millermp12

And with another nail in the blank slate coffin, let the prevarications begin, e.g.

"Feynman was tested at 125"

and yet

There are some points to consider. There are and have been various publishers of IQ tests over the years and various forms of test. We don't have any clear idea what IQ test Feynman took or what it emphasized.

The IQ test that Feynman took was probably scored by the quotient method, meaning that an attempt was made to estimate his 'mental age' and the result was then divided by his chronological age and, finally, multiplied by 100.

IQ tests aren't scored that way any more—instead, a distribution of test scores is formed by giving the test to a large sample of test takers. A result one standard deviation above the mean of the sample group gives an IQ of 115, and so on.""

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/11/08/richard-feynma...

You can say that about blacks (esp males): they're more risky. Just because you're not supposed to look at those actuarial tables, doesn't mean it's not a statistical reality.

Question:

What was the percentage of blacks and/or women at Lotus notes when Mitch sold?

How many low-income/minority households is Mitch within walking distance of from his Berkeley compound?

Diversity for thee, but not for me.

Also, while we're discussing Things You Should Not Notice: what are the numbers as far as litigiousness of "protected" groups? If I'm looking to hire someone, non-protected status (whether it's race, unionization, etc.) means I'm more likely to hire them (all else being equal). Like the blowback from affirmative action, I don't see an objective discussion about litigation risk (whether or not it's substantiated). It's human nature to asymmetrically attribute failure to others and success to oneself. Add racial/gender rent-seeking to the equation and you get an especially potent, counterproductive miasma. Just look at Buddy and Pao - they've made entire careers out of entrepreneurial race/gender grievance litigation.

Why can't all this under-utilized talent create a tech company dominated by blacks and women? Why not create a Meyerhoff like program to prove your hypothesis rather than ask me to subscribe to the latest social engineering fad?

I guarantee you that far, far more trustafarians are using their "privilege" to indulge a negro fetish or whatever "social justice" meme happens to be trending rather than risking anyone's equity in something entrepreneurial.

You think that a typical person would use the millions they made and plow it back into not one but three hair-brained ventures (Musk with Tesla, SpaceEx, Solar City)?

Consider one of the comments below, something like "I would be entrepreneurial too if I didn't have to pay for rent and food."

Bullshit. If that poser inherited millions he would scarcely summon the energy to snap selfies at some BLM "protest".

Seriously: eugenics can't come fast enough.

Or protected classes

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3155774/

The refrain of posers everywhere...

The genetic term is non-zero. It discomfits, I know. But that doesn't make it less true.

I do. Your point, pussy?

Look at Plomins studies. Home environment has almost zero correlation.

If testosterone has nothing to do with incarceration rates, what mechanism do you propose for why men are in jail at much higher rates than women?

(Structural) sexism? Poverty? Poor fashion sensibilities?

The problem is, a substantial (and potentially growing) segment of the population doesn't agree with you.

If racism is _the_ problem, why does it produce perfectly antipodal outcomes for different "people of color"? i.e. Asians are economically ascendant (surpassing whites on most metric), while blacks, well... you get the idea.

Rubbing the amulet of "structural racism" so much has entirely debased the term.

I would be genuinely interested in a rebuttal to elevated testosterone levels (the linked National Cancer Institute abstract).

I almost always provide links to sources that provide a reasonably analytic angle.

They are generally ignored or misunderstood. Because, you know, (structural) racism.

1) men commit violent crime at much higher rates than women. Why? 2) sexism? stupidity? Or perhaps "being male" (higher testosterone levels) 3) males who self-identify as black have about 15% more testoterone (courtesy of that racist institution, the National Institutes of Health)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3455741

4) is is really so crazy that a population with higher testosterone levels tends to be be bigger, and when they indulgent a violent proclivity, the outcome is more severe than when, say, a japanese women gets upset at the flower shop?

Not unlike the lottery, which the poor regularly spent their meager pittance on. Taxation of the poor as Lincoln noted.

So can be ban lotteries (and casinos, too) unless participants demonstrate they can afford the losses?

Can we dispense with "minority" and "people of color" when we're talking really about blacks and to a lesser extent hispanics?

This kind of intellectual forgery is why the left (and it's prescriptions) are increasingly viewed with suspicion. Bring yourself to be honest with your words and assessments. Make sure what you say passes the smell test. Otherwise you're just preaching to the converted.

About to try intermittent 3 day fasts as the science seems promising.

http://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/abstract/S1934-5909(14)00...

Seconding this since it's getting short shrift here among all the talk about Rippentoe and Getting Big.

Took a substantial pay cut in large part to avoid the soul killing commute and to be able to bicycle to work (~9 mi one way). Probably the single biggest life event in the last five years (after having kids). Used to do it daily but recently stopped after having to sort out logistics with school drop-offs, so I'm shopping for an ExtraCycle to address that, then back on the wagon!

Berkeley? Nuff said. I used to be well left of center before I moved here but have since turned into a raving libertarian.

just this morning I heard of a young man from the startup Chariot being grilled that the service was morally failing the homeless in handicapped who are less likely to have credit cards. I also wish to be chauffeured to work in a Bentley and to have a private cessna on weekends. but that doesn't make providers of these services morally obligated to make it affordable for me. if it takes a homeless person in an extra 10 minutes to take Muni to occupy their usual place in the Public Library I'm not going to lose sleep over that. anyone who suggests otherwise to my face better be wearing a spit shield

Some hippies called for a halt to splitting the atom. You know how that story went. Good luck with this one.

What's more, those who can, do. Those who can't make themselves insufferable to others.

Fascinating article over at The Edge where Kahne man interviews hariri. TLDR; the answer to your simpering question is "yes"

From casual observation, it would seem a lot of black communities are not afflicted with this moral dillemma.

What's more the latest US Census post points quite clearly to a powerful assortat I've mating effect.

When referring to social "scientists" the quotes should be obligatory

Kansas City school experiment: $2B over 10 years and blacks still didn't get their shit together.

Really only two takeaways from an overly long article:

1) the diversity thing has more than a whiff of wish fulfillment to it. Repetition in this regard just makes the dubious sound downright desperate.

2) if money is really flowing to the next Netflix for Latinos, what stronger "sell" signal do you need?

Save yourself the read. Short answer is: because they're German.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/economic-and-social-crisis-in-p...

So basically the genetic term, outside of individuals and perhaps families, is always, as a matter of moral principal, negligibly close to zero? Because...?

Is wealth and GDP per capita in South Africa increasing or decreasing after apartheid?

Comparatively, how is Africa _not_ dirty and diseased? The only place on Earth where long vanquished diseases are still fairly common is Africa.

By what metric (child mortality, water quality, GI diseases, environmental degradation), could you possibly undermine this statement? Africa appears dirty and diseased because it is.

a) has this study been reproduced (i.e. the Dashboard business)

b) still smells like Lysenko-ism