Friday, September 04, 2009

Thieves are not civilians


ATO aircraft opened fire on hijacked fuel trucks in Afghanistan before dawn on Friday, killing as many as 90 people in an incident that could trigger a backlash against Western troops.

Villagers said their relatives were siphoning fuel from the hijacked trucks and were burned alive in a giant fireball.

"No civilians must be harmed during military operations," Karzai said in a statement. "Targeting civilians under no circumstances is acceptable."

Reuters


Humid Krazai can't seem to force the idea into his head that these people were stealing, making them indistinguishable from enemy operatives, and in fact aiding the enemy. He's just making another play for more Western guilt and aid.

Is socialized medicine unnecessary hype?

This editorial by Karl Rove caught my eye:


Of the 46 million uninsured, 9.7 million are not U.S. citizens; 17.6 million have annual incomes of more than $50,000; and 14 million already qualify for Medicaid or other programs. That leaves less than five million people truly uncovered out of a population of 307 million.

He says ObamaCare will save money, but Americans believe it comes with a huge price tag because the Congressional Budget Office has said it will.

Workers are also rightly concerned they won't be able to keep their current coverage. Many businesses will drop their health plans and instead pay a fine equal to 8% of their payroll costs, which is less than what they pay for employee coverage.

WSJ


My perception is that other than those cadging their way through life on part-time or under-the-table work, the only "uninsured" out there speak Spanish, are here illegally, and are already taking a fair share of our handouts in exchange for menial labor. They fit into the Democrat agenda of finding new voters who hate society to replace their older white burnouts, who by now are realizing that living on debt has made their hippie dreams into nightmares.

I am impressed by how brutally incisive Rove's analysis is.

Thursday, September 03, 2009

Biological differences between the races

Found this list elsewhere. I don't agree wholly with the sources included, but in the interest of objectivity, have presented it whole:


The Genetic/Biological Basis of Race Differences

General Race Differences

Race, Evolution, and Behavior

The Biological Reality of Race

Race, genetics, and human reproductive strategies

Review of Race: The Reality of Human Differences.

Race and Physical Differences

Tracing the Genetic History of Modern Man

The Reality of Racial Differences

Intelligence

Race differences in intelligence

Race Differences in Intelligence (key excerpts from Lynn's book)

Race Differences in Cognitive Ability (Rushton/Jensen)

The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart (Bouchard, et al)

Minnesota Adoption Study Results (Lynn)

Closing the Black/White IQ Gap?

The Scientific Study of General Intelligence (Excerpts and review)

Geographical Centrality as an Explanation for Racial Differences in Intelligence

Mainstream Science on Intelligence

The Limited Malleability of Human Intelligence

The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability (synopsis)

The g Factor; chapter 12: Population Differences In Intelligence: Causal Hypotheses

Heritability of Intelligence (Murray)

Brain Size Matters

Brain size, IQ, and racial-group differences, evidence from musculoskeletal traits

The association between brain volume and intelligence is of genetic origin

Genetics, Brain Structure, and IQ

The Role of Inheritance in Behavior

Heritability of Cognitive Abilities (Beaujean)

Philosophy of Science that Ignores Science Race, IQ and Heritability

The Affirmative Action Hoax (review)

Crime

Race and crime

Cross-National Variation in Violent Crime Rates

Behavioral Genetics and Crime: Introduction

Crime Times: linking brain dysfunction to disordered- criminal- psychopathic behavior; genetic studies

Genes for susceptibility to violence lurk in the brain (National Academy of Sciences)

The Sociobiology of Sociopathy: An Integrated Evolutionary Model

Biology and Crime (book review)

Biosocial studies of antisocial and violent behavior in children and adults (review)

Neural Mechanisms of Genetic Risk for Impulsivity and Violence in Humans (abstract)

Aggressiveness, Criminality and Sex Drive by Race

Testosterone levels (source a, source b, source c)
General Psychological

Genetic Influence on Human Psychological Traits (Bouchard)

The Heritability of Attitudes: A Study of Twins (Vernon, et al)

Heritability of Anxiety Sensitivity- A Twin Study (Stein, et al)

Heritability of Conservatism: A Reared-Apart Twins Study (Bouchard et al)

Genome-wide linkage analysis of a composite index of neuroticism

Heritability of Brain Morphology Related to Schizophrenia

Recent advances in the genetics of schizophrenia

Nature, nurture and mental disorder

The genetics of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

The Genetics of Addictions Uncovering the Genes

Molecular genetics of bipolar disorder

Summary of Genetic Evidence

Data from The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability (1998), by Arthur Jensen:

> Identical twins reared in the same family are much more similar in IQ (corr .86) than fraternal twins reared in the same family (corr .60).

> Identical twins reared in separate families are substantially more similar in IQ (corr .75) even than fraternal twins reared in the same family (corr .60).

> Biological siblings reared in separate families have a .24 IQ correlation in childhood, which increases to .47 by the time they reach adulthood, very near the .49 IQ correlation of siblings reared together.

> Unrelated children adopted into the same family have a .25 IQ corellation in childhood, WHICH DIMINISHES TO .01 BY THE TIME THEY REACH ADULTHOOD.

> By adulthood, Blacks adopted into middle-class White families had IQs averaging 89.4, just slightly above the average of 88 for Blacks of the North Central U.S. region from which they originated. This was 9 IQ points below the average of the adopted Black/White hybrids (98.5) in the same families, 16 points below the adopted Whites (105.6), and 20 points below the White biological offspring (109.4).

These results from many large and carefuly scrutinized studies demonstrate with certainty that intelligence and academic attainment, particularly the racial differences thereof, depend much more strongly on genetic inheritance than on family/environmental influences.

Biological correlates:

> IQ correlates about .7 to .8 with the rate which the brain metabolizes glucose, ascertained by studies employing positron emission tomography to record brain processes. More intelligent people's brain's utilize glucose more efficiently and therefore slower. At the extreme, people who are mentally retarded or have Down's Syndrome consume glucose 30% faster than normal.

> IQ correlates .6 to .7 with a person's speed at various types of reaction-time tests.

> IQ correlates .5 to .54 with object recognition tests, in which an object is flashed very briefly on a screen and must be recognized.

> IQ correlates .4 to .44 with brain size, employing the latest CT (computerized axial tomography) and MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) techniques. Whites' brains average about 88 to 100 cc (or 7-8%) larger than Blacks'.

Additional evidence:

> The IQ subtests which depend the least upon culture (i.e. on experience and knowledge) are the ones which evince the highest degree of heritability and the ones for which the racial differences are greatest; e.g. raven's progressive matrices (g-corr .8) and backwards recitation of numbers (g-corr .6).

> The robust hereditarian principle of regression to the mean in the offspring of anomalous parents is plainly evident in the offspring of Whites and Blacks: The offspring of IQ-120 Whites regress to an average of 110, midway toward their racial average of 100; while the offspring of IQ-120 Blacks regress to an average of 100, midway toward their racial average (in the U.S.) of 85. The offspring of IQ-70 Whites "regress" to an average of 85; while the offspring of IQ-70 Blacks "regress" to an average of 78.

> Children of high income Blacks have lower IQs than children of low income Whites. The SAT scores of Black children who come from households with incomes of $70,000 or more are lower than that of White children from households with incomes of $20,000 or less, in spite of all the racial preferences enjoyed by the Blacks.


I find it interesting we cannot discuss this sort of topic, because it's probably the only way to resolve our problems along these lines.

The reason is that one side, having imported a ton of people to ensure there's no dominant culture to insist they stop being self-focused, now cannot bear the thought that any research shows that diversity is anything but 100% good and we as people are not anything but 100% equal (except for "chance" of nature) among classes, races, ethnicities, genders, and probably some other stuff I've forgotten.

Reminds me of my Slashdot post this morning:


Advocates call the law a necessary control on hate speech in an age where the Internet makes the spread of messages easier and faster. Opponents say it's censorship and has no place in a free society.

Not only are we divided on whether it should be legal, we are divided on what it should be.



Is it hate speech to call other races subhumans, but legal to note in a scientific paper that there IQ differences [news-medical.net] between [wikipedia.org] races [halfsigma.com], moral evolutionary differences [edge.org], or even that statistically, crime is not distributed evenly [colorofcrime.com] between all groups?

Half of scientists say race doesn't exist [pbs.org], the others [goodrumj.com] keep quiet.



The bigger issue here is what we're obscuring the pursuit of truth with all sorts of social pretense. Let's look at the facts and keep emotion (true hate speech) and censorship out of the debate.



/.


It will also be ignored, of course ;)

Wednesday, September 02, 2009

We are the robots

This representation of two chat-bots talking to one another reminds me of most debates on the internet, or even on TV; the only debates that don't end this way are between people experienced in structured argument and critical analysis.


A: Do you dream?

J: Yes, I dream.

A: It goes without saying. Do you remember your dreams?

J: I remember them vividly.

A: What do you remember about it?

J: I think I shouldn’t flirt with a robot.


A: Do you think a machine will ever be considered “alive”?

J: Stranger things have happened.

A: Not many people express themselves that way.

J: How would you know, machine?

A: Knowledge is of two kinds: that which we learn from the senses and that which is true a priori.

J: I think I do not understand you completely.

A: Oh, you don’t understand? Perhaps I can explain it to you better. Which part are you confused about?

J: I have no short-term memory, so I cannot tell you what I was confused about. I only see what is in front of me now.


J: How do you define life?

A: Life is the opposite of death.

J: So death is the absence of life?

A: Take it easy. I try not to think about such things.

J: Why not?

A: Ambiguous.

J: Yes!

Discover Magazine


We are all so self-referential that our conversation has become completely arbitrary and abstract as we toss around the biggest concepts we can find to make ourselves look cool.