291–300 of 319 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they're the enemies of e/acc, and their EA background (due to FTX, SBF, etc.) taints them a bit when it comes to fundraising.
By "enemies" you mean the sinking boat that e/acc people jumped out of, giving way for the next scam.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, that's the point in question. For its critics, the whole enterprise is a misguided sham. See Leif Wenar's stimulating recent piece, 'The Deaths of Effective Altruism', which sees SBF less as aberration, than symptom. https://www.wired.com/story/deaths-of-effective-altruism/ I think EA was naive from the start, both in its unreflective moral realism, and its reduction of complicated questions of social theory do…
Probably too late for anyone to notice, but I appreciate this being posted. My perspective on this coming into the discussion is EA started off well and noble and I had a good impression of organizations like GiveWell and the Against Malaria Foundation. I was largely of the mind that EA was corrupted later on when it was taken over by long-termists and AI alarmists who Pascal's Wagered their way into making no possib…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, that's the point in question. For its critics, the whole enterprise is a misguided sham. See Leif Wenar's stimulating recent piece, 'The Deaths of Effective Altruism', which sees SBF less as aberration, than symptom. https://www.wired.com/story/deaths-of-effective-altruism/ I think EA was naive from the start, both in its unreflective moral realism, and its reduction of complicated questions of social theory do…
Probably too late for anyone to notice, but I appreciate this being posted. My perspective on this coming into the discussion is EA started off well and noble and I had a good impression of organizations like GiveWell and the Against Malaria Foundation. I was largely of the mind that EA was corrupted later on when it was taken over by long-termists and AI alarmists who Pascal's Wagered their way into making no possib…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The fact is that Bostrom gave credit to science quackery The measured IQ difference between races is not science quackery. It's a fact accepted by most who seriously study the issue. For example, the American Psychological Association issued a review of the evidence and concluded there is a Black-White IQ testing gap[1]: > The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one sta…
Did you even read the article you point to? It looks like you just cherry picked a sentence that says what you want to hear. The passage that you highlight does not say that there is a gap not explained by socio-economical status, it says "it is not ONLY socio-economical". It does not say there is no biases in the the test construction, it says "there is no OBVIOUS biases". And it ends up with "At present, no one kno…
I cherry-picked a sentence from the summary section for the sake of providing a representative statement of the content of the article relevant to the discussion. There's nothing bad form about that. Nothing you say undermines the relevance of the point or somehow minimizes it.
>and the picture became clearer, showing that what the authors did not know in 1996 are now understood, and it turns out it's mainly bias and socio-economical status.
Feel free to provide the studies that demonstrate this.
oh the poor darlings
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you even read the article you point to? It looks like you just cherry picked a sentence that says what you want to hear. The passage that you highlight does not say that there is a gap not explained by socio-economical status, it says "it is not ONLY socio-economical". It does not say there is no biases in the the test construction, it says "there is no OBVIOUS biases". And it ends up with "At present, no one kno…
> It looks like you just cherry picked a sentence that says what you want to hear. I cherry-picked a sentence from the summary section for the sake of providing a representative statement of the content of the article relevant to the discussion. There's nothing bad form about that. Nothing you say undermines the relevance of the point or somehow minimizes it. >and the picture became clearer, showing that what the aut…
"cherry picking" is a term used to talk about picking the "nice" context and not picking the "not nice" context, and therefore depicting the situation in a misleading way. The article that you quote was a reaction from the APA to the Black IQ controversies and is widely viewed as the APA taking the position that saying "Whites are smarter than Blacks" as not supported by APA. It is what someone understand when they read the full conclusions (other interpretations do not make sense).
> Feel free to provide the studies that demonstrate this.
It's very easy to find them. The fact that you are not aware of these shows that you are not very aware of the state of the art in the subject.
But for example:
Kaplan, Jonathan Michael (January 2015). "Race, IQ, and the search for statistical signals associated with so-called "X"-factors: environments, racism, and the "hereditarian hypothesis"".
Birney, Ewan; Raff, Jennifer; Rutherford, Adam; Scally, Aylwyn (24 October 2019). "Race, genetics and pseudoscience: an explainer"
Dickens, William T.; Flynn, James R. (2006). "Black Americans Reduce the Racial IQ Gap: Evidence from Standardization Samples"
Nisbett, Richard E.; Aronson, Joshua; Blair, Clancy; Dickens, William; Flynn, James; Halpern, Diane F.; Turkheimer, Eric (2012). "Group differences in IQ are best understood as environmental in origin"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Presentation of FHI: - Founded in 2005 by Prof Nick Bostrom as a multidisciplinary research group at Oxford to study big-picture questions for human civilization - Aimed to shield researchers from ordinary academic pressures and foster creativity and intellectual progress History: Early days (2005-2010): - Initial funding from James Martin and the Oxford Martin School - Focus on human enhancement ethics, global catas…
> Concepts originated at FHI that are now influential: existential risk, astronomical waste, information hazards, differential technological development, crucial considerations, exploratory engineering, whole brain emulation
None of these originated at FHI. FHI may have considered them important and talked about them a bunch, but they all predate the FHI, mostly by multiple decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It looks like you just cherry picked a sentence that says what you want to hear. I cherry-picked a sentence from the summary section for the sake of providing a representative statement of the content of the article relevant to the discussion. There's nothing bad form about that. Nothing you say undermines the relevance of the point or somehow minimizes it. >and the picture became clearer, showing that what the aut…
> I cherry-picked a sentence from the summary section for the sake of providing a representative statement of the content of the article relevant to the discussion. "cherry picking" is a term used to talk about picking the "nice" context and not picking the "not nice" context, and therefore depicting the situation in a misleading way. The article that you quote was a reaction from the APA to the Black IQ controversie…
The thing is, I never claimed otherwise. My claim was very specific, and I used the APA review as a citation of that specific point. Namely, that the measured Black-White IQ gap is not crackpot science but is accepted by most people who study the issue.
>It's very easy to find them. The fact that you are not aware of these shows that you are not very aware of the state of the art in the subject.
Usually people's claims overstep the actual evidence in their claimed citations. The gambit is that their interlocutor won't look or won't understand what they're reading if they did. Your citations are a case-in-point.
The first one is not about IQ at all, but about the changes in household wealth due to the Great Recession.
The fourth one is a commentary piece that doesn't explicitly defend the point of contention.
The second piece's title looks like commentary, so I didn't bother with it.
The third one defends the claim that the Black-White gap has reduced by 5 points, which is at least somewhat relevant, but doesn't at all defend your claim that the Black-White IQ gap has been demonstrated to be fully explained by bias and socioeconomic status.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume by "draw a picture in crayon", you mean provide a very simple explanation. You seem to be confusing the fact that children generally draw simple things, and also draw with crayons commonly. But there is nothing about crayons intrinsically that means a crayon drawings must be simple.
Having drawn with crayons, pencils, and pens, I think there is an intrinsic property about crayon drawings that does severely limit their maximum complexity/detail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I cherry-picked a sentence from the summary section for the sake of providing a representative statement of the content of the article relevant to the discussion. "cherry picking" is a term used to talk about picking the "nice" context and not picking the "not nice" context, and therefore depicting the situation in a misleading way. The article that you quote was a reaction from the APA to the Black IQ controversie…
>is widely viewed as the APA taking the position that saying "Whites are smarter than Blacks" as not supported by APA. The thing is, I never claimed otherwise. My claim was very specific, and I used the APA review as a citation of that specific point. Namely, that the measured Black-White IQ gap is not crackpot science but is accepted by most people who study the issue. >It's very easy to find them. The fact that you…
I have said that Bostrom gave credit to science quackery.
You answered saying that it is not, explaining that the Black-White IQ gap is not crackpot science and therefore, all that remains is vibe.
Except that the science quackery is not "just observing that in data we see a difference while not correcting" (this is just facts and indeed people agree with that), the science quackery is to conclude garbage from this observation.
> Your citations are a case-in-point.
What a surprise. Of course you will say "no! no! it's not true! I don't believe articles that say what I don't want to believe".
> The first one is not about IQ at all, but about the changes in household wealth due to the Great Recession.
Are you stupid? The APA paper says "right now, socio-economic data is not enough to explain it", I've said "things have changed since then, for example look at this paper that shows that socio-economic data is now enough to explain it", and you answer "it does not mention IQ"?
> The fourth one is a commentary piece that doesn't explicitly defend the point of contention.
Are you stupid? The APA paper says "right now, socio-economic data is not enough to explain it", I've said "things have changed since then, for example look at this piece of commentary where very established experts explicitly explain that socio-economic data is now enough to explain it", and you answer "it does not mention IQ"?
> The second piece's title looks like commentary, so I didn't bother with it.
Of course you did not, every excuse is good for you to deny the facts. Commentaries are a valid way to communicate scientific results, it is ridiculous to say "the scientists have said their conclusions are X or Y, but I still maintain it is not because they said it on a pink piece of paper instead of green".
> The third one defends the claim that the Black-White gap has reduced by 5 points, which is at least somewhat relevant, but doesn't at all defend your claim that the Black-White IQ gap has been demonstrated to be fully explained by bias and socioeconomic status.
Are you stupid? You asked me to demonstrate that the picture became clearer, this article explicitly says that between 1996 and now, people have observed an evolution that makes thing clearer. And now you also take ONE of the few article, the one focusing on this aspect, and pretend that it invalidates everything because it does not focus on the other aspect. That's typical of discussion with pseudoscience partisan: you say "X and Y", you gave them 2 articles, one demonstrating X, one demonstrating Y, and they will say "invalid: the first one does not demonstrate Y, the second one does not demonstrate X". (and I know, "no, it's not true, none of these articles exist, I deny it". Whatever)
Tell me, in a theoretical parallel world where indeed my sentence is correct (it is correct in this world, but let's make the thought experiment where we agree it is correct), what should I provide to you that you will not reject for one reason or another? I'm sure you like to think of yourself very generously, but the reality is that in this parallel world, you will behave exactly like here: nothing will never be perfect enough to you, you will still believe you're right no matter what your interlocutor is bringing.
Anyway, I think I've made my point, no? You were saying that Bostrom is just "racist because his vibe is off", and by your own admission (you agree the APA article is saying "Whites are smarter than Blacks" is stupid), we know agree it's ridiculous to pretend it is "just because of his vibe". Since then, you several time been intellectually dishonest. At the end, it just reenforces my impression that Bostrom is just an idiot that indeed have fallen for science quackery and have said racist stuffs because his played edgelord. Because if it was not the case, it is very strange that people who defend him are all exactly at the same level.