The hardest subject I have still to promote into P-vernacular is the structural composition of tradition and religion as debts of inheritance both to us, and from us, and the economics of that transfer.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-19 15:35:00 UTC
The hardest subject I have still to promote into P-vernacular is the structural composition of tradition and religion as debts of inheritance both to us, and from us, and the economics of that transfer.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-19 15:35:00 UTC
WELL THAT FITS BUT IT’S A BIG SURPRISE!!!
by Göran Dahl
Up until very recently, it was thought that Eastern Europeans (in the form of Poles, Belarusians, Ukrainians, Russians and Balts) were the genetically closest to Proto-Indo-Iranians and, indeed, to Proto-Indo-Europeans. However, it appears that these ethnic groups had ever so slightly inflated Steppe ancestry percentages due to having higher levels of so-called Narva_HG admixture. Narva_HG belongs to the Mesolithic Narva culture, whose members were a mixture of EHG (Eastern Hunter-Gatherer) and WHG (Western Hunter-Gatherer).
Today, we can say that the people closest to Proto-Indo-Iranians and Proto-Indo-Europeans in terms of genetic distance (and Steppe ancestry) are Norwegians, Irishmen and Icelanders; the latter due to being a composite of the two former. Irishmen tend to be the closest fit for typical Proto-Indo-Iranian cultures such as Srubnaya and Sintashta, whereas Norwegians are the closest to Yamnaya_Kalmykia (a subset of Yamnaya) and Potapovka, which is thought to be ancestral to the forementioned Srubnaya.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-19 15:33:00 UTC
—“The Frankfurt School’s Critical Theory is Dead. We know the structure of the lie and how to unmake it. Prosecute the lies and warranty the truth.”–JWarren Prescott
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-19 15:30:00 UTC
Updated Jan 19, 2020, 2:59 PM
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-19 14:59:00 UTC
DON’T WASTE MY TIME. THE POSTMODERN LIES ARE DONE
Please don’t waste my time. Find the data. Human behavior is 80% inherited and 20% idiosyncratic development of behavior. Races differ in degree of neoteny, and rate of maturity. Genders differ in the distribution of traits and biases because of structural differences in the brain and distributions in the endocrine system, with the stereotypes being true in all walks of life. Neoteny and symmetry are most reproductively desirable always and everywhere. Intelligence is a personality trait. Between trait intelligence and trait conscientiousness and trait agreeableness( female)-disagreeableness(male) we measure and predict all lifetime outcomes, and adding family tradition class outcomes are determined. We can even tell your behavior by the type of crop farmed by your ancestors.
The difference between races and class is in genetic load, not increase in ability. I other words lower classes carry more defects and mutations. Upper classes maintain position only through selective mating, but are otherwise genetically middle class. Nature nurture was solved pre-2000, gender differences by 2012, genetic and racial differences last year (2019), and we are just about to cross the line into the cognitive differences between races, subraces, classes and genders. There is almost no rotation between genetic and social classes. There is only rotation between economic classes, because markets make it possible for underclasses, lower classes, working classes, and middle classes to achieve “lottery wins”, specifically in business, arts, sports, and entertainment.
The problem facing each of the races is statistical and genetic: the size of their underclasses was not eliminated through eugenic reproduction like it was in europe and east asia. Instead, neoteny was prevented, and underclass populations expanded because the only defense against warm weather disease gradients is early maturity and large numbers of offspring. While european winter farming, and east asian cold weather rice farming are brutal for those that carry genetic load. By the late middle ages most of europe was genetically middle class. Brit intelligence is largely captured in the middle class (or what we call in the states the upper middle class) and this has not traditionally been a problem in either agrarian or industrial ages – but has become and remains a problem in the post industrial era. Which is why white brits underperform immigrants. So whereas the average IQ of anglos (myself included) was around 115 in the 1860’s, we have lost 15 points, or one standard deviation, in just a hundred and sixty years. Every single one of these underclasses you let in and we let in is crushing both our economies, our cultures, and our future generations.
Let me put it another way: try to estimate the value of one national point of intelligence. It’s pretty easy. Look what happens under 100, then under 97, then under 93, then under 90. It’s a cliff.
The average intelligence of your people is more important than yur intelligence in determining your quality of life and that of your offspring and the generations that follow.
Period. End of story.
I know this because i know in painful detail the structure of the brain, how it operates down to the molecular level, how genetic information is transferred between generations, how we grow brains in utero and post partum, and the changes brought about by structural differences in transmission of information. I know the research. And I know you don’t.
You were sold a lot of lies. Your principle challenge in life is unlearning all the lies you were told, to make you an ignorant, useful, domesticated animal for the political classes.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-19 14:54:00 UTC
THE ECONOMIC POLICY OF ELIZABETH WARREN
by Tyler Cowen
Jerry Taylor has made some positive noises about her on Twitter lately, as had Will Wilkinson in earlier times. I genuinely do not see the appeal here, not even for Democrats. Let’s do a quick survey of some of her core views:
1. She wants to ban fracking through executive order. This would enrich Russia and Saudi Arabia, harm the American economy ($3.5 trillion stock market gains from fracking), make our energy supply less green, and make our foreign policy more dependent on bad regimes and the Middle East. It is perhaps the single worst policy idea I have heard this last year, and some of the worst possible politics for beating Trump in states such as Pennsylvania.
2. Her private equity plan. Making private equity managers personally responsible for the debts of the companies they acquire probably would crush the sector. The economic evidence on private equity is mostly quite positive. Maybe she would eliminate the worst features of her plan, but can you imagine her saying on open camera that private equity is mostly good for the American economy? I can’t.
3. Her farm plan. It seems to be more nationalistic and protectionist and also more permanent than Trump’s, read here.
4. Her tax plan I: Some of the wealthy would see marginal rates above 100 percent.
5. Her tax plan II: Her proposed wealth tax would over time lead to rates of taxation on capital gains of at least 60 to 70 percent, much higher than any wealthy country ever has succeeded with. And frankly no one has come close to rebutting the devastating critique from Larry Summers.
6. Student debt forgiveness: The data-driven people I know on the left all admit this is welfare for the relatively well-off, rather than a truly egalitarian approach to poverty and opportunity. Cost is estimated at $1.6 trillion, by the way (is trillion the new billion?). Furthermore, what are the long-run effects on the higher education sector? Do banks lend like crazy next time around, expecting to be bailed out by the government? Or do banks cut bank their lending, fearing a haircut on bailout number two? I am genuinely not sure, but thinking the question through does not reassure me.
7. College free for all: Would wreck the relatively high quality of America’s state-run colleges and universities, which cover about 78 percent of all U.S. students and are the envy of other countries worldwide and furthermore a major source of American soft power. Makes sense only if you are a Caplanian on higher ed., and furthermore like student debt forgiveness this plan isn’t that egalitarian, as many of the neediest don’t finish high school, do not wish to start college, cannot finish college, or already reject near-free local options for higher education, typically involving community colleges.
8. Health care policy: Her various takes on this, including the $52 trillion plan, are better thought of as (vacillating) political strategy than policy per se. In any case, no matter what your view on health care policy she has botched it, and several other Dem candidates have a better track record in this area. Even Paul Krugman insists that the Democrats should move away from single-payer purity. It is hard to give her net positive points on this one, again no matter what your policy views on health care, or even no matter what her views may happen to be on a particular day.
All of my analysis, I should note, can be derived internal to Democratic Party economics, and it does not require any dose of libertarianism.
9. Breaking up the Big Tech companies: I am strongly opposed to this, and I view it as yet another attack/destruction on a leading and innovative American sector. I will say this, though: unlike the rest of the list above, I know smart economists (and tech experts) who favor some version of the policy. Still, I don’t see why Jerry and Will should like this promise so much.
Those are some pretty major sectors of the U.S. economy, it is not like making a few random mistakes with the regulation of toothpicks. In fact they are the major sectors of the U.S. economy, and each and every one of them would take a big hit.
More generally, she seems to be a fan of instituting policies through executive order, a big minus in my view and probably for Jerry and Will as well? Villainization and polarization are consistent themes in her rhetoric, and at this point it doesn’t seem her chances for either the nomination, or beating Trump, are strong in fact her conditional chance of victory is well below that of the other major Dem candidates. So what really are you getting for all of these outbursts?
When I add all that up, she seems to have the worst economic and political policies of any candidate in my adult lifetime, with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders (whose views are often less detailed).
I do readily admit this: Warren is a genius at exciting the egalitarian and anti-business mood affiliation of our coastal media and academic elites.
If you would like to read defenses of Warren, here is Ezra Klein and here is Henry Farrell. I think they both plausibly point to parts of the Warren program that might be good (more good for them than for me I should add, but still I can grasp the other arguments on her behalf). They don’t much respond to the point that on #1-8, and possibly #1-9, she has the worst economic and political policies of any candidate in my adult lifetime.
For Jerry and Will, I just don’t see the attraction at all.
That said, on her foreign policy, which I have not spent much time with, she might be better, so of course you should consider the whole picture. And quite possibly there are other candidates who, for other reasons, are worse yet, not hard to think of some. Or you might wish to see a woman president. Or you might think she would stir up “good discourse” on the issues you care about. And I fully understand that most of the Warren agenda would not pass.
So I’m not trying to talk you out of supporting her! Still, I would like to design and put into the public domain a small emoji, one that you could add to the bottom of your columns and tweets. It would stand in for: “Yes I support her, but she has the worst proposed economic policies of any candidate in the adult lifetime of Tyler Cowen.”
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-19 13:04:00 UTC
HUMAN CAPITAL
In that branch of economics called Political Economy, Human capital consists of the size of the population, their age distribution, their health, their fitness, their intellect and character, and the sum of training in behavior, skills, and knowledge: every physical emotional and intellectual asset a person can have.
Human capital is beneficial not just for the individual in achieving his or her full potential but that the economy and the polity achieve their fullest potential together when there is more human capital. This is rather obvious, but it helps to tie the world together for people.
The government relies on education as the primary means by which to ensure that everyone rather than just those who can afford it, can achieve their potential, and as a consequence the society achieves its greatest potential.
The reason for mass education was just as much to prevent so many indolent useless criminal malcontents as it was to improve the lives of children. lol.
We don’t often add that success is more dependent on the average intelligence and personality trait distribution of the group than it is on the education because that would be improper in the context.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-19 10:05:00 UTC
NITWITS FROM THE CRITIQUE GALLERY
—“Yet, you believe the pseudoscientific cherry picking by “experts” like Judith curry, Tim ball, Richard lindzen etc on the topic of climate change, so much for argument from authority. Just because you dont comprehend the math behind probablistic models used in quantum models, doesn’t mean they are invalid”—Rash Ak
(a) Curry is the best most neutral skeptic (I don’t recognize ball or linden) and I was directly involved with the movement deeply enough to criticize the people, their malincentives and the failure of its predictions. It’s this behavior and the failure of the predictions I criticize. My position has been, and remains: overpopulation by the underclass is the problem not energy use or consumption. I don’t know yet how much affect we’re having or if that effect is meaningful, and if it’s meaningful the I’m not confident it’s bad. And I”m not confident it’s bad, because this warm interglacial is preferable to the norm: glacial. And even if we determine it’s meaningful and bad then I don’t see any solution to the problem other than vast reduction in human population.
(b) I comprehend the math just fine, which is why I clearly articulate the cause and consequence of ‘mathiness’ as use of probabilism because the underlying causal relations are still unknown. And the reason I do so is the parallel between the problems of physics, economics, and mathematics, because of the late 19th and early 20th reversion to pre-descartian math just as hilbert complained.
(c) the quantum and the relativistic models are in conflict for the reasons I’ve described – we have no geometric (classical model) that explains the distribution of probability across the wave form.
(d) Nit: validity is an unscientific term left over from justificationary philosophy., and imported from mathematics (test of internal consistency). Instead: Repeatable, demonstrable, explanatory, consistent, coherent.
You will be very hard pressed to find other than one of the best professors of physics or mathematics who can or will debate me on this subject.
You aren’t capable of this conversation or you would have made a different criticism. And you are clearly pulling sh-t out of your a– from a troll (fake) account to engage in female-jewish critique because you can’t construct an argument on equally articulate terms.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-19 08:30:00 UTC
Sorry all. Mathiness, and mathematical fiction in physics is definitely a problem, and attention whoring among mathematical physicists by selling those fictions is ridiculous.
But this is because they have no classical model (geometric) to explain their probabilism at the subatomic level. Even the most mathy idea – string theory – is likely very close to the explanation of how change moves through the underlying geometry – whatever it is.
Electric universe theory is simply a material theory and therefore easier to grasp without the mathiness. That said, it’s absolutely positively pseudoscientific nonsense. Same for plasma.
The reason all of these problems exist, whether mainstream mathy or fringe material, is that we simply haven’t figured out the underlying (and in my expectation, classical, structure of the universe at the sub-particle (wave) level.)
There is an elegance to P because it operationalizes the psychological, social, political world of thought. But human action is at human scale. That elegance isn’t available to use in physics at the sub-particle level because we can’t yet operationalize it.
So please don’t associate woo woo with my work because you RIGHTLY PREFER and TRUST a classical, geometric, material, operational description of reality instead of a mathy-probabalistic one. Realize this about YOURSELF and YOUR thought.
Just because P solves a problem and mathy-physics doesn’t, doesn’t mean mathy physics is wrong. It means it’s incomplete – but yes, when it is complete, I don’t doubt it will be expressible in operational and material terms.
Woo woo pseudoscience is what I say it is: nonsense.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-19 07:56:00 UTC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFpS4zpLcgo&t=0sVERY MUCH WORTH A WATCH
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFpS4zpLcgo&t=0sUpdated Jan 18, 2020, 8:58 PM
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-18 20:58:00 UTC