Yes, and wasn’t this just mindbending?

“The author is clearly engaging in guilt-by-association here…This is exactly the kind of things left-liberals like to do to stifle debate.”

!

Michael, please ask Beefcake/Byzantine?/Buzungulus to tell you about all the problems he has with Mises.org.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-uZZ7RdL5E

Fifty years ago, half of the planet thought that a one-party communist system is something that should be “positively valued”.Before 1592, North Americans had a stable socio-political and economic system based on communal property, and a system of national/tribal negotiations for conflict resolution. Then some more “complex” people came to show them that there are some other societal aspects that should be “positively valued,” like killing and enslaving people who have particular skin pigmentation.

Furthermore, It is not obvious (and what is not obvious needs to be explained) why complexity is better than simplicity; why participation in elections is better than non-participation; why democracy is better than any other political system; and so on.

Dostoevsky understood well that there is a thin line between idiocy and genius and that both are present in each of us. For example, Nikola Tesla, whom some call “the man who invented the twentieth century” died alone and penniless in a New York hotel. He saw a mental picture of an alternate current generator (this is what powers most electrical devices now) while reciting one of Goethe’s poems. Everything he did had to be divisible by 3. If it wasn’t, he would repeat everything until this condition was fulfilled. Even though he had over 700 patents, he ended up using up all his assets and trust of the investors by pursuing one failed project, which he believed would provide a source of free energy for all humanity. At the time his generators lighted up the Chicago Fair, he was one of the most celebrated public figures. At the end of his life he was ridiculed and pitied by pretty much everyone. Tesla was one of those who discovered both his inner genius and the inner idiot. Some of us discover one or the other and some discover none.

“A large amount of studies published in the last two decades has shown that cognitive ability
levels of societies are relevant for the development of positively valued aspects of peoples
and countries. Following an economic research tradition “human capital” is relevant for
economic growth and wealth (Hanushek & Kimko, 2000; Lynn & Vanhanen, 2002, 2006; Jones &
Schneider, 2006; Weede, 2006; Rindermann, 2008a). In addition, cognitive ability of nations has
a positive impact on political development, in that it helps building up democracy, the rule of
law and political liberty (Simpson, 1997; Rindermann, 2008b). Intelligence, knowledge and
the intelligent use of knowledge also have beneficial effects on health, for instance they act as
a brake on the spread of HIV (Oesterdiekhoff & Rindermann, 2007; Lakhanpal & Ram, 2008;
Rindermann & Meisenberg, 2009). Finally, cognitive competence is relevant for the
development of modernity as a societal and especially as a cultural phenomenon consisting of
education, autonomy, liberty, morality and rationality (Habermas, 1985/1981; Meisenberg,
2004; Oesterdiekhoff, 2008; Lynn, Harvey & Nyborg, 2009). Societies at a higher ability level
develop more complex, more evidence-based, more ethical and more rational world views.
For some scholars like Georg Oesterdiekhoff (2000) or Michael Hart (2007) intelligence is the
driving force of history.

These broad effects at the cross-national data level are backed in different societies by results
at the individual level for job performance and wealth (Bacharach & Baumeister, 1998; Schmidt
& Hunter, 2004; Irwing & Lynn, 2006; Rindermann & Thompson, 2009), for tolerance, civic
political attitudes and participation in elections (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994; Denny & Doyle,
2008; Deary, Batty & Gale, 2008), for health behavior and health (Goldman & Smith, 2002;
Gottfredson, 2004), moral judgment (Piaget, 1997/1932; Kohlberg, 1987) and more rational
world views (Oesterdiekhoff, 2000; Nyborg, 2009)…

The smart fraction is regarded as responsible for progress in a utilitarian sense (wealth, health
and power), but also for achievements in a non-utilitarian sense (music, literature, art, religion,
ethics, philosophy and world-views).”

‘The impact of smart fractions, cognitive ability of politicians and average competence of peoples on social development’

Talent Development & Excellence
Vol. 1, No. 1, 2009, 3-25

Heiner Rindermann1,*, Michael Sailer1 and James Thompson2

http://www.iratde.org/issues/1-2009/tde_issue_1-2009_03_rindermann_et_al.pdf

Note that the study relates to Ashkenazi Jews who average about 110. I understand they make up about 35% of the Israeli population?

Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence, Journal of Biosocial Science 38 (5), pp. 659–693 (2006)
http://homepage.mac.com/harpend/.Public/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

See the results of adoption studies and studies debated here.

June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 11, No. 2.

Also, a good summary on the Gene Expression site.

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/

Michael,

Gould not only leaves out information that is inconvenient, bit goes as far as misrepresenting the positions of others. Very little of what Gould says stands up to scrutiny, whether it is his comments on factor analysis & g, brain size, or group scores of Ashkenazi jews. For an up to date view on psychometrics and progress on understanding the neurological basis for intelligence see:

The neuroscience of human intelligence differenceslarspenke.eu [PDF]IJ Deary, L Penke, W Johnson – Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2010

http://www.larspenke.eu/pdfs/Deary_Penke_Johnson_2010_-_Neuroscience_of_intelligence_review.pdf
or

Gottfredson, L. S. (in press). Intelligence and social inequality: Why the biological link? In T. Chamorro-Premuzic, A. Furhnam, & S. von Stumm (Eds.), Handbook of Individual Differences. Wiley-Blackwell.
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2010inequality.pdf

this same fuzziness has thwarted “dangerous breed” legislation here in australia. the defendent’s lawyer tells the court that the pit-bull is really a poodle with a jus a touch of something more aggressive, and only looks like a killer. case dismissed.

It’s a pretty discrete set of phenotypes. I’ll leave you to guess which ones.

I don’t dispute that one may be able to explain why some geographical regions are different from some other regions (in many respects). Many people have done this in brilliant ways.

We can also compare different statistical metrics in different regions such as life expectancy etc. However, the ceteris paribus criterion does not hold any more, and this is why quantitative comparisons are problematic.

The point that I wanted to make is that, given the circumstances, one cannot claim that a person in, say Germany, is more able to meet his/her needs (i.e., more efficient) than some person in some other place.

But, this does not mean that the socio-economic system in one place cannot be changed to be more conductive for the individual’s pursuit of their own goals.

I will give an example from my own life but this is just for illustration purposes. I came to Canada 9 years ago. If someone asked me, where would I prefer to live now, I would say – here, in Canada. But this is mainly because I have adapted to this place and I don’t want to go thought the hassle of moving adapting to a new environment again (if there are not some other benefits there).

If someone asked me – were you better able to meet your needs (i.e. were you more efficient as an economic actor) in former Yugoslavia then or here in Canada now – I would say – I can’t compare this. I don’t know; I did my best in both places. I had different things then compared to now.

However, I could claim that the socio-economic system in Canada is more conductive to what I would like to do now.

The whole point is that if a person lives his/her whole life digging roots in the middle of a jungle – this does not mean he is less economically efficient than a BMW designer. Both are doing their best given the circumstances.

One might, however, put his/her own value judgment whether it is better to satisfy your needs in one or the other way. Now, whether I would like to cooperate with someone digging roots? Maybe, maybe not, bit this is a personal choice.