In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff


We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.







Try Advanced Search


  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...


CultureBlogs
Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
PhilosoBlog
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Gregdotorg
BookSlut
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Cronaca
Plep
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Seablogger
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette


Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Samizdata
Junius
Joanne Jacobs
CalPundit
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Public Interest.co.uk
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
Spleenville
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
CinderellaBloggerfella
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
InstaPundit
MindFloss
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes


Miscellaneous
Redwood Dragon
IMAO
The Invisible Hand
ScrappleFace
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz

Links


Our Last 50 Referrers







« Random Linkage | Main | Evo-Bio-ish Linkage »

June 03, 2009

Tyler, Steve, Razib

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

Tyler Cowen ventures some thoughts about Steve Sailer. Though the Steve-o-sphere is largely up in arms about the posting, I think that Tyler deserves a lot of credit for admitting that he has read Steve. How many mainstream people have the guts to do that? GNXP's David Kane responds.

Best,

Michael

posted by Michael at June 3, 2009




Comments

The GNXP post is by David Kane, not Razib.

Posted by: JL on June 3, 2009 10:30 PM



Tks for the catch, I've made the correction.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on June 3, 2009 10:40 PM



Any professor with a New York Times column who addresses the Steve Sailer Phenomenon has some guts.

I think Tyler made a good point which he nicely summed up via twitter:

"The costs of racism are more than one million times higher than the costs of hypocritical discourse about race."

Posted by: thehova on June 4, 2009 2:29 AM



"The costs of racism are more than one million times higher than the costs of hypocritical discourse about race."

Yeah, nothing like hypocrisy to keep things running smoothly! And what racism?

Posted by: Where on June 4, 2009 10:31 AM



"The costs of racism are more than one million times higher than the costs of hypocritical discourse about race."

is this even close to being true, even as a rhetorical device and moral preening implement? i'd say the costs of racial hypocrisy have been pretty damned exorbitant in the US for the last 40 years.

Posted by: roissy on June 4, 2009 11:17 AM



NCLB. Bankruptcy looming in CA. Financial meltdown. At least one trillion dollars of transfer payments from white America to black. Those figures alone put the lie to Cowen's tweet.

And it misses the obvious point that hypocritical discourse about race is itself a symptom of racism.

Posted by: PatrickH on June 4, 2009 1:49 PM



Is anti-anti-racism the new racism?

Posted by: Steve W on June 4, 2009 2:47 PM



I would say that most people commenting on this topic on various blogs are clueless and fail to give the deserved credit to Tyler Cowen. It reminded me of the time when he discussed Roissy's blog on Marginal Revolution. On both occasions, he discussed the work of authors whom other mainstream respectable figures of his standing would never dare even mention, except perhaps to denounce them ritually -- and he did it in a way that sends a message to any intelligent reader that some serious and valid ideas might be found in their writings, even though the establishment ideology views even thinking such thoughts as unacceptable and deserving of punishment. It was a subtle but authentic act of subversion, and he did similar things on other occasions too (for example, when he linked to a paper by F. Roger Devlin on MR).

As a result, Cowen was subjected to silly and childish reactions from Roissy and from Sailer's fans, and even Sailer himself seems to have missed the point. If Cowen's goal was to defend and uphold the reigning orthodoxy, he would have simply shut out these heretical ideas from his respectable outlet like other mainstream authors do, not linked to them in a way that subtly signals that there might be something to them after all. For someone with such a standing in the establishment (I mean, he writes for the New York Times!), what he did is a sign of great bravery and open-mindedness.

Posted by: Vladimir on June 4, 2009 3:13 PM



Admitting that you read Steve Sailer does not require guts, but stupidity. And you need a little more stupidity to actually read it. (And have a vomit bucket nearby.)

Posted by: Ray Butlers on June 4, 2009 3:16 PM



As a result, Cowen was subjected to silly and childish reactions from Roissy

vlad, i understood tyler's plausibly deniable angle of approach. if you read my post responding to his linking without linking of my stuff, i playfully spar with him:

LINK

tyler knows i'm in on it. he's still dreadfully wrong about immigration though. i mean, DC ethiopian food isn't *that* great.

Posted by: roissy on June 4, 2009 4:28 PM



NCLB. Bankruptcy looming in CA. Financial meltdown. At least one trillion dollars of transfer payments from white America to black. Those figures alone put the lie to Cowen's tweet.

Who chose to institute all those programs, all of which revolve around the premise that people a reward first and then expecting productive behavior afterwards? White people of high IQ and pedigree. So those figures prove that both high status high IQ whites and low IQ low status blacks can both combine together to each play their roles in pretty stupid endeavors.

It takes two to tango, the white person dumb enough to give the entitlement and the black person to take it.

Not just that, redistributive policies always ruin the character of any nation with large amounts of poor people, regardless of race. West and East Germany. Several decades of split ideologies. One side capitalist, the other side communist. Both started with hundreds of years of one race and similar genetic stock on both sides of the divide and just decades of different culture made them like night and day. You can also read what the collectivization of farms did to the work ethic and character of the Chinese farmers until Communist China had to scale back the redistributive policies and start reintroducing free-market incentives into the equation. And they worked like a charm. A white country and an Asian country, both model races with high average IQ but horrible results under redistributive policies. So your examples of benefits to blacks showing those results only shows that blacks are like most of the rest of the world: give them something for nothing and they flounder in character and productivity.

Socialist policies only work in countries like the ones in pre-immigration Scandinavia where not a huge population of poor relative to rich, homogenous culture and high average education level.

Posted by: T. AKA Ricky Raw on June 4, 2009 5:24 PM



Who chose to institute all those programs, all of which revolve around the premise that people a reward first and then expecting productive behavior afterwards? White people of high IQ and pedigree

That's true. Black people didn't wrest any kind of control away from anybody. The Civil Rights movement was run by whites, not blacks. Blacks as a group haven't organized much of anything. The same is true for South Africa and apartheid.

But the high IQ whites of pedigree weren't trying to advance anybody, just bankrupt the middle class with transfer payments to the least productive class of people imaginable. There was no idealism involved at all. Why? Because bankrupting the white middle class is imperative if you want to establish a totalitarian regime where the masses can't take back any power. Mission accomplished. We're bankrupt and losing our money and freedoms rapidly now.

So your examples of benefits to blacks showing those results only shows that blacks are like most of the rest of the world: give them something for nothing and they flounder in character and productivity

Blacks are not like the rest of the world! Where does this fictional land of prosperous high IQ capitalist blacks exist? Nowhwere. See, that's why this wealth transfer was such a great idea to bankrupt America. Because the elite whites knew that it was money that would be absolutely wasted, no doubt about it. Just like the public school scam that can't burn enough money.

It's amazing that blacks can't admit that they are completely dependent on others to advance past mere subsistence living. That's reality. And blacks know it too. They just can't admit it to whites, because it makes them feel inferior.

Well, we know it regardless. That's why most whites segregate themselves from blacks. Things haven't changed much, no matter what the spin.

We all would have been better off if people didn't want something for nothing and weren't filled with envy for their neighbor's goods. What we have is a moral problem that led to an economic problem. And the moral problems are covetousness and laziness.

Posted by: V on June 4, 2009 6:29 PM



But the high IQ whites of pedigree weren't trying to advance anybody, just bankrupt the middle class with transfer payments to the least productive class of people imaginable. There was no idealism involved at all. Why? Because bankrupting the white middle class is imperative if you want to establish a totalitarian regime where the masses can't take back any power. Mission accomplished. We're bankrupt and losing our money and freedoms rapidly now.

So explain to me again why rule by high IQ is so great then if these are the types of aims we can expect from people who have it?

Posted by: T. AKA Ricky Raw on June 4, 2009 7:44 PM



Ray B. -- But many bright people apparently do read Steve Sailer -- GNXP's Razib and GC have been known to visit, Greg Cochran shows up on occasion, William Saletan of Slate has had a couple of wrestles with Sailer ... I mean, these are people with brainpower to spare. So I don't think your "You have to be an idiot to read Sailer" statement holds any water just on a factual level. If you don't like Sailer, fair enough, of course. But maybe you could come up with some reasons to back up your opinion?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on June 4, 2009 7:44 PM



Blacks are not like the rest of the world! Where does this fictional land of prosperous high IQ capitalist blacks exist?

Uh...where did I mention one existed? Seriously, show me where I said that. You seem like the guy who reads certain talking points so much that you just look for excuses to use them any chance you get, whether they actually apply to your opponents argument or not.

All I'm saying is that poor uneducated people of any race do not improve their lot if you reward them first and expect productive behavior afterward. It didn't happen to poor people in India under socialism, to poor people in East Berlin under communism, and it didn't happen to poor people in China under collectivized farms. Therefore showing that redistributin of wealth didn't improve the lot of uneducated poor blacks proves nothing, because such policies have never improved the lot of poor uneducated people of ANY race.

Posted by: T. AKA Ricky Raw on June 4, 2009 7:50 PM



Steve Sailer-I thought it was obvious. Some people are beyond the pale. I don't read David Duke or Pat Robertson for the same reason: and agenda of naked, irrational bigotry. To say nothing of his within-the-bubble bias.

Posted by: Ray Butlers on June 5, 2009 8:57 AM



I find everything so obvious that I don't need to back up my opinion, Blowhard. All I need to do is come here and tell everybody just how I feel.

From deep within-my-bubble bias, I remain your very own
Butt

Posted by: Butt A. Railers on June 5, 2009 9:20 AM



Is anti-anti-racism the new racism?

Not at all!

1. Because anti-racism is the new racism...
2. Anti-anti-racism is the new anti-racism.

There is none so racist as he who would deny moral agency and its concomitant responsibilities to those dark(er) of skin. This is the truth of SWPL "anti-racism" (i.e., what used to be called racism) today.

It's like what's been done with formerly useful words like compassion. And empathy. And caring. Consider:

1. Compassion is the new heartlessness.
2. Empathy is the new way to wash your hands of people.
3. Caring is the new way to feel good about the way you feel about the image you have of yourself as someone who cares.

These are the new truths of post-modern middle-class morality, SWPL division. Including the de rigeur claims to be "anti-racist". Kitsch, pure kitsch. All of that farrago of elitist fakery and heartlessness that is the post-modern left.

Obviously!

Posted by: PatrickH on June 5, 2009 5:54 PM



Go ahead, Butt. Have the last word. It's not my responsibility to educate you.

Posted by: Ray Butler on June 7, 2009 10:55 AM






Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:



Remember your info?