Know-It-Alls…
https://twitter.com/FunnyBearTED/statuses/473750941477646336
I’ve been getting a lot of this lately, especially during the ongoing discussion about Nicholas Wade’s A Troublesome Inheritance (like this joker here – or maybe some of my detractors at my now restored comment over at the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hit piece).
But let me tell you, it’s hardly limited to that. You folks that I’m talking about, you know who you are. In some cases (though by no means all, I’d say), it seems the Dunning-Kruger effect is in play. It is at times entertaining and at times quite annoying. But what can you do?
JayMan's Blog 
“I’ve never won an argument with an ignorant, stupid person, and never lost an argument with an intelligent, reasonable person.”
Forget where I read it, but it is very true.
Very true but can so easily develop into something like.
“I dismiss your claim because you know nothing and I conclude that you know nothing because I already dismissed your claim.”
Hard to avoid though when others are just lying and evading to obscure the real situation.
@Charlie: Well, I try not to remark on things I know nothing about, so if I can’t call the claim as being true, false, or at least plausible, I leave it alone.
Jay,
—” It is at times entertaining and at times quite annoying. But what can you do?”—
Yes, well I fight libertarian fallacies which are passionately entrenched through moral intuition and repetition, not through correspondence with reality. And the only means of winning those arguments is (a) accumulating numbers of fellow critics, (b) repeating the central argument until its an equally dogmatic mantra. Most libertarians read the scripture of the movement. Same is for Cathedral dogma.
(a) Overloading (saturating the environment with confirmatory fallacies.)
(b) Framing (framing arguments as moral rather than scientific )
(c) Dunning Krueger limits the ignorant
(d) Cathedral Education and indoctrination limits the intelligent
(e) Moral intuition providing positive reinforcement.
(f) Confirmation bias, Illusion of asymmetric insight, Herd instinct, Projection bias, Outgroup homogeneity bias – all of them reinforce (a)-(e).
Religions use these methods to systematically coerce members into high investment in their frame. The Cathedral is a religion: Postmodernism is its scripture. And ignorance is what it manufactures.
Like Hayek stated, the 20th century will in retrospect be viewed as an era of attempted restoration of mysticism through mathematical platonism, pseudoscience, and philosophical anti-realism.
And it’s our job, as people outside the Cathedral, to dismantle those fallacies and end that new era of mysticism.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
That awkward moment when someone tries to correct you on something you clearly know more about.
It’s been clearly proven that race doesn’t exist, because 1) Stephen Jay Gould; 2) the Holocaust; 3) the Slave Trade; and 4) science (mustn’t forget science). So what else do they need to know? Chris Crawford on this thread at Evo&Proud is a good example:
My claim is that the tests that are used to define g do not address factors such as social intelligence. I agree, the existence of social intelligence is compatible with g; it is even possible that g does in fact play a role in social intelligence. The fact remains, however, that there is no evidence whatsoever to support the belief that g plays a role in social intelligence.
Your claim that g underlies “all cognitive ability” is contradicted by your later statement that:
Yet the existence of varied mental abilities that are not necessarily commensurate with IQ or g does not remove the central importance of g.
http://evoandproud.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/ron-unz-on-race-iq-and-wealth.html
You over the head with facts and figure and if they fail to come around it’s their problem not yours
Until they show up in groups with pitchforks at your place of work/home that is.
@Sisyphean:
There is that…
Re: your HBD FAQ. It probably wouldn’t have convinced me back when I was in my blank-slatist days (I was never committed; I just picked it up from the cultural milieu). There’s LOTS of “X FAQs” on the internet that purport to explain why you should believe in X and all the anti-Xists have it wrong. Since there are many mutually contradictory X’s, my prior for any specific pro-X FAQ was and is low. I don’t think you can convince anybody with a relatively short document like that one.
What would have convinced me? Break each section into separate posts, give both a top-down (here’s what the data shows) and a bottom-up (this is what we should see given only a few basic assumptions) account, address common counter-arguments, and address hypothetical counter-arguments.
If you’ve ever read the Sequences on LessWrong you know the kind of structure I’m talking about, even if you don’t agree with the content.
@ckp:
Well, J.P. Rushton’s and Arthur Jensen’s 2010 paper Race and IQ: A Theory-Based Review of the Research in Richard Nisbett’s Intelligence and How to Get It was the thing that really convinced me of HBD, at least the racial aspect of it. It is written in the format you describe. But, there in lies the problem with your suggestion: Rushton & Jensen already wrote it! I see no need to write it again, my FRB links to my Fundamentals page, which itself links to that paper, and many others. I don’t know if I’m feeling reinventing the wheel because of my readers’ laziness, if you dig me…
Yeah I feel you. You’ve done a great job with the HBD fundamentals page too.
Maybe I’ll write the intro to HBD that I’d send to my past self some day 😉
I know we have lots of Malcolm Gladwell fans around here, but did anyone see this thing on reddit a few days ago?
Made me laff, anyway.
The thing is that denying these things actually makes a difference to the evidence itself. No matter the accuracy or use.
The longer it takes the more blurry the lines get, the more exceptions to the rule and smaller the gaps become, no matter the cause. Your enemies are becoming more powerful little by little, not the other way around.
Be careful what you sow Jayman.
@thisismypp:
(start at 0:28)
I’m still enjoying your blog but never commenting. Anyway, there’s a book you might enjoy. “The Triple Package” by Amy Chua and Jed Rubenfeld might interest you.
@LLL:
Probably not…
Humans will become Romulans or Vulcans.