Black Teen Shot by Neighborhood Watch

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Funny, many of your posts in this thread hinge on the races of the people involved.[/quote]

? the kid was killed because of the race of the people involved.

No, many of your comments were because of the races of the people involved. I never commented on the situation.

[quote]

My mom’s side is dark haired and olive skinned, that should get me something right?[/quote]

What are you talking about?

[quote]

Actually, I did recently find out that I am now a protected minority in several states. Appalachian people are protected here in Tennessee. Terms like hillbilly are now illegal discriminatory terms in the work place. Same as the N-word, or negative terms for females, est.

After all, rednecks as a group have been systematically discriminated against for some time. Many people refuse to hire them because of negative genetic stereotypes. HAH!

Eventually, everyone can be a protected minority that is legally guaranteed freedom from offense. YAY![/quote]

Wait…blacks are “free from offense”? When did this happen? Today? Damn it…I miss everything.[/quote]

Freedom from offense was a sarcastic comment. I was pointing out the absurdity of the notion and its diametric opposition to freedom of speech.

For the record, it sounds to me like the gunman stalked the kid, started the confrontation, and has to be guilty of something. I’m really surprised he hasn’t been arrested. It sounds like he went after the kid with the intent of doing something too him and the kid ended up dead.

But don’t kid yourself, you care more about the race of the people involved than anyone.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Someone please define “wrong street” to me in the context of a kid walking down one as a minority.

I am confused on this topic. [/quote]

a street with a racist guy with a gun who is willing to use it.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Thomasm122 wrote:

Yes, it is true that statistics can be misleading. that’s why it’s important to go over each statistic to verify it’s relevancy and accuracy and not just deny them because that’s the status quo and no one will question you for doing so. Not saying you’re doing this, but that’s the vibe I’m getting from most people here. [/quote]

IQ test are also complete shit. They are design to diagnose mental retardation, not evaluate intelligence. They are extreeeeeeeemly culturally dependent and very hard to compare across cultural lines. For example guy smart guy from 1800 would fail a modern IQ test and a smart guy today would fail one designed in the culture of the 1800s.

I find it very hard to see the validity in comparing IQ tests in Africa with ones in Europe.

Edit: or for that matter, inner city black populations with more well to do white ones.[/quote]

Exactly. I once saw an IQ test where the answer was ‘Thelonius Monk’. It wasn’t a conventional question; it was a word challenge. The highest scores will also come from people who are the most interested in IQ testing and have the most experience in completing them. It’s an acquired skill, not a measure of intelligence.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Funny, many of your posts in this thread hinge on the races of the people involved.[/quote]

? the kid was killed because of the race of the people involved.

[quote]

My mom’s side is dark haired and olive skinned, that should get me something right?[/quote]

What are you talking about?

[quote]

Actually, I did recently find out that I am now a protected minority in several states. Appalachian people are protected here in Tennessee. Terms like hillbilly are now illegal discriminatory terms in the work place. Same as the N-word, or negative terms for females, est.

After all, rednecks as a group have been systematically discriminated against for some time. Many people refuse to hire them because of negative genetic stereotypes. HAH!

Eventually, everyone can be a protected minority that is legally guaranteed freedom from offense. YAY![/quote]

Wait…blacks are “free from offense”? When did this happen? Today? Damn it…I miss everything.[/quote]

Freedom from offense was a sarcastic comment. I was pointing out the absurdity of the notion and its diametric opposition to freedom of speech.

For the record, it sounds to me like the gunman stalked the kid, started the confrontation, and has to be guilty of something. I’m really surprised he hasn’t been arrested. It sounds like he went after the kid with the intent of doing something too him and the kid ended up dead.

But don’t kid yourself, you care more about the race of the people involved than anyone.[/quote]

More than anyone?

LOL.

Guy, I don’t even watch TV. I wouldn’t even know about this case if it wasn’t posted here.

You have me pegged all wrong.

Just because I may jump into a discussion, it doesn’t mean this is my one and only passion.

The races of the people involved in this DO matter. That’s just a fact at this point.

more than that…it was so bad, that even after being asked why he was following Treyvon, he DIDN’T FEEL THE OBLIGATION TO RESPOND WITH AN ANSWER. That is just blatant disrespect because he had literally given up all possibilities that this kid was anything BUT a criminal.

That isn’t something small.

I applaud the father of that kid…because there is no way in hell I could sleep in that neighborhood with that guy after that and not do something…“saggy pants bad”.

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Thomasm122 wrote:

Yes, it is true that statistics can be misleading. that’s why it’s important to go over each statistic to verify it’s relevancy and accuracy and not just deny them because that’s the status quo and no one will question you for doing so. Not saying you’re doing this, but that’s the vibe I’m getting from most people here. [/quote]

IQ test are also complete shit. They are design to diagnose mental retardation, not evaluate intelligence. They are extreeeeeeeemly culturally dependent and very hard to compare across cultural lines. For example guy smart guy from 1800 would fail a modern IQ test and a smart guy today would fail one designed in the culture of the 1800s.

I find it very hard to see the validity in comparing IQ tests in Africa with ones in Europe.

Edit: or for that matter, inner city black populations with more well to do white ones.[/quote]

Exactly. I once saw an IQ test where the answer was ‘Thelonius Monk’. It wasn’t a conventional question; it was a word challenge. The highest scores will also come from people who are the most interested in IQ testing and have the most experience in completing them. It’s an acquired skill, not a measure of intelligence. [/quote]

IQ tests are, at best, marginally useful identifying things like learning disabilities WITHIN a normalized population.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

Exactly. I once saw an IQ test where the answer was ‘Thelonius Monk’. It wasn’t a conventional question; it was a word challenge. The highest scores will also come from people who are the most interested in IQ testing and have the most experience in completing them. It’s an acquired skill, not a measure of intelligence. [/quote]

IQ tests are, at best, marginally useful identifying things like learning disabilities WITHIN a normalized population.[/quote]

OK…so if everyone is telling Tiger Lilly this, why is he still typing?

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Thomasm122 wrote:

Yes, it is true that statistics can be misleading. that’s why it’s important to go over each statistic to verify it’s relevancy and accuracy and not just deny them because that’s the status quo and no one will question you for doing so. Not saying you’re doing this, but that’s the vibe I’m getting from most people here. [/quote]

IQ test are also complete shit. They are design to diagnose mental retardation, not evaluate intelligence. They are extreeeeeeeemly culturally dependent and very hard to compare across cultural lines. For example guy smart guy from 1800 would fail a modern IQ test and a smart guy today would fail one designed in the culture of the 1800s.

I find it very hard to see the validity in comparing IQ tests in Africa with ones in Europe.

Edit: or for that matter, inner city black populations with more well to do white ones.[/quote]

Exactly. I once saw an IQ test where the answer was ‘Thelonius Monk’. It wasn’t a conventional question; it was a word challenge. The highest scores will also come from people who are the most interested in IQ testing and have the most experience in completing them. It’s an acquired skill, not a measure of intelligence. [/quote]

Questionable, the test used in intercultural comparisons are as non specific as possible, they do not even really have questions.

There are tests f9or people that cannot read.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Thomasm122 wrote:

Yes, it is true that statistics can be misleading. that’s why it’s important to go over each statistic to verify it’s relevancy and accuracy and not just deny them because that’s the status quo and no one will question you for doing so. Not saying you’re doing this, but that’s the vibe I’m getting from most people here. [/quote]

IQ test are also complete shit. They are design to diagnose mental retardation, not evaluate intelligence. They are extreeeeeeeemly culturally dependent and very hard to compare across cultural lines. For example guy smart guy from 1800 would fail a modern IQ test and a smart guy today would fail one designed in the culture of the 1800s.

I find it very hard to see the validity in comparing IQ tests in Africa with ones in Europe.

Edit: or for that matter, inner city black populations with more well to do white ones.[/quote]

Okay, this is the last time I’m going to type this. IQ correlates with income. Strongly. How strongly? 0.266. Not strong enough for you? Well, total arm size to total arm isometric strength only correlates at 0.24. Hopefully, I don’t have to spell out for any of you the implications of this.

Also, when you control for IQ (here comes the caps lock) THE INCOME GAP VANISHES.

Furthermore, the IQ tests I’m talking about control for ‘G’. If you don’t already know what ‘G’ is, you are in way over your head if you’re making the claim that IQ tests are culturally dependant.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

Exactly. I once saw an IQ test where the answer was ‘Thelonius Monk’. It wasn’t a conventional question; it was a word challenge. The highest scores will also come from people who are the most interested in IQ testing and have the most experience in completing them. It’s an acquired skill, not a measure of intelligence. [/quote]

IQ tests are, at best, marginally useful identifying things like learning disabilities WITHIN a normalized population.[/quote]

OK…so if everyone is telling Tiger Lilly this, why is he still typing?[/quote]

Well, that is not quite true.

For what its worth, the better you do in IQ tests, the more money you are likely to make.

Which does not necessarily mean that IQ tests test what would traditionally be called intelligence, whatever that is.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

Exactly. I once saw an IQ test where the answer was ‘Thelonius Monk’. It wasn’t a conventional question; it was a word challenge. The highest scores will also come from people who are the most interested in IQ testing and have the most experience in completing them. It’s an acquired skill, not a measure of intelligence. [/quote]

IQ tests are, at best, marginally useful identifying things like learning disabilities WITHIN a normalized population.[/quote]

OK…so if everyone is telling Tiger Lilly this, why is he still typing?[/quote]

Because it’s wrong. I’d go so far as to say embarrassingly wrong.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
IQ tests are, at best, marginally useful identifying things like learning disabilities WITHIN a normalized population.[/quote]

Not to completely derail this, but Jews rock on IQ tests, are like 1% of the world population, and have half the world’s Nobel Prizes. Not to mention writing the book that is the cornerstone of our ethics.

So there is something to IQ test, IMHO.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

Exactly. I once saw an IQ test where the answer was ‘Thelonius Monk’. It wasn’t a conventional question; it was a word challenge. The highest scores will also come from people who are the most interested in IQ testing and have the most experience in completing them. It’s an acquired skill, not a measure of intelligence. [/quote]

IQ tests are, at best, marginally useful identifying things like learning disabilities WITHIN a normalized population.[/quote]

OK…so if everyone is telling Tiger Lilly this, why is he still typing?[/quote]

Well, that is not quite true.

For what its worth, the better you do in IQ tests, the more money you are likely to make.

Which does not necessarily mean that IQ tests test what would traditionally be called intelligence, whatever that is. [/quote]

I’ve had my IQ tested but the results were kept from me until I got out of college. I never put much reliance in them but can see how culture and exposure can affect the outcome to some degree. Both of my parents were teachers. My mom had me reading on a middle school level in Kindergarten. I did horrible in high school. I was Dean’s List in college. I do not believe they can dictate any level of success in life and that seems to be what some are arguing.

This is definitely not my field of study…but I do know something about genetics.

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
IQ tests are, at best, marginally useful identifying things like learning disabilities WITHIN a normalized population.[/quote]

Not to completely derail this, but Jews rock on IQ tests, are like 1% of the world population, and have half the world’s Nobel Prizes. Not to mention writing the book that is the cornerstone of our ethics.

So there is something to IQ test, IMHO.[/quote]

Yeah, but for what its worth, for the longest time Jews started to read at three working their way through the Torah, instead of “Bob has a ball, watch Bob and his ball”.

Add to that a heritage that insinuates that everything you have better fit into your suitcase and into your head and who knows what that leads to.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
IQ tests are, at best, marginally useful identifying things like learning disabilities WITHIN a normalized population.[/quote]

Not to completely derail this, but Jews rock on IQ tests, are like 1% of the world population, and have half the world’s Nobel Prizes. Not to mention writing the book that is the cornerstone of our ethics.

So there is something to IQ test, IMHO.[/quote]

Yeah, but for what its worth, for the longest time Jews started to read at three working their way through the Torah, instead of “Bob has a ball, watch Bob and his ball”.

Add to that a heritage that insinuates that everything you have better fit into your suitcase and into your head and who knows what that leads to. [/quote]

But that would imply a large cultural influence.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

Exactly. I once saw an IQ test where the answer was ‘Thelonius Monk’. It wasn’t a conventional question; it was a word challenge. The highest scores will also come from people who are the most interested in IQ testing and have the most experience in completing them. It’s an acquired skill, not a measure of intelligence. [/quote]

IQ tests are, at best, marginally useful identifying things like learning disabilities WITHIN a normalized population.[/quote]

OK…so if everyone is telling Tiger Lilly this, why is he still typing?[/quote]

Its a game of racquetball and He is the Wall. I gave up after being told that ancient Scottland, Ireland, the British Isles all had evolved beyond the Ethiopeans.

Greece and Rome ahhhh what a gathering of ideas and cultures can do for the world.

You can keep swinging but the ball will just come back.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
IQ tests are, at best, marginally useful identifying things like learning disabilities WITHIN a normalized population.[/quote]

Not to completely derail this, but Jews rock on IQ tests, are like 1% of the world population, and have half the world’s Nobel Prizes. Not to mention writing the book that is the cornerstone of our ethics.

So there is something to IQ test, IMHO.[/quote]

Yeah, but for what its worth, for the longest time Jews started to read at three working their way through the Torah, instead of “Bob has a ball, watch Bob and his ball”.

Add to that a heritage that insinuates that everything you have better fit into your suitcase and into your head and who knows what that leads to. [/quote]

But that would imply a large cultural influence.[/quote]

Mebbe.

If that was true though, it would also explain why people who see reading a book as a sign of sympathizing with the enemy do not so well on IQ tests.

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m very skeptical of the idea that blacks are genetically predisposed to commit more crimes than other races. I would like to look at how the data was collected. At the same time it would be wrong to rule out a possibility because it makes us feel uncomfortable. We want the RIGHT answer, not the one that makes us feel the most comfortable.

One thing I have noticed though is that there are a lot of parallels you can draw between the Aboriginal community of Canada and the black community in the US. They both are more likely to commit violent crimes disproportionate to their representation in the population, both more likely to be imprisoned and both more likely to be raised in single parent households. A long list of other stuff, but you guys get the idea.

The reason I have connected them is that they both have a long history of mistreatment in society by the social majority. Would it be possible that this mistreatment has effected their culture and values that still play a role today?

Not claiming to be an expert on this topic, just a thought.

[/quote]
What aboriginal tribes recently discovered and still living in the stone age?

I do find it interesting that through out history, certain regions grew, prospered, developed technology and then of course dominated regions still throwing stones and using sticks for self defense.

Take the middle east for example, obviously a pioneer in science, math, culture et cetera and bordering Asia, Europe and Africa.

Look at the technological advances of European and Asian countries at any point in history compared to Africa.

I realize I’ll probably get crucified for this musing, but it’s interesting when viewed objectively.

Societal support is helpful of course, take a tribesman and throw him in modern society and he will adapt to the best of his abilities but, as a whole, why did one region lag so far behind?[/quote]

The most common theory is that moving out of Africa meant food would be harder to find and it would take more intelligence in order to cultivate a sustainable tribe. As it happens, the gap necessary to survive in the frigid climate of ancient Europe also gave rise to the intelligence levels necessary to build western civilization to what it is today.

Something along those lines. [/quote]

???Unless you are talking about the Middle East I’m not sure what part of Ancient Western Europe was any more advanced than any place else.

Wow.

Ok on this note I am out. hahahaha wow.[/quote]

? I’m talking about why all non-African societies continued advancing while Africa stayed relatively stagnant. In the case of Europe, this is why. [/quote]

In the case of Europe you had a culture that viewed the world in a very unique way, meaning, the world had fixed rules that could be understood by the human mind. The belief in the power of reason, that is neither intuitively true nor the norm (well, now it is, kind off) was propagated by the Greeks, carried on by the Romans and reinforced by a Judeo Christian tradition that had the idea that the Lord has set up a world of fixed rules from the get go.

Add to that that Europe is relatively small and all the crops and animals that were domesticated in the Middle East could relatively easily adapted to European conditions due to its East West axis and the general shape that forced relentless competition on the European people and you had quite a few advantages that added up.

Now you could propose that longer exposure to culture leads to higher IQs, but that still would not mean that lower IQa necessarily lead to more crime.

[/quote]

This is true, and again, I don’t know what the exact mechanism is that is causing this radical difference in crime rates, but my best guess would be to look at the factors that make blacks distinct from all the other races as the most probable culprit. In this case, the most outstanding features are an incredibly steep IQ gap and significantly higher T levels, both of which have been shown to be accurate predictors of increased criminal behaviour amongst all races. [/quote]

IQ tests are not an accurate measure of intelligence. The majority of them are really a test of problem solving skills, understanding of geometric shapes, or general knowledge of random information. Not the same as intelligence. I would actually say that it’s next to impossible to accurately test someone’s IQ.

I actually have my own theory that everyone is equally intelligent. This may not be an original idea, but throughout my time in undergrad studying Psych, I don’t recall any class going over this possibility. Were I not so lazy, I may have even done some research of my own on the topic.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
IQ tests are, at best, marginally useful identifying things like learning disabilities WITHIN a normalized population.[/quote]

Not to completely derail this, but Jews rock on IQ tests, are like 1% of the world population, and have half the world’s Nobel Prizes. Not to mention writing the book that is the cornerstone of our ethics.

So there is something to IQ test, IMHO.[/quote]

Yeah, but for what its worth, for the longest time Jews started to read at three working their way through the Torah, instead of “Bob has a ball, watch Bob and his ball”.

Add to that a heritage that insinuates that everything you have better fit into your suitcase and into your head and who knows what that leads to. [/quote]

But that would imply a large cultural influence.[/quote]

Mebbe.

If that was true though, it would also explain why people who see reading a book as a sign of sympathizing with the enemy do not so well on IQ tests.

[/quote]

Which again is cultural. My grandmother was almost just south of white…as in light skinned but “black” facial features enough to know she isn’t. Her husband was jet black. He would often go missing in the middle of the night so she had to buy Pearl Drops toothpaste so he could be found.

I remember getting made fun of at one school I attended (the only one majority black) where I was teased for how I spoke. Apparently, I spoke “white”. That is the community many of these kids are raised in. Education is not valued (mind you, I do think this is changing lately) and the focus is not on praising pure intellect mostly because of the condition many of those kids are living in and the options they think are available to them.

This can not be ignored with standardized tests or completely left out of the equation.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Someone please define “wrong street” to me in the context of a kid walking down one as a minority.

I am confused on this topic. [/quote]

Wrong street: the street that Zimmerman was patrolling. There you go. Doesn’t have to have anything to do with race.

[quote]TDub301 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Someone please define “wrong street” to me in the context of a kid walking down one as a minority.

I am confused on this topic. [/quote]

Wrong street: the street that Zimmerman was patrolling. There you go. Doesn’t have to have anything to do with race.[/quote]

LOL.

You wrote:[quote]As far as I’m concerned, it’s just as likely that the kid was simply walking down the wrong neighborhood street, at the wrong time, while the wrong mentally unstable neighborhood watch captain was on patrol.[/quote]

You see, he was in THE RIGHT NEIGHBORHOOD, AT THE RIGHT TIME with THE WRONG PERSON thinking he was a criminal and taking his life for it.

I know you may not mean it, but the implication of what you wrote is STILL that the kid di not belong there.

He did.

He didn’t deserve to die for it either.

And yeah…it was ALL about race.