To tug on the loose thread some more, IQ is basically an ELO score for the game of making enough money to live. For other language games, the equivalent is generally called privilege (for positive valence) or stigma (for negative valence). So having money is a privilege, and being poor is stigmatized.

Given all of that, some research questions:

* Why do people (mistakenly) think that black people have lower intelligence? (Hint: it's because they have less money/privilege than white people!)

* Why do people (mistakenly) think that Jews and Asian-Americans have higher intelligence? (Hint: it's because they have more money/privilege than (poor) white people!)

Another research question:

* Given that the book The Bell Curve is pretty solid social science, why is it so deeply unreasonable to all reasonable people? Like how do we reconcile the idea that it's probably mostly correct with the fact that Charles Murray needs to shut the fuck up and never talk again? (Hint: it's because of the answers to the previous two questions!)

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 8:03 PM, Eric Purdy <epurdy@uchicago.edu> wrote:

I wish to construct a new paradigm for the social sciences, that unifies economics and all the math that economics has with all of the deeply true stuff that the other social sciences know about.

When this paradigm is full-grown, it should kill both neoliberalism and so-called "race realism".

Every paradigm starts from what I call a loose thread, a thing that no one can explain but everyone agrees is true. In this case, the loose thread that I think is most helpful is, what is IQ? What does it measure? I assert that it is mostly an empty signifier; there is no such thing as in-born greatness. All greatness comes from life experience. People who seem stupid or crazy to you are just trying to accomplish something different with their lives than what you think they should be trying to accomplish.

Dr. Bishop: you are one of the people I choose to create this paradigm. Your graduate work on social network formation is essential here, as is your vast experience with prediction markets.

Ms. Laurenson: you are the other person I choose to create this paradigm. Your vast experience in the social justice world and your experience with the world of journalism are both essential here. Remember that conversation we had about the privilege-stigma axis being essentially a rich-poor axis?

We also need someone with some real economics and finance training. Austin - maybe that's you? I know you don't have much training but you understand the market-making problem as well as anyone does, I think. Someone could also try to talk to my ex-wife about this, but we're not currently on speaking terms I don't think.

You will need Purdy's theory of "social facts", which I enclose some random musings on.

--
-Eric

-Eric