|
|
home :: politics
Think twice (or why pop ev-psych might not be on the most solid foundation)
The evolutionary psychologist Dr Satoshi Kanazawa is (in)famous for his
provocative claims: atheist liberals are smarter than religious
right-wingers, black people are cognitively inferior to whites,
beautiful people have more daughters than sons, feminism is evil, and so
on.
There are, as you might expect, some criticisms of his work's technical
quality. For example, Echidne here (pts 2, 3,
4), here, and here (pts 2, 3). Or
Andrew Gelman here (PDF) and with David Weakliem here
(PDF again). Or Culture Evolves (see the many links in the third
paragraph). Or Crooked Timber here.
Then too, there are signs that his facade of political neutrality is
either idiocy or lies (see also Cosma Shalizi).
Looooong story short, whether his provocative claims reinforce or
challenge your biases, you might just want to find a more credible
source than an evolutionary psychologist who proudly notes he hasn't
studied biology since high school and gets statistics wrong to boot.
Which is why I'll just wrap up with Daniel Davies:
We can see the modern descendant of this primeval behaviour in the
struggle in our comments section over the evolutionary psychologist,
academic racist, genocidal fantastist and general-purpose
embarrassment[1], Satoshi Kanazawa, on the general subject of everyone
with a perceived national, institutional, disciplinary or academic
connection to him desperately trying to backpedal and claim that he's
one of you lot, not one of us lot.
The Americans are pointing out that he works at LSE; the Brits that he
did all of his studies in America. The sociologists want to make it
very clear that he's a psychologist - the psychologists that his PhD is
in sociology. I have noticed that he actually works in the Managerial
Economics and Strategy Group (ie he's a business school type) and am
staying bloody quiet about it in the hope that nobody else will twig.
There might be something to this evolutionary psychology lark after all.
posted at: 20:20 Sun 28/Feb/2010 |
/politics |
permalink |
0 comments |
trackback
Repeat the HST
OK, so, let me start this off by saying I've been reasonably persuaded
that the HST is a good thing for BC in the long run. And I think Bill
Vander Zalm is an ass, and Bill Tieleman I'm pretty mixed on.
But that said, the way the HST was implemented is absolutely inimical
to democracy and should be defeated for that reason alone.
It is unacceptable for a party to deceive the province into "what's
best". Make your case to the people and then govern with an actual
mandate. Don't say you're not going to bring in an HST and then do it.
posted at: 18:39 Fri 05/Feb/2010 |
/politics/canada |
permalink |
1 comment |
trackback
"Model minority, my ass"
Eugene Volokh writes about Judge Sotomayor's nomination to the
Supreme Court:
That's obviously important for a wide range of issues on which the
liberal position would trouble not just conservatives, but also
libertarians and moderates: the individual right to keep and bear arms,
the right of Asians and whites to equal treatment under the
Constitution's racial equality provisions and federal equal rights
statutes,
I am so sick of people using Asians to drive wedges and otherwise
cover up their real agendas.
Sidebar: Volokh is obliquely referring to the claim, mostly made by
anti-affirmative-action types, that Asian-Americans are harmed by
affirmative action policies, mostly by focusing on university
admissions. See the Nation for a good rundown on why
Asian-Americans consistently reject an end to affirmative action
policies.
As A.R. Sakaeda wrote:
Members of the model minority often are used to shame other people of
color. They can do it, why can't you? If you would only have those same
close-knit families. If you only valued education more. If you only
worked harder. Racism is a thing of the past.
Holding up Asian Americans as a model divides communities of color,
making it difficult for us to see our commonalities.
"Model" too often means you don't have to ride in the back of the bus.
You can ride near the front of the bus, but you have to be very, very
careful never to say anything about the people forced to ride in back,
as writer David Mura notes.
Honestly, I remember the 80s, specifically for me growing up in
Vancouver as Chinese immigration surged. I think the reasons American
conservatives try to lump Asians with whites (essentially against other
minorities) is (1) because it sounds better than just saying "the right
of whites to equal treatment under the Constitution" and (2) because
there are relatively few Asian-Americans in the US. If the numbers of
AsAms in the US was a lot higher, I don't think that 'solidarity' of the
kind Volokh espouses would have a whole lot of staying power.
posted at: 06:57 Thu 28/May/2009 |
/politics |
permalink |
1 comment |
trackback
Why the AIG bonuses matter
Quick question: why is Joseph Cassano not mentioned in the same breath
with Nick Leeson and Jerome Kerviel? All three took down their
respective financial institutions (AIG, Barings, Societe Generale) with
a series of bad bets. The latter two are convicted criminals. Cassano
took in millions from his basically fraudulent schemes, then went on to
leave the company, with a million dollar a year "consulting" contract.
(At least that bit of golden parachute was later rescinded...) (edit:
no, his golden parachute was one million dollars A MONTH.)
Anyways, all that is a prelude to my real point. Why do the AIG
bonuses matter? Aren't they absolutely dwarfed by the scale of the
overall bailout to the company? Yes, but. The bailouts of the company
have been frantic efforts to keep the entire world's financial system
from collapsing in a chain reaction. The bonuses, however, are
completely indefensible. $450 million is going to AIGFP!
There's only 370 people in that division, and more importantly, it is
the division that sank the company.
continue reading...
posted at: 13:57 Wed 18/Mar/2009 |
/politics |
permalink |
3 comments |
trackback
Con man asks for trust
This takes some chutzpah:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper claims he wants to build bridges with his
political opponents in Parliament.
"Obviously we have to do some trust building on both sides," Harper
said at an impromptu news conference after the Governor General
approved his request to prorogue Parliament until January 26.
"Trust-building"??? This from the man who broke his own law
that elections would come at a fixed date? Who, having won his early
election -- the sort he used to rail against -- then proceeded to call
for an end to partisanship right before trying to kneecap his enemies by
cutting off their funding?
Just how stupid does he think Canada is?
posted at: 18:25 Fri 05/Dec/2008 |
/politics/canada |
permalink |
2 comments |
trackback
|
|
|
