[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

So, um, what’s up with Eric Raymond? (Unofficial spokesman for the open-source movement, if you didn’t know.)

The big problem with his commentary on IQ and race is the way he misrepresents criticism of the The Bell Curve. He links the criticism of The Bell Curve to criticism of the single-factor IQ model, but that’s simply inaccurate. There are plenty of errors of other sorts in the book. The statistical work is wrong, even according to the conservative magazine Reason:

The long discussions of heredity also distract attention away from the main thrust of the argument and generate needless controversy. The authors acknowledge, as does most serious science on the matter, the difficulty of identifying separate genetic and environmental contributions to intelligence. Most scholars assign some weight to both sources, but the allocation of precise weights generates much well-deserved controversy. The authors fail to justify why it is useful to establish any particular set of weights or even a range of weights, except the special weight that assigns all credit to the genes.

This observation points to the second, more fundamental, reason why this book fails to provide an effective challenge to contemporary egalitarian social policy. One might oppose such policies on moral or ethical grounds. Instead, the authors choose an empirical approach. Yet they fail to develop the empirical case in a satisfactory or coherent manner.

Raymond also cites Jon Entine, who “has investigated the statistics of racial differences in sports extensively.” Except that Entine has done no such thing, according to Scientific American:

Ironically, the greatest strength of Entine’s book — its single-minded focus and clarity — likewise yields its greatest weakness. Because Taboo takes the form of an argument — a case to be proved, rather than an inquiry — it has a polemical flavor. Instead of sifting through fragmented, conflicting data on the rise of black athletes in sports, Entine seeks to prove his case by presuming his conclusion is true, then supporting it with selected evidence. Such a “proof” would be reasonable, were it not for his claim of reliance on the “scientific method.” It is a disingenuous claim. The book does not even attempt to examine a robust data set, evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the information, or come to an evenhanded conclusion. Instead Entine chooses to spare his readers the ambiguities of robust data, which form the core of a scientific inquiry.

Jon Entine, like Charles Murray, is affiliated with the neo-con think tank AEI. Raymond notes that Stephen Jay Gould was a Marxist and extrapolates from that, declaring that “his detestation of g was part of what he perceived as a vitally important left-versus right kulturkampf.” It’s regrettable that Raymond didn’t apply the same filter to Murray and Entine; if political affiliation is a sign of bias, then one might well draw conclusions from the fact that Murray and Entine are substantially closer to the neo-con movement than Gould was to the Marxist movement.

I’m left wondering, as I said, what’s going on here. An uncharitable explanation is that Eric Raymond is a racist. A charitable explanation is that Eric Raymond defines himself, in part, as a rebel who stands up to the establishment, and that he is attracted to theories that are presented as rebellious. “It’s fashionable nowadays to believe that intelligence is some complicated multifactor thing that can’t be captured in one number.” Mix in a healthy portion of elitism, and there you go.

I have no idea which of those, if either, is true. Neither of them is particularly laudable. I’ll finish with a quote from the entry on demographics in the ESR version of the Jargon File:

“The ethnic distribution of hackers is understood by them to be a function of which ethnic groups tend to seek and value education. Racial and ethnic prejudice is notably uncommon and tends to be met with freezing contempt.”

Comments

[rmd.livejournal.com]

"The ethnic distribution of hackers is understood by them to be a function of which ethnic groups tend to seek and value education.

that quote has always amused me. because what it says to me is not "this is the explanation" but rather "this is our people-are-simple-like-electrons rationalization. isn't it pretty?"

because, you know, things like this actual data-laden study just show that certain groups don't value getting job interviews.

but hey, esr is a "special freedom guest" at arisia. because, you know, freedom and stuff.

[bryant]

Yeah, I'm kind of considering that whole Arisia thing. Seems like someone ought to say something.

[that-cad.livejournal.com]

Y'know, Bryant, you're just a tad too smart. I'm beginning to wonder if you're too smart to keep around after the Revolution comes.

[bryant]

Oh, I can be bought. AEI just hasn't bothered yet.

[carelessflight.livejournal.com]

Far be it from me to defend open-sourcism (depending on your POV, I'm either a professional who doesn't have time for dilettantes, or a prostitute jealous of a movement for free love) but everyone should keep in mind that this doesn't reflect on open source itself -- an idea is not responsible for those who hold it.

That said, the cryptoanarchist libertarianism allied with the open source movement generally seems to me to be a view of the world as a fundamentally unalterable meritocracy -- therefore the people who achieve more must do so only because they are better people. There's no escape from racist conclusions from that premise.

And if you understand that I consider Raymond's position to be an argument that libertarians (and, by extension, open-source fanatics) would seem to be sympathetic to, then you'll understand a lot of my objection to libertarianism: the fact that the world isn't a tabula rasa, and that background inequity doesn't go away just because you stop trying to correct for it.

[bryant]

[My. LJ is flaky today.]

Indeed. I don't think Raymond's attitude says anything about open source.

I do think there's a risk of some bleedover. For example, it's easy for someone to assume that libertarians and open sourcers are generally congruent. This is in /very/ large part the fault of Eric Raymond; his tendency to link open source and libertarian politics means that liberal open-sourcers like Charlie Stross and Cory Doctorow (both distinctly left-wing) are overlooked. Or, for that matter, Larry Lessig.

So I'm adopting a policy of loudly noting Eric Raymond's wonkiness, lest people mistake his politics for his programming habits.

Your objections to libertarianism, by the by, match mine.

[tayefeth.livejournal.com]

And mine. Libertarianism just assumes a different color spherical sheep from other -isms.

[rmd.livejournal.com]

i find it particularly amusing since there's a heavy strain of exactly the same sort of "fuck you, i've got mine" libertarianism in certain large companies known for creating proprietary software.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

Oooh, someone else who calls it "fuck you, i've got mine" libertarianism.