tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post116595513091215586..comments2024-03-23T12:05:13.464-07:00Comments on Ideas: Dishonest WordsDavid Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06543763515095867595noreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-61085001002519406162011-11-05T13:14:41.147-07:002011-11-05T13:14:41.147-07:00"For your delectation, I have a small collect..."For your delectation, I have a small collection of rightwing and libertarian propaganda terms which tend to be mostly unspeak, phatic, or both:"<br /><br />"economic freedom..."<br /><br />This is a mostly excellent list. However, one of the most frustrating things about Mike's style is that he makes statements like this without any sense that he or his fellow travelers do exactly the same thing. He could say, "I don't like code words used by anyone and have written about it generally here [insert URL], but since this is a mostly libertarian blog, I will illustrate with phrases you use," but he doesn't and as far as I can tell, never has. He is unable to turn his analytical engine on himself or the pro-state left (PSL) at all.<br /><br />I qualify "excellent" with "mostly" because some of those phrases are just as apt to be used by the PSL and some of them are used by such a small cross-section of the people Mike follows that the brush stroke is overly broad. Here is a list of PSL terms that more or less corresponds to Mike's list:<br /><br />Economic justice<br />Regulated market<br />Fair trade<br />Democratic control<br />Community-based<br />Basic Rights (in the sense of economic and/or positive rights)<br />Public interest<br />Public oversight<br />Legislative process<br />Transparency<br />Policy<br />Plutocracy<br />Koch Brothers<br />Market failure<br />Economic incentives<br />Authoritarian (yep, both lists)<br />Totalitarian (both)<br />Fascist<br />Communitarian<br />Public hearing<br />Solidarity<br />Corporate control<br />Justice<br />Democracy<br />Maximize Public good<br />Social contract<br />Fairness<br />Special interest<br />Redistribution<br />"life (in the Randian sense)"?<br />Balanced interests<br />Corporate greed<br />Smart policy<br />Settled science / peer-reviewed science<br />Democracy (both)<br />Reason/rationality (both)<br />Progressive<br />Social contract theory<br />Police state<br />General will<br />For the children<br />Public safety<br />Will of the majority<br />Social justice<br />Smart growth<br />Sustainable<br />“The people” (plural as opposed to singular, see Arendt on revolution)<br />Advantage<br /><br />Also, to Mike's list (at least so far as it applies to conservatives), I would have added "liberal media" and correspondingly to the other list, "Fox news".Eric Hhttp://www.grimreader.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-20516195550761881742009-03-17T19:00:00.000-07:002009-03-17T19:00:00.000-07:00Mike Huben Typed:"The other fallacy in the stateme...Mike Huben Typed:<BR/><BR/>"The other fallacy in the statement is the assumption (for IQ) that different roles in reproduction would benefit from different IQ’s"<BR/><BR/>Mike, Where, but in your own mind does David make the assumption "that different roles in reproduction would benefit from different IQ’s"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-1166992340523262562006-12-24T12:32:00.000-08:002006-12-24T12:32:00.000-08:00David, your evolutionary arguments remind me of an...<EM>David, your evolutionary arguments remind me of an Econ 101 freshman who proposes that markets are the solutions for everything because he’s learned of Pareto Efficiency. No concept of macroeconomics, no knowledge of economic history, no econometrics background, no concept of what the research shows, no concepts of market failures: just a few general principles to reason by.</EM><BR/><BR/>Why in the world you expect anyone to listen to you after that puzzles me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-1166899331093093962006-12-23T10:42:00.000-08:002006-12-23T10:42:00.000-08:00David, your evolutionary arguments remind me of a...David, your evolutionary arguments remind me of an Econ 101 freshman who proposes that markets are the solutions for everything because he’s learned of Pareto Efficiency. No concept of macroeconomics, no knowledge of economic history, no econometrics background, no concept of what the research shows, no concepts of market failures: just a few general principles to reason by.<BR/><BR/>And given that ignorance, the freshman could declare that he finds some economic arguments, even those of Nobel Laureates, “utterly unconvincing”, full of “unsupported assumption[s]”, etc.<BR/><BR/>Researchers have been looking HARD for differences in innate abilities such as IQ for a long time. Finding differences due to culture, nutrition, and other aspects of upbringing has been trivially easy. Obvious differences such as primary and secondary sexual characteristics have also been trivially easy to identify and explain genetically, developmentally, and physiologically. This is a big hint that your “a priori” reasoning will not give us a reliable answer.<BR/><BR/>“males and females are both selected for reproductive success, their roles in reproduction are different, hence we would expect different distributions of abilities and behavioral characteristics to be optimal for the different genders.”<BR/><BR/>Now that’s an example of freshman-style logic about evolution. What’s wrong with it? The big fallacy is that this statement gives us no reason to expect a difference in any one specific characteristic, such as IQ. We know there are plenty of characteristics which just plain don’t differ. Indeed, almost all innate differences would have to be rooted in the X and Y chromosomes, which have very small portions of our genomes.<BR/><BR/>It’s equally fallacious to slide in the unstated assumption that these are innate genetic differences, rather than cultural/developmental/environmental differences, which also can modify reproductive success, and which also tend to be passed down to children.<BR/><BR/>The other fallacy in the statement is the assumption (for IQ) that different roles in reproduction would benefit from different IQ’s. An “unstated and, I think, unsupported assumption”. Now, that’s also assuming IQ means something (which is a debate we don’t need to reopen here right now.) But if we examine something more definite, such as ability to do mathematics, it is not clear that mathematical ability at the level tested today played any role in natural selection of our ancesters: indeed, it’s considered a major mystery just why we have such advanced abilities at all.<BR/><BR/>In conclusion, I view David’s opinions as more contrarian than scientific. If I were to argue for the existence of fairies, I’d have to use exactly the same sorts of scientism, “logic”, and arguments that David has. And I’d whine about how scientists consider it taboo to discuss fairies, despite the lengthy and fruitless search for evidence, despite the repeated historical frauds, ignoring the fact that there are excellent supported explanations for the supposed influences of fairies. Anybody who’s familiar with the skeptical literature should recognize the symptoms of woo that David’s exhibiting.Mike Hubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-1166853768740406342006-12-22T22:02:00.000-08:002006-12-22T22:02:00.000-08:00Would legislating equal group outcomes be justifie...<EM>Would legislating equal group outcomes be justified if there were no such differences between groups?</EM><BR/><BR/>WWJD?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-1166844937315713672006-12-22T19:35:00.000-08:002006-12-22T19:35:00.000-08:00"If the differences do exist, then the conventiona...<I>"If the differences do exist, then the conventional deduction from observed differences in outcomes is unjustified, at least until we know enough about the size of the innate differences to tell if they are likely to be responsible."</I><BR/><BR/>Would legislating equal group outcomes be justified if there were no such differences between groups?John T. Kennedyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15062305736757937808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-1166818046595033732006-12-22T12:07:00.000-08:002006-12-22T12:07:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06543763515095867595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-1166818203860916322006-12-22T12:10:00.000-08:002006-12-22T12:10:00.000-08:00Peter writes:"If we expect to legislate for equal ...Peter writes:<BR/><BR/>"If we expect to legislate for equal outcomes ..."<BR/><BR/>I think this is an important point. Even if there are significant differences in IQ distribution and other behavioral characteristics between races as conventionally defined, they are unlikely to be big enough to provide enough information to be useful for individual decision making. By the time you are deciding whether to hire someone, or admit him to your school, or go to work for him, you should have better information than is provided by the color of his skin.<BR/><BR/>Where it does matter is in evaluating outcomes. Pretty much whenever statistics show different outcomes by race or gender, it is reported as evidence of discriminaton; indeed, as the Harvard flap demonstrates, it can be dangerous to your career to even suggest the possibility of an alternative explanation.<BR/><BR/>But that conclusion depends on an unstated and, I think, unsupported assumption--that the distribution of innate abilities is the same between the two groups.<BR/><BR/>In the case of gender the assumption is not only unsupported but highly unlikely a priori, given the logic of evolution; males and females are both selected for reproductive success, their roles in reproduction are different, hence we would expect different distributions of abilities and behavioral characteristics to be optimal for the different genders.<BR/><BR/>In the case of race there is no similar a priori reason to expect differences but, pace Mike's arguments, which I continue to find utterly unconvincing, no a priori reason to reject them. If the differences do exist, then the conventional deduction from observed differences in outcomes is unjustified, at least until we know enough about the size of the innate differences to tell if they are likely to be responsible.David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06543763515095867595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-1166809078260843912006-12-22T09:37:00.000-08:002006-12-22T09:37:00.000-08:00Should the difference matter ? Absolutely not.I di...<EM>Should the difference matter ? Absolutely not.</EM><BR/><BR/>I disagree. If we expect to legislate for equal outcomes for all populations, when not all populations are in fact equal, then I think we're flirtin' with disaster. It's like thinking that we'll only really have gender equity if 51% of all fortune 500 CEO's are women.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-1166807459802962172006-12-22T09:10:00.000-08:002006-12-22T09:10:00.000-08:00But it's not impossibleYes, and the link doesn't n...<I>But it's not impossible</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, and the link doesn't need to be genetic. Even if the genes are completely unrelated, endogamy based on the color of skin can create and sustain difference in other genes.<BR/><BR/>How important can the difference be? Minimal I would guess if you consider the size of the groups. Should the difference matter ? Absolutely not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-1166774132596706162006-12-21T23:55:00.000-08:002006-12-21T23:55:00.000-08:00But since skin color (for instance) is produced by...<EM>But since skin color (for instance) is produced by several genes on different chromosomes, linkage to supposed IQ genes is rather unlikely.</EM><BR/><BR/>But it's not <STRONG>impossible.</STRONG> So I see no reason to object on principle to research into that potential link. That's the issue that I'm driving at --- not any particular conclusion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-1166758302896997742006-12-21T19:31:00.000-08:002006-12-21T19:31:00.000-08:00In reference to the term homophobia, I think that ...In reference to the term homophobia, I think that most people use it to mean people who fear or are repulsed by homosexuals, which squares well with the American Heritage Dictionary and the meaning of the root phobia. In using it to refer to all people who object to homosexuality they are not (intentionally at least) misrepresenting these people. Their usage reflects the fact that they really believe that objections to homosexuality arise not from piety but from a gut hatred or fear.<BR/><BR/>In my circles, at least, the basic thought process is this:<BR/>"Well, there is that bit in the Bible about men not sleeping with men, but it's in Leviticus for Christ's sake. I don't see major campaigns mounted against people who eat pork, marry widows, work on Sundays, etc. In truth, they must just think it's disgusting."<BR/><BR/>It's a big world, so surely there are people who think homosexuality is not repulsive and doesn't threaten them or their way of life, but object to it strictly on other grounds. The blanket use of the term homophobic reflects the judgment that this is rare.<BR/><BR/>Tells you more about the people using the term than those it's applied to I suppose.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-1166751303451274452006-12-21T17:35:00.000-08:002006-12-21T17:35:00.000-08:00Allow me to suggest a definition of "racial group"...Allow me to suggest a definition of "racial group" that I've found robust and useful: "a partly inbred extended family."<BR/><BR/>For a fuller explanation, please see:<BR/><BR/>http://www.vdare.com/sailer/presentation.htmSteve Sailerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11920109042402850214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-1166736278697833552006-12-21T13:24:00.000-08:002006-12-21T13:24:00.000-08:00Peter, you're getting farfetched. "Science doesn'...Peter, you're getting farfetched. "Science doesn't rule it out one way" is a weak battle cry. But since skin color (for instance) is produced by several genes on different chromosomes, linkage to supposed IQ genes is rather unlikely.Mike Hubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-1166725425993128452006-12-21T10:23:00.000-08:002006-12-21T10:23:00.000-08:00We can also talk about HERITABILITY of IQ. But tha...<EM>We can also talk about HERITABILITY of IQ. But that's population genetics, and to apply it to social constructions such as Libras or blacks is a category error: that science only applies to the scientific idea of populations. Not to "races".</EM><BR/><BR/>But what if the characteristics which allow for a particular social construction <EM>are</EM> heritable? Given linked gene theory, it then seems plausible that IQ could perhaps be tied to those genes responsible for the discerning features.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-1166697838037051242006-12-21T02:43:00.000-08:002006-12-21T02:43:00.000-08:00Peter, we're getting closer to a common understand...Peter, we're getting closer to a common understanding.<BR/><BR/>Sure, we could measure IQ of a socially constructed section of a population such as Libras or blacks. And it is valid to talk about how those social constructions affect the development of IQ: for example, Libras might be sent to inferior schools in inner cities.<BR/><BR/>We can also talk about HERITABILITY of IQ. But that's population genetics, and to apply it to social constructions such as Libras or blacks is a category error: that science only applies to the scientific idea of populations. Not to "races".Mike Hubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-1166679311023180262006-12-20T21:35:00.000-08:002006-12-20T21:35:00.000-08:00David"...the point I was making was not that calli...David<BR/><BR/><I>"...the point I was making was not that calling taxation robbery was a rhetorically sensible strategy..."</I> <BR/><BR/>Nor am I concerned with that. I'm asking: Were you were dishonestly implying anything about the motivations of supporters of taxation by calling it robbery?<BR/><BR/>If it's robbery does that mean you're saying the supporters of taxation are motivated chiefly to rob? I didn't read it that way.<BR/><BR/>Yet you say identifying someone as a statist implies they are guilty of "worship of the state". You're an anarchist; do you worship anarchy? If not, why would state worship be implicit in being a statist?<BR/><BR/>I identify someone as a statist when they prefer states to anarchy; when they assert that states are indispensible. I think it's perfectly reasonable to consider statism to be the logical complement of anarchism since anarchy is the logical complement of the state. None of this implies much about the motivations of statist.John T. Kennedyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15062305736757937808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-1166666892142138072006-12-20T18:08:00.000-08:002006-12-20T18:08:00.000-08:00Because of those nonsensical social constructs and...<EM>Because of those nonsensical social constructs and the bigotry that they incur, we need affirmative action.</EM><BR/><BR/>If we can identify these "social constructs" for purposes of bigotry, then we can identify them for purposes of science. It is apparently a scientific endeavor to study the achievement --- or lack thereof, perhaps owing to oppression --- of those considered "black." There is no reason why it should not be scientific to gather statistical data about the IQ of those considered "black."<BR/><BR/>You can't have it both ways. Either we recognize these "social constructs," and can gather meaningful data on them, or we cannot. The issue is binary in nature.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-1166653367685360612006-12-20T14:22:00.000-08:002006-12-20T14:22:00.000-08:00Once again, David is doing violence to the Englis...Once again, David is doing violence to the English language. There is nothing in his definition or usage of robbery that excludes debt collection. Even libertarians would call debt collection valid. And collecting owed taxes is just another type of debt collection, not robbery. If David has a complaint, it is with whether the taxes are owed or not, not that they are collected.<BR/><BR/>Peter is totally right of course that most normal people look at David’s ideas and think his rhetoric is crazy. They view taxes as legitimate, the way they view rents as legitimate.<BR/><BR/>Peter, to the extent that you are trying to use population genetics based theory to fit IQ measurements to erroneous ideas of populations, you are doomed to fail scientifically. It’s a category error.<BR/><BR/>Human races are BS scientifically: however, there are silly social constructs popularly called race, which all too many people take seriously. Because of those nonsensical social constructs and the bigotry that they incur, we need affirmative action. If people discriminated against some zodiacal sign, such as Libra, we’d need affirmative action for Libras. But nobody in their right mind would call Libras a race, or even hint that there was some correlation between their IQs and their genetics.Mike Hubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-1166597010286070972006-12-19T22:43:00.000-08:002006-12-19T22:43:00.000-08:00David,I still think that referring to taxation as ...David,<BR/><BR/>I still think that referring to taxation as robbery in passing conversation with normals is going to earn you the same kind of look that wearing a pink tutu with lime green swastikas would. It's just bad rhetoric because, regardless of what the dictionary says, people don't see their understanding of taxation as falling under their understanding of robbery. To have a hope of getting people to see things your way, you've got to start at the beginning, with the (in)validity of the constitution. IMAO.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-1166594408485343852006-12-19T22:00:00.000-08:002006-12-19T22:00:00.000-08:00On the question of whether taxation is robbery, t...On the question of whether taxation is robbery, two point:<BR/><BR/>1. In the particular post John cited, the point I was making was not that calling taxation robbery was a rhetorically sensible strategy but that the proper term was "robbery" not "theft," since the taking was in most cases open rather than by stealth.<BR/><BR/>2. I wouldn't be surprised if there are definitions of "robbery" that require the act to be illegal; I haven't tried to search the net for different definitions. The one I found, however, was:<BR/><BR/>" - The taking, or attempting to take, anything of value from the care, custody, or control of another person or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or putting the victim in fear."<BR/><BR/>I think that fits most taxation.David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06543763515095867595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-1166579337505097752006-12-19T17:48:00.000-08:002006-12-19T17:48:00.000-08:00That unscientific definition has little to do with...<EM>That unscientific definition has little to do with genetics except as spurious corellations.</EM><BR/><BR/>It's a world's tallest midget problem. I'd still argue that there's usefulness in recognizing midgets (and blacks) even if we can't precisely define what it means.<BR/><BR/>Even further, if you really think race is a BS concept, then you're putting a nail in the coffin for such as Affirmative Action. Now I'm all over that like white on rice, but is that really a reflection of your position?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-1166579107645069712006-12-19T17:45:00.000-08:002006-12-19T17:45:00.000-08:00It's anti-social to voice an honest conclusion?Com...<EM>It's anti-social to voice an honest conclusion?</EM><BR/><BR/>Comb yo beard, I don't wanna hear that shit from you. Why don't you give me an example and then I'll tell you whether it's a dick move or not --- I'm certainly not gonna sit here and do the Noam Chomsky "Lord of the Semantics" dance to appease your fetid ass.<BR/><BR/><EM>Can one honestly conclude that taxation is legal robbery?</EM><BR/><BR/>WTF are we even arguing about now? See above. This is asinine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-1166571692368122552006-12-19T15:41:00.000-08:002006-12-19T15:41:00.000-08:00Mike,What makes the correlations spurious, other t...Mike,<BR/><BR/>What makes the correlations spurious, other than your egalitarian instinct telling you a priori that the common notion of race carries no useful information? Surely you're not just taking that as an article of faith.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-1166563676799229232006-12-19T13:27:00.000-08:002006-12-19T13:27:00.000-08:00Albatross, I didn't say "there's no such thing as ...Albatross, I didn't say "there's no such thing as race".<BR/><BR/>What I said was:<BR/>"What we’re left with is a folk definition of race, having to do with superficial differences and geographic origins."<BR/><BR/>That unscientific definition has little to do with genetics except as spurious corellations. The reason that's so has to do with cladistics: the unscientific definition is both paraphyletic and polyphyletic.<BR/><BR/>You find corellations between any two things: the question is what they mean.Mike Hubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.com