Frozenlock

Do you believe that the patriotic affinity between Canadians is somehow lesser than that between Germans, because we don't share a well-defined genetic heritage?

Lesser patriotic affinity for minorities? Absolutely. (I am Canadian)

There's even a study[1] showing that with increasing diversity, you get:

Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.

Lower political efficacy – that is, confidence in one's own influence.

Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.

Higher political advocacy, but lower expectations that it will bring about a desirable result.

Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage).

Less likelihood of working on a community project.

Less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering.

Fewer close friends and confidants.

Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life.

More time spent watching television and more agreement that "television is my most important form of entertainment".

[1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007....

You are trying to dress up your genocidal thoughts of the German people as something politically correct and inclusive.

Try to make the same exercise with the Aboriginal Australians: It doesn't matter if they don't reproduce; there's plenty of whites around to take their place.

Why do you hate diversity?

Sure, but it's not like we can just sit on our hands and wait until we are 100% sure of what we could do; the welfare state is already selecting for us. And in my experience, most people are opposed to getting rid of the welfare state.

This means that the choice is not "eugenic or do nothing", it's "eugenic or dysgenic".

It's too late for leftists.

The leftist narrative lost with Gamergate.

All the domains used to crumble in face of the leftists. They went after individuals and tried to get them fired. They virtue-signaled even in Github repos. https://github.com/joyent/libuv/pull/1015

Everyone who wasn't inclusive enough got attacked. You career was in jeopardy if you ever dared to think something a little outside the norm.

Politics, scifi, comedy, STEMs... Every and all domain fell.

Except gamers. Gamergate was when everything changed. This is when being more-progressive-than-thou stopped working.

The pendulum stopped moving left.

To anyone who's been paying attention (and old enough to understand), this was a major event.

Everything since then was just going through the motion. An immense building crumbling down while everyone inside it is trying to get to the top. "I'm more tolerant than you; I accept trans in my bathroom!"

If you are even slightly interested in history and sociology, you should be very attentive to the next few months/years.

As a more libertarian/right-wing individual, it is a glorious thing to see.

I just hope that the leftist didn't push the pendulum so far that it's going to come back with a vengeance and destroy everything it its path.

Are you implying here that curiosity and intellectual abilities are genetically inheritable ?

Intelligence as we can measure it (IQ) is highly related to genetics (so you can say inheritable). IQ is correlated to 0.86 in case of twins raised in the same family, or 0.76 in twins raised appart.

If so, what stops eugenics from being morally indefensible ?

Nothing!

I myself have spinal muscular atrophy and know that my children could have a chance of having it if the mother is carrier of the bad gene. It would be wise for me to chose someone who isn't a carrier (or even undergo a gene therapy, once it will be available).

Why do you think eugenics is indefensible? Because some people were sterilized in the name of it? That's only one approach. You could also have eugenics designed to increase the number of 'quality' people. Say, for example, giving money to people with an IQ higher than 150 to make more children. Or those with amazing athletics skills, or amazing beauty... I don't care at this point, it's only for the sake of the argument.

You could also say that eugenics increases the chances of your children finding a quality mate, because they are more numerous when the state is subsidizing them.

Anyhow, we are animals and our evolution follows the same rules as all the other species. If we don't purposefully decide where our evolution will bring us, nature will do it for us. Without any external fitness function, those who can reproduce the most will be the evolutionary winners. Ask yourself: are those taking care of establishing a good career and establishing a solid financial foundation the ones with the most children?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBqjZ0KZCa0

Again, we are animals. We are subject to the same rules. If we decide to ignore them, our children will pay the price.

I see a myriad of threads about interviews on HN. They all say that you can't really code in an interview. You don't have your favorite tools nor any real projet or familiarity with a codebase. These threads will say that the interview should, at most, be there to help you see if there's a culture fit.

Now you have an interview where the guy asked questions that aren't related to programming and everyone is up in arms. Maybe it's because he did his homework? Maybe he already checked M. Adeagbo work and decided he wanted him in the company?

So now I suppose the interview isn't supposed to be used to check if someone is a good programmer... but it also shouldn't approach any subject that is emotional, because by gosh you wouldn't want to know how someone will react on a sensitive subject.

You guys must have the weirdest social interactions ever. Within an hour of meeting someone I usually "size" them by throwing curved ball designed to see what makes them ticks. That is exactly what I would expect in a well designed interview, especially if you are looking for culture fit.

Frankly, I find that these questions are well designed. Look at how I immediately answered them:

“Why do all the Black kids sit at the same table at school?”

"Same reason Asians or Whites will do the same thing under the same conditions."

What can we deduce? Not much, except that I'm aware of basic biology/human behavior. Better luck in the next question...

“Why is it no longer okay to say nr?”

"It is okay, but you need to be of the correct race... and apparently that's not racist. (with a hint of sarcasm)"

Bingo! Now you known that when I talk of sexism and racism, I use the dictionary definition, NOT the new "minorities can't be sexist/racist" version.

And just like that, you know if I'm a good fit. (If it's in SF, probably not...)

"/dev/color is a community of black software engineers who help one another reach career goals."

This is literally a racist club. ---> A group who discriminates based on race. Now, I have nothing against that... but you can't say a word if white clubs are created.

A rule of thumb when studying history: if a side appears really stupid, or really evil, then you probably don't have all the facts.

Hopefully you include the government into those corporate interests.

They are the one that pushed the food pyramid and all the anti-fat craze.

If regression to the mean dominated 100% of the time, evolution would not be possible.

The reality is that children inherit directly from parents, including some genes that were unexpressed, which can cause changes. But they're still more likely to be smart

I think we are talking past each other (that or I'm terrible at explaining myself).

I made sure to specify that the offspring would return close to the mean while probably being higher.

Many characteristics are dependent of many genes (such as apparently IQ). You mention unexpressed genes and I agree with you on this. You have a pool of possible combinations of expressed/unexpressed genes. In a given population, all the combinations will cluster around a given mean; this gives you a bell curve. Now, if an Asian is born with an IQ of 70, this means that this particular combination was bad, but the rest of his genetic baggage is still able to produce other combinations which are more likely to be within the average.

Let's take a simpler example. Say my current genes would allow these results in a given characteristic: [1, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 10]. Of these results however, only 1 is truly expressed per generation. It so happens that I got lucky and got the value of "10".

Then I mate with someone of a mean "8" having the following combinations: [8, 8, 8, 8, 8].

Our children would be more likely to be between 8 and 5 than between 8 and 10. It would take generations of selective breeding to bring my descendants back to the mean of "8"

----

I keep bringing it back to America since that's all I know, but race in America is more social construct than biology, and keeps changing over time. For instance the Irish, Italians, or eastern europeans were at some point not considered white.

It's not a social construct, it's just that the resolution at which people are looking at it changed.

It's like trying to name species through evolution. When did rabbits become 'rabbit', rather than their ancestor species? It's a continuum, we just decide that after a threshold of differences, we change the name. It doesn't mean that differences between species don't exist.

There are many differences between those we usually call "whites". People in the Netherlands are taller than those in Ireland; depending on the resolution they could probably be called diffrent races/subspecies.

For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence is measured to be especially high.

Yes and if the genetic hypothesis is correct they apparently had 2 major factors helping this: A selection for intelligence AND a strong cultural tendency to marry within the group. (See a few Kosher rules designed to make sure Jews don't eat/socialise with gentiles.)

Also randomly, I find it especially strange that the stormfront crowd seems so eagar to separate themselves from jews.

Do you know if they want to distance themselves genetically or from the people with this culture? For example, are they opposed to marrying secular Jews?

Anyways, the desire for protectionism seems like a never ending quest to me, since we will always find ways to divide ourselves. Even when america was mostly european, this sentiment still existed, and was directed at the Irish, italians, jews, etc.

Well sure, but that doesn't change anything in my desire to not knowingly reduce the chances of my children. It's not just a "I support my local sport team" mentality.

In addition, it seems that most people think that some differences are worth preserving. I would probably be judged as the devil himself if I had a plan to mix the Jews or Native Americans with Africans until they were one indissociable group.

Edit: I'm sorry you're receiving downvotes even though you're being civil.

It's HN, I wasn't expecting anything else. ;-)

However I have tried to point out that the evidence doesn't lead you to this conclusion since other variables may correlate (...)

They may correlate, but genetic is by far the biggest driver. Identical twins (same DNA) have between 0.76-0.86 correlation between their IQs. The 0.76 is raised separately; a completely different environment and they are still almost identically smart!

The other numbers you've written are the effect of moving away from perfectly identical DNA. (You could argue that part of the difference is cultural, but that doesn't change anything if we don't know which part of the culture is negatively impacting the child.)

because assuming regression to the mean, if I pick a 160IQ black woman and a 150IQ white man, we'd expect their kid to be centered around 155, regardless of race.

No, see my Japaneses example. Two geniuses of 160IQ will most probably have children returning closer to the mean (tho probably a little higher). In this case, the mean is different for every race.

If I'm a white with a IQ of 100 and I have a child with a black with a IQ of 100, the expected result is not 100, because the black is an outlier at this IQ.

Nonetheless you have repeatedly brought it back to race, which means that this is tremendously important to you. On that topic I'm curious why. You're probably pretty intelligent (though introspection is a skill separate from observing the outside world), so I have high hopes for a good analysis ;)

I do too. :-)

I brought race because that was the topic at hand and because we are talking biology here (reproduction). Obviously "white" isn't my only criteria. I could speak at length how I like girls with a fighting spiring, but that'd be a little out of context.

Like I said in a parent post, my previous position was pretty much "all races are the same". It took -months- before I really changed that. What really prevented me from accepting the various studies was the survivor bias: All the individuals from the other races I ever saw was on TV. Actors, political commentators and such. If they got their job, it's because they were good. I wasn't looking at the average here.

The same apply for people of the same race by the way. Many people of IQ 120+ went to university and their entire social group is composed of smart people. They don't realize (and can't conceive) that a huge part of the population is less intelligent.

------

I am aware that white men have the highest suicide rate of all races, so there's something going on there.

I have no clue why that is, but I'd very much like to know.

Not an American, but I think you are right.

Preventing interracial marriage wouldn't change a thing for the country as a whole, because people would just continue to reproduce with their own race.

Nevermind, I was wrong.

I don't see how my personal race preference could be applied to a country.

Why not just have your mate do an IQ test? People don't mate at random: those who value intelligence will select intelligent mates.

For that matter, why pick race as your correlating factor? You could also correlate by college major, highest education attained, or wealth

There's a little problem with that, because from what I know, there's a regression to the mean in biology.

If two exceptionally tall Japaneses have children together, their children might be a little taller than their national mean, but they won't be as tall as the parents.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpmlqtnrec8

I'm pretty much a libertarian, so I don't have a strong opinion on what the laws should be. (At least for now.)

But I note that there are consequences.

Some people justify environmental laws because of their consequences on the future of a nation. I can easily see the same logic used to prevent the "degradation" of a population.

Thank you very much!

I contacted the company and am now waiting for a response.

Of course things were unprofessional, it happened on the weekend on Snapchat. What did you expect?

"Subject: possible sexual intercourse --- Good morning Miss, We met earlier today at Acme corp. I wanted to bring to your attention my desire to meet you in the goal to have intercourse. Please answer before 5pm. You can reach me on my cellphone.

Regards, Mr. X"

The more I think about it, the more I realize that the boss has no responsibility. He might want to intervene if the relationship is influencing their work performance, but that's all.

She explicitly said that she didn't want him (the boss) to do anything about it. So (in her mind), there was nothing she couldn't handle.

In addition, the event took place outside of work. You are not responsible for the social/sexual relationship of your employees in their private life.

I can't believe I didn't see it sooner.

That's blatant manipulation.

While your business might be your life, for most of your employees it's only a job.

This means that for most of them, it must be pleasant. They must be able to joke around and even, occasionally, flirt. If you try to turn every social interaction into a perfectly professional unfriendly and unsexualised environment, you will very quickly find that you are the only one left.

This is even more relevant in a small startup. In my experience, the worst kind of work environment is a startup trying to act like a big multinational. None of the perks, but all of the soulless experience.

I have nothing against firing someone for bad behavior. However, with the little info you provided us, there is nothing serious.

Make sure the new employee knows that her colleague didn't like his approaches and that it won't happen again.

You should also try to get both sides of the story.

Finally, you did say this:

The employee in question has made it clear that it's not a big deal and she knows how to deal with it (...)

How is she going to react if you fire his ass? Wouldn't it be acting like she can't take care of herself?

You are right. I also forgot those identifying as unicornkin.

Remote work for everyone is the only solution. :-p

The 4 things you mentioned are still false.

She made it clear to the FOUNDER that the conduct was unwelcome. Did she tell it to the new employee? Did he repeatedly talk to her in the same manner after being told it was unwelcome? We don't know.

I have no problem calling a coworker an "asshole", especially on my own time while taking a beer with him. Without context, that the new employee said "milf" doesn't convey anything other than he found the lady sexually attractive. His seducing techniques might be abyssal, or she might be the kind of girl that likes a little spices.

Again, we don't have near enough information to make a judgement here.

Wow.

So few information, but so many people ready to fire his ass.

At this point, I wonder if we should have men/women segregation in the workplace. This is the logical conclusion if you want to avoid this kind of problems.

You have a pretty strong opinion in this thread considering the lack of information we have.

In this particular reply, all the 4 things you mentioned are NOT happening in the story. (At least by what we know.)

Unwelcome: We don't know if it was unwelcome. She even agreed to move to another communication medium (one which wasn't officially work related.)

Overt: It was on their own time, on a completely distinct communication medium. I don't see how more COVERT it could be.

Repeated: Again, from what we know, this was on a single weekend. He called her a milf, asked if he could tell her a secret and she refused. That's it. If he's not asking again and again, it's not repeated.

Workplace sexual advances: That's not in the workplace, nor on the company's time.

There's not much we can conclude without knowing more.

As one of the unlucky ones with this disease, I'm very happy to see some advances made in the field. (Tho I've been hearing about promising advances for decades, without ever seeing any concrete result...)

Did you find other organizations working on gene therapy for SMA?

And despite this immense failure, in Québec we are looking to do it all over again.

sigh

I'll piggyback on this and ask what HN is using to block those pesky disposable email addresses.

I offer FREE stuff in exchange of an email address (which can be removed immediately after), but I still get disposable emails, which is kind of aggravating.

I honestly just assumed it was the case. I don't mind if anyone proves me wrong on this one.

For the discussion I also didn't really make a distinction between a true atheist and someone who believes in a higher power but doesn't go to Church. I should probably have used "secularism".

I don't know; I just listed major societal changes.

It might very well be because of other factors, as said in the article:

"She calculated that in 2005, unmarried middle-aged men were 3.5 times more likely than married men to die from suicide, and their female counterparts were as much as 2.8 times more likely to kill themselves. The divorce rate has doubled for middle-aged and older adults since the 1990s, she said."

There has been huge changes in our societies concerning the role of men and women, their relations, when/if they have children, the type of jobs available (which many are soul-wrecking pointless work), the food we eat, the move towards atheism, the increase in material wealth, the Internet...

There is a myriad of possible factors and we need some serious studies before we can reach a conclusion. You can't just say "it's because capitalism" and be done with it.

A little "politically incorrect" related video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dm_Vv3Q24uQ

Thanks!

So, it appears that whine can't be made by gentiles.

In addition, prepared food must also at least be made in part by a Jew. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishul_Yisrael

Surely this clashes with anti-racism laws in some countries, doesn't it? (Imagine food that couldn't be prepared by black people, or that would require a white man somewhere in the preparation.) Is there some special alternate rule for these cases?