Cummings' Jobs Advert

[Castrol for a knave]

JagLover said:

Also he has mainly been sacked for saying the unthinkable not stating scientific untruths.

Twin studies and that of adopted children have estimated the inherited proportion of IQ as being between 50% and 73%. That is both scientific fact (based on currently available evidence) and controversial for anyone in public life to come out and say. Hence all the comments about him being a nutty supporter of eugenics.

Someone hired to think outside the box isn't going to conform to group think. He did however deserve to be fired because he was foolish enough to put any controversial views on a public forum under his own name.

The general view on heritable IQ is "interesting results, needs more work".

However, where matey boy is coming from, is that IQ has a racial element, spun out of genetics (edit), for which there is zero evidence.

Edited by Castrol for a knave on Tuesday 18th February 12:52

[anonymous-user]

Castrol for a knave said:

JagLover said:

Also he has mainly been sacked for saying the unthinkable not stating scientific untruths.

Twin studies and that of adopted children have estimated the inherited proportion of IQ as being between 50% and 73%. That is both scientific fact (based on currently available evidence) and controversial for anyone in public life to come out and say. Hence all the comments about him being a nutty supporter of eugenics.

Someone hired to think outside the box isn't going to conform to group think. He did however deserve to be fired because he was foolish enough to put any controversial views on a public forum under his own name.

The general view on heritable IQ is "interesting results, needs more work".

However, where matey boy is coming from, is that IQ has a racial element, spun out of IQ, for which there is zero evidence.

Yes, it’s that linking race to IQ and eugenics and then maybe policies which always makes people uneasy.

There are probably all kinds of policies or scientific based arguments that sound logical and make sense but aren’t ever going to win elections because they lack empathy and fail to take account of the human and emotive elements of the policy or debate.

[Mrr T]

Castrol for a knave said:

JagLover said:

Also he has mainly been sacked for saying the unthinkable not stating scientific untruths.

Twin studies and that of adopted children have estimated the inherited proportion of IQ as being between 50% and 73%. That is both scientific fact (based on currently available evidence) and controversial for anyone in public life to come out and say. Hence all the comments about him being a nutty supporter of eugenics.

Someone hired to think outside the box isn't going to conform to group think. He did however deserve to be fired because he was foolish enough to put any controversial views on a public forum under his own name.

The general view on heritable IQ is "interesting results, needs more work".

However, where matey boy is coming from, is that IQ has a racial element, spun out of IQ, for which there is zero evidence.

It much more complex than that. There is now a lot of discussion about what IQ means. It clearly has some relationship to intelegence but its not that simple. It does not measure creativity, understanding, memory, etc, all of which are important.

There is a inherited element but that is true in most things. It does not mean you can predict outcomes. So while it's interesting it means nothing in policy terms.

Any link between races is easily explained by other factors. Any one who believes differently should be no where near government.

[Randy Winkman]

El stovey said:

Castrol for a knave said:

JagLover said:

Also he has mainly been sacked for saying the unthinkable not stating scientific untruths.

Twin studies and that of adopted children have estimated the inherited proportion of IQ as being between 50% and 73%. That is both scientific fact (based on currently available evidence) and controversial for anyone in public life to come out and say. Hence all the comments about him being a nutty supporter of eugenics.

Someone hired to think outside the box isn't going to conform to group think. He did however deserve to be fired because he was foolish enough to put any controversial views on a public forum under his own name.

The general view on heritable IQ is "interesting results, needs more work".

However, where matey boy is coming from, is that IQ has a racial element, spun out of IQ, for which there is zero evidence.

Yes, it’s that linking race to IQ and eugenics and then maybe policies which always makes people uneasy.

There are probably all kinds of policies or scientific based arguments that sound logical and make sense but aren’t ever going to win elections because they lack empathy and fail to take account of the human and emotive elements of the policy or debate.

Exactly. All sorts of things might be true and all sorts of thoughts might go through our heads. But the things we choose to say mean a lot.

[R Mutt]

Let me start be saying he's an idiot, not least for using discredited statistics, and an example of the entitled morons we could do without in government. He seems to be masquerading as a scientist cum economist while undermining respected studies on the ideas he's naively promoting as his own. Incentivised birth control for drug addicts was actually trialled in the States for example before being ruled a form of eugenics due to of the race of the subjects.

It's a shame he wasn't actually in possession of better data because it's not racist to illustrate differences in race. He would have been forced to step down were some of his comments factual and would have served as an expendable idiot in highlighting is issue of the outright prohibition of discussing racial attributes

Edited by R Mutt on Tuesday 18th February 12:12

[156651]

R Mutt said:

Let me start be saying he's an idiot, not least for using discredited statistics, and an example of the entitled morons we could do without in government. He seems to be masquerading as a scientist cum economist while undermining respected studies on the ideas he's naively promoting as his own. Incentivised birth control for drug addicts was actually trialled in the States for example before being ruled a form of eugenics due to of the race of the subjects.

It's a shame he wasn't actually in possession of better data because it's not racist to illustrate differences in race. He would have been forced to step down were some of his comments factual and would have served as an expendable idiot in highlighting is issue of the outright prohibition of discussing racial attributes

Edited by R Mutt on Tuesday 18th February 12:12

Why don't we discuss whether gingers have a genetical predisposition to be smarter than brown haired folk, or whether blue eyed woman are genetically more intelligent than green eyed men? Oh, because there is no evidence that it is true - which is the same for the comment on race, despite what racists would have you believe.

[s2art]

156651 said:

R Mutt said:

Let me start be saying he's an idiot, not least for using discredited statistics, and an example of the entitled morons we could do without in government. He seems to be masquerading as a scientist cum economist while undermining respected studies on the ideas he's naively promoting as his own. Incentivised birth control for drug addicts was actually trialled in the States for example before being ruled a form of eugenics due to of the race of the subjects.

It's a shame he wasn't actually in possession of better data because it's not racist to illustrate differences in race. He would have been forced to step down were some of his comments factual and would have served as an expendable idiot in highlighting is issue of the outright prohibition of discussing racial attributes

Edited by R Mutt on Tuesday 18th February 12:12

Why don't we discuss whether gingers have a genetical predisposition to be smarter than brown haired folk, or whether blue eyed woman are genetically more intelligent than green eyed men? Oh, because there is no evidence that it is true - which is the same for the comment on race, despite what racists would have you believe.

There is evidence, just not good evidence. Note that east asians and jews in America scored higher than whites as well.

[carinaman]

The 'If you don't fit in you'll be fired, so don't say we didn't warn you' line reminded me of that:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/25/c...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/17/i...


So rather than being in Mark Clarke's little gang of cool kids, applicants will be with Cummings and his favoured minions?

Wasn't the late Elliott Johnson involved in a sexual relationship with someone of higher standing within that Tory youth faction? Such conduct is a million miles away from an SNP Minister grooming a 16 year old via Social Media with promises of Rugby treats?

Being the 'law and order' party the Conservatives will have passed that information the British Transport Police requested by now?

[JagLover]

s2art said:

There is evidence, just not good evidence. Note that east asians and jews in America scored higher than whites as well.

It is estimated that the mean IQ of Ashkenazi Jews is 112 to 115, compared to 100 in the general population. Because that is the mean point on a typical Bell curve those with exceptional intelligence are far more well represented.

They make up 2% of Americas population but 27% of United States Nobel prize winners in the 20th century,[1][4] 25% of the winners of the Fields Medal (the top prize in mathematics),[8] 25% of ACM Turing Award winners.

Similarly in the UK they are overrepresented among Nobel prize winners by a factor of eight.

We have to no doubt pretend though this is all due to pushy Jewish mothers otherwise we get accused of promoting Eugenics.

[Countdown]

s2art said:

156651 said:

R Mutt said:

Let me start be saying he's an idiot, not least for using discredited statistics, and an example of the entitled morons we could do without in government. He seems to be masquerading as a scientist cum economist while undermining respected studies on the ideas he's naively promoting as his own. Incentivised birth control for drug addicts was actually trialled in the States for example before being ruled a form of eugenics due to of the race of the subjects.

It's a shame he wasn't actually in possession of better data because it's not racist to illustrate differences in race. He would have been forced to step down were some of his comments factual and would have served as an expendable idiot in highlighting is issue of the outright prohibition of discussing racial attributes

Edited by R Mutt on Tuesday 18th February 12:12

Why don't we discuss whether gingers have a genetical predisposition to be smarter than brown haired folk, or whether blue eyed woman are genetically more intelligent than green eyed men? Oh, because there is no evidence that it is true - which is the same for the comment on race, despite what racists would have you believe.

There is evidence, just not good evidence. Note that east asians and jews in America scored higher than whites as well.

Are jewish people genetically different to arabs (muslim or Christian)? I'm pretty sure you can be a white/brown/black jewish person (in the same way that you can be a white/brown/black muslim, or Christian) so I'm not sure how you could say people of XYZ religion are smarter than ABC.

[Castrol for a knave]

JagLover said:

s2art said:

There is evidence, just not good evidence. Note that east asians and jews in America scored higher than whites as well.

It is estimated that the mean IQ of Ashkenazi Jews is 112 to 115, compared to 100 in the general population. Because that is the mean point on a typical Bell curve those with exceptional intelligence are far more well represented.

They make up 2% of Americas population but 27% of United States Nobel prize winners in the 20th century,[1][4] 25% of the winners of the Fields Medal (the top prize in mathematics),[8] 25% of ACM Turing Award winners.

Similarly in the UK they are overrepresented among Nobel prize winners by a factor of eight.

We have to no doubt pretend though this is all due to pushy Jewish mothers otherwise we get accused of promoting Eugenics.

No evidence to suggest is is genetic though. The more plausible hypothesis is that their culture is learned, book led and that as a group they are relativity affluent and education is seen as a key goal.

Murray and Hermstein have been pretty well debunked on this - given you referred to the Bell curve I suspect this is where you are getting your viewpoint from. .

[Graveworm]

Countdown said:

Are jewish people genetically different to arabs (muslim or Christian)? I'm pretty sure you can be a white/brown/black jewish person (in the same way that you can be a white/brown/black muslim, or Christian) so I'm not sure how you could say people of XYZ religion are smarter than ABC.

You can, but should be careful if you should, say provided there is a correlation, you can't assume any causation. There are of course strong familial links within religions so there will be genetic links as well.

[Castrol for a knave]

Countdown said:

Are jewish people genetically different to arabs (muslim or Christian)? I'm pretty sure you can be a white/brown/black jewish person (in the same way that you can be a white/brown/black muslim, or Christian) so I'm not sure how you could say people of XYZ religion are smarter than ABC.

I think the argument goes that Ashkanezi Jews are an isolated social grouping, and as such, have a series of inherent characteristics that confer intelligence benefits in the same way they are more prone to sickle cell and other ailments - as the "price" for a high IQ.

Except the genetic decoding does not bear this out. There is some variation, but it is minor and not in areas which would provide any evolutionary gain or marker.

[anonymous-user]

I can't begin to imagine how you would design a worthwhile study to effectively control for this stuff.

[JagLover]

Castrol for a knave said:

No evidence to suggest is is genetic though. The more plausible hypothesis is that their culture is learned, book led and that as a group they are relativity affluent and education is seen as a key goal.
.

Also no evidence to suggest it is not. If we accept that IQ has a strong genetic component, and that is still the scientific consensus as far as I am aware, then why would a people restricted in the professions (to ones that usually depended more on learning) for centuries not develop higher intelligence as a result?.

[Bussolini]

JagLover said:

It is estimated that the mean IQ of Ashkenazi Jews is 112 to 115, compared to 100 in the general population. Because that is the mean point on a typical Bell curve those with exceptional intelligence are far more well represented.

They make up 2% of Americas population but 27% of United States Nobel prize winners in the 20th century,[1][4] 25% of the winners of the Fields Medal (the top prize in mathematics),[8] 25% of ACM Turing Award winners.

Similarly in the UK they are overrepresented among Nobel prize winners by a factor of eight.

We have to no doubt pretend though this is all due to pushy Jewish mothers otherwise we get accused of promoting Eugenics.

You're assuming it is down to hereditary genetics, when there is no evidence to support that.

[Castrol for a knave]

JagLover said:

Castrol for a knave said:

No evidence to suggest is is genetic though. The more plausible hypothesis is that their culture is learned, book led and that as a group they are relativity affluent and education is seen as a key goal.
.

Also no evidence to suggest it is not. If we accept that IQ has a strong genetic component, and that is still the scientific consensus as far as I am aware, then why would a people restricted in the professions (to ones that usually depended more on learning) for centuries not develop higher intelligence as a result?.

If the assertion is that there is a racial element to intelligence, then the proof must be met, not the other way around.

I am not convinced we do accept IQ has a strong genetic component, There is "some" evidence that it "could" be genetic, but not definitive. there is no proof it is down to race.

It is not exactly clear how genetics would drive IQ, since the baseline is too broad. I suspect there is, in generational terms, nothing that would impact upon the genetic coding.

We then stray into epigenetics, which is very much under discussion. I'm not convinced by it, but I am only a hobbyist genetics nerd who is still trying to get his head around some of the really tricky stuff. Arguing Lenski with religious types is one thing, but the sharp end of genetics is really intense.

[R Mutt]

Surely there are unarguable traits we can all accept vary by race and stop arguing, instead focusing on how absurd it is that they can't be discussed without discomfort.

I guess there is a racist component here where people tend to concentrate on traits which suggest superiority such as IQ, but then European traits are deemed by some to be Western ideals unnaturally enforced upon others, like straight hair.

[anonymous-user]

As I understand, it takes 10k years minimum for something super simple to change at the biological level, and much longer for the kind of complex brain differentiation being discussed?

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 18th February 15:13

[TTwiggy]

R Mutt said:

Surely there are unarguable traits we can all accept vary by race and stop arguing, instead focusing on how absurd it is that they can't be discussed without discomfort.

I guess there is a racist component here where people tend to concentrate on traits which suggest superiority such as IQ, but then European traits are deemed by some to be Western ideals unnaturally enforced upon others, like straight hair.

But it's not really possible to treat these things in isolation, particularly when they are being espoused by someone who was about to take on a role as a govt. advisor.

Take the premise of black people having lower IQs (unproven). It might be fine to talk about it, but if that talk then informs on how you expect black kids to perform in school, whether black kids should be represented at top universities and whether or not to hire a black person for a job, you are definitely entering a racist realm.