I’m asking you to lay out your beliefs. You won’t because your goal here is to play the “gotcha” game.
What? You think a “high IQ” student will say “Hey, I’m not going to Stanford to study physics because this weak student at my high school also got into a college; albeit Cal State Bakersfield to study Hotel Management.”?
They will shift their passions elsewhere. Nowadays there are free college courses online, coding schools and a wealth of free knowledge in general on the internet.
People make 6 figure incomes on Youtube for christ sake. This is easily one of the best times in history to be an entrepreneur.
No, I won’t because it would be a boring rehash of things already said, but more importantly, I’m not inclined to throw pearls before swine.
1 Like
Definitely, bro. All of these PhDs are just misinterpreting all the hard evidence you’re posting. It’s def not you. Keep up the good fight. 
1 Like
You’re a complete fraud.
What about the people with phDs who accept racial differences in intelligence?
Of the thousands of school districts in America, is there a single one where the achievement gap between blacks and whites has been eliminated?
Can someone produce one example of an achievement gap has been successfully closed?
No, fraud involves dishonesty in an attempt to pull a fast one on someone. That’s not me. I just don’t suffer fools, that’s all.
Is that the measure for success of your arbitrary timeline? Is this a 100% fixed or it’s complete garbage kind of process to you?
I can’t speak for @antiquity regarding the intent of that quote, but I wasn’t using it in that way (jab at right-leaning folks here) by “agreeing” with it. I just wanted to make the point that any data that shows higher IQ correlating with liberal views undermines Raj’s idiotic theory that we need to keep low IQ non-whites out of America because they are the ones that are politically liberal and will ruin our white-person fueled libertopia.
1 Like
That’s not what I said. I said:
-
Only high IQ people can succeed in a high IQ society.
-
Only NW Europeans can create NW european cultures, only Chinese can create Chinese culture, only Africans can create African culture etc.
I would want to keep America a predominately NW European majority because American principles are derived from NW European culture and will otherwise dissolve in the absence of NW Euro people.
So stop it, I never said high IQ people are conservative and low IQ people are liberal. Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Keith Ellison and many of the Democrat leaders I’m sure are all high IQ people.
Anyways, I don’t want to derail this thread into an immigration thread, so I’m not going to continue to discuss immigration here.
Science is not controlled by the left?
To be fair, the left is pretty attractive to scientists. It’s just as surprising as knowing wall street is dominated by Republicans.
To the extent this is true, it is simply a tautology.
Ditto.
There is no chance American principles will “dissolve.” Evolve, maybe. But that is a good thing.
Perhaps just as fair to say that the anti-science attitude currently ascendant in the GOP makes the right seem inhospitable to scientists.
You just nailed two very good reasons. Totally agree.
Yeah? What’s one of the “genes FOR intelligence” that they’ve identified?
Quite true. I forgot to reply to that post in that thread, but it is quite interesting. I think the way science communication has been approached is actually causing part of the problem, and needs to change. A well-written Guardian article on the topic below: Facts are the reason science is losing during the current war on reason | Mark Carnall | The Guardian
He references a controversial paper, but I believe it is at least half right. In the abstract of the referenced paper the authors state: “Science popularization fulfills the important task of making scientific knowledge understandable and accessible for the lay public. However, the simplification of information required to achieve this accessibility may lead to the risk of audiences relying overly strongly on their own epistemic capabilities when making judgments about scientific claims.”
I don’t advocate a reliance on “experts” that this paper seems to advocate per se–the most important thing a person can do is learn to reason and analyze, career scientist or not. I do agree though that the oversimplification of information is a major issue and likely a cause of the distrust we are seeing.
I feel that this comes from an emphasis on indoctrination of “facts” rather than education on “reasoning”. As well meaning as it is, this emphasis on “facts” misses the key point that hard, unchanging facts are extremely rare in science. Instead it makes scientists appear fickle–this is ‘true’…no wait, next week something contradictory is now “discovered” and ‘true’. Nope, two months down the road now we have a completely different outcome reported in the media as ‘discovered’.
See the excerpt from Carnell: “This is the disadvantage for science communication. Do you listen to the scientific analysis – which is full of probably, maybe, possibly, roughly, estimated, hypothesised – or do you just agree with someone who sounds convincing and shouts down/shuts down dissenting opinions? Media coverage and bad science communication sometimes gives the impression that scientists are always changing their minds on climate models, whether chocolate or wine will kill or cure you or whether Pluto is a planet or not. This wrongly creates the impression that scientists are a pretty fickle lot.”
I actually am not sure that this is what tbolt was saying–performance art aside, this article and the pschologytoday article you posted is an excellent microcosm of exactly what kind of misunderstanding is going on in this thread regarding interpretations of studies. If that is what he said he is likely mistaken but I get the feeling that he was doing it more to troll raj and illustrate the absurdity than anything else lol.
2 Likes
Is there a viable alternative to relying on experts? (A semi-rhetorical question.)
The irony of you saying THIS and then subsequently ignoring every single bit of counter evidence is stupendously entertaining.
[quote=“therajraj, post:1292, topic:228119”]
Furthermore, this piece of evidence was not cited in isolation, I’ve also posted a study called the Minnesota Transracial Adoption study where wealthy whites adopted black children. They found that affects from child rearing had no effect on black IQ.[/quote]
You also ignored what the authors of their own studies said in preference to AmRen supremacy nonsense.
Seriously, how does your brain not explode from cognitive dissonance?
1 Like
Talk to the 6 million or so scientists and engineers that DIDN’T go to that “march for science”.
There are a great number of scientists.
Also, it is fairly well known that a sizable faction of left leaning political activists is trying to bandwagon on issues like these (or ride in on the coattails, if you prefer). This is beyond the ken of this thread, but you are out of your depth to consider “science” to be “controlled by the left”.
On the other hand I suppose this explains your aversion to understanding science if you consider it controlled by a political faction opposed to your ideology…
Not particularly, but I also believe that phrase is often used to unjustifiably narrow the number of people acceptable to listen to in any field by many laypeople (not to mention politics, media, etc) for political means.
I also believe that the best thing a person can do is learn to reason (see my comments on fact vs reason in the post you replied to)