Can anyone explain to me how the Ravens matrices iq test is culturally biased?
You don’t even to know how to read a language it can be completed with gestures.
…and they still managed to reach a population of millions despite a continent full of apex predators to compete against for food.
Crazy, huh? All without the aid of a wheel.
1 Like
- I have no fund of knowledge concerning the history of black racial relations in Canada and/or the UK, and am unwilling to accept at face value your implication that they have experienced no systemic/institutional racism.
- I have no fund of knowledge concerning the rate of “less successful behavior” of blacks in Canada and/or the UK, and am unwilling to accept at face value your claim that they are higher than that of other groups (when confounding factors such as education, income, etc, are accounted for).
In short, you have a lot of unpacking to do if you expect a response from me in this regard.
1 Like
I never mentioned this before, but I’m glad that people like you and ED were able to find a place in society without having to resort to drugs and other types of crime.
4 Likes
I are glad to
5 Likes
Puff, I can’t say enough good thongs about that last post of yours. It is phenomenal and precisely what I have been thinking.
ED,
I have no specific fund of knowledge here except for a general keen interest in the history of the British Isles and Empire, and I would say they certainly faced enslavement and experienced systemic prejudice. However I would also say that there were no formal “Jim Crow” laws and that slavery in Britain itself was generally seen to have been abolished with the Somerset verdict in the early 1770s (I think), with Wilberforce’s bill passing abolition of the slave trade across the Empire in 1807.
Technically (I think) this still allowed slavery in the distant colonies (not the British Isles), but no international trade was allowed. Formal abolition of all slavery across the Empire happened sometime in the 1830s.
HOWEVER, by the late 1770s there were already several prominent African citizens among British middle class society, and there were no Jim Crow laws following abolition bills or Somerset. This effectively gave the black population in Britain a good 200 year head start on civil rights vs America (1770s-1960s), and the rest of the Empire roughly 130 year head start on civil rights. Essentially it means that the Brita long ago reached that 4 generation threshold and subsequently I consider it reasonable to believe that there is no real systemic racism in Britain against blacks and likely has not been for some time (barring fringe crazies, but they exist in all cultures).
As for the other bit of nonsense (no.2) I agree with you fully.
1 Like
My calf development alone precludes me from that. Then there are the mechanical problems that go along with the rest of it. I’ve had a few decent propositions for that type of thing but I’m just about as flaming of a hetero as one can be.
My wife considers me a trophy, but you know how things are now- everybody gets one even just for participation.
3 Likes
This is true of several animals, not much of an achievement.
You’d rather believe that whites are actively engaging in “systematic oppression” across several borders against the black man all the while providing them with economic and educational opportunities they could not get in any African country.
BTW I have no doubt if we looked up other European countries with sizeable black populations - France, Germany that we would find blacks disproportionately contribute to crime in those countries as well.
[quote=“anon71262119, post:1069, topic:228119, full:true”]
You have argued for very rapid evolution, and also for very slow evolution in this thread. It’s another move the goal post to fit the argument thing. [/quote]
I have argued that Europeans and Africans haven’t shared a common ancestor for somewhere in the ball park of 50,000 to 60,000. I wrote:
[quote]
Think about what they’re essentially saying:
That evolution stopped 50,000 years ago and the brain is not subject to forces of evolution in widely different climates and environments. Remember the brain is 3% of our body mass, takes up 20% of our energy, yet somehow all ethnic brains are the same [/quote]
[quote=“anon71262119, post:1069, topic:228119, full:true”]
Raj, you really should read Guns, Germs and Steel. You can see these types of differences in groups who share the same ancestry, and who were only separated from each other for less than 1000 years. [/quote]
Is that so? Can you provide a study to back this claim? I would love to see one, if all you have is an anecdote from an environmentalist, then your evidence is flimsy.
[quote=“anon71262119, post:1069, topic:228119, full:true”]
Sure, but the experts in both my field of educational psychology, and the majority of researchers in evolutionary psychology and evolutionary biology aren’t reaching the same overarching conclusions that you are, Raj. Why are you so sure that the experts are misinterpreting the data? [/quote]
There is a consensus that genes play a huge role in development, not just physical traits but also psychological traits (intelligence, personality etc). I have posted multiple studies backing this including the twin study and on the heritability of intelligence and personality. Here’s a quote from the Professor who carried out the twin study:
“Individual differences in most, if not all, reliably measured psychological traits, normal and abnormal, are substantively influenced by genetic factors.” -Bouchard
Every time IQ is looked at, the heritability of intelligence falls in the range of 50-75%.
Environment has shown repeatedly to only have a slight effect on IQ differences.
[quote=“anon71262119, post:1069, topic:228119, full:true”]
And no, I don’t think this is driven by a desire to be politically correct. [/quote]
Why don’t you look at what happened to Jason Richwine?
[quote=“anon71262119, post:1069, topic:228119, full:true”]
Notice, I’m not saying IQ testing is worthless, or that all these researchers who have data that may fit your bias are engaged in pseudoscience. Honestly, I believe most of them would be disheartened to see where you’ve gone with their research.[/quote]
Here’s the reality: If IQ is largely heritable, it makes social programs and all other attempts to intervene only marginally effective. I think this is what bothers you deep down, because it makes what you do professionally a lot less impactful than you’ve been lead to believe. Even as a parent your effect on your kids intelligence is negligible with the exception of breastfeeding them being the notable exception.
[quote=“anon71262119, post:1069, topic:228119, full:true”]
No self-flagellation needed. When societal outcomes differ, why not look at other examples of social engineering that have failed? Look at the Black conservatives and libertarian writers like Jason Riley or Larry Elder, talking about the effects of the welfare state on black families, and the Moynihan effect. Why not talk about how government programs have incentivized baby mamas and disincentivized two parents, and how that ONE factor alone tends to predict poverty… Why not lay these social outcomes on a combination of discrimination, and the unintended negative effects of the welfare state? [/quote]
It has been looked over a billion times in a million different ways, it’s just not particularly compelling. I mean take Canada for instance, a very liberal and a very white country with a huge social safety net. Tell me, why aren’t poor whites in Canada committing mass violent crime the way blacks do in America?
[quote]
Historic discrimination in the housing market together with putting families in government housing projects and HUD houses kept them from building wealth in private property. You can see the same thing in Native American populations where we have multi-generational poverty after the tragedy of forced relocation of many of these tribes. The people who stay on tribal lands (reservations) where the land is not privately held are kept from building wealth from home ownership. There’s a marked difference in outcome for Natives who leave the Rez and buy private property. They overwhelmingly thrive and join the middle-class. There’s often a visible difference in the improvements and maintenance of private property as you cross the border from the Rez into houses people actually own. [/quote]
You know I’m just going to explain this by IQ right 
The smarter members of Native Americans are more interested in engaging in the free market because they have the intelligence to improve when leaving the reservation. The rest mostly fall in the average while also preferring to be around their own people.
That’s my guess.
[quote]
No. We can believe that social programs (environment) are part of the problem, not because these people have lower IQs so we should lower our expectations, [/quote]
Here’s a breakdown of PISA scores. Tell me do you notice a pattern?
Is this driven by environmental differences or IQ? Because all these things correlate with IQ.
Pretty weak sauce considering she spoon fed you an example so well known it’s encyclopedic (literally). Wikipedia’s entry has 28 citations alone confirming the move to Chathams and the subsequent invasion. Time gap is approximately 300 years +/-
1 Like
It has nothing to do with what I believe. I’m simply requesting that you actually provide the evidence needed to support/make your empirical claims.
This reminds me of something I wrote in an early draft of my Master’s thesis–when I was, shall we say, on the steep portion of the ‘scientific writing learning curve.’ I quoted something from the relevant literature, and followed it with the sentence “This author agrees with that assertion.” (Ouch. It pains me to admit that.)
While editing this draft, one of my faculty advisors–a gifted wordsmith–appended the following comment with regard to my sentence above: “Absent impressive corroborating evidence, the author’s opinion is not a matter of overwhelming interest.”
Take his admonition to heart, @therajraj.
That is a patently absurd assertion. Let’s do one of the twin studies you favor, in which one child is raised in a loving, nurturing environment, and the other in a box. Ten years down the line, do you think there will be only a “slight” difference in the IQ scores of these twins?
- All I’m obligated to provide you is the statistic.
Blacks are represented in prison 3x the rate of their representation in the population in Canada
Blacks are overwhelmingly represented in crime in London
- it’s not just the one study.
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v47/n7/full/ng.3285.html
“17,804 traits from 2,748 publications,” including millions of twin pairs. For about 70 percent of traits, shared environment didn’t seem to do much at all. Genes on the other hand explained about half the variation in the traits.
You didn’t read the paper again did you?
1 Like
It’s funny you think I’m going to respond to your questions when you ignore the questions I ask you.
I see what you are saying but, correct me if I am wrong, you and many others are implying that these feelings HAVE to be overcome! Why? Most people of all races are going about their business, raising kids, following rules, and so on. What more responsibility should be placed on them? When they move somewhere, do they have to think, “Gee, Where should I go in order to overcome this feeling?” “Where should I send my kid to school to overcome this feeling?” “What are the problems of other groups, and how do I solve them?” Keep in mind that in other countries, NO ONE has to think about this at all. Poland is an example, with a 99+% white population. Should they think to themselves, “Wait, how are we going to overcome this characteristic of this country.”
This has already been done, and it’s the way it’s been done for thousands upon thousands of years, by language, religion, tribe, and nation. What should we all do about it? After all, people of all races have even gone to war with people of their own race. White people have been quite efficient in this manner: the Serbs vs. the Croats, the Russians vs. the Ukrainians, the Poles vs. Ukrainians, the Poles vs. Germans, the Brits vs. the Boehrs of South Africa. and the list goes on and on and on.
When the abstraction of Yugoslavia, an amalgamation of Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Bosnians, and Montenegrons – broke up, did everyone in it still deal with one another. No! They went their own ways.
You know I don’t say this to be confrontational. It’s just that people keep on insisting that ordinary and innocent people minding their business who simply have preferences for whom they want to freely associate with should somehow be compelled or FORCED to do something else. I have example after example if how I see self-segregation before my own eyes. After all, how does an Indian town here come about. A Chinese one? A Korean one? A Polish or Portuguese town or business? What about a Greek father who only wants his daughter dating only other Greeks? Religious Jews here in America send their kids to Yeshiva school, in which they are only exposed to other Jews, and marrying a non-Jew subjects their children to excommunication. That is, they might even sit shiva; that is, mourn as if the child died. What should we all do about this?
Obviously if we lived in a homogenous society, we wouldn’t see self-segregation. But as long as our country is a multi-racial and multi-cultural one, it will happen, no matter what anyone’s expectation is.
Some people even weep, when discussing this characteristic, “The human race has failed,” “Human beings are gross/nasty/evil/blah, blah, blah”, “the human race has failed,” and so on and so on. Sorry, I am not sure how innocent people have to be included in this condemnation simply because they go along with their preferences when free to associate.
Nor do I have a fuzzy notion that conflict hasn’t occurred (deadly conflict that is) or that it won’t occur again. Hence when I hear the term, “I can’t believe in this day and age…” when discussing people’s preferences or even their dislike of others. People are free to dislike, right? After all, it’s just a thought and feeling, right? Furthermore, conflict between others NEVER stopped, and it goes on to this day. It’s just that Americans live in a goofy narrative which doesn’t expose them to the nasty inter-group strife across the world that never did stop! So I don’t understand why people say, “I can’t believe in this day and age…”
Keep in mind, I don’t think about all this shit all day, but I find interest in it when a conversation arrives. My own group of friends is varied. And I mean REAL friends, not that “I have a ______ friend” crap that people explain when they want to show how worldly they are. You know friends who actually visit my home and know my family.
And I end this post in saying that I have no malice towards anyone, nor have I put down any groups or individuals here. I say this because many times, if you don’t write or say something that sounds so nice or idealistic, people sure get sensitive, even when discussing plain reality.
Do you mean people saying this here or in general? Haven’t seen anyone say anything close to this on here. Most of the responses are in regards to Raj’s view that we (as a country) should treat non whites in a lesser way due to the stats he’s posted that he believes in.
We’ve been over this before, champ.
(raj: go read this reference, then get back to me)
(AG: reads the reference, then gets back to you)
(raj: realizes this conversation is over his head, decides to pivot away from initial reference by saying "you’d be best served to go read this other thing now)
(AG: Bullshit, you just told me to go read the first reference, now instead of having a discussion about it, you’re just going to switch to something else?)
And here we are again.
I mean generally.