So What is Wrong With the Nordic Model of Economics?

[OldGoat]

Not surprising that you'd recommend it. Do you have any comment on it?

You like to censor information that disagrees with your preconceived and unresearched opinions? If not why do you care what I'd recommend in order for people to educate themselves?

Have I read it? Not yet. I plan to later this year. I just happened to see the review for it a few days or so ago and felt that with so much talk about race, ethnicity, gender being social constructs that it'd be nice to at least point to a source that disagrees with that PC point of view.

Do you think that humans are supernatural or divinely influenced?

Thanks for the review link.

 

[IGIT]

hi Jack, last bit before i head off to work,

You don't? Seems pretty obvious, if you ask me. No need to resort to mystical racial explanations.

no, i don't. like i said, i don't believe that having yellow skin makes you smarter than people who have white skin. i don't think flesh color makes one smarter or dumber.

that being said, if i were given "the Pepsi challenge" and had a police lineup with a white guy, a black guy and a yellow skinned guy and was told to guess who was the smartest and who was the dumbest - i know what my guesses would be.

does that make me a racist? i sure hope not.

Again, big mystery:

http://rutgerswpaf12.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/a-toxic-wastelandalso-known-as-camden-city/

http://articles.philly.com/2008-05-22/news/25262904_1_lead-poisoning-lead-safe-theodore-z-davis

i'd have to read alot more on the topic to know that the reason schools in Camden and Newark are failing (when compared to their modestly funded brethren in the midwest), despite huge cash infusions.

if you're saying, "oh, its just because of lead poisoning. that's the reason!", maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. i'd imagine in more rural areas they have different kinds of poisoning related to agricultural runoff in the ground water - i'm not an expert on these things and i'd really have to educate myself more on the topic.

It could fail to be implemented, and there could be populations that wouldn't like it, but what do you mmean when you say that in some areas, the model would fail "pretty horribly"?

because of the differences that you pointed out yourself.

- IGIT

 

[Jack V Savage]

You like to censor information that disagrees with your preconceived and unresearched opinions? If not why do you care what I'd recommend in order for people to educate themselves?

Huh?

Have I read it? Not yet. I plan to later this year. I just happened to see the review for it a few days or so ago and felt that with so much talk about race, ethnicity, gender being social constructs that it'd be nice to at least point to a source that disagrees with that PC point of view.

There's no way that ethnicity isn't a social construct, and I'd say that race pretty obviously is, too, to a large degree (we can make a good guess about what "race" someone is just by looking at their genes, but it's not clear what utility such a concept has and it is clear that the concept is badly abused among people who don't know what they're talking about, like you and IGIT). Further, it sounds like you like the idea of the book just because it supports some of your racial prejudices ("it'd be nice to at least point to a source that disagrees with that PC point of view").

Do you think that humans are supernatural or divinely influenced?

Thanks for the review link.

No. ???

You're welcome. IMO, the NYRB is the very best periodical in the world.

no, i don't. like i said, i don't believe that having yellow skin makes you smarter than people who have white skin. i don't think flesh color makes one smarter or dumber.

Well, yeah, obviously.

if you're saying, "oh, its just because of lead poisoning. that's the reason!", maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. i'd imagine in more rural areas they have different kinds of poisoning related to agricultural runoff in the ground water - i'm not an expert on these things and i'd really have to educate myself more on the topic.

I'm saying that they have a very high level of a toxin that is known to have neurological and behavioral effects, and a high incidence of those effects. Sure, there could be another reason, but A) you haven't presented a plausible alternative and B) you haven't offered a reason to suspect that the obvious explanation is false.

because of the differences that you pointed out yourself.

Again, that could lead to people not wanting to implement it, but what would lead to it failing if it were implemented?

 

[OldGoat]

Huh?



There's no way that ethnicity isn't a social construct, and I'd say that race pretty obviously is, too, to a large degree (we can make a good guess about what "race" someone is just by looking at their genes, but it's not clear what utility such a concept has and it is clear that the concept is badly abused among people who don't know what they're talking about, like you and IGIT). Further, it sounds like you like the idea of the book just because it supports some of your racial prejudices ("it'd be nice to at least point to a source that disagrees with that PC point of view").



No. ???

You're welcome. IMO, the NYRB is the very best periodical in the world.



Well, yeah, obviously.



I'm saying that they have a very high level of a toxin that is known to have neurological and behavioral effects, and a high incidence of those effects. Sure, there could be another reason, but A) you haven't presented a plausible alternative and B) you haven't offered a reason to suspect that the obvious explanation is false.



Again, that could lead to people not wanting to implement it, but what would lead to it failing if it were implemented?

Don't be silly. And you have no idea what I think, you only know what you have interpreted with your own set of biases what I have typed. These are in no way identical. I just find it funny that people try so hard to convince themselves that humanity is the only thing in the universe that doesn't follow physical law.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Don't be silly. And you have no idea what I think, you only know what you have interpreted with your own set of biases what I have typed. These are in no way identical. I just find it funny that people try so hard to convince themselves that humanity is the only thing in the universe that doesn't follow physical law.

What the heck are you talking about, seriously? What physical law don't I think humanity follows?

 

[OldGoat]

What the heck are you talking about, seriously? What physical law don't I think humanity follows?

You don't think human biology follows the laws of physics. You believe in free will?

 

[Zankou]

That's a pretty good NYRB review, although some of the author's arguments are overstated. For example:

"More important, these facts about human genomes don’t seem as little appreciated as Wade lets on. When Henry Louis Gates Jr. sends a sample of his DNA off to find out how much is of African versus European origin—and then acts as host of a PBS miniseries in which he broadcasts the results—it seems hard to maintain that educated people deny that DNA sequences differ subtly among continents. Nonetheless, Wade presents these findings clearly to those who may have missed them."

Actually my experiences have been quite the opposite ... somewhere upwards of 90% of educated folk will argue that race "isn't real" and is either entirely or primarily a "social construct," generally citing one of the ridiculous Gould/Lewontin arguments that Wade makes fun of. What one wants to know is not whether educated people "deny that DNA sequences differ subtly among continents," but whether they *concede* the same points the article concedes Wade is right about:

"But across our vast genomes, these statistical differences add up, and geneticists have little difficulty concluding that one person’s genome looks European and another person’s looks East Asian. To put the conclusion more technically, the genomes of various human beings fall into several reasonably well-defined clusters when analyzed statistically, and these clusters generally correspond to continent of origin. In this statistical sense, races are real.

and

"Wade’s survey of human population genomics is lively and generally serviceable. It is not, however, without error. He exaggerates, for example, the percentage of the human genome that shows evidence of recent natural selection. The correct figure from the study he cites is 8 percent, not 14, and even this lower figure is soft and open to some alternative explanation.2 And Wade generally assumes that evidence of selection reflects adaptation to the ecological environment, whereas some events might reflect the action of other evolutionary forces like sexual selection, in which individuals compete for mates, not for survival."

Jack's post above is indicative of this prevailing mindset.

So for the NYRB article to suggest that this is just common uncontroversial consensus -- that everybody knows and agrees that at a statistical level human genetic variation falls into rather dramatically clear racial clusters -- is pretty silly. Wade's book may not be *scientifically* novel on that point (generally speaking anybody who even vaguely understood the mathematics and genetics knew the arguments against recent human evolution or its clustering along racial lines were ludicrous theology), but its significance in refuting these misconceptions in *prevailing public discourse* can't be so easily dismissed.

On the other hand, while Wade is right to point out how the new genetic evidence has confirmed (a) powerful clustering of genetic variation along classical racial lines; and (b) pervasive recent selection for genetic variation that differs along those racial lines, there remains relatively weak direct evidence establishing *what* the vast majority of that specific selection was for, not to mention what the effect of the selected variation actually is (only some of it is obvious, for example lactase persistence -- selected intensely in societies that domesticated milk-bearing livestock, which was very recent). Wade himself says his arguments about the ties between such selection and the rise of modern civilization are speculative, and they surely are at this juncture.

But the cat is already largely out of the bag once you have the first two elements. This is why Gould/Lewontin were forced to take such over-the-top positions against the idea that racial concepts reflect substantial population clusterings.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You don't think human biology follows the laws of physics. You believe in free will?

Why don't you just spell out what you're trying to say? If humans follow the laws of physics, what position of mine is invalidated?

Jack's post above is indicative of this prevailing mindset.

So for the NYRB article to suggest that this is just common uncontroversial consensus -- that everybody knows and agrees that at a statistical level human genetic variation falls into rather dramatically clear racial clusters -- is pretty silly.

"Dramatically clear racial clusters" isn't consistent with the evidence. Moreover, the basic claim that race can be guessed with pretty good accuracy through genes is one thing; the kinds of claims that people like OG or IGIT make are quite a different one. This notion that race is some kind of hugely important category is silly 19th century thinking, and the idea that it has any scientific utility is questionable.

 

[OldGoat]

Why don't you just spell out what you're trying to say? If humans follow the laws of physics, what position of mine is invalidated?



"Dramatically clear racial clusters" isn't consistent with the evidence. Moreover, the basic claim that race can be guessed with pretty good accuracy through genes is one thing; the kinds of claims that people like OG or IGIT make are quite a different one. This notion that race is some kind of hugely important category is silly 19th century thinking, and the idea that it has any scientific utility is questionable.

It means biology matters since human atoms follow physical laws it follows that humanity acts in a deterministic manner and we aren't really special clumps of matter. So, to say that every grouping of humanity is nothing more than a social construct ignores math and is stated for political reasons. I.e. in order for survival of groups that are perceived differently we need to indoctrinate society that there are no differences at all among groups besides the privileged groups that is. Which is why I think that promoting racist ideology such as AA is counterproductive to the goal of eradicating racist thought. Yet those who profit from the schisms between groups can't help themselves. They'd rather profit locally instead of society profiting generally. It's really a fascinating example of wolfs in a population of sheep.

That is to say in absence of divine or supernatural influence on humanity.

And I don't claim to make any claims besides the fact that differences if present have a non-zero impact on reality. What the impact is is impossible to determine.

 

[Zankou]

Sure it is. As that NYRB article itself says:

"But across our vast genomes, these statistical differences add up, and geneticists have little difficulty concluding that one person’s genome looks European and another person’s looks East Asian. To put the conclusion more technically, the genomes of various human beings fall into several reasonably well-defined clusters when analyzed statistically, and these clusters generally correspond to continent of origin. In this statistical sense, races are real."

Yet this was commonly denied, and still continues to be denied, by people who argue that common parlance for race does not reflect readily identifiable differences in genetic variation between clusters ... or that such differences were 'superficial' in the sense that genetic variation could not be associated with phenotypical variation other than physical appearance.

Further, it was denied that such population clusters had undergone meaningful recent selection that resulted in differential genetic variation ... it was considered arbitrary drift, or random like skin color.

Although why skin color was thought to be arbitrary is an interesting question in itself. Almost nobody seems aware that light skin evolved VERY recently in both Euro and Asian populations, and was VERY strongly selected for. Why? Leading theory is that it became valuable with the rise of agriculture in Northern climates, because agricultural diets are terribly deficient (relative to hunter gatherer diets) in Vitamin D, and in Northern climates there is insufficient sunlight to synthesize Vitamin D via UV hitting the skin. Light skin allows more sunlight to penetrate, and greatly increases your ability to synthesize Vitamin D that you are lacking in your diet.

In other words, genes for lighter skin meant you were much less susceptible to rickets even in regions with little sunlight, and in a society where the rise of agriculture had made rickets a far more serious health threat, there was a massive evolutionary advantage in favor of lighter skin genes. Hence, we have gingers. Although interestingly, now that Vitamin D supplementation is common, gingers are on the decline, and may even disappear soon (due to a combination of dispersal of the recessive genes and adverse sexual selection, sorry guys). Again, evolution moves much faster than people would like to think.

This is just one clear-cut example of why the arguments against recent differential selection, and the idea that it could not be related to evolution connected with changes in human culture, never really made any sense.

 

[Uchi Mata]

The best critique I've read of Wade's work is here:

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt..._nicholas_wade_s_dated_assumptions_about.html

I like it because it doesn't try to deny that genetic differences exist, but it does point out the very real problems of post hoc attribution of differences in achievement levels to differences in genetics. There's a huge element of narrative fallacy going on when you try to explain what has already happened with a non-general framework. In essence you're overfitting your solution as your explanations would have been very different if you'd written the book at different points in human history.

 

[Zankou]

I agree that's the best critique that's actually fair: We don't yet have a good explanation for WHY most of this genetic variation was selected for differentially between the population groups. For example, disease and diet are two of the biggest things that you might see differential selection for when you have different populations moving into different areas, or when you have dramatic changes in human culture.

This is why Wade himself says his arguments about culture are necessarily speculative. I actually have little interest in the "just so" stories unless they are tied to relatively specific genes with known effects. Speculation is useful as a guide to potential further research, but it's still speculation.

On the other hand, the reason you still see people try to fight the earlier arguments about race being a social construct is that even asking the question -- why -- shifts the issue in a way that's "troubling," which is why Wade titles his book that way. Hence the need to deny the "that" so that you halt people from (sinfully btw, Allah disapproves of this ancient heresy) asking "why."

 

[Jack V Savage]

It means biology matters since human atoms follow physical laws it follows that humanity acts in a deterministic manner and we aren't really special clumps of matter. So, to say that every grouping of humanity is nothing more than a social construct ignores math and is stated for political reasons.

First, the "so" doesn't follow at all. And the "ignores math" is inaccurate (and, frankly, bizarre). But also, you're mischaracterizing the argument. I haven't said that "every grouping of humanity" blah blah blah. I said a particular grouping schemata has some basis in biological reality but has no real use. And I'd argue that your insistence on putting people in hopelessly broad groups and insisting on the utility of those groups is done for political reasons (or at least that you're mindlessly repeating claims made by someone else for political reasons, which you might not be aware of).

I.e. in order for survival of groups that are perceived differently we need to indoctrinate society that there are no differences at all among groups besides the privileged groups that is.

There are differences among groups, but "race" isn't a meaningful fault line. My extended family has a higher average IQ (I'm sure) than any "race," and Barry Bonds' family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_Bonds, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Bonds, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggie_Jackson, etc.) are much better athletes on average than any race, etc. But when you're talking about very diverse groups containing millions or even billions of people, you're going to lose any meaning, and you're most likely going to be telling "just so stories" involving massive overfitting.

Which is why I think that promoting racist ideology such as AA is counterproductive to the goal of eradicating racist thought. Yet those who profit from the schisms between groups can't help themselves. They'd rather profit locally instead of society profiting generally. It's really a fascinating example of wolfs in a population of sheep.

AA isn't an ideology. But, yeah, the best way to ensure that blacks get a fair shake in America is to pretend that racism doesn't exist and not do anything to level the playing field. Definitely. Smart take.

Sure it is. As that NYRB article itself says:

"But across our vast genomes, these statistical differences add up, and geneticists have little difficulty concluding that one person

 

[OldGoat]

First, the "so" doesn't follow at all. And the "ignores math" is inaccurate (and, frankly, bizarre). But also, you're mischaracterizing the argument. I haven't said that "every grouping of humanity" blah blah blah. I said a particular grouping schemata has some basis in biological reality but has no real use. And I'd argue that your insistence on putting people in hopelessly broad groups and insisting on the utility of those groups is done for political reasons (or at least that you're mindlessly repeating claims made by someone else for political reasons, which you might not be aware of).



There are differences among groups, but "race" isn't a meaningful fault line. My extended family has a higher average IQ (I'm sure) than any "race," and Barry Bonds' family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_Bonds, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Bonds, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggie_Jackson, etc.) are much better athletes on average than any race, etc. But when you're talking about very diverse groups containing millions or even billions of people, you're going to lose any meaning, and you're most likely going to be telling "just so stories" involving massive overfitting.



AA isn't an ideology. But, yeah, the best way to ensure that blacks get a fair shake in America is to pretend that racism doesn't exist and not do anything to level the playing field. Definitely. Smart take.



The statement you quoted isn't denied. But that's very different from the claims of Jared Taylor types that are supported by so many here.

Lol. Leftists and their anti science campaigning with regards to biology is just as pathetic as right wing anti science types who poo poo global warming evidence. Politics trumps science when ideologues are involved. Scary so many sheep buy it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The best critique I've read of Wade's work is here:

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt..._nicholas_wade_s_dated_assumptions_about.html

I like it because it doesn't try to deny that genetic differences exist, but it does point out the very real problems of post hoc attribution of differences in achievement levels to differences in genetics. There's a huge element of narrative fallacy going on when you try to explain what has already happened with a non-general framework. In essence you're overfitting your solution as your explanations would have been very different if you'd written the book at different points in human history.

That's exactly what I've been saying in the WR for a long time. It's very obvious overfitting, and it doesn't explain changes over time.

Lol. Leftists and their anti science campaigning with regards to biology is just as pathetic as right wing anti science types who poo poo global warming evidence. Politics trumps science when ideologues are involved. Scary so many sheep buy it.

I was wondering how you were going to get out of that one. The empty, ideological response is always a safe escape if you don't care about truth, I guess.

 

[OldGoat]

That's exactly what I've been saying in the WR for a long time. It's very obvious overfitting, and it doesn't explain changes over time.



I was wondering how you were going to get out of that one. The empty, ideological response is always a safe escape if you don't care about truth, I guess.

Funny you talk about not caring about scientific evidence when that's your tactic. Again people are not claiming a 1:1 cause and effect people are saying differences have an effect. You and everyone with an IQ above 83 know this to be true. You just don't like to acknowledge it strictly for political reasons

 

[Jack V Savage]

Funny you talk about not caring about scientific evidence when that's your tactic. Again people are not claiming a 1:1 cause and effect people are saying differences have an effect. You and everyone with an IQ above 83 know this to be true. You just don't like to acknowledge it strictly for political reasons

I really don't even know what you're talking about, and you're refusing to explain. Where did I say anything about 1:1 cause and effect? What is my political angle here? What the heck is wrong with you?

 

[Zankou]

I actually do have some reservations about some portions of that Slate article, since the author makes questionable historical arguments that he doesn't support with evidence. For example:

"I suspect that had this book been written 100 years ago, it would have featured strong views not on the genetic similarities but on the racial divides that explained the difference between the warlike Japanese and the decadent Chinese, as well as the differences between the German and French races. Nicholas Wade in 2014 includes Italy within the main European grouping, but the racial theorists of 100 years ago had strong opinions on the differences between northern and southern Europeans."

That's what you suspect? So why don't you find out whether you are right (granted, our Slate author is a statistician, not a historian)? There were in fact actually lots of books written on these subjects 100 years ago. Yet I'm unaware of any major view arguing that "French and German races" were seriously different from a racial perspective -- not even the Nazis, who classified both as Aryan and very closely related. If anything, the Germans slagged on themselves for having too much Slavic admixture, unlike the French and English.

Likewise, the idea that people made big racial distinctions between Chinese and Japanese 100 years ago (to explain their differential current states) strikes me as unlikely -- frankly I doubt anybody distinguished much between them at all, they were all "Orientals." Yet they undoubtedly distinguished "Orientals" from other races, because "Orientals" were reknowned for their diabolical cleverness ... hence the classic Fu Manchu villain and all his permutations, who is the archetypal genius mastermind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fu_Manchu

Things ain't much different nowadays.

So if one wants to argue that books would have been written differently 100 years ago based on contingent circumstance, one could easily ask and answer that historical question: Did in fact the books written 100 years ago really make dramatically different claims about racial groupings and their respective capabilities relative to economic success? Why or why not? This in my view is somewhat of a sideshow historical question -- it's not as interesting as what we think now -- but the author of that Slate article doesn't appear to have done any of that historical inquiry, and what he assumes in that regard doesn't seem particularly accurate. The one such historical source he considers is Toynbee, but again Toynbee's analysis seems perfectly consistent with what Wade is arguing now, so one wonders what the historical argument is here.

 

[OldGoat]

I really don't even know what you're talking about, and you're refusing to explain. Where did I say anything about 1:1 cause and effect? What is my political angle here? What the heck is wrong with you?

You are far too intelligent, lacking in education perhaps, to feign naivety.

 

[Cold Front]

Jack Savage writes:

I said a particular grouping schemata has some basis in biological reality but has no real use.

Do you want to tell that to this poor boy and his family?

http://abc7news.com/archive/9530037/

I'm sure they would love to hear your ideas about how race has no real use.