Is Intelligence Hereditary?

Robert Plomin, a deputy director of the MRC Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Center at King’s College London, responds:

Scientists have investigated this question for more than a century, and the answer is clear: the differences between people on intelligence tests are substantially the result of genetic differences…
Genes make a substantial difference, but they are not the whole story. They account for about half of all differences in intelligence among people, so half is not caused by genetic differences, which provides strong support for the importance of environmental factors. This estimate of 50 percent reflects the results of twin, adoption and DNA studies. From them, we know, for example, that later in life, children adopted away from their biological parents at birth are just as similar to their biological parents as are children reared by their biological parents. Similarly, we know that adoptive parents and their adopted children do not typically resemble one another in intelligence.
Researchers are now looking for the genes that contribute to intelligence. In the past few years we have learned that many, perhaps thousands, of genes of small effect are involved. Recent studies of hundreds of thousands of individuals have found genes that explain about 5 percent of the differences among people in intelligence. This is a good start, but it is still a long way from 50 percent.
Another particularly interesting recent finding is that the genetic influence on measured intelligence appears to increase over time, from about 20 percent in infancy to 40 percent in childhood to 60 percent in adulthood. One possible explanation may be that children seek experiences that correlate with, and so fully develop, their genetic propensities.

Posted in IQ | Comments Off on Is Intelligence Hereditary?

ADL Diversity!

Cj5K11QVAAAxF48

Posted in ADL | Comments Off on ADL Diversity!

The Internet’s bigot crisis: There’s a new push to curtail online bigotry, but the toxic sludge of hate is too enormous to erase

Amanda Marcotte writes:

For roughly the thousandth time, the masters of social media in Silicon Valley are promising to do something about online hate speech. Bloomberg reports that an impressive-sounding group of tech giants — Facebook, Twitter,Google and Microsoft — have “pledged to tackle online hate speech in less than 24 hours as part of a joint commitment with the European Union to combat the use of social media by terrorists.”

This announcement comes with more pomp (the EU! combating terrorism!) than previous vows to start taking internet abuse seriously, but it’s wise not to get too excited about our supposed future internet featuring 50% less racist vitriol. Users of these services have been subject to innumerable promises to do better, and invariably people find that the internet continues to be the toxic waste dump that it was before the promised clean-up. Skepticism isn’t just warranted, but mandatory at this point.

Not that these companies haven’t tried to do better. Twitter, for instance, partnered with Women, Action and Media! in 2014 to combat online misogyny and earlier this year, they unveiled an even bigger coalition, with about 40 groups, to help beat back online abuse. Facebook, too, has engaged in dialogue with groups fighting hate speech on it site and announced initiatives to combat extremist rhetoric that stokes bigotry and violence.

And there have definitely been some marked improvements. It’s a harder to run a hate group on Facebook than it used to be, since it will often get reported and taken down. It used to be unheard of for Twitter to ban users, but now you’re seeing some of the most mean-spirited harassers losing their Twitter handles.

But these moves are doing very little to stem the overwhelming tide of bilious hatred pouring out on social media. As the Bloomberg story reports, a French Jewish youth group, UEJF, decided to monitor how well Twitter, Facebook, and Google were doing in response to complaints about hate speech on their social media platforms. What they found was disheartening.

“In the course of about six weeks in April and May, members of French anti-discrimination groups flagged unambiguous hate speech that they said promoted racism, homophobia or anti-Semitism,” the Bloomberg piece explains. “More than 90 percent of the posts pointed out to Twitter and YouTube remained online within 15 days on average following requests for removal, according to the study by UEJF, SOS Racisme and SOS Homophobie.”

Dealing with bigotry online is very much like trying to bail out a leaking boat. Ban someone on Twitter for harassing people, and odds are that they will simply start another account under a new name and start right back up again.

There’s also a volume problem. Social media giants like Facebook already employ an army of overworked and underpaid moderators who toil endlessly to remove porn, violent images and other extreme content off their sites. Often these people work from foreign countries, like the Philippines. Just keeping people from seeing porn or photos of gruesome accidents is an unbelievable amount of work. Removing all the racism and sexism, which are in abundance and often context-dependent, would expand that workload exponentially.

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on The Internet’s bigot crisis: There’s a new push to curtail online bigotry, but the toxic sludge of hate is too enormous to erase

4chan Isn’t Sure Whether It’s Excited the Times Wrote Up Its Anti-Semitism

Jesse Singal writes:

In an article that appeared in Sunday’s New York Times, Jonathan Weisman, deputy editor in the Times’ Washington bureau, explains what it’s like to be targeted by a swarm of (ostensibly) Trump-supporting anti-Semitic Twitter-goons:

The anti-Semitic hate, much of it from self-identified Donald J. Trump supporters, hasn’t stopped since. Trump God Emperor sent me the Nazi iconography of the shiftless, hooknosed Jew. I was served an image of the gates of Auschwitz, the famous words “Arbeit Macht Frei” replaced without irony with “Machen Amerika Great.” Holocaust taunts, like a path of dollar bills leading into an oven, were followed by Holocaust denial. The Jew as leftist puppet master from @DonaldTrumpLA was joined by the Jew as conservative fifth columnist, orchestrating war for Israel. That one came from someone who tagged himself a proud future member of the Trump Deportation Squad.

It’s a good read, and one of the interesting things about Weisman’s story is his ambivalence about telling it. “I retweeted the choicest attacks for all to see, and with each retweet, more attacks followed, their authors gleefully seeking the exposure,” he writes. “Some people criticized me for offering it, but I argued, perhaps wrongly, that such hate needed airing, that Americans needed to see the darkest currents in the politics of exclusion animating the presidential election.” Then, a bit later: “‘Thanks to @jonathanweisman for redpilling at least 1.5k normies today by retweeting premium content. Epitome of useful idiot,’ responded one tormentor whose Twitter handle is too vulgar to repeat, even if I wanted to. Maybe he was right.”

In other words: When you’re caught in a maelstrom of that sort of internet hate, you can’t win. Either you sit there and mute and block an endless cavalcade of idiots proudly announcing their desire to send you to the ovens, or you draw attention to their awfulness and give them exactly the attention they covet. These are the cases that stretch the logic of “Don’t feed the trolls” to the breaking point.

Weismen doesn’t mention 4chan by name, but it and the other chanboards are a major source of this sort of Twitter garbage, and they are the birthplaces of many of the memes most eagerly and obsessively embraced by alt-right Trumpkins. And if this thread on /pol/, the “politically incorrect” board that serves as one of the unofficial headquarters for Trump’s anti-Semitic online army, is any indication, some channers are in fact thrilled to have gotten coverage in the pages of the nation’s top newspaper, even if their home base wasn’t mentioned by name in the article (the thread appeared shortly after the article went online last week).

Posted in Anti-Semitism | Comments Off on 4chan Isn’t Sure Whether It’s Excited the Times Wrote Up Its Anti-Semitism

Understanding the Alt-Right’s Jew Parentheses

Jesse Singal writes:

Two defining characteristics of the alt-right, the loosely organized online coalition of meme-loving racists, are that its members like being weird online and aren’t particularly fond of Jews. Keep those two things in mind, and the following discussion of a punctuation meme might make more sense.

Yesterday, Mic published an article in which Cooper Fleishman and Anthony Smith traced the history of a weird thing some alt-righters do online: They’ll put multiple parentheses around Twitter-targets’ names to indicate that they’re Jewish. It’s never happened to me, but as the New York Times’ Jonathan Weisman explained in a recent column, he got a tweet which read “Hello ((Weisman)).” It seems to be a way of saying something like “Ha, look at this Jew!,” and is often followed by a wave of the alt-right’s now-standard meme-drenched anti-Semitism.

As Fleishman and Smith explain, “The symbol comes from right-wing blog the Right Stuff, whose podcast The Daily Shoah featured a segment called ‘Merchant Minute’ that gave Jewish names a cartoonish ‘echo’ sound effect when uttered. The ‘parenthesis meme,’ as Right Stuff editors call it, is a visual pun.” As the Mic authors note, that same blog also explains on one page that “all Jewish surnames echo through history,” meaning that — and this is Fleishman and Smith again — “the supposed damage caused by Jewish people reverberates from decade to decade.” The idea is that it’s a “silly” way to make Jewish names sound evil and sinister, in other words.

It’s an interesting — if that’s the right word — origin story and a good rundown. But Fleishman and Smith end up overanalyzing things a bit when they argue that the parentheses help alt-right folks obscure their online anti-Semitism. “To the public, the symbol is not easily searchable on most sites and social networks; search engines strip punctuation from results,” they write at one point. “This means that trolls committed to uncovering, labeling and harassing Jewish users can do so in relative obscurity: No one can search those threats to find who’s sending them.” In a subheadline farther down in the piece, they ask “How have these trolls been able to hide harassment in plain sight?,” and then answer their own question by referring back to the parentheses-search issue. Then, toward the end of the article, they write that “Whether they know it or not, Neo-Nazis on Twitter have discovered a brilliant loophole — a code that’s difficult to filter whose meaning incites waves of hate before the target realizes what’s happening.”

None of this jibes with what we know about how the alt-right operates on Twitter. For one thing, this group loves the attention they get from their online anti-Semitism — its members have no interest in “obscurity,” relative or otherwise. In fact, when Weisman asked the person who tweeted the parentheses at him what it meant, they explained and seemed quite impressed with themselves. For another thing, plenty of the tweets that use the parentheses — including one embedded in the Mic article itself — are explicitly anti-Semitic, or if they aren’t they are quickly followed by tweets which are. Plus, Twitter accounts dedicated to online anti-Semitism don’t tend to hide that fact in their online handles and profiles. All of this renders the parentheses’ mystery a lot less mysterious. (And this is all ignoring the fact that there’s little need to “hide” anti-Semitism on Twitter anyway, since Twitter rarely takes any sort of aggressive action against it — even, anecdotally at least, after it’s been reported.)

Posted in Alt Right, Anti-Semitism | Comments Off on Understanding the Alt-Right’s Jew Parentheses