So What is Wrong With the Nordic Model of Economics?

[Zankou]

The whole argument about "use" is inane anyways. Why would analyzing genetic variation and its selection need to be justified by reference to "use"? When we are analyzing finch variations in the Galapagos, a la Charles Darwin, did anybody take Darwin aside and say "holy fuck Charles, didn't you know that there's no 'use' to analyzing why different populations of finches have evolved different adaptations? What is the 'use' of knowing that one obscure finch has a different bill structure than another? Ergo, your science is wrong." This invocation of a 'useful' criterion is sham-science, a backdoor to moral condemnation, which is what is being attempted in reality.

It's certainly possible you might get some pragmatic 'use' out of such analysis, but it is ass-backwards to think that the validity of such analysis is derived from whether it is 'useful.' The primary scientific question is whether selection has been at work on genetic variation between the populations, what the extent of that selection is, why it has happened, and what its effects are, not whether it is 'useful,' which is a secondary artifact at best.

 

[OldGoat]

The whole argument about "use" is inane anyways. Why would analyzing genetic variation and its selection need to be justified by reference to "use"? When we are analyzing finch variations in the Galapagos, a la Charles Darwin, did anybody take Darwin aside and say "holy fuck Charles, didn't you know that there's no 'use' to analyzing why different populations of finches have evolved different adaptations? What is the 'use' of knowing that one obscure finch has a different bill structure than another? Ergo, your science is wrong."

It's certainly possible you might get some pragmatic 'use' out of such analysis, but it is ass-backwards to think that the validity of such analysis is derived from whether it is 'useful.' The primary scientific question is whether selection has been at work on genetic variation between the populations, and why, not whether it is 'useful.'

Every educated and logical person understands that biology matters. They worry about eugenics and such gaining traction. Thus denial is the preferred alternative.

 

[OldGoat]

Jack Savage writes:



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.

Bone marrow is a social construct.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Finland is highly integrated into the global economy, exports a lot, and benefits from their proximity to Germany and Russia. Same with Denmark. They are in very fortunate situations.

Sure. It has nothing to do with having the best education system in the world which encourages people to go to school, a favorable climate for business, global innovation, lack of corruption or anything. Its all because of Germany and Russia :icon_chee

Iceland isn't doing well, Sweden is a feminist Utopia,

Iceland: #13 in overall prosperity, #7 in opportunity and entrepreneurship, #2 in safety and security. Yeah man Iceland is a zhit hole.

And who gives a fvk about feminism in Sweden? Thats the best criticism you can come up with?

 

[Cold Front]

Zankou,

Well, natural selection does have a use. Finches need beaks to eat, and if some environment favors in one location favors a change in the beak that doesn't exist in another location, then the use in that case is pretty obvious.

I think its better to say that some "uses" in humans can only be speculative. I mean, it's pretty clear why Tibetans would need to adapt to high altitudes, but why do East Asians need a gene which causes smaller breasts, more luxuriant hair, more sweat glands, and different dentition - all of which are favored by the EDAR gene?

 

[Zankou]

That actually isn't a very good example because the reasons why one population would have different genetics relating to a bone marrow transplant aren't necessarily related to *selection* (although they could be). In other words, the reason why a donor pool can be racially focused doesn't necessarily reflect the kind of genetic variation that leftists can't stomach (selected variation) but rather could represent random genetic drift. In the theology of leftism, random genetic drift is tolerable as an explanation for significant genetic difference between populations, but variation that is the result of active evolutionary selection is not tolerable unless it relates to a phenotypical characteristic that is morally harmless (for example, immune system compatibility, or skin color).

In the narrow sense though you are right, it is a pragmatic use of race, but as I say above pragmatic utility is hardly a very meaningful criterion for scientific validity.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

mostly homogenous is the key here.

Yeah except for all the Middle Eastern and African immigrants and the Eastern Europeans that fly there just to rob someone so they can stay in a plush hotel-like prison. Ignore all that.

 

[OldGoat]

Zankou,

Well, natural selection does have a use. Finches need beaks to eat, and if some environmental favors in one location favors a change in the beak that doesn't exist in another location, then the use in that case is pretty obvious.

I think its better to say that some "uses" in humans can only be speculative. I mean, it's pretty clear why Tibetans would need to adapt to high altitudes, but why do East Asians need a gene which causes smaller breasts, more luxuriant hair, more sweat glands, and different dentition - all of which are favored by the EDAR gene?

Lol, I think Zankou is questioning those that question the utility of noticing the differences as opposed to the utility of the differences.

 

[Zankou]

Zankou,

Well, natural selection does have a use. Finches need beaks to eat, and if some environment favors in one location favors a change in the beak that doesn't exist in another location, then the use in that case is pretty obvious.

I think its better to say that some "uses" in humans can only be speculative. I mean, it's pretty clear why Tibetans would need to adapt to high altitudes, but why do East Asians need a gene which causes smaller breasts, more luxuriant hair, more sweat glands, and different dentition - all of which are favored by the EDAR gene?

You are talking about a different kind of use there. What you are describing is an explanation for why genetic variation has been selected for -- in other words, the difference exists because it is 'useful' in common parlance. In that sense, useful technically does not mean anything beyond the narrow fact that the variation has in fact been selected for. There's no deeper evolutionary sense of 'useful.'

But what Jack is talking about seems to be the idea that to have validity, racial groupings must prove to have some kind of utility for humans, a "legitimate use." In other words, being statistically valid is not enough, they must be affirmatively suited to some specific human purpose. Otherwise, they cannot be invoked because that's being done for sinister and immoral reasons (regardless of validity). Now, big spoiler alert, such useful human purposes all turn out to be socially innocuous by current standards and consistent with mild leftism. Otherwise, not so useful.

This is why I say it's a backdoor attempt to argue that the science should kneel before morality. One type of morality, at any rate.

 

[johnny5isalive]

Sure. It has nothing to do with having the best education system in the world which encourages people to go to school, a favorable climate for business, global innovation, lack of corruption or anything. Its all because of Germany and Russia :icon_chee



Iceland: #13 in overall prosperity, #7 in opportunity and entrepreneurship, #2 in safety and security. Yeah man Iceland is a zhit hole.

And who gives a fvk about feminism in Sweden? Thats the best criticism you can come up with?

They are baby snatchers?

 

[Cold Front]

But what Jack is talking about seems to be the idea that to have validity, racial groupings must prove to have some kind of utility for humans, a "legitimate use."

I see what you're saying. But this knowledge does have a use. It has implications in medicine, criminal justice, education policy, and income inequality.

Most policies today are made on the assumption - probably false - that racial inequalities exist only because we live in a racist society. If you can disprove that idea, then your policies will cease to be founded on a dumb assumption.

That may not be the kind of moral utility Jack was looking for, but it's a utility nonetheless.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The whole argument about "use" is inane anyways. Why would analyzing genetic variation and its selection need to be justified by reference to "use"?

Your understanding of the point is what's inane. You classify things for a reason, no?

 

[Cold Front]

Your understanding of the point is what's inane. You classify things for a reason, no?

In the strictest sense, a biological classification has no other purpose than to show relatedness. That used to be done strictly on a morphological basis and was less concerned with relatedness than with shared characteristics, but the taxonomies have been revised with DNA and evolutionary theory.

 

[Jack V Savage]

But what Jack is talking about seems to be the idea that to have validity, racial groupings must prove to have some kind of utility for humans, a "legitimate use."

Jack is right here to answer all your questions. It seems obvious to me that racial classifications come out of a scientific dead end--early Enlightenment speculation about civilizational differences that turned out to be retarded. Now, we can look closely at genes and see that it is possible to make a good guess about where people's ancestors came from, but it doesn't mean that the old speculation or theorizing has any validity. It's like Heraclitus and modern chemistry.

In other words, being statistically valid is not enough, they must be affirmatively suited to some specific human purpose. Otherwise, they cannot be invoked because that's being done for sinister and immoral reasons (regardless of validity).

That's just stupid. The point is that classifications are made for a reason. Race continues to me made, but the reasoning behind it doesn't work. This constant invoking of some moral purpose behind rejection of old-fashioned notions of race is IDL-ish, IMO.

Now, big spoiler alert, such useful human purposes all turn out to be socially innocuous by current standards and consistent with mild leftism. Otherwise, not so useful.

This is why I say it's a backdoor attempt to argue that the science should kneel before morality. One type of morality, at any rate.

Not at all, and the constant accusations there by racists (or "racialists") is an obstacle to learning. I get that people think that their own views are the truth, and that the only reason that anyone would disagree is some misguided morality, but try to understand the actual points being made.

 

[Zankou]

Your understanding of the point is what's inane. You classify things for a reason, no?

Not in the narrow sense, no. You could have innumerable reasons for a given classification. There's no necessary "reason" for it, nor is there a principle of validity that defines it. In this trivial sense, it's true that every classification is a construct; one could always decide to ignore ANY pattern of statistical significance. One could also change one's mind about ANY given classification; on Tuesday, apples are fruit, on Wednesday, "wtf fruit, I can't understand that word."

Would that make the statistically significant facts go away? No. Would it have any bearing on their validity -- here, on the fact of differential selection between identifiable populations that cluster into five large groups? None. Put differently, you could replace the classification system with perfect knowledge of the mathematical distribution of variation ... and it would just be semantic. What one cares about is the *mathematical* reality of disparate populations. How you choose to term it is not going to change the math. You could go term the five clusters "Group Friendly! Group Fierce! Group Sleek! Group Cool! Group Goofy!" Would that make any difference? None. You could combine Group Friendly and Group Fierce as a 'supercluster.' Make any difference? None. Semantic games designed to whitewash reality.

Thinking that changing the names is going to make a difference is like thinking that the term "special" means nobody is mentally handicapped anymore. It's piety.

 

[Cold Front]

Jack is right here to answer all your questions. It seems obvious to me that racial classifications come out of a scientific dead end--early Enlightenment speculation about civilizational differences that turned out to be retarded. Now, we can look closely at genes and see that it is possible to make a good guess about where people's ancestors came from, but it doesn't mean that the old speculation or theorizing has any validity. It's like Heraclitus and modern chemistry.

That's not historically accurate. Racial classifications existed long before the Enlightenment or modern science.

That's just stupid. The point is that classifications are made for a reason. Race continues to me made, but the reasoning behind it doesn't work. This constant invoking of some moral purpose behind rejection of old-fashioned notions of race is IDL-ish, IMO.

Race is real. The categories are real. They refer to real things that biologists wouldn't hesitate to identify in any non-human species.

Do you think the differences between a chow and Labrador aren't real? How about between a boxer and a Great Dane? Pit bull and a poodle?

 

[OldGoat]

Not in the narrow sense, no. You could have innumerable reasons for a given classification. There's no necessary "reason" for it, nor is there a principle of validity that defines it. In this trivial sense, it's true that every classification is a construct; one could always decide to ignore ANY pattern of statistical significance. One could also change one's mind; on Tuesday, apples are fruit, on Wednesday, "wtf fruit, I can't understand that word."

Would that make the statistically significant facts go away? No. Would it have any bearing on their validity -- here, on the fact of differential selection between identifiable populations that cluster into five large groups? None. Put differently, you could replace the classification system with perfect knowledge of the mathematical distribution of variation ... and it would just be semantic.

That's not historically accurate. Racial classifications existed long before the Enlightenment or modern science.



Race is real. The categories are real. They refer to real things that biologists wouldn't hesitate to identify in any non-human species.

Do you think the differences between a chow and Labrador aren't real? How about between a boxer and a Great Dane? Pit bull and a poodle?

The fear, and it's historically justified, of how this sort of information would be used is what explains left wing doublethink. An easier distinction to prove is that between men and women, yet even that is considered a social construct by the true zealots.

You'll never get a public concession that your body matters from the left yet explain the lack of pygmies in any Olympic sport.

 

[Zankou]

The fear, and it's historically justified, of how this sort of information would be used is what explains left wing doublethink. An easier distinction to prove is that between men and women, yet even that is considered a social construct by the true zealots.

You'll never get a public concession that your body matters from the left yet explain the lack of pygmies in any Olympic sport.

What you don't get is your use of the pejorative term "pygmies" is a non-scientific classification that expresses your Evil Heart. For why would you use the pejorative name "pygmy" rather than the more precise and scientifically accurate "FH*&)@?" Only because you are evil and dumb.

So, whatever you were talking about, it hardly matters because your speech was demonstrably motivated by evil intentions, and is therefore invalid. This truly matters, and it really changes things.

 

[Cold Front]

The fear, and it's historically justified, of how this sort of information would be used is what explains left wing doublethink. An easier distinction to prove is that between men and women, yet even that is considered a social construct by the true zealots.

You'll never get a public concession that your body matters from the left yet explain the lack of pygmies in any Olympic sport.

I agree in general. But I do think it's helpful to keep in mind that slavery and malicious ethnocentrism existed long before scientists confirmed that the folklore notion of race had something to it.

Darwin was capable of being strongly against slavery at the same time he agreed that racial differences existed. TR could invite Booker Washington to the White House at the same time he thought racial differences were obviously important and mattered to civilizational development.

Slavery and Jim Crow, for example, were both ended by U.S. societies that believed strongly in racial differences. So the idea of justice and even progress is not dependent on smart people hiding from the truth.

 

[OldGoat]

I agree in general. But I do think it's helpful to keep in mind that slavery and malicious ethnocentrism existed long before scientists confirmed that the folklore notion of race had something to it.

Darwin was capable of being strongly against slavery at the same time he agreed that racial differences existed. TR could invite Booker Washington to the White House at the same time he thought racial differences were obviously important and mattered to civilizational development.

Slavery and Jim Crow, for example, were both ended by U.S. societies that believed strongly in racial differences. So the idea of justice and even progress is not dependent on smart people hiding from the truth.

Yeah, but if you start making a strong case for eugenics in society and the idea gains traction especially if the categorizations are obviously evident, you potentially justify genocide other crimes against humanity.