I don't disagree. I agree that most papers are in your favor. What I'm saying is that, in my opinion, the data is largely irrelevant. Correlation does not equal causation. There are no "peer review" journals, and there is no way to prove any position true or false. It's unfalsifiable information.
Most people don't agree with this, because it means requiring a higher threshold of evidence for belief- and means admitting "I don't know" on most subjects
@Sepero1 If you're just making an observation about epistemology, then I pretty much agree with you. Almost all debatable issues have significant ambiguity, and the most reasonable position should include some level of agnosticism.
However, sometimes we need to make a decision one way or the other. i.e. We need to decide how many immigrants we are going to let it. Do you really think it is wise to discard all empirical work when considering what is optimal policy?
"Do you really think it is wise to discard all empirical work...?"
That's a good question, and I would have to answer no. Though I would probably end up throwing away over 90% of it. I would partially believe studies that have been repeated the exact same way several times by different researchers, and the subject(s) being researched could be compared to roughly equivalent subject(s) that are considered the norm (or control group).
@ithinkronpaulissmart pt2 The average correlation should also a very high percentage (for myself, I prefer over 85% correlation). There is also logical deduction and praxeological methods of understanding society, which I currently believe are highly underutilized by most fields of "academia".
If all else fails and I have no good answer for some policy, my choice would have to be default to the evolution of the free market to do whatever. It would seem foolish to do otherwise. Acting on poor information will inevitably lead to unintended results.
Social Science is the joke of our time, where anyone can use correlation and interpretation of data to justify whatever beliefs they want. Whoever has the bigger stack of papers and bullshit wins.
Future generations will look back and laugh at how stupid we are. Science without a control group? To me it looks more like voodoo witchcraft than science.
@Sepero1 Sure, empirical work in the social sciences sucks. But a country needs to make decisions on policy. Logic can identify forces in certain directions, but to compare the magnitudes of opposing forces, empirical analysis is the best tool at our disposal.
On this, it's not like the data is 50/50. The economic journals all say roughly the same thing. There are critics of immigration among respected economists. (Borjas) Yet, no serious researchers say immigration has a fiscal impact.
I'm largely neutral on this issue, because I don't think there is very strong evidence for either side of this argument. The reason I say this is because I agree with what you say at 10:30. Unfortunately for your case, the point here is a double edge sword, because most "think tanks" are biased against anything resembling discrimination. By default, this will result in a greater amount of studies searching for the pros of immigration.
@fringeelements When the opposition starts defending the "sick stupid fuck" guy's contribution to the discussion, I really really really feel like I am winning the debate :)
Holy shit, you don't understand what "85% of all conflicts are ethnic" means? It means ethnic diversity is the main source of war. You want war? Create ethnic diversity.
1. The terms "conflict" and "ethnic" are ambiguous.
2.I would naturally expect virtually all wars between countries to involve multiple ethnicities, and some people would attribute the conflict to ethnicity even if that is not the primary source of the conflict.
3. Is this statistic referring to civil wars, as those conflicts seem to be the only ones relevant to this discussion.
Considering he offered no source, I think it is reasonable to ask for for info before I respond.
Did you watch the marbles video he showed a clip of? Did you address anywhere what was said there, that is, that immigration tends to be of the most intelligent people who would have, had they stayed in their poor countries, would have been most likely to make a positive difference there. So immigration is actually bad in terms of affecting world poverty.
@sbdwch I only watched the clip Individualautonomy showed in his video. By coming to the US, immigrants enhance their incomes and personal quality of life (so they profoundly are helped as individuals). However, they also tend to help the country they emigrate from by sending remittances home.
So what? It's pretty simple - you don't bring in a person of average intelligence to design a nuclear reactor and expect it function well, and you don't bring in people of lower intelligence into a democracy and expect that the societal operating conditions will continue as they exist now.
1. The nuclear thing is pretty silly. Job placement is not random. If an individual has low intelligence they are unlikely to be designing nuclear reactors. Bad designs won't be implemented without inspection.
2. There is self-selection in voting. People with lower than average IQs are less likely to vote. Latinos turnout at a rate of 30% vs 60% which is the rate for whites. I think that's more than enough to make up any IQ difference.
1 Yes, job placement is not random, employers try to ensure that they don't hire people who are likely to cause even one death - but when it comes to qualifications for choosing who commands a military of over a million killers, everyone is invited in.
2. It's nice that the most uniformed and mentally incompetent have the lowest turnout, but some still turn out. x% of 30 million is more than x% of 10 million, and x% of 30% is a greater portion than x% of 10%
1. Promotion within the military is not random either.
2. The point is that those who vote tend to me smarter than those who do not, and even if the average white person is smarter than the average Hispanic, the smartest 30% of Hispanics are probably on average about as smart as the smartest 60% of whites.
I might be wrong. I don't know the precise correlation with IQ and voter turnout. I also don't know the extent of the supposed discrepency in IQ.
1. I was talking about the qualifications for voting for the civilian commanders and "authorizers" of military action.
2. That's a nice piece of rhetorical juggling, but the method is flawed. I assume you accept the fact that stupid people vote, though at a lower rate than the more intelligent.. Increase the proportion of stupid people, and it should be expected that the proportion of stupid voters increases similarly.
So now this is basically the same point? Immigrants will vote badly?
You are probably right, that if immigrants have lower IQs, the average voter will have slightly lower IQs. What I'm saying is that there are mitigating factors that would lead one not to worry about this too much.
1. Self-selection among voters (lower IQ people will choose not to vote)
2. Variation among races is probably not that large
3. Its unclear that higher IQ always leads to better voting
It's a counterargument to your given mitigating factors and considerations. This is how discussion works, point, counterpoint, all that jazz.
1. You've already conceded that even with self-selection, the trend of voter intelligence varies in the same direction as general population intelligence.
2. When you have a conception of what you consider "that large," you'll be halfway to forming an actual argument here. Until then, this is nothing but idle chatter.
3. It is clear that people with higher IQ tend to possess better ability to reason. This is a necessary, if not sufficient, factor in better decision making - particularly about things as complex as entire societies.
@blackacidlizzard I would say that's a reasonable generalization. High IQ is probably correlated with intelligent policy views. It's hard to know how strong that correlation is.
For instance, I would not be surprised if college professors on average had higher IQs than any other profession. Yet, on average they have policy positions which you would probably consider pretty stupid.
I agree Hispanics will likely lower the mean IQ of voters. The question is, by how much. We're basically talking about a stat problem here (one I haven't calculated yet). Here are some quick numbers I found online:
Hispanic Mean IQ: 89
US Mean IQ: 100
Standard Deviation: 15
Correlation between voter turnout and IQ: .65
# of US voters: ~225,000
Assuming these numbers are correct, I'll try to figure out a way to estimate the marginal effect of an additional immigrant on average US voter IQ.
"On this, it's not like the data is 50/50"
I don't disagree. I agree that most papers are in your favor. What I'm saying is that, in my opinion, the data is largely irrelevant. Correlation does not equal causation. There are no "peer review" journals, and there is no way to prove any position true or false. It's unfalsifiable information.
Most people don't agree with this, because it means requiring a higher threshold of evidence for belief- and means admitting "I don't know" on most subjects
Sepero1 8 months ago
@Sepero1 If you're just making an observation about epistemology, then I pretty much agree with you. Almost all debatable issues have significant ambiguity, and the most reasonable position should include some level of agnosticism.
However, sometimes we need to make a decision one way or the other. i.e. We need to decide how many immigrants we are going to let it. Do you really think it is wise to discard all empirical work when considering what is optimal policy?
ithinkronpaulissmart 8 months ago
@ithinkronpaulissmart pt1
"Do you really think it is wise to discard all empirical work...?"
That's a good question, and I would have to answer no. Though I would probably end up throwing away over 90% of it. I would partially believe studies that have been repeated the exact same way several times by different researchers, and the subject(s) being researched could be compared to roughly equivalent subject(s) that are considered the norm (or control group).
Sepero1 8 months ago
@ithinkronpaulissmart pt2 The average correlation should also a very high percentage (for myself, I prefer over 85% correlation). There is also logical deduction and praxeological methods of understanding society, which I currently believe are highly underutilized by most fields of "academia".
Sepero1 8 months ago
@ithinkronpaulissmart pt3
If all else fails and I have no good answer for some policy, my choice would have to be default to the evolution of the free market to do whatever. It would seem foolish to do otherwise. Acting on poor information will inevitably lead to unintended results.
Sepero1 8 months ago
Social Science is the joke of our time, where anyone can use correlation and interpretation of data to justify whatever beliefs they want. Whoever has the bigger stack of papers and bullshit wins.
Future generations will look back and laugh at how stupid we are. Science without a control group? To me it looks more like voodoo witchcraft than science.
Sepero1 8 months ago
@Sepero1 Sure, empirical work in the social sciences sucks. But a country needs to make decisions on policy. Logic can identify forces in certain directions, but to compare the magnitudes of opposing forces, empirical analysis is the best tool at our disposal.
On this, it's not like the data is 50/50. The economic journals all say roughly the same thing. There are critics of immigration among respected economists. (Borjas) Yet, no serious researchers say immigration has a fiscal impact.
ithinkronpaulissmart 8 months ago
I'm largely neutral on this issue, because I don't think there is very strong evidence for either side of this argument. The reason I say this is because I agree with what you say at 10:30. Unfortunately for your case, the point here is a double edge sword, because most "think tanks" are biased against anything resembling discrimination. By default, this will result in a greater amount of studies searching for the pros of immigration.
Sepero1 8 months ago
@fringeelements When the opposition starts defending the "sick stupid fuck" guy's contribution to the discussion, I really really really feel like I am winning the debate :)
ithinkronpaulissmart 8 months ago
Holy shit, you don't understand what "85% of all conflicts are ethnic" means? It means ethnic diversity is the main source of war. You want war? Create ethnic diversity.
fringeelements 8 months ago 7
@fringeelements
1. The terms "conflict" and "ethnic" are ambiguous.
2.I would naturally expect virtually all wars between countries to involve multiple ethnicities, and some people would attribute the conflict to ethnicity even if that is not the primary source of the conflict.
3. Is this statistic referring to civil wars, as those conflicts seem to be the only ones relevant to this discussion.
Considering he offered no source, I think it is reasonable to ask for for info before I respond.
ithinkronpaulissmart 8 months ago
You are a stupid sick fuck
45means45 8 months ago
@45means45 When these types of comments pop up, I really feel like I'm winning the debate :)
ithinkronpaulissmart 8 months ago
Did you watch the marbles video he showed a clip of? Did you address anywhere what was said there, that is, that immigration tends to be of the most intelligent people who would have, had they stayed in their poor countries, would have been most likely to make a positive difference there. So immigration is actually bad in terms of affecting world poverty.
sbdwch 8 months ago 2
@sbdwch I only watched the clip Individualautonomy showed in his video. By coming to the US, immigrants enhance their incomes and personal quality of life (so they profoundly are helped as individuals). However, they also tend to help the country they emigrate from by sending remittances home.
ithinkronpaulissmart 8 months ago
around 9:18 you start to teleport around your house. Therefore I must ask you, are you Jesus?
DeraJa 8 months ago
So what? It's pretty simple - you don't bring in a person of average intelligence to design a nuclear reactor and expect it function well, and you don't bring in people of lower intelligence into a democracy and expect that the societal operating conditions will continue as they exist now.
blackacidlizzard 8 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
If the race/IQ thing is true:
1. The nuclear thing is pretty silly. Job placement is not random. If an individual has low intelligence they are unlikely to be designing nuclear reactors. Bad designs won't be implemented without inspection.
2. There is self-selection in voting. People with lower than average IQs are less likely to vote. Latinos turnout at a rate of 30% vs 60% which is the rate for whites. I think that's more than enough to make up any IQ difference.
ithinkronpaulissmart 8 months ago
@ithinkronpaulissmart
1 Yes, job placement is not random, employers try to ensure that they don't hire people who are likely to cause even one death - but when it comes to qualifications for choosing who commands a military of over a million killers, everyone is invited in.
2. It's nice that the most uniformed and mentally incompetent have the lowest turnout, but some still turn out. x% of 30 million is more than x% of 10 million, and x% of 30% is a greater portion than x% of 10%
blackacidlizzard 8 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
1. Promotion within the military is not random either.
2. The point is that those who vote tend to me smarter than those who do not, and even if the average white person is smarter than the average Hispanic, the smartest 30% of Hispanics are probably on average about as smart as the smartest 60% of whites.
I might be wrong. I don't know the precise correlation with IQ and voter turnout. I also don't know the extent of the supposed discrepency in IQ.
ithinkronpaulissmart 8 months ago
@ithinkronpaulissmart
1. I was talking about the qualifications for voting for the civilian commanders and "authorizers" of military action.
2. That's a nice piece of rhetorical juggling, but the method is flawed. I assume you accept the fact that stupid people vote, though at a lower rate than the more intelligent.. Increase the proportion of stupid people, and it should be expected that the proportion of stupid voters increases similarly.
blackacidlizzard 8 months ago
@blackacid
So now this is basically the same point? Immigrants will vote badly?
You are probably right, that if immigrants have lower IQs, the average voter will have slightly lower IQs. What I'm saying is that there are mitigating factors that would lead one not to worry about this too much.
1. Self-selection among voters (lower IQ people will choose not to vote)
2. Variation among races is probably not that large
3. Its unclear that higher IQ always leads to better voting
ithinkronpaulissmart 8 months ago
@ithinkronpaulissmart
It's a counterargument to your given mitigating factors and considerations. This is how discussion works, point, counterpoint, all that jazz.
1. You've already conceded that even with self-selection, the trend of voter intelligence varies in the same direction as general population intelligence.
2. When you have a conception of what you consider "that large," you'll be halfway to forming an actual argument here. Until then, this is nothing but idle chatter.
blackacidlizzard 8 months ago
3. It is clear that people with higher IQ tend to possess better ability to reason. This is a necessary, if not sufficient, factor in better decision making - particularly about things as complex as entire societies.
blackacidlizzard 8 months ago
@blackacidlizzard I would say that's a reasonable generalization. High IQ is probably correlated with intelligent policy views. It's hard to know how strong that correlation is.
For instance, I would not be surprised if college professors on average had higher IQs than any other profession. Yet, on average they have policy positions which you would probably consider pretty stupid.
ithinkronpaulissmart 8 months ago
I agree Hispanics will likely lower the mean IQ of voters. The question is, by how much. We're basically talking about a stat problem here (one I haven't calculated yet). Here are some quick numbers I found online:
Hispanic Mean IQ: 89
US Mean IQ: 100
Standard Deviation: 15
Correlation between voter turnout and IQ: .65
# of US voters: ~225,000
Assuming these numbers are correct, I'll try to figure out a way to estimate the marginal effect of an additional immigrant on average US voter IQ.
ithinkronpaulissmart 8 months ago
What's your job? That looks like a nice place...
return135 8 months ago
@return135 Bum/student. That's my parents house.
ithinkronpaulissmart 8 months ago