In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there a
because the generic notion would be known , but all the details *and the corollaries* are very complicated.Same as we know that if you give free money to people there are some side effects (welfare) still sometimes it can still make sense to have welfare, but we need an open conversation about the topic.Society will never stop discussing what the proper amount of welfare is. Th
Nothing is ever going to be improved with focus on blaming groups of people for what you claim to be differenced based on genetics. If that is true, it means they shouldn't be blamed for causing the problems you don't like, and they should be held less responsible for them.
Conservatives aren't shy about their racism, so they have full rights to try to move away from minorities.Every liberal who ever spoke in favour of minorities is a piece of human trash and at the bottom of the barrel if he ever tries to "escape" the diversity he wants to violently force upon everyone else with the civil right act and unlimited immigration from the third world.I
Actually most conservatives are pretty shy about their racism. How many politicians, or even generic conservatives, do you hear claiming to be racist? They're definitely at least as hypocritical.
Living in a city neighborhood with nice housing which is just a few miles away from poor neighborhoods mostly inhabited by non-whites doesn't prevent crime and homelessness from showing up at your doorstep. Most people are very capable of taking a bus or walking for an hour.
Huh, I thought you might mean him, but I haven't heard of the controversy you mentioned. I have read several of his books but he lost me when he started writing about spirituality, and I haven't followed his other activities.
Sam Harris had Charles Murray on his podcast, one of the authors of the Bell Curve which is about IQ more generally, but also had a very controversial chapter about race and IQ. It is often maligned as scientific racist propaganda, though it also has its defenders.
There was a lot of controversy that followed this, which culminated in a debate with Ezra Klein who he has an email exchange with that was very contentious, and also an article in Vox.
I hadn't realized that there was any current controversy regarding that book, which was published over 30 years ago. I remember there was controversy at that time, but then it seemed to be rightfully forgotten.
IIRC, I actually checked it out of the library soon after that but found it to be very dull reading, and of course I thought the findings had no relevance in terms of policy preferences.
Sam Harris had Charles Murray on his podcast, one of the authors of the Bell Curve which is about IQ more generally, but also had a very controversial chapter about race and IQ. It is often maligned as scientific racist propaganda, though it also has its defenders.There was a lot of controversy that followed this, which culminated in a debate with Ezra Klein who he has an email
These theories are less popular with racists these days, at least our homegrown racists, due to the fact that a lot of the nations / regions that used to lead in the IQ race are likely to be overtaken.
Some background info is necessary here. IQ is a weighted instrument. The average for a weighted group / region is always a 100. So some scores of a 100 are in essence "higher scoring" than others, which was the original basis for the racist hot takes. Also, since the 30s we have observed "The Flynn Effect", a dramatic increase in how well the tests are answered across the board. So an IQ of a 100 in the 50s would perhaps respond to something like 75 / 80 today.
But yes, back the main point. Now, we're seeing a reverse Flynn effect across the developed world. A 100 today is "less" than a 100 for people born in the 70s (born mid 70s would have been about the peak), and regions that many developed countries originally "out-averaged" will now likely be overtaking them.
Good news for the racist members of the biggest ethnicities in those countries, but pretty bad news for racists from the biggest ethnicities in "our" countries (I will assume most resident forum members are from the developed world).
-
Of course at the end of the day this doesn't really mean ****. What you really have is a bunch of laymen who refuse to acknowledge the limitations of psychometrics running around claming so-and-so is stupider or smarter by association, nevermind that you haven't necessarily determined how stupid or smart anyone is to begin with. Which isn't exactly a new thing, ideologues love to twist and turn academia and science into things it is not.
the important thing you should acknowledge tame deuces is that these topics were fully tabooed on social media and mainstream media until very recently.
This conversation would have been forbidden here as well 1-2 years ago.
It's almost irrelevant what we personally think about the topic. The actual topic is that it was forbidden to talk about this stuff for decades.
As for the reverse flynn effect, have you checked it by ethnicity in the first world?
These theories are less popular with racists these days, at least our homegrown racists, due to the fact that a lot of the nations / regions that used to lead in the IQ race are likely to be overtaken.
Really? Who are these countries?
Also, western countries especially are multi-racial, so comparing "race" by country seems like a bad idea if you are trying to do it honestly.
I would say the general 'race science' would argue average intelligence goes something along the lines of:
Ash Jew = Asian > White > Persian > Indian >>>> Arab > African
--And the "race science" would argue low average intelligence is a large reason the latter groups have such trouble forming functional modern societies. This has been more or less the 'race science' understanding for decades. Do you have actual data which shows this to be false*?
*I have no idea one way or another. It is not something that has ever interested me, or information which I think can be used in the real world to make policy decisions, which is why I have never participated in any race science debates that have happened in these forums over the years.
That being said, this seems to be the general argument that so called 'race scientists' make. And I am not aware of any hard data that contradicts this argument. Mostly just censorship of the topic and moral outrage.
If you have actual data, that would be great.
I should note if you want to say this topic is taboo and we cant talk about it than fair enough. That being said, if you want to instead argue that "race science" is wrong, then you should be willing to discuss it by presenting actual data without resorting to moral outrage and censorship.
Richard Hanania is a "right wing" (he is very anti-Trump, which I guess makes him not right wing by current rules of American political polarization) social commentator that makes an argument I generally agree with.
And that is there really is no point in having racial IQ discussions because 'racial equality' is a core tenet of the liberal religion. And because of this most liberals are unwilling and unable to have a rational discussion on this topic. You might as well be trying to convince a devout Muslim that Jesus is the son of God.
So the rest of us should just accept this real world limitation and work around the topic.
Boring. Racism dressed up as science yet again, with Dung and Lucifer at the heart of it.
My boss decades ago was a rather sad person who decided he’d try to pass the Mensa exam (140 needed) because they’d meet periodically socially.
His first ray was about 115, second go he did rather better then crammed like crazy for his Hail Mary third and final try and scraped in.
What does that say about your hallowed IQ measurements?
Really? Who are these countries?Also, western countries especially are multi-racial, so comparing "race" by country seems like a bad idea if you are trying to do it honestly.I would say the general 'race science' would argue average intelligence goes something along the lines of:Ash Jew = Asian > White > Persian > Indian >>>> Arab > African--And the "race science" would argue
It's always entertaining when low IQ Nazis like Dunyain talk about IQ.
These theories are less popular with racists these days, at least our homegrown racists, due to the fact that a lot of the nations / regions that used to lead in the IQ race are likely to be overtaken.Some background info is necessary here. IQ is a weighted instrument. The average for a weighted group / region is always a 100. So some scores of a 100 are in essence "higher scor
I’m not sure that’s true, I’d have to look at the data. If it was true, I’m not sure why we’d think that was evidence that there is no genetic component to IQ.
As I mentioned earlier, I’m not even convinced race was ever the right concept to be thinking about here. We’re talking about how big the explanatory power of genetics is, which I think that almost no one disagrees that there is a genetic component, for explaining the gap in IQ. It may turn out you’re right that almost all of it is explained by that. So much the better that we can figure out how to bridge that gap.
And I think it is important to bridge the gap, whether it’s between whites and asians or black and whites, if we can bridge it. Especially if the answer is, as some proponents of the environmental answer say, caused by pre natal, baby, and early childhood nutrition.
Anyway I’m certainly not dogmatically on the side of the genetic explanation component. However I’ve seen these arguments play out before and the genetic explanation certainly has a plausible role as a hypothesis and I think it’s sort of perversely funny that the intro to the race and IQ wiki is just fully saying everyone is a pseudoscientist that advocates for that as the explanation with literally zero citations, a rarity for wiki.
Really? Who are these countries?Also, western countries especially are multi-racial, so comparing "race" by country seems like a bad idea if you are trying to do it honestly.I would say the general 'race science' would argue average intelligence goes something along the lines of:Ash Jew = Asian > White > Persian > Indian >>>> Arab > African--And the "race science" would argue
That’s the explanandum, not the explanans. So we need the explanation for why that is, not just an assertion that it is. Even if you believe it is 100% environmental, that data is consistent with that theory.
the important thing you should acknowledge tame deuces is that these topics were fully tabooed on social media and mainstream media until very recently.This conversation would have been forbidden here as well 1-2 years ago.It's almost irrelevant what we personally think about the topic. The actual topic is that it was forbidden to talk about this stuff for decades.As for the re
It should be taboo. You are thoroughly unqualified to speak on the subject yet you consider yourself an expert. This is a problem.
It should be taboo. You are thoroughly unqualified to speak on the subject yet you consider yourself an expert. This is a problem.
You are thoroughly unqualified to gauge other people qualifications yet you do it all the time. That is the left.
Btw nothing ever should be taboo to discuss, that's the main issue. Even thinking taboos make sense is the problem.
No I can assess incredibly accurately that you are 10 feet under water when you talk about racial IQs
Most people have had you pegged for 2 years
To be blunt, luc.... the topic IS taboo on 2+2 per owners.
If you persist, you will be gone. And I won't lose a moments sleep over the decision to finally toss your account in the garbage heap where it belongs.
To be blunt, luc.... the topic IS taboo on 2+2 per owners.
If you persist, you will be gone. And I won't lose a moments sleep over the decision to finally toss your account in the garbage heap where it belongs.
I didn't intend to discuss the topic (check my messages again). I intended to discuss the fact that the topic was taboo on all social media (and mainstream media) and it isn't anymore especially on social media.
Because that proves there was a very strong censorship attempt ongoing which lasted decades, because of liberal choices, and that is being dismantled. And the people who used all their powers to taboo those discussions can never, ever, attempt to have the high moral ground on all matters of free speech, for at least 50 years.
One of the most crucial, essential topics of america (and lately of europe as well) being forbidden because of liberal sensitivities? you lost the plot on free speech.
Is meta discussion about censorship of racial discussions in media banned as well here? just to know for the future.
You are thoroughly unqualified to gauge other people qualifications yet you do it all the time. That is the left.
Btw nothing ever should be taboo to discuss, that's the main issue. Even thinking taboos make sense is the problem.
So there should be a taboo on having discussions of enacting taboos?
It was never taboo to discuss in the circles you frequent Luciom. Its been a constant discussion among the dumbest denizens of twitter since its inception
Its still taboo basically everywhere else.
It was never taboo to discuss in the circles you frequent Luciom. Its been a constant discussion among the dumbest denizens of twitter since its inception
Its still taboo basically everywhere else.
people got banned regularly including on twitter when they discussed the topic until Musk bought it.
It is not a bannable offense anymore on meta platforms, or tiktok, or youtube (and twitter ofc).
It still is in many subreddits (and here apparently).
No, why? people should be allowed to ask for things to be taboo in conversations, same as they should be allowed to ask for the abolition of private property and many other obscene ideas.
But i think it is a bad problem for society if a lot of people think it's correct to ban topics from the conversation (not here, but in main platforms ofc. niche places don't matter)
I didn't intend to discuss the topic (check my messages again). I intended to discuss the fact that the topic was taboo on all social media (and mainstream media) and it isn't anymore especially on social media.
That's some serious tightrope walking.
Hey, I didn't call Lucy a ***** **** **** **** wop. I just said everybody else is calling him a ***** **** **** **** wop.
That's some serious tightrope walking.
Hey, I didn't call Lucy a ***** **** **** **** wop. I just said everybody else is calling him a ***** **** **** **** wop.
No it isn't. It's like the difference between being a neonazi like fuentes, or discussing the fact that neonazism is banned or not in social media.
Check how it went
I said "if the right holds ownership (of media) for 50 years we make even with the left"
- wild says "lol Murdoch was always on the right"
- i answer "that racial iq differences were taboo is a clear proof the left did own most media for the last 50 years"
Then chillrob asks "what difference would it made if it wasn't taboo" and i answered to that.
Then cordie insists with the objective lie that media was rightwing , and i repeat again that not being allowed to have racial conversations means it was leftist
