Murray and Hernstein's Bell Curve doesn't say some people "can't" learn algebra. They say some people won't become as proficient at the same rate. Some people with IQ's below 100 will become physicists, but people with IQs above 100 will be proportionately more likely to become physicists. Any statistical relation will have this property, that they are relevant to the sample more than the individual, because an individual can be totally contrary to the probabilities (otherwise, probabilities are always 0 or 1). For example, if I get drunk and drive around town, but don't get in an accident, that doesn't mean the assertion 'drinking causes accidents' is not true, or not relevant to me. Most (all?) interesting assertions are true probabilistically, and because of the law of large numbers, are more relevant to groups than individuals. Beating up on the platonic interpretation of correlation is a classic straw-man argument. You mights as well say, since some professional basketball players are short (Earl Borykins, 5 feet 6 inches), there is no relevance between height and basketball performance (though the average height is about 10 inches above the US average). If you want to criticize something, attack its best arguments, not its weakest.

Awesome diavlog to overcome the slump of the last few.

Eric, Here are a few relevant quotes: "The irony is that as America equalizes the [environmental] circum-
stances of people’s lives, the remaining differences in intelligence are
increasingly determined by differences in genes.. . Putting it all to-
gether, success and failure in the American economy, and all that
goes with it, are increasingly a matter of the genes that people in-
herit."
- The Bell Curve, p. 91. “It is a matter of ceilings . . . We can hope to raise [the grade of a boy with an IQ slightly below 100]. But teaching him more vocabulary words or drilling him on the parts of speech will
not open up new vistas for him. It is not within his power to follow an exposition written beyond a limited level of complexity. . . [Heis] not smart
enough.”
- Murray, "Intelligence in the Classroom," SJ, Jan 16, 2007 “Even the best schools under the best conditions cannot repeal the lim-
its on achievement set by limits on intelligence,” Murray says bluntly.
- Murray, "Intelligence in the Classroom," SJ, Jan 16, 2007 “Universal college education cannot be. Most
people are not smart enough to profit from an authentic college education.” - Murray and Seligman, “As the Bell Curves”

Quoting eric: Murray and Hernstein's Bell Curve doesn't say some people "can't" learn algebra. They say some people won't become as proficient at

I wonder if it is possible to go beyond what Edison said of genius, that it is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration? Mozart and his peers will never be understood by science, and certainly not by IQ tests. But genius in that very special sense, the sense in which genius is the equivalent of creation, is unrelated to genius in the banal intelligence test sense. There are many high IQ "geniuses," but not that many true creators, either in the arts or the sciences. I hope the Charles Murray nuts who sometimes post here will abstain from their usual antics.

I confess I have only read excerpts of The Bell Curve, but David's response to Eric seems off base. All of the examples David cites, have a few things in common: -- They talk about intelligence without regard to whether of not it is inherited. -- If references to individuals were prefaced by an implicit "most" rather than the implicit "all" (e.g. "most boys" vs. "all boys") that David seems to read in, then would he really disagree with any of these statements of Murray's. I don't see how David's science is incompatible with Murray's sociological observations.

FWIW, I meant to add during the discussion with David that I don't really think Murray and Herrnstein fundamentally misunderstood what "heritability" means. Not to say that I've checked to be sure that they don't, but it seems like too much of a rookie mistake for scholars of their caliber. Anyway, my intention to stand up for Murray and Herrnstein in this small way got lost in the flow of the dialogue, but I felt bad about it afterward.

David Shenk: I think three of those quotes (1, 3, and 4) relate to probabilities, differences in group means. The second, I agree, suggests a ceiling, and I generally disagree. My exception being that someone with an 80 IQ as measured by several tests, might not be able to get a college degree in mathematics at a 4-year institution, ie, probability 0, but I'm guessing. I have seen Murray state that for an individual, IQ's are pointless however. So, I disagree with that quote, but I bet Murray would retract it too (or he's inconsistent). 100 years ago, people thought that race or class put people in binary ability groups. That was proven false. But today, people seem to emphasize the overlap, and then err in asserting that this proves the means, and tails, of distributions, are the same. That's false too. The problem with this is that much effort goes into equalizing group means (women in science at Harvard, black-white NAEP scores in 8th grade). These are focused on group means for some metric that is material to achievement in some field, and its heritability. Equivalent group achievement might be impossible due to distribution of genetic constellations between the groups in question, even though there will be individual exceptions (most phenotypes are the expression

Murray has a lot of qualifiers in the quotes you presented, but let's forget about Charles Murray for a second. Your straw man consists in your use of the personal pronouns "you" and "we", when you should more accurately use the first person singular "I".
The subtitle of your book "Why Everything You've Been Told About Genetics, Talent, and IQ Is Wrong" doesn't apply to me, since none of what you told us is new to me. You also claimed that "we" feel mediocre and are "doomed to mediocrity". Actually, surveys show that almost everybody is convinced that they are of above average intelligence. Most people are pretty much happy with their lives and don't care much about whether they are mediocre according to some metric of merit.
So those are your own personal feelings, including your feeling "depressed" about the idea that income inequality might be partially heritable. The supposedly ground braking new insights you presented that allegedly contradict the prevailing perception of intelligence during the 19th and 20th century, are not new at all. The notion that the correlation of intelligence between generations doesn't mean that the intelligence of

Sorry, Dave, at this point in the game making the inferences your side makes is pretty much tantamount to science denialism:
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson...sen30years.pdf a review of the last 80 years of IQ/gene research. furthermore, the APA sanctioned "The Bell Curve" right after it came out. So, what you're trying to imply without actually saying is....pretty much just wrong. If only Razib were on to discuss this with you.....man, I can't even imagine the awkwardness.

the only ones who are nuts are those that actually disagree with them. being a science denier isn't something to be proud of.

For those interested in the IQ issue, here's a 2007 Cato Unbound forum (I was the editor) featuring James Flynn, Linda Gottfredson, Eric Turkheimer, and Stephen Ceci ... http://www.cato-unbound.org/archives/november-2007/

Quoting I'm SO awesome!: the only ones who are nuts are those that actually disagree with them. being a science denier isn't something to be proud of.

I am not a "science denier." But I do deny that you are awesome, or even particularly bright.

source?

Quoting Will Wilkinson: For those interested in the IQ issue, here's a 2007 Cato Unbound forum (I was the editor) featuring James Flynn, Linda Gottfredson, Eric Turkheimer, and Stephen Ceci ... http://www.cato-unbound.org/archives/november-2007/

James Flynn recently blurted out that some kind of birth control substance should be put into the water supply and that only intelligent folks should get the antidote in order to curb dysgenic trnds. This confirms to me my suspicion that many of those, who attack heritability most, do so, because they secretly feel that if true, drastic eugenics would have to be implemented. My personal feeling is that IQ will be less relevant in the future and that as soon as the technology exists, all of those parents who currently obsess about their children's IQs and pursue all kinds of phony schemes to increase their IQ, are going to use these technologies to have really smart children. So I fear that we are going to see an oversupply of smart people.

What happens when you take statistics seriously:

To summarize what follows below ("shorter sloth", as it were), the case for g rests on a statistical technique, factor analysis, which works solely on correlations between tests. Factor analysis is handy for summarizing data, but can't tell us where the correlations came from; it always says that there is a general factor whenever there are only positive correlations. The appearance of g is a trivial reflection of that correlation structure. A clear example, known since 1916, shows that factor analysis can give the appearance of a general factor when there are actually many thousands of completely independent and equally strong causes at work. Heritability doesn't distinguish these alternatives either. Exploratory factor analysis being no good at discovering causal structure, it provides no support for the reality of g.

Read the whole thing.

Quoting I'm SO awesome!: source?

Call it my sixth sense.

classic heritability denier ---> [citation needed]
David, regarding the MJ analogy. this is also really weak. look at the top 500 long distance running records....i think last time i checked 499 of them were from a couple of tribes in africa. then check the 100M records.....not a lot of other races besides black on there, huh?

Quoting I'm SO awesome!: classic heritability denier ---> [citation needed]

David, regarding the MJ analogy. this is also really weak. look at the top 500 long distance running records....i think last time i checked 499 of them were from a couple of tribes in africa. then check the 100M records.....not a lot of other races besides black on there, huh?

And also note that among the 500 whitest people in the world, not one is black. What this has to do with intelligence, I don't know.

i agree with your general sentiment but as far as the last part of what you said goes....the poor (low IQ) people reproduce in vastly larger numbers then the high IQ people. furthermore, because of regression towards the mean the high IQ lose their edge unless they mate with another high IQ person. point being you can't really boost you kids IQ past a certain point. however, because of the huge numbers of caucasiod and mongol brains maybe you'll be right.

and what you just said makes sense....because?

Quoting I'm SO awesome!: classic heritability denier ---> [citation needed]

Once again I denied nothing...except your awesomeness. Can you even read? This is what I said: There are many high IQ "geniuses," but not that many true creators, either in the arts or the sciences.

clay, for being as smart as you are you're really way off on g and it surprises me. what you're saying if quite literally the equivalent of being an evolution or GW denier. there is such overwhelming support for g that i wouldn't even know where to start. do you honestly think that IQ tests just happen to sort out the smartest people every time for decades on end. are you sure you're not misunderstanding what it means? g generally refers to the raw computational power of a brain. trying to refute g is like saying that all computers processors are equal....which is ridiculous. you may be able to accomplish the same work on a '98 Dell that you could on a brand new MAC but that doesn't at all mean that they have the same raw computational power. what are the chances of there being several different genetically distinct races, complete with differences in morphology and disease susceptibility, etc., but to have all brains be exactly equal ability even though they evolved in different locations of the earth? not good.

yeah, this is already boring but you definitely did say that Murray supporters were nuts. that's being a denier....which is not a good position to be in since even Will had to backtrack and make an apology about this subject to cover his ass.

Among the comments above I agree with eric's, sugarking's, Shenk's, Florian's, Anderson's, and Wilkinson's. Charles Murray would also. In the diavlog itself however there were straw men everywhere -- which just goes to show what a mine field this is. I bet David Shenk regrets writing this book before his promotional tour is over, assuming he has one. In any case, the best chapter in Murray's book was the last one, seldom read. The title was, "A Place for Everyone." His point was that the mediocre majority and the just-plain-clueless are people too and the good society is one in which individuals should not have to be outstandingly "successful" in order to lead decent and fulfilling lives. Parents would worry less if that were the case today. It was truer in the 1950's, at least for the white majority. And therein lies the challenge.

Quoting I'm SO awesome!: clay, for being as smart as you are you're really way off on g and it surprises me. what you're saying if quite literally the equivalent of being an evolution or GW denier. there is such overwhelming support for g that i wouldn't even know where to start. do you honestly think that IQ tests just happen to sort out the smartest people every time for decades on end.

are you sure you're not misunderstanding what it means? g generally refers to the raw computational power of a brain. trying to refute g is like saying that all computers processors are equal....which is ridiculous. you may be able to accomplish the same work on a '98 Dell that you could on a brand new MAC but that doesn't at all mean that they have the same raw computational power. what are the chances of there being several different genetically distinct races, complete with differences in morphology and disease susceptibility, etc., but to have all brains be exactly equal ability even though they evolved in different locations of the earth? not good.

Just read the whole thing, okay?

i'll bump it to the top of my reading list just for you

Quoting I'm SO awesome!: yeah, this is already boring but you definitely did say that Murray supporters were nuts. that's being a denier....which is not a good position to be in since even Will had to backtrack and make an apology about this subject to cover his ass.

Boring indeed. I knew that as soon as people like you intervened in this discussion, we would see the usual clownish antics. The interest of Murray and his followers in the pseudo-science of intelligence is subordinate to their political agenda. In any case, my post had nothing to do with "heritability."

"clownish," like, actually providing cited evidence for your assertions?

Another thread about IQ, The Bell Curve, and genetics eh? I sometimes think that on internet forums an attractor must exist somewhere in the intersection of race and IQ. Who else here can predict what players and topics will be hot 300 posts from now?

first of all, i'm very afraid of google now as i found my own post from 20 minutes ago when searching for the authors name but I digress..... if i take from the article correctly that he's basically saying that A) IQ tests could be culturally biased and B) that scores being correlated with IQ don't prove causation then i think we'll just have to agree to disagree. this has been so widely studied for so many years and so controlled for I really don't know what to say. does anyone think GWB is as smart as Stephen hawking? stupid is easily identifiable and is as plain as day. saying it's not would be like saying success in sports is simply "correlated" with athleticism. combine that with the fact they control for these factors by testing kids when they're, like, 1 1/2 years old and the rest of the literal oceans of data supporting g and the fact that he's quite left leaning i think we're dangerously close to having an endless, global warming-esque, debate so I'll let yo have the last word. honestly, reading the wiki page on IQ would be more productive and

I don't see any real incompatibility with what David is saying and the Bell Curve other than some rhetorical missteps or possible times of incorrect focus.
IQ need not be completely determinative to have an influence on outcomes, it just needs to have enough of an influence.
The larger point is that NOTHING in that realization negates the want or need or duty to explore more ways to help people on the nurture side. Accepting natural differences changes nothing in that regard, as much as many people fear the implications. It's like those pro choice people who refuse to acknowledge that a fetus is both human, and alive. As if ceding that point renders the entire pro choice side null and void. This section had Will make a guess at some nurture aspects that might have an influence on outcome. http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/265...6:59&out=62:01 In another post in another thread I think twin linked some graph showing the different graduation rates of students from different socio economic backgrounds, matched to performance in 8th grade math.
The point is the game is not over at the genes, we ALL get that, once you are

I'm SO awesome, I'm in over my head in all this talk about heritability, race, genes, etc. But let me back up a bit to find the general ground I feel more comfortable on. OK, so, when ya look at the sports that varying groups around the world are good at, it seems like it's not a coincidence. Meaning, the 100m dash is won by West Africans. The long distances by East Africans. The Strongest Man in the World competition by Northern and/or Eastern Europeans. If I knew more, I could probably go on. My question is why you clump East Africans and West Africans on account of their skin color. It's my understanding that there is a Native American tribe in the mountains of Mexico that excels in the long distances as well. So why should we say that blacks are the best runners rather than treating the Native American tribe in mountainous Mexico as a group, East Africans as a group, West Africans as a group, Northern Europeans as a group, etc, etc, etc. Now I know things could get very hairy if we got into the philosophy or taxonomy of science, but I'm not trying to do that. I am

not sure what you mean, actually. are you wondering why people are divided into certain race groups or are you only talking about running? cuz i don't know anything, specifically, about "running genes' and i'm not completely sure anyone's found markers for them yet. can you explain further? *edit* i knew i shouldn't have said that
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-...+running+genes

The blank slate myth is the basis of so many terrible ppolicies but the most diastrous consquence is that we've based our terrible immigration system on this myth and we will pay the consquences dearly. LOOK AT A IQ/GDP MAP OF THE WORLD. IF YOU KNOW A NATIONS AVERAGE IQ YOU CAN SAY WITH GREAT ACCURACY HOW RICH THAT NATION WILL BE. IT IS NOT AN ACCIDENT THAT THE POOREST REGION ON EARTH'S AVERAGE IQ IS 70 (BORDERLINE RETARDED) THAT REGION IS OFCOURSE SUB-SAHRAN AFRICA.

I'm with one of the respondents Razib should have been paired with Shenk. Don't get me wrong I always enjoy hearing what Will has to say. I think he is one of the best Bloggingheadstv members. However, it would have been nice to have some one with a background in the area like Razib to rebut. It's clear that people are born with different personalities. Nothing Shenk says disproves that. Also, what is Shenk's background? He dismisses Murray offhand and he doesn't have an advanced degree in this topic. Typical MSM journalist looking to sell his book and promote his "progressive" ideology. Is it news to anyone that hard work contributes enormously to being excellent? What is Shenk talking about.

WHY AMERICA WILL GROW MUCH POORER IN THIS CENTURY:
-Some truths are not what we would like them to be I don't think liberals understand that and the result will be calamatious for America as immigration transforms our nation demographicly. The NYT says that by 2050 American whites will be a minority. This will have huge consquences oon America's ecomny, unity, (and enviorment) all of which will be negative. By the way that immigration policy will also double our population in about 60 years. This may sound "racist" but i don't care cause its true and thats what matters: As America grows less white b/c of semi-treasonist liberal immigration policies our national IQ will decline as will our school testing rankings and like clockwork America will grow less wealthy. The new minority majority will elect radical, conspiratorially anti-white, anti-American socialist demogagues likeRev. Wright (or LA RAZA people), Louis Farrakhan and/or Al Sharpton and America will go the way of Zimbawae and South Africa in turn. Our President circa 2049 will be more like Jacob Zuma or Robert Mugabe than Bill Clinton or Barak Obama (who if you remember was too moderate to win the southside of Chicago's vote early on in his

How is Jordan developing into a great player at 15-16 not mean that he was biologically gifted. I think most people begin to develop there competanancies at around that time. What the hell did Halberstam another journalist know about genetics. Was that an argument to authority? haha. Also no kidding more driven and determined players tend to be better in some way. But where does that drive and determination come from if not the genes? Oh it's "nuanced" oooh now it's clear. Nuanced just like how John Kerry is a millionaire because he worked hard. And now if we were all aristocrats we'd be better at more things. No kidding! But we'd still be best at what we'd be best at anyway.

I'm So awesome, First, I'm not trying to bring the hammer down too hard. I mean, the idea that groups have taken different evolutionary paths and acquired different characteristics seems pretty straightforward to me. So I don't think race is merely a social construct. On the other hand, by definition, our beliefs about the world are social constructs, the question is if they match the world. So while I don't believe our beliefs about race are merely socially constructed conjectures, I'm not sure we've carved up the world as accurately as possible in this area. It's not so much that I have the silver bullet solution, as much as I think certain low hanging fruit can be picked. For example, it seems that you believe that there is some similarity between the long distance runners of East Africa and the sprinters of West African descent, namely, their success in running events and their skin color (or perhaps relatively recent evolutionary history on the continent of Africa). I want to push back a bit on that. The reason I said I'm not trying to get into the philosophy or taxonomy of science is because we could end

Geography is probably the best way to do it. Two tribes that share the same delta region probably interbreed much more then two tribes that have an ocean between them. So short east Africans and tall west Africans should be more similar then short east Africans and short Asians.

Starwatcher, So I'm clear, the reason you are taking the position you do is because of the likelihood of interbreeding?

Yep.

What a joke. The deliberate misspellings, typing in all CAPS!, the run on sentences. Obviously a left-wing sockpuppet. Maybe its Glenn Greenwald.

Isn't Shenk here laying out the reason things like IQ tests are so valuable?
You don't know until you try
People need to make hard decisions about where to focus their efforts. The very fact that it takes such massive effort to get really good at anything suggests it is helpful having predictive models.

Well, I have to wonder then if this method is ad hoc. I mean, natural selection has produced a characteristic of a phenotype, namely, shortness, in Asia and Africa. The ways genes express themselves seems far from clear, particularly when the interbreeding could be relatively small. The two views we're playing with (since I wish to exclude what I've called the "radical" view) are: 1) The traditional negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid groupings match reality most accurately. In other words, evolution has produced several identifiable main groups and the most important characteristics are shared within these groups. So when choosing which differences to privilege over others, the differences that implicit these groupings shall be favored (because again, these differences are the most important). 2) Human beings are naturally divided into groups based on ancestral evolutionary history. Take any group of humans and subject them to the same evolutionary pressures, and similar results will follow. The most important causal factor in explaining characteristics, then, is what kind of evolutionary pressures particular groups faced; these pressures won't necessarily be tied to geographical location (thought environment will still be important). The principles espoused in 2 seem uncontroversial, and the principles in 1 seem arbitrary. Now it's clear that geographical location has

the southwest will become a Mexican Quebec

Mickey!!!! What are you doing here when you're supposed to be conducting a senatorial campaign? And what's up with the dkschwartz alias?

I thought this Diavlog was misnamed. Listen to Will here.
Sounds like nuture Isn't this just the classic nurture argument. I'm not saying The Bell Curve was correct, but it isn't like it hasn't been US Policy for a long time to focus on helping people not in the upper and middle classes to break the cycle. It is possible we are doing a terrible job at it and there are policy implications (healthcare, better schools, etc.) but were things any different post WW2 when presumably inequality was declining? In any case, it seems like no matter what you say about nature coexisting with nurture, when things enter into political realms you have to pick a side.

The idea that genes find expression through an environment strikes me as being rather banal. Of course environment is going to have an effect (stick a group of people in a room without air for a few minutes and the IQ differences between them will be reduced to zero). I don't know anyone who would say that environment isn't important for intelligence.

Quoting Blackadder: The idea that genes find expression through an environment strikes me as being rather banal. Of course environment is going to have an effect (stick a group of people in a room without air for a few minutes and the IQ differences between them will be reduced to zero). I don't know anyone who would say that environment isn't important for intelligence.

Look up the word "phenotype." Read some of the genetics literature. Banal?

Those who deny or play down IQ, g, heritability, IQ's population distributions and its reliability and predictive power are uniformly ignorant or knowingly make straw men arguments. They are as bad as creationists, imho. Just dip your finger into the data or literature and you will be amazed at how important a factor it is. It is only matched by the public's ignorance about it, which I understand. It's a tough pill to swallow, but intellectuals should not be involved in deception. For example, economists are quick to talk about "human capital" but are scared to death to talk about IQ.

Quoting Wonderment: Mickey!!!! What are you doing here when you're supposed to be conducting a senatorial campaign? And what's up with the dkschwartz alias?

There are none so blind as those who will not see.... "What does the immense success of "La Gran Marcha" mean to Mexicanos and other Latinos? It simply means that we now have the numbers, the political will and the organizational skills to direct our own destinies and not be subservient to the White and Jewish power structures. It means that we can now undertake bigger and more significant mass actions to achieve total political and economic liberation like that being proposed by Juan José Gutiérrez, President of Movimiento Latino USA. Juan José Gutiérrez is proposing that the coalition that organized "La Gran Marcha" meet in Arizona or Texas on April 8 to "organize a mass boycott (huelga) against the economy of the USA" to take place on May 1, May 5 or May 19.

A major reason for the great success of "La Gran Marcha" was the strong participation of labor unions and the Catholic Church. This same alliance contributed to the success of Lech Walesa's "Solidarity Movement" in the

In what way does quoting a well-known Mexican anti-Semite help bolster your argument that Californians should be afraid of immigrants?

Quoting AemJeff: In what way does quoting a well-known Mexican anti-Semite help bolster your argument that Californians should be afraid of immigrants?

I think that was harkin's jump the shark moment.

Quoting harkin:

LOL! Love the map of 2080.

Jay, Yeah, I don't want to get to far in to the weeds on the running thing as that was just an example meant to make an inference about inherent genetic differences but I'll link to a couple of papers that might be of interest to you if you're interested in lumping vs splitting. The races are actually divided based on their genes rather than their abilities or morphology, although, it just so happens you can basically do it either way as these qualities tend to be correlated. Fact is, skin color is fairly predictive of race and vice versa. Starwatcher is correct to point you towards the inbreeding/geographical technique as a method of determining where to draw the lines as well. A race is basically an inbred family that's been in the same location for a long time. This chart illustrates that:
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/...mageType=large Africans have been together longer so they have greater variety in their genes. Here's a couple of papers on race genetics if you're so inclined. they're kinda long but, imo, extremely informative and intriguing. This isn't the kind of stuff you run across every day. http://www.cell.com/current-biology/...2809%2902065-X http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26human.html (check

It's clear that people are born with different personalities. Nothing Shenk says disproves that.

SpikeTedAgnew: To my interpretation of what was said in the diavlog, the above quoted statement was pretty dissapointing. I don't think Mr. Shenk would say people aren't born with certain dispositions that might be construed as personalities or develop into habits that might be considered personality traits. I'm rather certain, however, that he would dispute the idea that people are conceived with an ingrained personality, which from my judgement is what you are implying. Am I reading too much into your statement?

Quoting AemJeff: Look up the word "phenotype." Read some of the genetics literature. Banal?

It means boringly commonplace.

Quoting AemJeff: In what way does quoting a well-known Mexican anti-Semite help bolster your argument that Californians should be afraid of immigrants?

You can't even get that right. Where in anything that I posted says stop immigration or be afraid of all immigrants? Do you ever even regret the dishonest spin? This disingenuous trope is just tiring. Learn the difference between legal and illegal immigration before you start throwing the fear card. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, you concede that you are unable to discuss the issue. Oh btw - California is under federal order to release as many as 40,000 inmates due to overcrowding. There are currently over 20,000 illegals in CA prisons, each at a cost of almost $50k/year. California also has 32 percent of all welfare cases in the United States, many of them illegals. Also - California spends approximately $8 billion dollars a year to educate the illegal and US-born children of illegals.

Quoting Twinswords: I think that was harkin's jump the shark moment.

California has truly jumped the shark, but I appreciate the standard 'no substance, just ridicule' response. I think it actually serves a purpose.

Quoting rcocean: What a joke. The deliberate misspellings, typing in all CAPS!, the run on sentences. Obviously a left-wing sockpuppet. Maybe its Glenn Greenwald.

totally. or should i say TOTULLY! my guess is claymisher.

Quoting harkin: You can't even get that right. Where in anything that I posted says stop immigration or be afraid of all immigrants?

Do you ever even regret the dishonest spin?

This disingenuous trope is just tiring. Learn the difference between legal and illegal immigration before you start throwing the fear card. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, you concede that you are unable to discuss the issue.

Oh btw - California is under federal order to release as many as 40,000 inmates due to overcrowding. There are currently over 20,000 illegals in CA prisons, each at a cost of almost $50k/year.

California also has 32 percent of all welfare cases in the United States, many of them illegals.

Also - California spends approximately $8 billion dollars a year to educate the illegal and US-born children of illegals.

California has truly jumped the shark, but I appreciate the standard 'no substance, just ridicule' response. I think it actually serves a purpose.

I regret plenty of things. On those occasions when I've been dishonest, I definitely feel regret. I don't seem to sense the need here, though. Who posted the map fantasia showing California being swallowed whole by Mexican hordes? I think your fear of immigrants is self-evident. Whinging

I'm SO awesome, Trying not to get too far into the weeds, my view is that long distance running and sprinting are very different things. The fact that they both involve running is tangential, IMHO. One involves endurance, the other quick twitch bursts. Unless there is some gene or genetic cause that is implicated both in justifying the categorization of all Africans together (say, because of disease resistance) and can be shown to cause good leg movement in running, for example, then pointing to the blackness of the winners of running events doesn't seem to make a point about inherent genetic differences. Now, far be it from me to dispute that inherent genetic differences are at play when West Africans win the sprints (specific kind of event) as often as they do, and East Africans win the distance events (specific kind of event) as often as they do. But the fact that they share the same skin color, tone, or what have you, doesn't seem to say anything to me about inherent genetic difference in running, (general event category) for the reasoning laid out above. Having said all that, I'll look at the links you

Quoting nikkibong: totally. or should i say TOTULLY!

my guess is claymisher.

Excuse me? If it was me it would be a lot funnier.

Quoting Blackadder: It means boringly commonplace.

I'll refrain from explicitly making the obvious observation.

Quoting AemJeff: I regret plenty of things. On those occasions when I've been dishonest, I definitely feel regret. I don't seem to sense the need .............

..........In sum, I concede nothing to you; and I put it to you that you haven't even come close to making a coherent case for your concerns.

You counter with absolutely nothing and accuse me of a weak argument? You would be right at home on the California Legislature. You say nothing about the illegal immigrant prison population, so I guess you are like Arnold who just wants the problem to go away by letting the federal government pay for it. You say my statistics are 'weak' by cherry picking one nebulous term and ignoring all the other figures. This is the embodiment of 'weak'. You say my welfare numbers are illigitimate because they include American citizens, are you really of the opinion that the jobless rate of American citizens is unaffected by 25-30 million illegals? Really? You apply the term 'paranoid' to a map actually drawn by the Aztlan movement (undocumented horde in your words). That is hilariously poor wording in itself and then you follow it with 'fantasy', here we can

Quoting harkin: You counter with absolutely nothing and accuse me of a weak argument?

You would be right at home on the California Legislature.

You say nothing about the illegal immigrant prison population, so I guess you are like Arnold who just wants the problem to go away by letting the federal government pay for it.

You say my statistics are 'weak' by cherry picking one nebulous term and ignoring all the other figures. This is the embodiment of 'weak'.

You say my welfare numbers are illigitimate because they include American citizens, are you really of the opinion that the jobless rate of American citizens is unaffected by 25-30 million illegals? Really?

You apply the term 'paranoid' to a map actually drawn by the Aztlan movement (undocumented horde in your words). That is hilariously poor wording in itself and then you follow it with 'fantasy', here we can agree because one person's fantasy is another person's hope and change.

And funniest of all, you say that some of the enablers of the Aztlan movement are somehow legit if they are American citizens? Do you really in your limited thinking consider

Quoting harkin: Viva La Raza!

Indeed. Judging by this thread, I'd say it can't happen soon enough.

Quoting bjkeefe: Indeed.

Judging by this thread, I'd say it can't happen soon enough.

And see also.

Quoting AemJeff: I'll say this for you, you do like to assert things. The number of "illegals" in CA prisons is a small fraction of the total incarceration statistic........ Your argument is unconvincing and generally sounds like paranoia and dislike.

You accuse me of stating nebulous menace and weak figures and then you immediately follow that up by declaring 20,000 illegals at a cost of $48k/year (Not to even mention the crimes against people/property that landed them there in the first place) as a 'small fraction'. The hypocrisy boggles the mind. You should be the lead act of some sort of amnesty comedy tour. I do admit that I 'dislike' the actions and effects of convicted criminals whose crimes would have been prevented had we secure (legal immigrants only) borders but how that translates into paranoia I will leave to you.

Quoting bjkeefe: Indeed.

Judging by this thread, I'd say it can't happen soon enough.

Once again, when substance eludes, shout racism.

Quoting harkin: You accuse me of stating nebulous menace and weak figures and then you immediately follow that up by declaring 20,000 illegals at a cost of $48k/year (Not to even mention the crimes against people/property that landed them there in the first place) as a 'small fraction'. The hypocrisy boggles the mind.

You should be the lead act of some sort of amnesty comedy tour.

I do admit that I 'dislike' the actions and effects of convicted criminals whose crimes would have been prevented had we secure (legal immigrants only) borders but how that translates into paranoia I will leave to you.

Once again, when substance eludes, shout racism.

You maybe ought to follow up on the substance of an argument. "20,000" is meaningless without other statistics. Using the bare number as your support leaves you without an argument.

http://www.theroot.com/views/how-ill...-black-america here's good ammo if you didn't see it. here's another: http://select.nytimes.com/2006/03/27...n.html?_r=1&hp

California also has 32 percent of all welfare cases in the United States, many of them illegals.

Big lie, Harkin. Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for welfare, foodstamps and unemployment in California. You also lied about the education numbers.

Facts:

State officials estimate that they add between $4 billion and $6 billion in costs, primarily for prisons and jails, schools and emergency rooms.

--Beyond those services, the undocumented population adds to the overall cost of other parts of local government, including police and fire protection, highway maintenance and libraries.

--On the other side of the ledger, undocumented residents pay taxes -- sales taxes on what they buy, gasoline taxes when they fuel their cars, property taxes if they own homes.

[/quote]

Quoting claymisher: Excuse me? If it was me it would be a lot funnier.

Hah. As if you didn't know that we would know it was you if it was funny, and so knowing that, you knew to make it less funny so that we would not know it was you. This is central to rcocean's point. (®)

Quoting bjkeefe: Hah. As if you didn't know that we would know it was you if it was funny, and so knowing that, you knew to make it less funny so that we would not know it was you.

This is central to rcocean's point.

(®)

By that logic every wingnut on this site is really me in satire-mode ... alright, you got me. It's all me! Me! Lyle, harkin, dkscwatzraz or whatever, all of them, it's all me! Fooled you! I'm so happy the secret's out now and we can all have a good laugh about it. I think I'll keep the comedy routine going just for kicks though. From now on whenever you see some crazed rightwing nonsense on the board just know it's me joking around.

Quoting harkin: Once again, when substance eludes, shout racism.

Ah, yes. Malkkkin technique #1: when you're being an wingnut, pulling "facts" out of your ass, and generally being as offensive as possible, preemptively attempt to diminish all the criticism you so richly deserve by whining about being called a racist. As though the criticism were unwarranted, I mean. I'd go on, but apart from Mickey Kaus and dkschwartz, and maybe one or two other equally sad sacks, I'd say everyone already has you pegged.

Quoting claymisher: By that logic every wingnut on this site is really me in satire-mode ... alright, you got me. It's all me! Me! Lyle, harkin, dkscwatzraz or whatever, all of them, it's all me! Fooled you! I'm so happy the secret's out now and we can all have a good laugh about it.

I think I'll keep the comedy routine going just for kicks though. From now on whenever you see some crazed rightwing nonsense on the board just know it's me joking around.

Thanks for clearing the record. In return, I will help you to keep the joke going by occasionally pretending to respond to your many identities seriously.

Quoting claymisher: By that logic every wingnut on this site is really me in satire-mode ... alright, you got me. It's all me! Me! Lyle, harkin, dkscwatzraz or whatever, all of them, it's all me! Fooled you! I'm so happy the secret's out now and we can all have a good laugh about it.

I think I'll keep the comedy routine going just for kicks though. From now on whenever you see some crazed rightwing nonsense on the board just know it's me joking around.

Wait a minute! How do we know who claymisher really is? There may be another commenter pretending in satire to be claymisher who in turn pretends to be others. And who could be behind that other commenter? Perhaps there is only one commentor behind all of us! OMG! Who am I?

As far as illegals go, I think what we should do is lock down the border as best we can, deport the illegals that commit violent crimes, and assimilate the rest.
I am not for insta deporting millions of people. In that way I am kind of torn. I do NOT looking upon illegal immigration as the same type of crime that has the same ethical dysfunction of say, theft or violence. The act of moving north to get more opportunity for your family and self seems a noble goal, even if illegal.
At the same time, I don't want to be like so many liberals and advocate open borders, whoever wants in, come in, who are we to police them. It is as if the very act is seen as somehow tainted and corrupt, a task that only inspires those with an undercurrent of racism, or so the open borders crowd would suggest.
Canada seems to have a more strict border enforcement policy than we do, they won't even let American citizens into their country if they have a felony. Is that legitimate? Is any type of border enforcement legitimate? If so, what kind? Would stepping up security at

Bob Cesca: "The Tea Party Is All About Race" and "The Tea Party Is All About Race, Part 2."

And we must be agnostic about any and all of these possibilities otherwise we are just dogmatic, fundamentalist disbelievers.

Quoting Wonderment: Big lie, Harkin. Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for welfare, foodstamps and unemployment in California.

What about their kids? (not unemployment, of course)

Quoting badhatharry: What about their kids? (not unemployment, of course)

They're legal citizens.

Quoting SpikeTedAgnew:
Is it news to anyone that hard work contributes enormously to being excellent?

This seems to have been the main conclusion. Was a book absolutely necessary? My mom told me that!

Quoting dkschwartz: The blank slate myth is the basis of so many terrible ppolicies but the most diastrous consquence is that we've based our terrible immigration system on this myth and we will pay the consquences dearly.

LOOK AT A IQ/GDP MAP OF THE WORLD. IF YOU KNOW A NATIONS AVERAGE IQ YOU CAN SAY WITH GREAT ACCURACY HOW RICH THAT NATION WILL BE.

IT IS NOT AN ACCIDENT THAT THE POOREST REGION ON EARTH'S AVERAGE IQ IS 70 (BORDERLINE RETARDED) THAT REGION IS OFCOURSE SUB-SAHRAN AFRICA.

So, I'm not sure how the blank slate myth translates into immigration policy. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

Quoting I'm SO awesome!: does anyone think GWB is as smart as Stephen hawking?

But Stephen Hawking talks funny! Oops so does GWB....never mind.

Quoting Florian: Boring indeed. I knew that as soon as people like you intervened in this discussion, we would see the usual clownish antics. The interest of Murray and his followers in the pseudo-science of intelligence is subordinate to their political agenda.

In any case, my post had nothing to do with "heritability."

are you Francoamerican in disguise?

Quoting AemJeff: They're legal citizens.

not all of them.

Quoting badhatharry: not all of them.

Then they're not on Welfare.

Just sayin.'

and your point is...?

Quoting listener: and your point is...?

He is saying Will is rocking new bearded looks now.
I think it is less stoner, more Obi-Wan though.

Quoting claymisher: What happens when you take statistics seriously:Read the whole thing.

Hi Clay - I have a question about the Shalizi paper that I was hoping you could answer. I am sure that somewhere within me is an economic genius just waiting for the proper nurturance so that it can blossom, but it will be far faster for me to just ask you than to wait for that to happen, so here goes: NB: I am assuming that Shalizi's point about factor analysis has to do with all statistical analyses, not just with ones related to intelligence. Rather than IQ, my question relates to personality, which is similarly subject to intense nature/nurture debates. Many studies have been done looking at personality traits among siblings raised apart, siblings raised together, fraternal twins raised apart, fraternal twins raised together, identical twins raised apart, identical twins raised together, adoptees raised among biological siblings, and unrelated members of the general public. Studies that DO NOT examine all of these combinations, which separate the effects of environment from the effects of genes to the extent possible, tend to find high correlations between the environment and personality. Studies which DO examine all of these combinations tend to

Quoting Me&theboys: Hi Clay - I have a question about the Shalizi paper that I was hoping you could answer. I am sure that somewhere within me is an economic genius just waiting for the proper nurturance so that it can blossom, but it will be far faster for me to just ask you than to wait for that to happen, so here goes:

NB: I am assuming that Shalizi's point about factor analysis has to do with all statistical analyses, not just with ones related to intelligence.

Rather than IQ, my question relates to personality, which is similarly subject to intense nature/nurture debates. Many studies have been done looking at personality traits among siblings raised apart, siblings raised together, fraternal twins raised apart, fraternal twins raised together, identical twins raised apart, identical twins raised together, adoptees raised among biological siblings, and unrelated members of the general public. Studies that DO NOT examine all of these combinations, which separate the effects of environment from the effects of genes to the extent possible, tend to find high correlations between the environment and personality. Studies which DO examine all of these combinations tend to find low correlations between the environment and personality and

Quoting claymisher: I doubt I can be much help. Shalizi's discussion of factor analysis is right at the edge of my comprehension. What Shalizi's getting at is that what you're assuming to be true ("Studies which DO," "Studies ... tend to find high correlations," "Studies ... tend to find low correlations") may not actually show what people think the show.

If you're curious about the mechanics of twin studies, I got another link for you.

OK. I read that. But it is statements like this from Shalizi that prompted my original question: "If identical twins experience more similar environmental influences on accent than fraternal twins, then even it [the study] will conclude that accent is, in fact, heritable." This is true, but the reason for this possible finding is that the study is only comparing identical and fraternal twins, who have a large amount of genetic similarity to begin with, and which therefore does not isolate the influence of genes versus environment. For such a finding to have any meaning, the same things would have to be studied in individuals with fewer and with no shared genes and then compared to the results among twins. In a well controlled and designed

Dieter, Thanks for your comments. I apologize for the long delay in responding. I've just been overwhelmed with travel and media and such. You write:

Your straw man consists in your use of the personal pronouns "you" and "we", when you should more accurately use the first person singular "I".
The subtitle of your book "Why Everything You've Been Told About Genetics, Talent, and IQ Is Wrong" doesn't apply to me, since none of what you told us is new to me.

That is a totally fair point. I don't much like that subtitle, for two reasons. One is the reason you outline: it's so broad-brush that it's logically impossible. The second reason is that I thought it was needlessly provocative and overkill. The main title is provocative enough, and isn't meant to be taken literally either -- but is defensible, I believe. I would have preferred that the subtitle lower the temperature and put it more in terms of an argument. That said, the main point of the subtitle is that the general public has a particular impression about what IQ is and how genes work and where talent comes from, and I think that impression is wrong. I know not every person on earth

Quoting David Shenk: ...

I do not argue in the book that we can ever hope to fully control these interactions. I do argue that the better we understand them, and the more we articulate phenotype as a process rather than an innate thing, the better off we'll all be.

best,

David

Almost no one is against better understanding interactions.
The problem is that by describing phenotype as a process rather than an innate thing, you diminish the role of the genotype to back seat status. If I took two seeds, one natural, the other was engineered by some biotech company to be more pest resistant and drought resistant and planted each in identical soil types, it is true the the environment has a great influence on the outcome of those seeds. But none of that acknowledgement negates the fact that the engineered seed is more resilient to lower levels of water in the soil. It does not change the fact that to get the SAME yield from the budding plants in arid soil you would have to add more water to the natural seed, if it could survive at all. No matter how

The problem is that by describing phenotype as a process rather than an innate thing, you diminish the role of the genotype to back seat status.

Jon, I think this is very helpful in clarifying the discussion, because of course you are right that inputs matter. And of course you are right that genes should not be relegated to back-seat status. But if you read my book you'll see that I'm actually not doing that. Yes, I'm putting an awful lot of focus on trying to better understand the intricacies and influence of environmental inputs, but I also make it crystal clear that genes are critical, powerful actors. If it feels to you like I am emphasizing environmental influences at the expense of genetic influence, that's because I do think we need a correction in the public understanding of the relative power of each influence. To use your analogy, what I'm trying to do is bring the environmental inputs up to the front seat *with* the genes, and I'm pointing out that this is one of those wacky cars where both genes and environment each have their own steering wheel. The