« The Table At Aspen | Main | The Table At Aspen (II) »

The Art House As A Luxury Good

03 Jul 2008 01:57 pm

Continuing on the theme of highbrow movies and the box office, Steve Sailer has an interesting post about differential pricing and art-house flicks:

... movie tickets are more or less fixed in price. So, every filmmaker is competing in the same game. Julian Schnabel and Wong Kar-Wai are going head to head against Michael Bay, and they're all being measured by tickets sold ...

Is the single priced movie ticket eroding slowly? When I started writing this post, I figured there would be evidence that we are headed toward more stratified pricing. Yet, the more I think about it, the less evidence I see for it.

For example, for about five years now, the weekend evening movies at the Arclight on Sunset Blvd. in Hollywood (the old Cinerama Dome location) have been $14. It sells reserved seats, which is a pretty stupid idea because you can stand in line to buy tickets for a half hour while the couples ahead of you debate over whether they'd prefer to sit on the left or right sides. Yet, the films shown at the Arclight are only vaguely more upscale than average. The movies it plays make it seem like more of a mass market Date Night destination than a place where the elite meet to seat themselves.

And, in general, "arthouse" tends to be a synonym for worn-down theatre on its last legs before it becomes a revivalist church for an ambitious preacher. The Laemmle arthouse chain in LA charges between $8.50 and $10 per ticket for prime times, which isn't above average for their expensive neighborhoods ... Anyway, it's kind of neat that movies remain a democratic institution with a simple-minded pricing scheme in an otherwise increasingly tiered and marketing-modeled America.

It's my impression that the new breed of art-house theaters (here are two local examples) are rather more posh than the run-down art houses of the past, and that they do cater deliberately to a more elite, Bobo crowd - in their ambience and decor, in the movies they choose to run, and in the concessions they serve. Indeed, I suspect that to the extent that differential pricing shows up in American cinemas, it runs through concessions rather than through ticket prices - which makes sense, given that the concessions are where theaters make most of their money anyway. So a ticket to The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is no pricier than a ticket to Hancock, but whereas the masses buy their popcorn and soda and candy, the elites at the E Street Cinema end up shelling out for microbrews and Whole Foods-style snacks and gourmet coffees.

Comments (97)

When is Ross going to get around to commenting on how much he agrees with David Duke's opinions on aesthetics? Does Sailer have naked photos of Ross with Reihan or something?

Reality strikes: "Does Sailer have naked photos of Ross with Reihan or something?"

I think Sailer is Ross's real father.

By the way, did you notice how WHITE Sailer's post is? Woody Allen, even! And his "elite" flick example is German. Sprechen Sie Klan?

For Ross to cite Sailer so blithely while a discussion about some of Sailer's more heinous and idiotic comments continues in the comments section just a few posts down is pretty striking. I would have thought that at least a concern for appearances would compel Ross to address his continued appreciation of a racist, but I guess he either doesn't read the comments or just knows he can get away with it.

infrequency says: "I would have thought that at least a concern for appearances would compel Ross to address his continued appreciation of a racist, but I guess he either doesn't read the comments or just knows he can get away with it."

Maybe he's just trying to show that Sailer's not just a racist, he's also a renaissance racist. Or something. Or maybe they spent a weekend in jail after an abortion clinic protest and Sailer protected him from a 70 year old arthritic black wino. I'm sure the explanation is fascinating but we'll probably never hear it.

Guilty of crimethink? Time for a Two Minute Hate!

I must get round to reading Steve's rave review of "The Birth of a Nation" and "Triumph of the Will".

Please, do not use the word 'bobo.'

Sailer whines: "Guilty of crimethink? Time for a Two Minute Hate!"

Coming from a guy whose most prominent work has been a mindreading piece about Michelle Obama based on a paper she wrote 20-odd years ago that's pretty rich, Stevie. You're right up there with Michael Savage, who asked yesterday if a President Obama would replace the national anthem with "the black national anthem."

You're both fear-mongering bigots. You should don your best robes and go on his show, I'm sure the two of you would hit it off. Maybe even do an occasional duo show called "Savage & Sailer." You're both pseudo-scientists, too.

It's a marriage made in all-white heaven.

and that they do cater deliberately to a more elite, Bobo crowd

I had no idea that theaters had started catering directly to the needs of David Brooks.

You're right up there with Michael Savage, who asked yesterday if a President Obama would replace the national anthem with "the black national anthem."

What's "the black national anthem"? If it's "Papa's Got a Brand New Bag" then I would support the change.

What's "the black national anthem"? If it's "Papa's Got a Brand New Bag" then I would support the change.

At least its better than the White national anthem. Everyone, please rise for Achy Breaky Heart.

Now those were funny... but it's "Lift Every Voice and Sing," apparently, and it got some wingnuts upset:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,375164,00.html

"And, in general, "arthouse" tends to be a synonym for worn-down theatre on its last legs before it becomes a revivalist church for an ambitious preacher."

That's funny, here in Houston the prime arthouse / experimental film theatre is in what was a worn-down revivalist church, which was converted into a theatre rather than the other way around: http://www.aurorapictureshow.org

I have mixed feelings here. William Shockley was a racist piece of detritus, but he did know his way around a transistor. If someone loathsome is knowledgeable about cinema and has good tastes in movies, I'm not saying Sailer fits either thing understand, is one required to disagree with them?

In the specific what if Sailer, or David Duke, made a valid point about a movie you love? What's the right response there?

Like I said I'm mixed, I'm not sure what the right response would be. On the one hand you shouldn't give publicity to such people. Ultimately I think that probably would win out for me. Still on the other hand I can see the argument that facts are facts and truth is truth no matter who says it. Or that it's wrong to "punish the song" for the behavior of the singer.

Like was Leni Riefenstahl a bad film-maker or a bad person who made films? Is quoting her opinion on film acceptable or unacceptable? Granted that case has enough distance I might say it's acceptable provided that you put her work in a historical context that does not exonerate or defend her. So could you put Sailer's opinions on film in a cultural context that would render them neutral or does his being active and alive render that impossible?

"Like I said I'm mixed, I'm not sure what the right response would be. On the one hand you shouldn't give publicity to such people. Ultimately I think that probably would win out for me...

Like was Leni Riefenstahl a bad film-maker or a bad person who made films? Is quoting her opinion on film acceptable or unacceptable?"

I think it is useful to talk about the opinions of the likes of Riefenstahl, D. W. Griffith, Sergei Eisenstein, etc. because they were all influential filmmakers and thus one does have to (or, in the past, had to) make intellectual war against their ideas.

However, Sailer is just some racist tool with a hate site. He is not a major, respected cultural critic. He spams other people's forums to try to spread his philosophy of hate because it is so unpopular in the first place. There is no reason to give him publicity. Giving such a person publicity is fundamentally immoral. The fact that Douthat, who is supposed to be an anti-bigot and someone who wants to help bring the GOP into the cosmopolitanism of the 21st Century, thinks it is a good idea to give such a person publicity makes it hard for me to take him seriously intellectually and to see him as a moral political mind.

Ironically, Roger Ebert recently re-watched "The Triumph of the Will" and changed his earlier positive opinion of its aesthetics and now says it fails both aesthetically and as a piece of propaganda (that it would only sway someone who is already a committed Nazi):

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080626/REVIEWS08/911177318

You make a good argument. Still it seems like Sailer is a movie reviewer for some mainstream conservative magazine, but I could be mistaken.

To be honest I was very uncomfortable seeing Sailer quoted. I think what makes me more uncomfortable though was the lack of any acknowledgement or understanding that quoting him would be problematic at all.

However, Sailer is just some racist tool with a hate site. He is not a major, respected cultural critic. He spams other people's forums to try to spread his philosophy of hate because it is so unpopular in the first place. There is no reason to give him publicity.

For anyone who's been reading a lot of blogs in the past, say 3 or 4 years, the above is a spot-on description of Steve Sailer and I think it's safe to assume that Ross has been reading blogs for the past 3 or 4 years. Which brings us to:

I think what makes me more uncomfortable though was the lack of any acknowledgement or understanding that quoting him would be problematic at all.

You're uncomfortable because you don't go around labeling women with $200 TVs "welfare duchesses". Ross is comfortable with that label.

I think that tells you why Steve Sailer is so comfortable (and so often linked) here at Douthat's place.

"You make a good argument. Still it seems like Sailer is a movie reviewer for some mainstream conservative magazine, but I could be mistaken."

I believe that he is the movie reviewer at the American Conservative, Pat Buchanan's magazine, which is not the best company to keep. We're talking about working at a magazine started by a guy who left the GOP because they were too moderate on identity issues, putting himself well outside the mainstream. As an Iraq War opponent, Buchanan is the biggest Iraq War opponent worth ignoring since he was against the war because he saw it all as a Jewish-Zionist conspiracy.

"To be honest I was very uncomfortable seeing Sailer quoted. I think what makes me more uncomfortable though was the lack of any acknowledgement or understanding that quoting him would be problematic at all.

Posted by Thomas R | July 4, 2008 6:32 AM"

You are a someone who actually engages in others' ideas and is against bigotry while IIRC also being a self-described conservative, which is always great to see. It is sad and ironic though that one of the commenters on this blog is a better representative of the more cosmopolitan direction Ross supposedly wants to bring the GOP than Ross himself because of his Sailer shenanigans.

By posting Sailer without caveat or comment, Douthat is extending a gesture of well-deserved contempt to those who wish to silence him.

It's odd how precious and delicate our verbal class has become. Expose them to considerations that deviate even slightly from the anestheticized, well-vetted parameters of political correctness, and they quite literally suffer nervous attacks. They can't simply agree and disagree as it suits them.

My best guess as to what afflicts these people psychologically is that the very evanescence of politically-correct boilerplate inspires delusions of dominance and terror simultaneously. Thus the bearer of the illusion delights in the power trip he gets from casting the crimethinkers unto the outer darkness, and trembles at the thought that it could happen to him at any time. In the act of consigning to oblivion a guy like Steve, the politically correct grunts not only get their power rush, but also get to purify themselves of any dangerously unapproved thoughts.

Not only are the politically correct minions who want to silence Steve warped and pathetic, but in a sane world, it would be obvious how warped and pathetic they are.

Redzone excretes: "By posting Sailer without caveat or comment, Douthat is extending a gesture of well-deserved contempt to those who wish to silence him.

It's odd how precious and delicate our verbal class has become. Expose them to considerations that deviate even slightly from the anestheticized, well-vetted parameters of political correctness, and they quite literally suffer nervous attacks. They can't simply agree and disagree as it suits them."

I'm not interested in "silencing" your hero Steve Sailer, you silly whiny fascist twit. I'm interested in ridiculing him and his cretinous, dishonest pose. I'm glad in a way that Ross links to him. Of course you're wrong that Ross posts Sailer "without caveat or comment." He posts him with approving comments quite often.

Here's some news for you and all of the other demented wingnuts, chuckles. There is a Culture War and you're losing it. How does it feel?

Mazev tov, MoeLarryAndJesus!

Happy Shabbat.

Dear MoeLarry,

Steve Sailer is not a fascist, nor is he a Nazi. Learn what these terms mean. Steve has shown no inclination whatsoever of bearing malice towards any ethnic group of people, nor has he shown any proclivity towards warmongering. If you want to go after a fascist, go after John McCain. He's also a far more dangerous figure than an obscure blogger who holds views on race that unsettle our timid lumpeninteligensia.

You can tell that Steve is not at all pleased when he states that it seems likely--in his view--that there are measurable differences in IQ between various ethnic groups and that genes almost certainly play a role. This is why you hate him; because he believes this. He seems to view it as an unfortunate fact of life. His entire point is that all people--white, black, Asian, and Hispanic, will be better off if they deal with an unpleasant truth than if they avoid it. I can cite mountains of evidence that this is the case. Cite me one indication that Steve actively wishes harm upon any race or ethnicity. There are none.

I am on the losing side of the culture war. You are on the vanguard of a new Dark Age. The only real difference between us is that you Love Big Brother, because Big Brother is a "winner".

Redzone replies: "Steve Sailer is not a fascist, nor is he a Nazi. Learn what these terms mean."

I didn't call Sailer a fascist, I called you one. And I didn't call anyone a Nazi. Learn how to read, you fool.

I consider wingnuts of the Cheney persuasion to be fascists to the bone, and I know what the word means.

"Steve has shown no inclination whatsoever of bearing malice towards any ethnic group of people"

Like fuck he hasn't. Or are you talking about a different Steve? How did you get on a first-name basis with the slimy racist, anyway? Share a sheet together at a crossburning?

"You can tell that Steve is not at all pleased when he states that it seems likely--in his view--that there are measurable differences in IQ between various ethnic groups and that genes almost certainly play a role. This is why you hate him; because he believes this. He seems to view it as an unfortunate fact of life. His entire point is that all people--white, black, Asian, and Hispanic, will be better off if they deal with an unpleasant truth than if they avoid it."

Oh, yeah? So that explains his weird Michelle Obama mindreading game?

Are you really this big of a moron or are you acting?

"I am on the losing side of the culture war. You are on the vanguard of a new Dark Age. The only real difference between us is that you Love Big Brother, because Big Brother is a "winner"."

This "Dark Age" - are you talking about skin color? I'll bet you are.

It's you wingnuts who have brought on the age of Big Brother, chuckles. Go Cheney yourself and I hope the November elections make you cry.

Steve Sailer does not admire the Obama couple; that much is evident.

It also says nothing as to whether or not he wishes ill upon any race or creed. He dislikes the Obamas, not blacks.

The elections will make me cry, no matter who is elected. But the Mass-Media-Hype brand of Democracy was not meant for people like me. It was meant for people like you.

Enjoy yourself in the world to come, as the U.S.A.'s power, economic presence, sanity, sovereignty (or is that a dirty word too?) and standard of living shrink and eventually vanish because of the inept rulers like McCain and Obama and the regressed folks like you who support whichever one of them targets you in their P.R. campaign.

Steve has shown no inclination whatsoever of bearing malice towards any ethnic group of people

The following is from a post of Sailer's on 3/29/08.

*****

Why the Hasidim?

First, there is the "in-group morality." Some Muslim in Afghanistan loses an eye because his bullet explodes in his gun? Eh ... The taxpayers of America have to shell out more to make up the loss? Eh ...

Second, there is the simple psychological ability to not be distressed about other people's anger, whether justifiable or not. Most people become uncomfortable when people around them become angry and they try to mollify the angry person. (The Japanese are among the world leaders at feeling psychic pain when people around them aren't content.) In contrast, the kind of people who flourish in these kind of bait and switch businesses don't mind other people getting angry at them. They just get angry right back, angrier even. It's fun.

My cocktail party theory of the origins of this stems from Robert Heinlein's famous phrase, "An armed society is a polite society." In most of medieval Europe, you didn't want to get into screaming arguments with acquaintances because they might pull out a sword and run you through. Well, medieval ghettos were largely disarmed, so the verbally hostile weren't excused from the culture and gene pool.

So, the bottom line is that anybody sensible would be cautious before buying from Hasidic-owned businesses that don't specifically have a good reputation, like B&H. Take that super-duper quoted price and add a percentage to account for all the hassles you are letting yourself in for.

But, of course, nobody is supposed to think like that. The media won't print that kind of advice.

*****

A sampling from the comments on that post:

"they are rotten, rotten people"

"They will cheat you if they can. Even the 'honest' ones."

"They seem to be very adept at defrauding the government."

"these people have ZERO conscious when it comes to stuff like this as I tried to explain to a friend - they would steal from you as easily as they would pick an apple from a tree....do you think you're 'stealing' from the tree? That is how they look at goyim..."

"The less-than-edifyig business practices come, I think, from the big extended family model of ethics. If it helps your group it's okay. Other people (especially ones you're never likely to meet in person) get the same amount of consideration as a rock."

"This Jew wouldn't do it! He let loose with a stream of profanities that would have shocked even my mother. Lost $5,000.... There are no rational reasons for anti-Semitism. Jews are bright, funny, compassionate people... There are no rational reasons for anti-Semitism. Jews are bright, funny, compassionate people...Keep repeating it, keep repeating it..."

Steve Sailer does not admire the Obama couple; that much is evident.

It also says nothing as to whether or not he wishes ill upon any race or creed. He dislikes the Obamas, not blacks.

The elections will make me cry, no matter who is elected. But the Mass-Media-Hype brand of Democracy was not meant for people like me. It was meant for people like you.

Enjoy yourself in the world to come, as the U.S.A.'s power, economic presence, sanity, sovereignty (or is that a dirty word too?) and standard of living shrink and eventually vanish because of the inept rulers like McCain and Obama and the regressed folks like you who support whichever one of them targets you in their P.R. campaign.

Comments are irrelevant. I read Douthat despite the fact that there are many idiots on the comments section.

That's the post that I was thinking of actually, that an astute reader might provide as an example. Yes, Steve Sailer is skeptical of the Hasidim. I don't think that post provides evidence, however, that he bears real malice towards them. Sailer is not shy about pointing out group tendencies, good, bad, and indifferent. This is different from wishing ill on people. Even in that article, he contrasted the Hasidim with the Japanese and their sensitivity towards the feelings of others. His tone is almost always relentlessly factual.


I'll maintain my position. Steve Sailer feels that it would benefit everyone to stop believing or pretending to believe in pleasant fictions and face reality, including the unpleasant parts, on it's own terms.

I shall provide evidence to prove my point shortly.

Comments are irrelevant. I read Douthat despite the fact that there are many idiots on the comments section.

That's the post that I was thinking of actually, that an astute reader might provide as an example. Yes, Steve Sailer is skeptical of the Hasidim. I don't think that post provides evidence, however, that he bears real malice towards them. Sailer is not shy about pointing out group tendencies, good, bad, and indifferent. This is different from wishing ill on people. Even in that article, he contrasted the Hasidim with the Japanese and their sensitivity towards the feelings of others. His tone is almost always relentlessly factual.


I'll maintain my position. Steve Sailer feels that it would benefit everyone to stop believing or pretending to believe in pleasant fictions and face reality, including the unpleasant parts, on it's own terms.

I shall provide evidence to prove my point shortly.

Comments are irrelevant. I read Douthat despite the fact that there are many idiots on the comments section.

I'm also wary of assuming that blog comments reflect on the blogger. But it's one thing to take the worst posts out of context and attribute those opinions to the blogger, and another to provide a representative sample of how commenters discuss the issues raised by the blogger.

I'm not on a crusade against Sailer and don't have a problem with people checking out his site--people can make up their own minds. Anyone who wants to decide whether I was cherry-picking an unfair sample of comments, or who wants to read the full post, can click on the link Sailer provides in his signature and search for that comment in his archives. It's from 3/29/08 and the title is "A General Theory of the Afghan Ammo Swindle."

Some of his other posts on the subject, which are within a week or so of that 3/29 post, are also interesting reads for people trying to get a sense of where Sailer's coming from.

Also, since he's in the thread, it's worth asking Sailer what he makes of those comments on that 3/29 post. Does he, for example, agree that there are rational grounds for anti-Semitism (e.g., that Jews--or at least those Jews descended from residents of European ghettos--have been genetically selected to be rude and to enjoy verbal conflict)?

"Douthat is extending a gesture of well-deserved contempt to those who wish to silence him."RZ

TR: Perhaps you are unaware that "being silenced" is different than "not being promoted." Sailer has a right to his opinions, but there is no "right" that says others must promote them or even discuss them. As long as Sailer has his blog and what have you he's not being silenced. The market however has every right to ignore what they see fit to ignore. The people also have every right to peacefully object to certain speech. If they weren't film criticism itself would be hampered I think. I'm not going to silence myself because it hurts your feelings or Sailer's.

"Steve has shown no inclination whatsoever of bearing malice towards any ethnic group of people." RZ

TR: I'm not saying his racism has anything to do with malice. I'd never heard of him before I came here, but judging by what he says I might agree he doesn't hate blacks. However I'm fairly convinced he does see them as inferior.

He's racist against blacks in the condescending way that was common in much of the South and in the older conservative movement. Despite what you might hear many segregationists objected to the KKK. Especially in the case of women, or some Northern conservatives, they saw blacks as similar to children or retarded people. They didn't feel any malice toward them just as they did not feel malice toward kids or retarded people. Still what they did was not benign, it robbed them of dignity and demeaned them. Sailer is similarly demeaning.

And you can scream "political correctness" at me all you want for saying this, but people like you just use the term to guilt or shame others. It's as much an attempt to silence as PC itself is. I work in an academic world so I know what PC actually is and that I'm not it.

My a lot of haters on this thread.

Redzone writes: "Steve Sailer does not admire the Obama couple; that much is evident.

It also says nothing as to whether or not he wishes ill upon any race or creed. He dislikes the Obamas, not blacks."

Yeah. I'm sure he's quite fond of Clarence Thomas.

Oh God! Ross quotes someone with objectionable views on race and intelligence in a totally unrelated context! Doctor, ready the smelling salts!

Seriously though, keep it up. I enjoy the competition for which commentator can take the most offense at Steve Sailer. For interested in the score, I have MoeLarryAndJesus leading by a few rounds in a truly brilliant display of white liberal status-striving.

Somewhat apropos, perhaps the best comment that I have ever read (context is faux-Feminist outrage at Yale):

"So, Larry Summers asks an empirically valid question about gender differences and a feminist professor catches the vapors like a Victorian parody and removes herself from the room. Solution: run him out of town. Anonymous persons (with no evident connection to the University) spraypaint a stupid racial slur and Yale erupts in weeks of Pavlovian outrage. Solution: more money for diversity training, ethnic deans, ethnic counselors, ethnic studies, God knows what else (certainly not actual education). Now twelve drunk teenage boys do what drunk teenage boys do - act like clowns on a Saturday night - and a collection of presumably bright girls with great futures ahead of them go into hysterical fits for public consumption. Solution: off to the courthouse.

NONE of you are victims of anything. You are simply spoiled brats receiving one of the finest educations in the world, at one of the most accepting and inclusive communities that has ever existed in human history. Clearly such an embarrassment of riches lends itself to tempests in teapots, but the liberal echo chamber of victimology and identity politics is so far gone I fear there is no saving the Academy generally, nor Yale in particular. Yale will not see another penny from me.

And just a word for these young ladies. Not everyone at your law firm, at your bank, in your policy shop, or in your posh community will feel the same way you do about gender, race, heteronormativity, the American military, or the rights of spotted owls. Some of those people will be boorish about it. Who the hell cares? I’m surprised that, after all the millions coerced from this University and others in the name of empowering women, it would appear that our Yale women are so utterly thin-skinned and ill-prepared for the outside world that they can’t handle this situation without appealing to the liberal thought police and coercive authority of the state. I wonder, what the hell happened to the notion of a functioning adult?"

"I'm not saying his racism has anything to do with malice. I'd never heard of him before I came here, but judging by what he says I might agree he doesn't hate blacks. However I'm fairly convinced he does see them as inferior."

What does "inferior" mean, exactly?

We're all "optimized" for different things.

Staash writes: "I enjoy the competition for which commentator can take the most offense at Steve Sailer. For interested in the score, I have MoeLarryAndJesus leading by a few rounds in a truly brilliant display of white liberal status-striving."

Oh, bullshit. My contempt for Sailer has nothing to do with being "offended" by his trash. It has to do with the sloppy, pointless, narcissistic nature of his obsession. What's the fucking point of his "research" or what nitwits call his "hard questions"? One moron on one of these Sailer-infected threads seemed to think that Sailer's nonsense would somehow be useful in setting public policy. Really? How so?

Here's the sort of horseshit Sailer's really peddling - and you tell me where the science is here:

"Being admitted to the bar is public, so word of Michelle's no-show on the list of new lawyers likely spread among her old Harvard classmates in late 1988, leaving another wound upon her pride. If, however, she'd gone to the kind of law school where graduates frequently take a few tries to pass, she would have felt better about herself and less bitter at the white race."

He might as well be reading tea leaves.

Let me add that an apt comparison for the sort of horseshit psychological analysis being done by Sailer is the infamous "he's got a pair" column by GOP geisha Peggy Noonan in which she basically fantasizes about Dumbya's large balls. I wish this was a joke. No, that's a lie, I'm glad it exists, because it captures perfectly the supine worship of the drunken Texan shitbag that so many Republicans now want to pretend never happened.

http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110005879

Remember, this was in 2004.

The best kind of therapy for MoeLarry is to live in a rational world for a month. If he lived in a world uninfected by race taboos, he would see, once he got back, how silly the taboos are.

Sailer is speculating (he writes for a blog every day, so speculation is part of the business, he also writes researched articles to balance it out) that Michelle Obama is an Affirmative-Action admission and is painfully aware of it, which has led her to resent her "benefactors" and make excuses, and blame whites and get $100 haircuts to cling to her vanity.

If you look at the average SATs of college entrants, you'll find that there is a steep double standard that works to the advantage of blacks--this is not to say that there aren't other factors that work to their disadvantage. You will also find that blacks suffer from higher dropout rates and lower performance levels.

Here's the kicker, blacks and whites with similar SAT scores perform similarly. The ones who struggle are (predictably) those with lower scores who would not have been admitted under the standards applied for whites and Asians--excepting athletes and legacies. The fact that these students are simply underqualified intellectually for their environment becomes apparent very quickly, to the student, his professors, and his peers. It is not beyond the bounds of reason that this would lead to considerable psychological unease for all parties, especially the "beneficiary" of race preferences.

Steve's point is that everybody--perhaps especially NAMs (the official code for Non-Asian Minorities--would be better served if admissions were to be determined on merit.

Redzone and Staash sound like they weren't hugged enough as a child. No racist these days call themselves racists. Instead, they claim "political correctness" is trying to silence them. Considering how many of the so-called "politically correct" have also long been fans of the likes of "Family Guy" and "South Park," I really doubt political correctness is what is at work. Sailer's views are simply today's version of believing women who can do math problems are witches who have to be burned at the stake. Making fun of such people is ridiculing those who invite ridicule on themselves. People like this will simply be the ancestor their descendants will pretend never existed.

Redzone claims: "Steve's point is that everybody--perhaps especially NAMs (the official code for Non-Asian Minorities--would be better served if admissions were to be determined on merit."

Right, that's why he spent so much time on the subject when Dumbya Bush was running in 1999-2000 - because his status as a legacy who would never have gotten into Yale otherwise made him "resentful" of "smart people" who got in "legitimately."

Oh - wait - Sailer did no such fucking thing!

He saves such bullshit for Michelle Obama, who is on no ballots... but claims her AA status (as he sees it) will make her husband turn his possible second term into some sort of C-I-L-L W-H-I-T-E-Y payback event.

Steve Sailer is an irredeemable asshole racist who was such a meathead that the National Review terminated him. Consider the cretins they still employ, and think about how low you have to stoop to be below their standards. Then go down a few levels. Then go down a few more.

Now you're in Sailerland.

Moe's kinda of a one note bore. But he's probably won some liberal status award for "most hate filled rant against another blogger".

The KOS kids must be proud. Hey, and nice threadjack.

"What does "inferior" mean, exactly?" S

TR: In this context? From what I've heard him say he seems to feel blacks are morally and intellectually less or lax compared to whites. Unlike some he even adds music to the mix saying they only try to do complex musical forms to impress white people.

Now you can say "that doesn't mean inferior", but I'm not sure what else it means. If you say the Nepalese are naturally less *intelligent and more violent, but that they make great sand paintings this doesn't "even things up." I really don't see how "you're dumb, sexually immoral, and prone to looting but I'm not saying you're inferior" works.

*Nepalese also score low on these IQ tests intended to "prove" African stupidity so one could do that. As do many Southeast Asians. Curiously though this rarely comes up with "race realists."

"Oh, bullshit. My contempt for Sailer has nothing to do with being "offended" by his trash. It has to do with the sloppy, pointless, narcissistic nature of his obsession. What's the fucking point of his "research" or what nitwits call his "hard questions"? One moron on one of these Sailer-infected threads seemed to think that Sailer's nonsense would somehow be useful in setting public policy. Really? How so?"

What one man calls an interest the other may call an obsession. For example, I see a reference to "Dumbya" or "that drunken Texan shitbag" in nearly every one of your posts, even it's not really relevant to the topic at hand. Are you obsessed with Bush, or simply interested in berating him?

So, what's the point of Steve's interests / "obsession"? Perhaps it's to throw hypersensitive, preening bloggers into hysterical high dudgeon? While that would be a worthy cause in itself, I suspect that the real reason is that it provides a useful explanation for everyday reality. In a society too timid to resist the "all is nurture!" orthodoxy / extortion racket, Sailer's viewpoints supply a much-needed counterbalance.

Just because a mode of explanation offends one's sensibilities doesn't mean that it is incorrect.

Staash replies: "What one man calls an interest the other may call an obsession. For example, I see a reference to "Dumbya" or "that drunken Texan shitbag" in nearly every one of your posts, even it's not really relevant to the topic at hand. Are you obsessed with Bush, or simply interested in berating him?"

I have ten posts in this thread. Two of them mention Dumbya. You do the math, shithead.

Meanwhile Sailer has devoted most of his adult life to his racist obsession. He's turned it into his livelihood. I guess you can't see that because you're too busy giving him a prostate massage.

"I suspect that the real reason is that it provides a useful explanation for everyday reality. "

Sure, useful for racists who want to pretend that there's a scientific basis for their stupidity. What other practical applications do Sailer's "explanations" have?

MLAJ writes: "Sure, useful for racists who want to pretend that there's a scientific basis for their stupidity. What other practical applications do Sailer's "explanations" have?"

While not Sailer's explanations per se, La Griffe du Lion uses a similar lens to craft surprisingly-accurate mathematical models to explain and predict numerous demographic trends.

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/

From a less wonkish perspective, I think that if we're all expected to live harmoniously together, it _is_ of practical importance to understand each other's group differences and inclinations. I think most "diversity consultants" would actually agree with that statement.

Where we differ, however, is that I propose to extrapolate "explanations" from the hard data, whereas they propose to do the exact opposite.

Staash, you may think you answered my question, but you didn't even come close. I guess you're just too fucking full of yourself to realize that you're basically an idiot.

"I think that if we're all expected to live harmoniously together, it _is_ of practical importance to understand each other's group differences and inclinations. I think most "diversity consultants" would actually agree with that statement."

Since we both know that you have nothing but contempt for "diversity consultants," that makes no sense. Nor is it even close to detailing a "practical application." Try again, chuckles.

>Sure, useful for racists who want to pretend that there's a scientific basis for their stupidity.

"Tests do show an IQ deficit, not just for Africans relative to Europeans, but for Europeans relative to Asians. Economic and cultural theories have failed to explain most of the pattern, and there's strong preliminary evidence that part of it is genetic. It's time to prepare for the possibility that equality of intelligence, in the sense of racial averages on tests, will turn out not to be true."

"Among white Americans, the average IQ, as of a decade or so ago, was 103. Among Asian-Americans, it was 106. Among Jewish Americans, it was 113. Among Latino Americans, it was 89. Among African-Americans, it was 85. Around the world, studies find the same general pattern: whites 100, East Asians 106, sub-Sarahan Africans 70. One IQ table shows 113 in Hong Kong, 110 in Japan, and 100 in Britain. White populations in Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States score closer to one another than to the worldwide black average. It's been that way for at least a century."

From Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/)

Now, if you don't like the objective fact that Chinese people and Jews are smarter than African-Americans and whites... there is a whole lot of things that can be done. Promote brestfeeding. Promote mandatory healthy school lunches. Promote exercise.

But this idea that you can just put your hands on your ears and say "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA. I-am-not-listening. LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA. I-am-not-listening." because you don't like the objective facts is stupid.

A comment... if you people think that IQ testing is 100% racially biased and a creation of American neo-fascists, why is it that Jews score so well?

It doesn't make much sense, does it? If it's all "fascist", than why would Jews score the highest? Are there Jewish fascists?

>Now, if you don't like the objective fact that Chinese people and Jews are smarter than African-Americans and whites... there is a whole lot of things that can be done. Promote brestfeeding. Promote mandatory healthy school lunches. Promote exercise.

Of course, as the Slate author points out, just because one group's IQ is statistically less than another's does not mean that you can assume anything about a guy off the street from the former group. But this does give a guide for public policy. See (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24482257/) about breastfeeding and (http://www.unu.edu/Unupress/food2/UID04E/uid04e07.htm) about malnutrition.

Yes, Steve Sailer is skeptical of the Hasidim. I don't think that post provides evidence, however, that he bears real malice towards them.

I can't read his mind; I'm not arguing that he's motivated by malice. But it seems fair to say that he believes the following about Jews:

1. That, in general, they are significantly more intelligent than gentiles.
2. That their experiences in European ghettos has left them, in general, ruder and more aggressive/crafty in their business dealings than gentiles.
3. That, in general, they are clannish and insular, and don't care about the harm their actions inflict on gentiles as long as it benefits them.
4. That (1), (2), and (3) have explanatory power in describing Jewish behavior, but are nonetheless ignored by the American media establishment.

If Sailer is, indeed, providing a valuable service by telling truths that others won't, I'd be interested in knowing the practical real-world value of the above information. How are we to behave towards Jews given that the average Jew is, in Sailer's view, smarter, craftier, ruder, more ruthless, and less compassionate than the average gentile?

Robin Zander writes: "But this idea that you can just put your hands on your ears and say "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA. I-am-not-listening. LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA. I-am-not-listening." because you don't like the objective facts is stupid."

Who's not listening, fuckstick? I've seen the facts - I just have no idea why I'm supposed to give a rat's ass about them, or what practical application they're supposed to have. And if you think Steve Sailer is in this because he wants to promote breastfeeding, I think you have a tit in your skull instead of a brain.

MoeLarryAndJesus:

Given that you seem more interested in expelling vituperative, histrionic scribble than in having a well-reasoned constructive debate about this particular topic, I'm afraid that by "try(ing) again" I'd just see more of the same from you.

Earlier in this thread you called Sailer an "irredeemable asshole." Meanwhile, you've conclusively shown that you are unable to:
a.) acquire a basic understanding of an opposing viewpoint.
b.) formulate a rational criticism of said opposing viewpoint.
c.) put forth said criticism in the context of a cohesive, relevant argument.
d.) articulate said argument in a manner befitting a civil conversation.

The net effect is that you manage to come off as quite the "irredeemable asshole" yourself, if not something worse: an uninteresting waste of time.

JB asks: "If Sailer is, indeed, providing a valuable service by telling truths that others won't, I'd be interested in knowing the practical real-world value of the above information. How are we to behave towards Jews given that the average Jew is, in Sailer's view, smarter, craftier, ruder, more ruthless, and less compassionate than the average gentile?"

Would anyone really be surprised to find out that Steve Sailer watches "Triumph of the Will" every single day?

Staash replies: "Given that you seem more interested in expelling vituperative, histrionic scribble than in having a well-reasoned constructive debate about this particular topic, I'm afraid that by "try(ing) again" I'd just see more of the same from you.

Earlier in this thread you called Sailer an "irredeemable asshole." Meanwhile, you've conclusively shown that you are unable to:
a.) acquire a basic understanding of an opposing viewpoint.
b.) formulate a rational criticism of said opposing viewpoint.
c.) put forth said criticism in the context of a cohesive, relevant argument.
d.) articulate said argument in a manner befitting a civil conversation."

I know you're embarrassed because you were unable to come up with a practical application for Sailer's rubbish, chuckles, so you're just engaging in a little bit of misdirection here. I'm used to seeing you worthless, thoughtless dittoheads make that sort of move.

There is never anything "constructive" about this particular debate, since it's a debate about a philosophy (yours and Sailer's) which is inherently destructive. It's just another opportunity to tell you and morons like you to go Cheney yourselves. And use a wire brush when you do it.

Robin Zander,

If you're interested in Saletan's writings on the subject, I would recommend his May 2008 follow-up piece on race and IQ. http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/ in which he says that the evidence is "by no means complete or conclusive."

Also, see Gladwell's piece about the subject. http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/12/17/071217crbo_books_gladwell

JB writes: "If Sailer is, indeed, providing a valuable service by telling truths that others won't, I'd be interested in knowing the practical real-world value of the above information. How are we to behave towards Jews given that the average Jew is, in Sailer's view, smarter, craftier, ruder, more ruthless, and less compassionate than the average gentile?"

Well said. MoeLarryAndJesus could learn a lot from you, even though your summary of Steve's view is a lot more pessimistic than the one that I have gathered.

As a quick thought exercise, I'll put forth practical implications that might follow accepting such an observation. Each proposition includes a numeric rating of the offensiveness of the proposition, with a 1 being inoffensive to most everyone, and a 10 being so offensive that espousing belief in said proposition would likely get one dragged before a Canadian Human Rights Commission. I'll also comment on whether the proposition falls in line with my personal experience.

Proposition A:
Gentiles would be well-advised to exercise more circumspection in their business dealings with Jews than with other gentiles.
Offensiveness: 10
Personal experience: Disagree. The Jewish landlords I've rented from have been the fairest and most responsive.

Proposition B:
Given the purported clannishness/inclusiveness of the Jewish community, gentiles should expect to face discrimination when entering careers in traditionally Jewish-dominant occupations.
Offensiveness: 9
Personal experience: Somewhat agree, provided that discrimination can be stretched to include hardship experienced as the result of a lack of connections.

Proposition C:
These traits provide a basis for why Jews are overrepresented in the fields of law and opinion journalism, where such traits would correlate with success.
Offensiveness: 7
Personal experience: Mostly agree, as I can't think of a better explanation to account for this, other than perhaps Proposition B (but what came first, the chicken or the egg?)

Proposition D:
Neoconservative Jewish writers and wonks who supported the Iraq war are "Israel-firsters" who are more concerned with the well-being of Israel than American lives
Offensiveness (in 2008): Probably a 3, as such arguments are fairly mainstream in leftist circles nowadays. A few years ago though I would have given this one an 8.
Personal experience: Mostly disagree. I (a former leftist) started reading The Corner regularly a couple of years ago, and if the guys and gals there are hiding behind a mask of American patriotism, then they don't let it drop all that often. Of course, I can't say the same about Horowitz and Podhoretz, but they seem to be the exceptions rather than the rule.

So, back to JB's question about the practical utility of racial observations. Well, based on the propositions above, the value seems pretty marginal for informing how one should approach the "average" member of said racial group. Worse, this mode of thinking can be rather limiting and/or dangerous if one is too intellectual lazy to understand the difference between group averages and individual traits.

Still, the observations, I think, do help one account for the way the world actually is. On an aggregate scale, the individual variations give way and clear demographic patterns emerge. How these patterns should inform public policy proposals and business strategies is a separate matter of debate.

Personally, I don't want to live in a world where, for example, African-Americans are quoted higher insurance rates than Asian Americans on the basis of a data set, no matter how accurate a predictor of future accidents it may be. Still, I don't think that the way to defend ourselves against eugenics and discrimination is to just pretend that group differences don't exist. Such an approach, however noble in its intent, will eventually just do more harm than good.

>Matt M. said 'the evidence is "by no means complete or conclusive."
Yes. We need far more research in the area since it is incomplete. It's not because there's any sort of conspiracy or whatever keeping the science down, it's because it's an obscure and underfunded field.

The problem is that people like Moe don't give a rat's ass about facts. I'm more than willing to change my social/political beliefs if the emperical evidence changes. They are not. There's nothing in the world that can change their minds.


>Also, see Gladwell's piece about the subject.
I read through it. The fundamental problem with his argument that the tests are inherently biased is that the most purely non-cultural questions on the tests (the most g-loaded ones) also show the black-white-Asian gap. It's hard to argue that a question that asks, say, "What happens when you take a cube and lay it flat on a piece of paper? What shape does it look like" is 'culutrally biased'.

As for the Flynn effect itself, I welcome the fact that the black-white-Asian gap is getting smaller. But the gap is still there. Merely wishing that the gap goes away by itself is a very, very, very lousy policy. It's like noticing that water pollution has gotten better and then saying "No need for anything more. It will improve by itself".

>Staash

It is fascinating that liberals supposedly decry Jewish stereotypes of 'clannishness' and 'craftyness' (and rightly so. IMO, Sailer is off his rocker on this.), but there are more than willing to make the "Jewish nationalists conned us Americans into the Iraq war to protect Israel. They do not care about us or our safety. NO BLOOD FOR ISRAEL!" canard.

Why did Glenn Greenwald write in Pat Buchanan's magazine, anyway? And does anyone remember that scene from 'Munich' where Daniel Craig's character says "The only blood that matters to me is Jewish blood"? Did that offend anyone besides me?

Robin Zander writes: "The problem is that people like Moe don't give a rat's ass about facts. I'm more than willing to change my social/political beliefs if the emperical evidence changes. They are not. There's nothing in the world that can change their minds."

Absolute horseshit. Relevant facts and cogent arguments can change my opinions and have on many occasions. But what changes are Sailer's theories and nonsense supposed to inspire in me? I've asked a few times now what the practical applications of his ideas would be. Let's say everything he says is true, just for laughs - what real-world consequences would that have? What policies would change as a result?

Staash had no answers. Robin Zander has no answers - it just resorts to the cheap trick of claiming I have a closed mind. I do like that if you click on Zander's signature you can see his mom's old movies, though.

Steve Sailer doesn't want "the gap to go away," and his fans don't, either. They want to celebrate the gap and use it as a political bludgeon and justify their own bigotry.

^but there are -some- more than willing

Typo, sorry. I know that the vast majority of liberals are not anti-semitic in any way.

>Let's say everything he says is true, just for laughs - what real-world consequences would that have?
If you cared at all, you could find out in two seconds via google what that would be. But you'd rather jsut insult people. Like you said, you don't give a rat's ass about the facts.

"Is IQ solely determined by genes?
A. No. Consider, for example, the need for micronutrient supplementation. For example, here in America, manufacturers have been adding iodine to salt and iron to flour since before WWII to combat medical syndromes (such as cretinism) that lower IQ. In poor countries around the world, hundreds of millions of children still suffer cognitively from lack of iodine and iron. Of course, this relatively cheap step for raising the IQs of the poor in Third World countries is rarely discussed, because the whole topic of IQ is so fraught with the chance of getting Watsoned out of your job."
-- Steve Sailer

I also suggest that you read "Some Good Ideas for Helping the Left Half of the Bell Curve" (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/bell_curve_5.htm).

MLAJ:

You keep clamoring for practical applications, and, as I've explained to you over and over again, these observations aren't particularly instructive on how one should approach individuals in one's personal or professional life.

Where their value lies mostly is in explaining population trends. I linked you to La Griffe's website which is probably the best example of that, but you haven't bothered to comment on its content.

As far as policy proposals go, I'm torn on that myself. The only good example I can easily come up with is that it makes a compelling (albeit horribly politically incorrect) argument for doing away with the No Child Left Behind legislation. The other examples that come to mind are pretty worrying (e.g. directing certain minority groups towards trade schools rather than four year colleges), as it is very difficult to formulate a fair policy that has both the interests of aggregate and the individual in mind. It would also inadvertently advance the agenda of eugenicists, a direction that I really want to see society avoid.

Your best idea for averting that outcome seems to be to vilify/marginalize those asking racially-charged questions and conducting research that reveals some unfortunate truths. This strikes me as the same type of anti-intellectualism / emotionalism utilized by the racialists that you so despise.

Staash replies: "You keep clamoring for practical applications, and, as I've explained to you over and over again, these observations aren't particularly instructive on how one should approach individuals in one's personal or professional life.

Where their value lies mostly is in explaining population trends. I linked you to La Griffe's website which is probably the best example of that, but you haven't bothered to comment on its content."

I didn't bother to comment on it because it doesn't seem to have a fucking thing to do with my question, which was what the practical applications of Sailer's theories are. You admitted as much yourself when you posted the link. Am I supposed to respond whenever an idiot tosses out a non sequitur?

"As far as policy proposals go, I'm torn on that myself. The only good example I can easily come up with is that it makes a compelling (albeit horribly politically incorrect) argument for doing away with the No Child Left Behind legislation. The other examples that come to mind are pretty worrying (e.g. directing certain minority groups towards trade schools rather than four year colleges), as it is very difficult to formulate a fair policy that has both the interests of aggregate and the individual in mind. It would also inadvertently advance the agenda of eugenicists, a direction that I really want to see society avoid."

The reason all of the practical applications you can come up with are wingnut fantasies is that the THEORY IS BULLSHIT. Your problem is that you swallow Sailer's theory because he seems to back it up with facts. But the truth - as shown in the Gladwell article - is that racist "scientists" like Sailer are dishonest hacks who cherry pick their facts to support a conclusion they reached long before they did any research.

You lack critical thinking ability, and so you're an easy mark for a veteran con man like Sailer.

MLAJ writes: "The reason all of the practical applications you can come up with are wingnut fantasies is that the THEORY IS BULLSHIT."

This doesn't follow. A theory's veracity is independent of practical applications of that theory. One could easily make up practical applications for an empirically invalid theory (think LBJ's Great Society legislation). Similarly, there are many empirically valid theories that have unfortunate applications (some originating in game theory come immediately to mind).

Funny that you reference Gladwell as some sort of authority to refute Sailer. I read their exchange, and Gladwell was clearly out of his element and got exposed as a "dishonest hack" as a result.

As far as Sailer's theories go, how are they so different from Charles Murray's? I suppose you consider him to be a "veteran con man" too?

Staash again: "As far as Sailer's theories go, how are they so different from Charles Murray's? I suppose you consider him to be a "veteran con man" too?"

Very much so.

Isn't it amazing that a guy paid by a conservative think tank churns out "science" that dovetails so sweetly with wingnut cant?

What are the odds?

Does Ross have any control over the comments on his blog? If he's going to let trolls like "MoeLarryjasus" post and spam with hate filled off-topic rants, he might as well close the comment section down.

What an embarrassment for Atlantic.

Hey, pablo Hitler, could you try posting in actual English next time?

MLAJ writes:
"Very much so."

Well, if they're con men, then they're pretty good ones.

How else can you explain liberal-icon Paul Krugman's membership in the Human Biodiversity Group's mailing list? If it were all some elaborate rouse to produce a forthcoming expose on psuedoscience, then it's been ten years in the making.

How much longer do we have to wait?

Moe,

I would point out that following the link that Robin Zander attaches in his name, appears to lead to a grossly pornographic website. I'm not sure why we are expected to trust the racist musings of a professional pornographer, or any of his other opinions for that matter. But it should be no accident that this is the case. Racism, like pornography, withers the conscience, and Mr. Zander's appears to be highly withered.

Moe,

I would point out that following the link that Robin Zander attaches in his name, appears to lead to a grossly pornographic website. I'm not sure why we are expected to trust the racist musings of a professional pornographer, or any of his other opinions for that matter. But it should be no accident that this is the case. Racism, like pornography, withers the conscience, and Mr. Zander's appears to be highly withered.

Staash quotes and writes: "MLAJ writes:
"Very much so."

Well, if they're con men, then they're pretty good ones.

How else can you explain liberal-icon Paul Krugman's membership in the Human Biodiversity Group's mailing list? If it were all some elaborate rouse to produce a forthcoming expose on psuedoscience, then it's been ten years in the making.

How much longer do we have to wait?"

Yes, they're very accomplished con men indeed.

I have no idea why Krugman's on the list. Ask him. I'm not his keeper.

It's "ruse" and "pseudo-science," by the way.

>I would point out that following the link that Robin Zander attaches in his name, appears to lead to a grossly pornographic website. I'm not sure why we are expected to trust the racist musings of a professional pornographer, or any of his other opinions for that matter.
So... you have never, ever, ever looked at porn in your adult life. And that somehow makes you superior to the other 90%+ heterosexual male Americans out there. Look, if you are a strict social conservative than I respect your decision. It's your life. But do not enforce your morality on others. Do not take on smug airs of superiority.

Honestly, I picked the url at random, "for teh lulz". I don't visit the site. I'm also really, really surprised that neither you or Moe care that I also linked to a furry fandom website!


>But it should be no accident that this is the case. Racism, like pornography, withers the conscience, and Mr. Zander's appears to be highly withered.
So, rather than present logical evidence to defend your position that what Steve Sailer said in (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/bell_curve_5.htm) is false, you would rather just call people names. This is typical.

>You lack critical thinking ability, and so you're an easy mark for a veteran con man like Sailer.
Moe, I'm still waiting for you to give me a logical arguement as to why Sailer's comments on public policy are wrong. BTW: 'fuckstick' is a rather cute insult. I'll add that to my lexicon.

Also, In b4 "Yiff! Furries! CSI! Pervert! MTV!" and other such comments.