If you bring out a 'study' which says Jews control the world, I don't have to provide a 'coherent liberal response' - the burden of proof would be on yourself - so as with Sailer. He has not proved a single thing.
No one said he did. He's trying to show that his views are more likely correct than alternative views, which is how any objective debate works.
Also, I'm posting here not to attack you for disagreeing with him (as I said, I disagree greatly with him on most issues) but for stifling debate by tarring him as vermin and racist.
..
Ok, so he (assuming you're right) made some occasional errors in reporting IQ numbers. So? Do you tar all pundits as evil (or racist) when they make an error? No, I think not. I think you first tar the ones that make conclusions which go against how you'd like the world to be, and *then* look for occasional holes in their writings so that you can make packpedaling rationalizations for your refusal to confront their arguments.
Re: As they put it, such social conservatism is a rational response to the havoc wreaked by social breakdown.
If social conservatives were proposing worthwhile solutions to family breakdown I might agree that theirs was a rational response. Instead their solution set seems to begin with "Ban abortion" and end with "hate the gays".
Now, I'm sympathetic on the abortion issue, but for reasons involving justice to the unborn not any supposed benefit that might accrue to families if aborion were restricted-- indeed, I ail to see how either divorce or out-of-wedlock birth rates would be improved by a restrctive abortion regime (the latter would surely increase in fact). And scapegoating others for problems that they have nothing to do with has never been a rational policy prescription.
ben g again: "You are right though, if you're implying that my definition was too vague. A better one would be: "Someone who, even when confronted with the individual characteristics of a given person which deviate from that person's group, continues to judge that person primarily as a member of their group (be it black, jew, white, whatever), without regard to those characteristics.""
It's a terrible definition, actually. Racism in the Sailer/Buckley/Buchanan tradition has jackshit to do with individuals. I have little doubt that all three men are (or were, in Buckley's case) quite capable of being kind and even friendly to members of groups they deem inferior. But they still favor larger societal structures and policies which would place those "other" groups at a disadvantage and keep them there.
Of course as James pointed out above Sailer (like Buckley and Buchanan) went beyond this and has a history of making blatantly racist remarks, as well. I don't think it's an accident that he has chosen this as his life's work.
But they still favor larger societal structures and policies which would place those "other" groups at a disadvantage and keep them there.
I've been following Sailer's writings for while, and the motivating political philosophy behind all of his work appears to be a kind of "nationalist utilitarianism" (he calls it "citizenism"). basically his idea is that he wants the US government to enact policies which favor US citizens overall the most, regardless of race. this goes against my own humanist leanings, but that's another story.
you may think that his proposed policy ideas wouldn't help US citizens, or are somehow biased against blacks, but that, again amounts to an empirical argument, which is what i think should occur.. not the presumption of sinister intentions. you seem only willing to engage in the latter.
lastly, i agree with the sentiment expressed by james earlier that not every argument requires a serious answer. certain viewpoints are argued purely out of emotion and visceral hatred. however, steve makes rational arguments, and his viewpoints are well within the range of peer-reviewed scientific opinion. so his arguments deserve to be discussed as much as the next pundit's.
Um, just to clarify, I abhor racism, and I abhor the ideas of Steve Sailor. The only reason I don't criticize him at more length is that there are plenty of other people willing to do it.
ben g writes: "Sailer's work falls well within the range of peer-reviewed scientific opinion."
How has Sailer fared when it comes to getting his "work" published in peer-reviewed scientific journals? Would any of his defenders care to address this?
And exactly what is up with the vermin who come out of the mud SOLELY to post in defense of their cult leader? It seems that one or two new posters show up every time there's one of these discussions. And then they disappear, never to be seen again.
Is Sailer a (gasp!) Scientologist? He's certainly no scientist.
ben g again: "I've been following Sailer's writings for while, and the motivating political philosophy behind all of his work appears to be a kind of "nationalist utilitarianism" (he calls it "citizenism"). basically his idea is that he wants the US government to enact policies which favor US citizens overall the most, regardless of race. this goes against my own humanist leanings, but that's another story.
you may think that his proposed policy ideas wouldn't help US citizens, or are somehow biased against blacks, but that, again amounts to an empirical argument, which is what i think should occur.. not the presumption of sinister intentions. you seem only willing to engage in the latter."
You seem to completely ignore examples of blatant racism by Sailer. Do you seriously think calling Obama "Barry Half-White" is Sailer's race-neutral way of informing readers that Obama's mother is white? Seriously? If so, I think you're a fucking idiot.
I'll ask again - where do you defenders of Sailer crawl out from?
"however, steve makes rational arguments, and his viewpoints are well within the range of peer-reviewed scientific opinion. so his arguments deserve to be discussed as much as the next pundit's."
And why are you all on a first-name basis with "Steve." Damn, it's creepy.
Ben,
My point is that there was more variance between West and East Germany than apparently between Europe and Asia. If you going to just discount that, and anything else as an 'error', then you don't take things very seriously.
I actually posted on an earlier related topic what my view was, which was that IQ may be genetic, but as of yet, no one has been able to come close to proving it. So your ad hominem didn't work, as did the ludicrous straw men re IQ.
Nobody disputes the IQ results as is - the point is what amount (if any) does nature and what amount (if any) does nurture play a part. But you know that, and you are being just as unreasonable as you claim I am.
You clearly don't read anything, and I'm seriously wondering if you are Steve pretending, as it's very odd he hasn't posted yet.
You can claim this as victory, but if you seriously think that Steve is a serious, scientific and 'peer-reviewed' man with actual points, and not a hack who has misused data to get to a conclusion he had from the start, then I have nothing else to say to you.
I seriously think you may be Steve. I can't believe that he wouldn't be on here crowing by now.
I think I may just have Moe as my surrogate poster (some already think we are the same/related), as I'm sure he'll have more to add.
I'm just really tired of people who don't bother to read things properly, don't read the responses, and somehow 'divine' what Steve really means, the way he 'divined' what Michelle and Barack really. Can't be bothered.
Seriously. Re read the quotes that I listed, and if you genuinely don't see an issue, or the possibility of prejudice, then I quote you back to Moe:
"You're apparently a fucking idiot"
Bye
How has Sailer fared when it comes to getting his "work" published in peer-reviewed scientific journals? Would any of his defenders care to address this?
I didn't say he was peer reviewed. What i did say is that his work expresses opinions which are within the boundaries established by mainstream science in various fields.
their cult leader
yes, that unique cult leader whose follower disagrees with almost all of his opinions.
My point is that there was more variance between West and East Germany than apparently between Europe and Asia. If you going to just discount that, and anything else as an 'error', then you don't take things very seriously.
Ok, I see, you're not accusing him of misrepresentation but of ignoring the supposed implications of the variance there.
I'm not going to defend Sailer's point of view in detail on the cause of the IQ gaps (because I don't agree with it), but I will say that there is a viable argument that he has in response to what you're saying about the east-west german IQ gap. Here's a hint: hereditarians don't discount the effects of culture, bad nutrition, etc. in depressing IQ scores. what they do argue though is that there are constraints on IQ placed by genes. I'm just giving you a hint as to their response to show you that they *have* a response, and are not just frothing racists without sound arguments as many would have it. If you don't feel that this "hint" of a response is adequate, and think that you can easily counter it with a quick retort, that's merely because you're intellectually lazy and unwilling to lookup their response in detail.
I actually posted on an earlier related topic what my view was, which was that IQ may be genetic, but as of yet, no one has been able to come close to proving it.
Nothing is proven in science. It's all about evidence and likelihoods.
Nobody disputes the IQ results as is - the point is what amount (if any) does nature and what amount (if any) does nurture play a part. But you know that, and you are being just as unreasonable as you claim I am.
If I were unreasonable I think what I'd do is tar those who argue the opposite position as me as racist and evil.. hm....
Re read the quotes that I listed, and if you genuinely don't see an issue, or the possibility of prejudice
I do see the *possibility* of prejudice on the surface of those quotes (which you handpicked to be his most controversial and brash), although, having read him for a long time I've come to believe that he is not prejudiced.
You seem to completely ignore examples of blatant racism by Sailer. Do you seriously think calling Obama "Barry Half-White" is Sailer's race-neutral way of informing readers that Obama's mother is white?
No... I think it's comparable to the daily show (or was it colbert) giving Obama the "Affleck" ("Alf-Black!") duck mascot to obama as a mascot. You're going to keep listing "egregious" violations of political correctness ad nauseum, so i'm done here. my point was to third parties, anyways, not those who are already convinced to hate sailer.
anyways, i'm done with the comments. bye!
ML&J writes: "Do you ever post here when it's NOT in defense of your master Sailer, Staash?"
Nope.
JonF,
Banning abortion would certainly raise out-of-wedlock birthrate in the short run, probably by quite a lot. In the long run, I'm not sure. It's possible that when they don't have the fallback of legal abortion, women might respond by A) using birth control more assiduously or B) being more judicious about choice of sexual partner. While I doubt that we would go back to actually confining sexual intercourse to marriage, it would be probable (and in my opinion a good thing) that women would only sleep with people that they think they would be willing to marry on the off chance that they got pregnant.
Traditionally one of the thinks that women asked themselves when assessing a presumptive sexual partner is, would this fellow make a good person to raise a child with, i.e. somoene who likes to take care of kids and so forth. It might be good for all of us if that sort of thinking played more of a role in our thoughts again.
Moe,
Sailer probably thinks West Germany has a lower IQ because they imported too many dumb Turkish laborers.
A more likely explanation of course is that education, prenatal care, and so forth are some of the things that socialist countries did very well on, and so it's not at all unlikely that the East German social system might have boosted IQ relative to the West German one.
From the Sailer piece cited by James at 12:13: "One little-discussed reason why American political and media elites in Washington D.C. favor immigration so much more than the rest of us is because they prefer the fairly well-educated, polite, and hard-working immigrants from Africa's best families who flock to the D.C. area over the capital's native-born African-Americans, whom our leaders privately view as ignorant, surly, lazy, and crime-prone."
Hoo-boy! More mind-reading from the "scientist"!
Few more for you Marc - these took all of fifteen minutes, then I started to feel nauseous. Any bolding is my own, as I copied into a plain text editor. All the words are Sailer - the ***** designates a different post.
"But, ominously, the black "total fertility rate" reversed its decline in 2006."
**************************
"Offer Muslim residents, say, $25,000 each to go away. Permanently."
"A family of five festering in the slums of Paris, Rotterdam, and Birmingham could live in North Algeria, Pakistan, or Indonesia like local gentry if they had $125,000 in the bank!"
"not for the first time, the Israelis have the right idea. I’ve already noted that they’ve demonstrated for us that border fences work. Now it turns out they’ve also tried buy-outs."
************************************
"But blacks have other, subtler traits—such as more tapered legs, with thinner calf muscles, which makes running easier because less weight needs to be moved with each stride."
"Similarly, in the animal kingdom, creatures built for speed, such as horses and deer, have extremely tapered legs with the big muscles that move the legs kept up high in the main part of the body. In contrast, elephants have untapered legs, which is one reason they much don't like running.
possibly, the reason that teams with a higher number of white reserves have been winning more games is because whites are better team players about sitting on the bench without complaining about not starting. Perhaps white back-ups are less likely than black back-ups to poison the atmosphere and ruin the team spirit.
******************************
And at least African-Americans generate large personalities, like Sharpton. When you get to Hispanics, most whites can barely remember the names of more than a few Latinos. There's that singer with the dresses that almost fall off and that home run hitter on steroids and that Democratic governor down in Arizona or somewhere with the ultra-white name, Biff Robertson or something like that.
******************************
Lots of Americans hate Arabs, but only a limited number spend much time thinking up more reasons to hate Arabs, because, well, Arabs are mostly backward and boring, and thus not terribly interesting to hate.
Not racist, but fantastically dumb - from the post Ross stole from:
The ongoing collapse of Britain's white males into neo-Hogarthian laddishness points out the importance of country music in persuading white working class American males to stay on the straight and narrow
Grand New Party straight from the Grand Ole Opry.
Ross, no wonder you kept your little crime quiet.
Once you start with this clown, it's very hard to stop - posted today:
Obama wants to do as President, although he makes it clear that that’s kind of like asking Tiger Woods what he wants to do if he wins the US Open
This is not the first time he's compared to Tiger Woods. A sportsman to a politician. I wonder what they have in common in Sailers scientific mind.
"even he knows that lots of kids aren’t bright enough at age 12-13 to get much out of Algebra I."
But IQ tests done at this age and earlier are, of course, utterly valid.
You could do this for days with the amount of horseshit he comes up with.
Marc,
It's not so much what Sailer says as the way he says it. A pretty obvious contempt towards black people oozes from everything he says.
I'll give it to Sailer though, he has a talent for propaganda. His writing has the ability to make racism seem respectable and even tempting to white and Asian people.
Two posts stuck together for obvious reasons:
“The Coup” explains the psychological mechanics of this in a character very similar to Barack Obama Sr.
************************************
The Coup consists of the extraordinarily articulate memoirs of the revolutionary dictator of an impoverished African country.
Colonel-President Ellellou is a fervent Muslim, Marxist, and black racist."
How did the MSM miss Obama Sr's past?
BTW, people can have any ideas they want. I couldn't care less. That's freedom.
But when you go to the next step of saying that its not "respectable" to have any opinion, that's the road to soviet-style "thought crime". And if racism has led to much violence and iniquity, ask yourself if soviet-style totalitarianism and mass murder is more to your liking. PC started in the Soviet Union, you know.
If anybody wants to refute Sailer, they should do so on the facts, and unless they can refute the data on crime, intelligence, etc, they should really lay off. The real argument is whether or not real prejudice exists or real differences exist. If real differences exist, then there is no reason for the government to interfere in the affairs of its citizens in these areas. We have rights to free association and private property, after all.
I guess bigotry is okay if its your kind of bigotry. Name-calling is okay if its your kind of name-calling.
No facts? Argue Sailer on the facts.
h,
Look at the quotes Sailer has made above.
When you or anyone else bothers to acknowledge what he has said in his own words, and explains how this does not impact his allegedly scientific work, and does so by addressing the quotes above, and not 'look at the facts' trick, then we can discuss it further.
Until then, to save time, I'm going to assume you, ben g, and the rest are mendacious scumbags.
Fantastic, I was writing the post re the 'look at the facts' trick just as h was posting the exact same trick.
You all do the same dumb thing. I guess you're all the same race.
Sailer has been demanding we judge Obama by his own words. What's the problem with holding Sailer to the same standard? After all, he's at least 1/2 more intelligent than Obama.
Sailer is one of the greatest, most insightful journalists in the world today. His movie reviews are better than Ebert, Morgernstern, whoever, because of the depth of social analysis he brings to it. Like his talk of the importance of family ties in movie-making and the emergence of the x brothers directors. And the wonderful way he sets up the review: he hooks you in with a thought, then pushes you to read further as he weaves the thought into the story. I'm always frustrated when a Sailer movie review ends, because I want more to read!
I only hope that he gets out a magnum opus before he dies. Because in 50 years everybody will look back in wonder and say, 'wow. Steve was right'.
It is tough to tell the impact he's had on those who read him on the sly, every post brings new levels of insight, nudges opens new doors with rare ideas behind, little things nobody noticed because of PC goggles. It's no surprise Douthat didn't realise how subtly Steve's ideas had pierced him. It's a form of osmosis.
Like how Family Guy sometimes mimics scences from the Simpsons EXACTLY, without even realizing it.
You'll notice I didn't address any of your points, because I don't care about you. Please don't talk to me or use my name.
I can't think of a more completely proved scientific point than the differences in IQ amongst various groups. There are literally hundreds of millions of data sets that consistently show the same thing.
Crime statistics too-millions and millions of sets of data over decades and decades.
You and Moe are bigots and haters, just like you say Sailer is. You consistently try to distort and discount the above data, and name-call and deride anybody who differs with your point of view.
You just think that because you spout the latest PC views, that it entitles you to ignore real data and smear and name-call. Then you accuse others for doing the same. It doesn't. Give real data, not excuses to refute the data that supports Sailer's (and 90% of the population's) viewpoint.
Until then, people will listen to Sailer, and he will continue to attract attention, and you won't, no matter how many people you insult and smear. The PC tide is turning.
I can't think of a more completely proved scientific point than the differences in IQ amongst various groups. There are literally hundreds of millions of data sets that consistently show the same thing.
Crime statistics too-millions and millions of sets of data over decades and decades.
You and Moe are bigots and haters, just like you say Sailer is. You consistently try to distort and discount the above data, and name-call and deride anybody who differs with your point of view.
You just think that because you spout the latest PC views, that it entitles you to ignore real data and smear and name-call. Then you accuse others for doing the same. It doesn't. Give real data, not excuses to refute the data that supports Sailer's (and 90% of the population's) viewpoint.
Until then, people will listen to Sailer, and he will continue to attract attention, and you won't, no matter how many people you insult and smear. The PC tide is turning.
Boy, some people here really have a lot of free time on their hands.
I wish I had your jobs!
h,
Address the 'data' above, which are Sailer's own words, from his own site - you can check them yourself, then comment on them, and how they don't cast any doubt on his racial theories. Then we can move on to the 'facts'.
Until then it's clear that you are a mendacious cunt, regardless of how much you say 'the data'
Monty Python clinics notwithstanding, the best arguments have substantive points being raised on all sides. Here, the partisans favoring Resolved: That Steve Sailer is a Racist have offered mostly venom.
Readers interested in more constructive dialog could do worse than visit the group blog Gene Expression, where posts on Human biodiversity are common. The posters there (including Razib, supra) are much less tolerant of the gutter-level wit that peppers this thread. Perhaps a visit would inspire Russ Douthat to update his own comment policy?
Oh yes, there are hundreds of millions of them--IQ tests have been given to all american children, soldiers, etc for the last 40 years at least, as well as children in Europe and Japan. In addition, many tests have also been given to populations in other countries, so we do literally have hundreds of millions of sets of data. The same is true of crime stats, as over the decades, millions and millions of arrest records are there to be analyzed. So you are completely wrong about that.
At least you admit to being a bigot, but as I said, you try to justify it by saying you are a bigot for the cause of equality. Unfortunately, as you also admit, equality is exactly what is truly lacking--"no one here has argued that tests don't show differences". So you simply try to maintain a lie by being a bigot. How admirable!
Sailer and others have always maintained that differences exist, but have never advocated treating people poorly or taking away their rights because of it. So what injustice are you fighting against, the truth?
No amount of name-calling or whining is going to change the facts, and no amount of personal bigotry will hide the facts. Sailer is just giving people the facts, and that's all. Nobody's rights are threatened, nor will they be. What may just fall, however, is the government's meddling in everybody's business, stealing their money and taking away their rights, and telling lies to justify it
"No amount of name-calling"
How is it you are able to read the 'name-calling', but you are unable to read, and address, the things that Sailer has said and which are quoted and in bold on the same page?
You are a fraud, and you are not fooling anyone.
Here, the partisans favoring Resolved: That Steve Sailer is a Racist have offered mostly venom.
No, we've offered his own words, which you and all the others have singularly failed to address.
And also, this parroting that Sailer's bilge is accepted as fact by everyone does clash with his martyr complex, that anyone who dares speak the truth about race is condemned.
> No, we've offered [Sailer's] own words, which you and all the others have singularly failed to address.
James,
Consider the obscenity-laced ad hominems that permeate the Sailer-haters' remarks. This thread isn't mainly about empirically-addressable ideas, but something different--something much more personal, even enraging.
You and your cohort may well have valuable ideas to contribute, but you seem to need an aggressively-moderated forum to keep the focus on the science and morality of abstract concepts, and their public-policy implications.
To be clear, I'm not writing to you as much as to other lurkers (and Mr. Douthat). I suspect many readers agree with me that the style of this debate is unproductive. I'll return to read your response, but this'll likely be my last comment.
I'm not sure if your post above was a piss take, Sebastian, or if your blog description is either:
"I have started this blog for thereaputic reasons. What she said. I am a soft and tired creature, prone to occasional bouts of depression and exuberance. This blog will catalogue the application of The Rules of The Game to my life (and a discussion thereof), my growing culinary experience, and maybe some flights into politics, genetics, music and religion. We’ll see how it goes."
Posted by Sebastian Flyte at 10:19 AM 1 comments "
Either way, given your chosen name, you know what Sailer thinks of homosexuals, right?
Amac,
If you think our comments about Sailer are hateful, then that's one thing. But it's another to mention them and not address, like everyone doesn't address, his own words which I (and I believe others) consider hateful.
This constant refrain of 'science' is, whether you intend it or not, a complete red herring - Sailer never addresses any specific complaints, and merely repeats endlessly the same old thing.
As I have said, people defending Sailer should acknowledge the quotes, and either defend them or tell me why they don't need defending. Then we can get onto his 'science'. But if everyone is going to ignore them, then I can't take them seriously, for the same reason that I can't take Sailer seriously.
James,
Sorry if I wasn't clear. The manner that you and others employ to address your interlocutors convinces me that this thread isn't the right forum for a productive exchange of views.
Often, I lurk at GNXP. If I catch you commenting, I'll try to participate. If you can focus on ideas, you're likely to get some good discussions there (even without me!).
Or you could try the Heart of Darkness, Sailer's blog itself. He seems allow a wide diversity of comments, as long as they are reasonably civil.
Amac,
I'm civil when people are civil also, and when they aren't lying or deliberately misleading people.
could you briefly address my point re the Sailer quotes above - do you genuinely think they collectively suggest a totally objective viewpoint?
Nobody has even tried to defend them except the 'barry half-white' as 'comedy' similar to Colbert Report.
James,
> I'm civil when people are civil also, and when they aren't lying or deliberately misleading people.
Noted.
Lying or deliberately misleading can be too-broad exemptions to civility when righteous partisans are doing the judging. A more straightforward exercise: review the thread's 88 comments and assign each uncivil one to a pro-Sailer or an anti-Sailer position. It's pretty unbalanced.
As suggested earlier, I'm not amenable to the terms of the debate that have been established here.
Another time, another place. Thanks for responding to my concerns.
Regards (going offline),
AMac
Also AMac (it keeps uncapitalizing your name for some reason),
I did try to mention a few issues I had having looked at Sailer's data for approx half an hour - ben g essentially took those to be the whole of my argument, and what he couldn't mispresent, or dismiss while not realising or not caring that the dismissal conflicted completely with the point he had ignored, he basically rejected and then took a coward's exit with
anyways, i'm done with the comments. bye!
Not leaving me the opportunity to ask how if the East/West IQ discrepancy is answered by nutrition etc, is there such a huge discrepancy with two tests in the same country, same year, same age group.
I've still yet to have an answer. That gets ignored, and somehow, because I don't spend weeks debunking Sailer, I've been 'refuted'. If I can see such flaws in half an hour, then really, it's not up to much.
He is a member of that blog you mention, and he commented:
i got a slight bit vicious on the comments to ross douthat's entry
and then later,
i defended steve there on that thread because of the golden rule.
Which is fine, but is not the argument he used, and nor does it match with your claim of the other blogs being high minded solely in the pursuit of ideas.
Everyone repeats the mantra about the data, but no one considers the possibility of the data that isn't there, which Sailer has ignored because it clashes. Again, that gets ignored.
And I really don't get how 'data' is concrete, but a mans own words is somehow irrelevant.
AMac writes: "To be clear, I'm not writing to you as much as to other lurkers (and Mr. Douthat). I suspect many readers agree with me that the style of this debate is unproductive. I'll return to read your response, but this'll likely be my last comment."
I have absolutely no interest in "debate" with the likes of Steve Sailer and his supporters. They're not capable of honest debate, for one thing. Look at h's nonsense about me being "a bigot for the cause of equality," and so forth. The pissant is putting words in my mouth. This sort of thing is what the Sailerites do.
It's not an accident that VDARE is on the Southern Poverty Law Center's watch list as a hate site. You may disagree with that or not - I really don't know - nor do I care. But for you to pull the schoolmarmish voice out and insist on civility with these vile cretins as a high virtue is something I'm not buying.
I don't see a need to be civil with people who are the essence of incivility. Look again at h's poison and tell me why I should.
"I have absolutely no interest in "debate" with the likes of Steve Sailer and his supporters"
Because you know you would lose. All you've got is ad hominem.
"these vile cretins"
Talk about a "schoolmarmish voice".
I find myself in agreement with MowLawwyandJeebus, who said, "You can review this thread all day long and you will have accomplished exactly nothing."
Exactly, because none of the criticisms of Sailer here have any substance. Nice work!
Is Moe the first to bust out Godwin or at least a resemblance of it?
Fuck Godwin. Would you be more comfortable if I'd said "the demise of Jim Crow" instead of "when the Third Reich crumbled"? I suppose I should have said "His sort of horseshit was discredited among decent, rational people for all time when the Third Reich crumbled," since some Repiglicans recently mourned the "loss" of Jesse Helms.
But it works either way.
O RLY?
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/tirelessrebutter.htm
"For Tireless Rebutter there is no such thing as a trivial dispute. He regards all challenges as barbarians at the gates. His unflagging tenacity in making his points numbs and eventually wears down the opposition. Confident that his arguments are sound, Tireless Rebutter can't understand why he is universally loathed."
Does anyone else get the impression that Moe is a homophobe? As an enlightened white person, I'm deeply troubled.
Is Moe a homophobe? I'm beginning to think so. Deeply disturbing.
Homophobe? Sometimes a snausage is only a snausage.
What's the message board where Sailerites are instructed to go to "trouble spots" to defend the Great White Dope, anyway? You guys are more organized than the LaRouchies.
I need the homophobia to stop. Please.
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 14, 2008 12:47 PM
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 14, 2008 12:56 PM
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 14, 2008 3:52 PM
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 14, 2008 3:59 PM
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 14, 2008 5:11 PM
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 14, 2008 6:38 PM
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 14, 2008 6:43 PM
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 14, 2008 7:11 PM
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 14, 2008 7:16 PM
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 15, 2008 11:56 AM
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 15, 2008 12:33 PM
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 15, 2008 2:49 PM
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 15, 2008 3:34 PM
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 15, 2008 4:27 PM
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 15, 2008 4:52 PM
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 15, 2008 5:07 PM
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 15, 2008 5:37 PM
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 15, 2008 6:21 PM
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 15, 2008 8:56 PM
Posted by Mou're oeLarryAndJesus | July 15, 2008 9:13 PM
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 15, 2008 10:08 PM
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 15, 2008 10:22 PM
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 15, 2008 10:33 PM
I'm impressed!
I think I can very briefly state the criticisms people have of Sailer:
(1) Steve Sailer is a racist.
(2) Therefore, we should not treat his data about racial differences as innocent of manipulation to serve his underlying views, but rather should assume that they have been manipulated to serve the underlying views.
Re: (1): It's very difficult to make a fool-proof definition of racism--definitions of thick moral terms like "racist", "cruel", "virtuous", etc., are notoriously difficult to produce, at least if you want them to be immune to counterexamples. Consequently, if you're going to assert that Sailer is a racist, it's best not to provide a broad definition that's meant to cover every possible kind of racism (especially when you take into account that there's "institutional" racism, individual racism, subconscious racism, etc.), but we should rather produce specific, hard-to-dispute examples of racism.
Some examples have been produced. One that I think is especially interesting is calling Barack Obama "Barry Half-White" Obama. On the one hand, this looks hard to defend--why even bring up that Barack Obama is half-white? Why call him Barry? It seems to me the purpose of calling him the diminutive "Barry" is to diminish him. This happens a fair bit when discussing politicians you don't like (Shrub, Slick Willy, etc.). That's fair enough. Why call him half-white? I suppose to bring up the fact that he's just as white as he is black. But why is that relevant in the context? I don't really know. Is Sailer saying that Barack is treated as a black politician when we have just as much reason, from a genetic perspective, to treat him as a white politician? Maybe, but in this case that would be a bit odd; even if race were a real biological category, it's still the case that people treat someone as black if he looks black, regardless of his genetic make-up. And Obama looks black. So I don't see the relevance of the comment at all.
The fact that the remark seems to me irrelevant raises warning flags. It seems to me to be the mark of someone unhealthily obsessed with race. That, combined with the other remarks produced above, paints a picture of someone who seems to have a problem with black people.
I'm thus fairly confident that Sailer is a racist, though I want to point out that race is a very complex issue, as everyone knows. It seems to me quite likely that a lot of whites are very nervous to express themselves on racial issues around blacks, and this may be a problem. It could also be that Sailer used to express himself more irenically and was treated with contempt, and so stopped being irenic. Alternatively, he may have always been a racist and become more so with the responses he got. And I think there's lots more possibilities here.
Guano X says: "Face it, Moe, everyone knows IQ tests are valid, veryone knows there are racial differences, and everyone knows you're boring."
Some IQ tests are valid, there are some racial differences but I have yet to see anyone, anywhere, explain how this is meaningful in a practical sense, and for someone who is "boring" I sure have a bunch of you ignorant assholes dancing.
Well, you've been referred to as the 'MSM' and accused of 'stealing' by VDARE. That's something, I guess. And now, since I've just been to VDARE, I need to go bathe in chlorox.
Posted by tgb1000 | July 14, 2008 12:00 PM