Well, if races do not have a monopoly on intelligence: as a prospective employer, I’ll have to actually evaluate people one at a time based on their capability to do the job which I’ll require them to do instead of making a sweeping generalization about their intelligence based on their race. So what’s the point of fretting about the existence of a racial discrepancy in IQ?
2 Likes
[quote=“thunderbolt23, post:1208, topic:228119, full:true”]
This is a complete dodge, predictably - the presence of statistical outliers is irrelevant to the issue.
You believe that certain races - by virtue of their inherent IQ limitations - can never build great societies and are doomed to always live in shitholes. You’ve said it over and over. Well, ipso facto, those races are inferior to the races that have no such limitations and build awesome societies - unless you think shitholes and great societies are no different and you’d be content to live in either without preference, which we know you don’t.
In your theory, there has to be accounting for superior and inferior races, because races - yes, races, as you have insisted - drive outcome, and some outcomes are better than others.[/quote]
Inferior and Superior are value judgements, furthermore they are YOUR value judgements. In the same way I do not claim people who have healthy minds are superior to people who suffer from mental handicaps. I recognize the difference exists and implications of it, but I certainly do not see myself as superior.
Furthermore, your claim doesn’t make any sense as it shows Africans finish atop in things like leaping ability. How does the inferior/superior thing work when depending on what’s measured, the race with the best result changes?
You didn’t make any arguments, you simply attached your own value judgements to findings on race that have been presented.
[quote=“ActivitiesGuy, post:1211, topic:228119, full:true”]
Well, if races do not have a monopoly on intelligence: as a prospective employer, I’ll have to actually evaluate people one at a time based on their capability to do the job which I’ll require them to do instead of making a sweeping generalization about their intelligence based on their race. [/quote]
I agree, individuals are different.
Scientific based discovery shouldn’t be muzzled because it makes us uncomfortable, that’s for sure.
OK, I see now. Just so you know, I will not only be responding to you, but simply contributing to the conversation here considering some others are reading. That is, I am not answering only to you, but sharing my take on this topic, which I find both fascinating and infuriating.
Fear. Nature gave us this emotion for a reason. I believe that many people (not you) these days like to dismiss people with this emotion because it makes them feel as if they are above this emotion, insinuating that fear is for cowards, and that in many, though not all, cases, a person who is fearful of others has no basis to be so. Of course if fear is irrational and handicapping (e.g., it is interfering with ordinary tasks and movements in everyday life or just driving someone nuts), then it’s a problem. But to dismiss people because they don’t want to go
I was just thinking about this guy- Bennet Omalu - Wikipedia
and wanted to ask if you’ve ever crossed paths. Seems like you guys may have trod the same trails in several ways.
I think most people that “judge” (for a lack of a better word) others fears are because they are often times illogical and/or irrational.
Also yes, in many many many cases, the fear people have of broad groups have no RATIONAL basis to be afraid. That’s not to say the fear doesn’t or shouldn’t exist, but a lot of that fear is pretty ingrained in people for various reasons, and isn’t backed up by anything of substance.
1 Like
I actually was saving that post and hit reply by accident. I was going to continue.
Really wish that I had, but he was at the School of Public Health long before I was (although he would have been an MBA student at CMU while I was an undergrad). By the time I became a working professional, he was out of Pittsburgh soon afterwards. If I had been a few years older when he was doing his early work, I might have reached out and tried to work with him personally as a passion-project, maybe even gotten a few papers out of it. As a sports fan and a student of the field, I’ve read a lot about his work (and the resistance he faced in publishing it, and the subsequent fallout) but we never actually crossed paths.
1 Like
I’m always amazed by the attendees and staff of those two institutions. It’s incredible how much those two pop up through out scientific and medical history and the impact they have had on the world.
[quote=“pat, post:1209, topic:228119, full:true”]
Which is a short time…[/quote]
Scientists are now able to identify genes for intelligence and things in this realm are only getting more clear. Soon genes for things like musical ability for example will be identified.
I posted it earlier but there are now physical correlates to IQ. MRI images and physical correlates now exists with IQ. See my post here:
What else do you need?
See I think people who have higher IQs tend to apply themselves in arenas that require higher levels of mental cognition. Ever see that show Undercover Boss where a CEO goes undercover in his company in a low level position as a trainee? He usually stumbles and bumbles preparing fries and burgers, but is it really a different type of intelligence or inexperience? I argue the latter. Flip the script and ask if you were to plug in a burger flipper into a CEO role, would that person with enough time adequately carry out the duties of the CEO? I think you and everyone else knows, chances are they’d fail miserably in all likelihood.
There aren’t loads of high IQ people in carpentry because carpentry lacks complexity or mental demand the way other fields such as neuroscience demand. People who have high IQ are attracted to more mentally demanding fields.
People keep saying this, but whenever attempts to boost IQ have been made through environment, it never shows to have much of an effect outside of breastfeeding
Still think the left doesn’t control academia?
No, I’m using your previously stated value judgments to show the flaw in your own logic. You believe in the inferiority of races - you just won’t admit it because you worry about what flows from such an admission, so you hide behind amateur semantics and switch hit from rank racism to relativism thinking it gets you off the hook. It doesn’t. [quote=“therajraj, post:1212, topic:228119”]
but I certainly do not see myself as superior.
[/quote]
Smartest thing you’ve said in the thread.[quote=“therajraj, post:1212, topic:228119”]
How does the inferior/superior thing work when depending on what’s measured, the race with the best result changes?
[/quote]
Another dodge, you’ve already set the measurement we’re using: liberty-loving, prosperous societies and shitholes. One is obviously better than another, a point you’ve made the entire thread. I’m simply applying the value measurement you’ve established and showing you’re not telling the truth about your views regarding race inferiority.[quote=“therajraj, post:1212, topic:228119”]
You didn’t make any arguments, you simply attached your own value judgements to findings on race that have been presented.
[/quote]
Incorrect, and I am legitimately beginning to believe you actually don’t know what an argument actually is given your misuse of the word and your misunderstanding of basically everything that goes into one (claim, proof of causation not correlation, etc.).
One liberal-arts college in Oregon /=/ “Academia”
Many people posting in this thread work in “Academia.” Believe it or not, “Academia” is not solely comprised of liberal arts professors reading history books and debating one another about whether to include a gender-neutral restroom on campus as part of the Progressive Rights Committee. “Academia” includes economists, doctors, mathematicians, physicists, chemists, biologists, statisticians, law professors. Some of us even have jobs (and friends) outside academia!
The idea that “Academia” is a monolithic structure of philosophy and women’s studies professors is about as sensible as.,.never mind, it makes perfect sense that you think this.
[quote=“thunderbolt23, post:1223, topic:228119, full:true”]
No, I’m using your previously stated value judgments to show the flaw in your own logic. You believe in the inferiority of races - you just won’t admit it because you worry about what flows from such an admission, so you hide behind amateur semantics and switch hit from rank racism to relativism thinking it gets you off the hook. It doesn’t. [/quote]
“you won’t admit it”
You aren’t arguing against what I said, you are arguing against your own delusion of me. Argue against what I wrote or GTFO.
[quote=“thunderbolt23, post:1223, topic:228119, full:true”]
Another dodge, you’ve already set the measurement we’re using: liberty-loving, prosperous societies and shitholes. One is obviously better than another, a point you’ve made the entire thread. I’m simply applying the value measurement you’ve established and showing you’re not telling the truth about your views regarding race inferiority.[/quote]
If I say men are physically stronger to women and that I prefer watching men’s sports because of this fact, does that mean I think women are “inferior” ? The reality is, a low IQ population cannot create or maintain a high IQ style society. This is objectively true.
Secondly, you dodged my question: How does the inferior/superior thing work when depending on what’s measured, the race with the best result changes? Black basketball tend to have better leaping ability than white basketball players. I generally value athletes with great leaping ability. I guess I now think whites are racially inferior.
Your logic (or lack thereof) completely falls apart.
Lastly, let’s take a clear look at your worldview of systemic oppression and it’s sister concept of white privilege you openly accept.
You are saying by the ancestry of a person, they are actively engaging in nefarious behaviour against people of color without any direct evidence. The very nature of their existence and familial history makes them culpable for every and all bad things that occur to POC.
Beliefs you openly espouse to are deeply racist.
Where has he said any of this? Where has anyone said this?
He admitted way back in this thread he agreed with ED’s worldview of systemic oppression and white privilege.
He admit that white people are ACTIVELY engaging in nefarious behaving against POC? He then said every and all bad things that occur to POC are due to white people?
10 points to Slytherin if you can find it. If not it’s just FakeNews like CNN.
That’s the natural conclusion of accepting systemic oppression + white privilege
Accepting systemic oppression is in no way saying these things