"we show that the observed Flynn effect, its turning point, and subsequent decline can all be fully recovered from within-family variation. The analysis controls for all factors shared by siblings and finds no evidence for prominent causal hypotheses of the decline implicating genes and environmental factors that vary between, but not within, families."
"Stupid people have more kids" is exactly such a prominent causal hypothesis.
As far as I understand it, it's saying that IF the upbringing is the problem, then on the level of the society, not on the level of individual families. I.e. there doesn't seem to be any evidence that some families bring up their children better than the others (on average, all thing being equal yada yada).
The basic fact is that the world is by virtually any objective measure of human well-being in the best place since the start of the recorded history. And still there are people (even in this thread) who see the sky falling and the world ending tomorrow if not today. Somehow it became a mark of an ostensibly grounded and serious person to be cynical and pessimistic about the world's affairs. The only thing that Pinker tries to show, is that this cynicism is not backed by the facts.
Interestingly, the very people the "social justice warriors" claim to fight for reaped the most benefits of the social and economic progress. Well-deserved, of course, since they started way behind. But it makes you wonder, why the SJWs are as unhappy about the state of our society as they ever were? A cynic would say, they are afraid of losing their metaphorical jobs. I'd rather believe that they just lack the insight into just how much worse the life was not so long ago.
Isn't well-being subjective? It's for me to decide if I'm happy (although some people like to tell others how they should feel).
I've heard from friends with mental health problems that one of the hardest things to deal with can be other people telling them that objectively their life is good ("you have family, friends, success in work - what have you got to be unhappy about?")... so on top of feeling depressed they're also emoting wrongly.
Surely if a person feels that the sky is falling that would be a measure of low well-being. In which case the 'objective measures of human well-being' are badly chosen or (more realistically, and something that will cause massive cognitive dissonance in lots of readers here): not everything can be measured objectively. Experience happens subjectively, behind the eyes, and can never be usefully measured. Which is why when someone tells you they're unhappy you have to decide whether to believe them, or just tell them that they're wrong.
Personally I think trying to objectively measure how good life is now compared to other times is embarrassingly futile. Your internal philosophy makes a huge difference to how you handle life, it's perfectly possible for a person to have a non-miserable life in a society with high infant mortality rates and a life expectancy of 40, with hostile tribes nearby who might need to be fought at any time. Expectations (norms) along with cultural and psychological frameworks would make the experience for someone native to that time and place very different than it would be for somebody who was dropped from the modern Western world into a similar situation. Of course the same example native person might also live unhappily. But to presume that their subjective life experience should be ruled by abstract measurements is... unimaginative.
I can never find any reference to it online but years ago I remember Gordon Brown (UK PM at the time I think) talking on TV about quality of life, saying "one thing we've found is that people report being happier when they hear birds singing... so we're looking into using recordings of birdsong to increase happiness levels". LOL it's like, dude... you're really not getting it are you?
The growth of the blockchains will slow drastically, as the flaw in 'Metcalfe's law' - which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants-becomes apparent: most people have nothing to sign for each other! By 2020 or so, it will become clear that the blockchains' impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's.
This is slippery slope fallacy. The argument against mandatory donations is exactly that - it's makes donations mandatory, while opt-out gives you choice and just changes the default.
If you seriously fear for your life as a registered donor, it should be not too much work to check one box.
On the other hand, it can be equally traumatizing for the victim's family to see the perpetrator get off with a slap on the wrist.
We don't have to go into the extremes either way.
Also, the desire for punishment is is not about seeing the perpetrator suffer, but about paying for the damage they've done. If someone bumps your car, would you describe the desire for the guilty party to pay for the damages to be a mental illness?
You analogy isn't really on point. It's more of a difference between a controlled reaction (targeted gene splicing) and randomly smashing pieces of enriched uranium and watching what happens (non-site-specific mutagenesis).
This accusation is very vague and it could mean anything. It's surely more limited than, say, in Sweden. It way less limited than in Saudi Arabia.
> banning political opposition
Russian parliament consists of 4 parties, 3 of those are oppositional. I'm sure there is a number of banned NGOs, but totalitarian countries usually don't have this kind of political plurality.
> arresting dissidents
Notice they don't arrest people for being a political dissident? Khodorkovsky was brought up on tax evasion charges (which he undoubtedly committed). Pussy Riot was charged with hooliganism (which they undoubtedly committed). Were the trials politically motivated? Sure! Is it unique to totalitarian states that people who oppose the establishment come under higher scrutiny? Please...
> persecuting people for their sexuality
Now we are venturing into the cool-aid area. Modern Russia never prosecuted anyone for their sexuality. Homosexuality means attraction to the same sex and people are free to act on their attraction in Russia. There are a number of openly gay public figures. Russia has laws protecting LGBT minorities from discrimination. I would venture further - Russian government's policy right now is as progressive on LGBT rights as possible in Russia. The populace is hugely homophobic, ranging from 'being gay is a disease' to 'gay must be stoned'. It's the same in most of the former Soviet republics - even in the Lithuania over 80% of people consider homosexuality a perversion [1].
And by misrepresenting the fact about the state of the LGBT community in Russia the Western media only make Putin's life easier, since he can present it as a 'them-versus-us' issue internally. Compare [2]
> invading neighbour sovereign states
Is the emphasis here on 'neighbour'? Because if invading other countries is a sign of totalitarianism than the list of totalitarian countries will have some very surprising names on it.
> I don't know about you, but I think "totalitarian" draw a more correct picture
Which is your good right. I just don't see enough facts to support your opinion that Russia is a ' state [which] holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible.' [3]
> This accusation is very vague and it could mean anything.
Oh, it's pretty bad. Basically all television is state-controlled. All major papers as well. Any opposition site that becomes prominent is quickly banned. Unsanctioned street protests are banned even if they are as few as two people with banners. Lone opposition protesters are routinely attacked by pro-Kremlin "activist" crews which are promptly released even if they are ever detained by the police.
> Russian parliament consists of 4 parties, 3 of those are oppositional.
Those 3 "oppositional" parties have been tamed and groomed by Putin's administration since he came to power. They never criticize Putin, they vote for every law introduced by his administration, they never stage any protests against him. The true opposition leaders, in the meantime, are either spending their time in jail or exiled/dead.
> Notice they don't arrest people for being a political dissident?
Of course they don't, but that doesn't make them democrats. They sentence political prisoners on made up charges all the time - see Navalny, Savchenko, Murtazalieva and hundreds of others across Russia.
> Russian government's policy right now is as progressive on LGBT rights as possible in Russia
This is not true. Homophobia of its people is the cornerstone of the Russian government's anti-Western propaganda (especially anti-EU).
> ... that Russia is a ' state [which] holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible.
Not yet, but they are getting there, or at least trying to. Russia is still an authoritarian state which is rapidly transforming into a totalitarian one.
"Stupid people have more kids" is exactly such a prominent causal hypothesis.