About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

July 11, 2007 5:40pm by David Farrar

Jim Flynn explains

On the Alliance blog Jim Flynn explains his comments and clarifies he does not support eugenics as reported by the SST.

Hat Tip: No Right Turn

Share this:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More

Pinterest
Print
Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment18

Uncategorised
New Zealand

Comments (18)

Login to comment or vote

Porcupine

Ah great thanks for that Dave, I didnt know they had a website. I’ve just popped a couple of posts on there that should see me banned by breakfast.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 11, 2007 7:02pm
JG

This poor guy was misquoted from start. I reckon he had a point – smart parents make for smart, productive kids. Probably less likely to be beaten, shot, stabbed or burnt too.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 11, 2007 8:12pm
David MacGregor

IQ measurement seems to me to be a complete waste of time and, although I teach at Massey University , I wouldn’t regard a degree as any indication of ability – based on my observations in the real world. Having talent is situational. Billy Connelly is a talented man – witty, intelligent and at the top of his game. If owning mansions or castles is your measure of success then successful he is. But read his biography (written by his Kiwi wife Pamela Stephenson – a psychologist) and you find he was born in poverty. He had minimal education (though I am sure he was granted an honorary doctorate from somewhere) and was abused terribly as a child. He became an alcoholic – though now he’s celan and sober. So, there you go – the entire eugenics discussion is bollocks. There is no genuine indicator for leading a successful or productive life (though racism and bigotry have a funny way of getting in the way regardless – often deployed by the children of the wealthy and well educated).

Entertaining these stupid ideas about eugenics paves the way for a national strategy for social engineering based on phrenology.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 11, 2007 9:13pm
NX

I actively looked for the Alliance website the other day to see if they still excised.

I wanted to see what a hard left political party was like. But unlike Jordan’s blog they did have some intellectual discussions.

Nice post David MacGregor.

John Key came from a poor back ground & look @ him – in line to be the next PM of New Zealand.

Intelligence isn’t a very good measure of how successful one is going to be. I know plenty of smart people who are lazy and under achieve as a results.
Drive & ambition is a better measure.

However ‘drive & ambition’ come through personal responsibility & individual freedoms. Something that’s not fostered by this Labour government.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 11, 2007 9:45pm
brendensheehan

Jim Flynn may not be good for much but it is heartening to know that he is one of the approximately four New Zealanders who still remain members of the Alliance.

If we keep contraceptives out of the water they may number 10 by the decade’s end.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 11, 2007 10:55pm
Porcupine

The labour gevernment has been practicing eugenics on people with drive and ambition – getting rid of them
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 11, 2007 11:04pm
Porcupine

I doubt if Lailla would have either of the Jim’s babies so they’ll probably go extinct.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 11, 2007 11:31pm
David MacGregor

I realise this blog has high traffic but I think ownership somes with responsibilty.

The previous post to this is well out of order and publishing, or allowing it to be published is probably illegal.

Even if it’s not it stretches the freedom of expression argument.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 11, 2007 11:50pm
Porcupine

Not helpful Adolf. Yes paying for other people to have babies is wrong but bludgers come in all shapes, sizes, colours, sexes etc (they are “diverse”). It is the bludgers at both ends of the socioeconomic spectrum who think everyone owes them a living and respect that we need to unite against in this country.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 11, 2007 11:51pm
Porcupine

There we go again David – selective morality strikes again! anyone going to say the same about the prick Hone. Thought not!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 11, 2007 11:58pm
David Farrar

Adolf Powell – sand nigger is not an acceptable term on this blog. Take a week’s break from commenting and your comment is deleted.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 12, 2007 12:55am
Porcupine

lol, DPF
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 12, 2007 11:51am
Eric Crampton

NX: IQ isn’t everything, sure. But if you run wage regressions where you’ve got IQ as a control variable, it matters a lot. Sure you’ll find lots of smart folks making relatively little money, and lots of dummies making plenty. Those are called outliers. The broad trend: IQ correlates strongly and positively with income. Get the NLSY, run wages as dependent variable, put AFQT (an IQ test) on the right hand side, see what happens.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 12, 2007 3:17pm
David MacGregor

What effect do the ‘outliers’ have on normal distribution. Is the bell curve characterised by exactly the anomaly you describe. Very few people are exceptional and very few are dim-witted.

What happens when you apply filters like gender and ethnicity? The conversation begins to become uncomfortable.

Mind you; you could also add time of day the test was taken. Amount of protein consumed by participants…Oestragen in their drinking water…it all comes down to a sort metaphysical ‘whatever’.

Maybe the application of technology will skew the outcomes. Factor in the decline of IQ with the rise of AI…

S’quite fun really….
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 12, 2007 4:07pm
Eric Crampton

Ok, David, I guess I’ll start from the start.

– outliers and the distribution:
–> IQ is distributed normally by construction. The “outliers” are observations not fitting the generalised trend. They don’t affect the underlying distribution.

– I’ll guess by filters, you mean control variables or additional right hand side variables. I don’t think that adding either of those controls does anything much to the effect of IQ. They themselves might have independent effects, but that’s different.

– Time of day. I think you’re saying that IQ measurements are sensitive to the time of day that the test was taken (or to a host of other things). If that’s the case, it will attenuate any effect found in wage regressions where IQ is a control variable. If there’s more error in our measurements of IQ than there is in our measurements of wages, we will UNDERESTIMATE, not overestimate, the effect of IQ. I’ll agree that you can have within-subject variance in test performance; if you give a battery of tests, run the factor analysis, extract g, run g as the control variable — you’ll get more reliable results, sure. Hard to find good datasets that have enough IQ tests and income data to do that though.

– I have absolutely no clue what you’re on about with application of technology and decline of IQ.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 12, 2007 4:32pm
Porcupine

Yeah but Eric you could still be measuring a correlation between IQ and wages but the underlying causal variable is actually something else. We have already seen that the IQ test measures thing other than intelligence – nutrition, educational background etc, but they are all lumped in the one variable IQ.

Also some of those outliers must have very large leverage – tv personalities, professional sports people etc.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 12, 2007 7:09pm
Porcupine

PPS: Apology: I might have been a bit harsh on the alliance blog – I havent been banned yet.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 12, 2007 10:39pm
Eric Crampton

Porcupine: suppose that I were to say that success in basketball were correlated with an individual’s height. Other stuff too, but height matters. Then you were to tell me that it isn’t height that matters, but really nutrition, because we’ve shown that a person with poor nutrition won’t be as tall as someone else. Does that mean that height doesn’t matter?

There has of course been work trying to disentangle the effects of IQ and education. It’s a bit of a tough problem, because IQ will determine how much education you choose to get. But my best read of the lit is that IQ matters more. They both matter, but IQ drives things. It’s been rather a while since I’ve looked at that stuff though. I do recall though that anything using g rather than a single IQ test predicts better; that tends to suggest that random things influencing results on one test attenuate results rather than that they lead to spurious correlation.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 13, 2007 3:50am

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« HB DHB Review Team

Labour spending okayed »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Top Stories

General Debate 22 November 2024
The newest Green MP
General Debate 23 November 2024
Do the KCs believe in democracy
Can we afford such generous research leave?
Secret lawyers
A cunning plan?
Hot off the Press: Term 3 School Attendance Data
The $800,000 lotto draw for researchers
About time

Recent Posts

Who are the major emitters? 23 November 2024
A whale on a prediction market 23 November 2024
General Debate 23 November 2024 23 November 2024
Can we afford such generous research leave? 23 November 2024
Secret lawyers 22 November 2024
Do the KCs believe in democracy 22 November 2024
The newest Green MP 22 November 2024
About time 22 November 2024
The $800,000 lotto draw for researchers 22 November 2024
General Debate 22 November 2024 22 November 2024
A cunning plan? 22 November 2024
Hot off the Press: Term 3 School Attendance Data 21 November 2024

Recent Comments

General Debate 23 November 2024
Steve Otto(North Shore)
Who are the major emitters?
Ross Nixon
Who are the major emitters?
greybeard
General Debate 23 November 2024
greybeard
General Debate 23 November 2024
Steve Todd
General Debate 23 November 2024
Steve Otto(North Shore)
General Debate 23 November 2024
Steve Otto(North Shore)
Who are the major emitters?
Benedict Yu
Who are the major emitters?
Spam
Who are the major emitters?
Tom Hunter
Who are the major emitters?
Tom Hunter
A whale on a prediction market
Tom Hunter
General Debate 23 November 2024
Steve Otto(North Shore)
General Debate 23 November 2024
Local Miller
General Debate 23 November 2024
Local Miller

Links

Word of the day
Hompaddock
The American Voters’ Mandate
No Minister
Much ado about cussing…
Point of Order
Attorney-General and Chief Justice reveal contrasting visions of judicial power
Utopia
A guide to making a submission on the Treaty Principles Bill
The Standard
You all understand these gang patch bans will get challenged in Court right?
The Daily Blog
Justice in Brazil
No Right Turn
"Seymour is only doing openly what M?ori nationalists and their Pakeha allies have been doing, quietly for the past 50 years."
Not PC
The transgender agenda sunk Kamala
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
What does “reciprocity” mean in New Zealand laws?
Croaking Cassandra
A Day of Reckoning
NZCPR
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on the US elections.
Kiwipolitico
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

© 2003-2024 David Farrar

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d