jpc

I think there are a lot of distributional prior assumptions going into the model. Eg: Assumption 1: there will be a lower -IQ producing genotype and then there will be a say a zero-mean noise distribution around it in phenotype (here measured by IQ). Assumption 2: Immigrants are selected on higher phenotype but not genotype. Assumption 3: Breeding is done based on favourable phenotype (if at all --> well-fare state, advanced medicine) not genotype. Then there is selection bias toward the upper end of the phenotype but of course this leaves the genotype's mean unchanged, so their kids will still not have a greater chance of being smart than the rest of the immigrant's home population and, in particular, the expected IQ of the second-generation immigrants will not be greater than the expected IQ of the home population, in spite of the first generation being measurably smarter (cannot see a contradiction under these assumptions). That aside, I think Stefan's focus on IQ might skew the debate a little. I know he is an IT guy and I am sure for a coder IQ is a good measure of success. But I do not think the same is true for other meaningful professions (eg lawyers, doctors, entrepreneurs (?) etc). Now, IQ clearly matters if your society needs a lot of Engineers but otherwise not so much I would argue. This is the reason why IQ is such a contrversial quantity and there are multiple competing tests and scales of IQ. By the way: Gossip goes that MIT dismisses standardized tests like the GRE (which correlate with IQ) because of the fact that a lot of their top scientists obtained low score and due to the iffy evidence of their general predictiveness.

Just a few thoughts on the Orlando shooting and Stefan's coverage. In particular, Stefan and Mike Chernovich spent some time wondering about the credibility of being able to kill 50 people. My own first thought was that this was rather efficient. But, in hindsight -- having had 3 hours and having gained forced entry -- its not surpirsing at all. Here are some points I think above-linked video neglects to consider: 1) The floor was packed. That means a single bullet can pierce through a number of people at once. 2) The interior (you can see that from other videos) of the club mainly consists of hard furniture and floorings. That means a bullet may bounce off a few times before it comes to rest. 3) Shrapnel. 4) It sounds like the attacker has gained forced entry. 5) He might have had an accomplice (I think this was something Stefan and Mike suggested as well). 6) Endurance and psychological stamina. S&M argued that it was odd how the attacker could sustain the effort especially the stress and carnage. I get that point, but, this dude was a hard-core fundamentalist (he is doing a great deed and pleases allah isnt he?) so that might take the edge off. There is potential drug usage. He is from Afghanistan and *might have visited and been confronted with similar actions before. At least he might have got the cultural role models in place to deal with this sort of thing better than the average western liberal. In his home country similar levels of violence are not uncommon, so if you import these people why would the American air and water turn them into something else (even if second generation) ? As an additional point I would also argue that if someone in the crowd would have had a gun this could have been prevented. Similar with the Paris shooting where the attackers had assault rifles as well.

Interesting -- what is your indiciation of being openly racist to Eastern Europeans? Never heard that niggers thing -- would be an extremely American category to think or speak in tbh... Generally though, I would not surprised some undercurrent of resentment towards some Eastern European countries that conquered German territories in a rather genozidal manner..