[quote]forlife wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
Studying IQ does not seem to add much benefit to science or society. We have the bell curve on IQ’s, what is the point of dwelling further? It only feeds people with bad agendas and media dogs. People should be free to study what ever they want and draw their own conclusions, but the IQ debate just reeks of superiority and pointless assumptions about nurture. The obsession in this area is odd.
Testing familiarity is a huge reason why education is a big part of IQ.
As I pointed out earlier, intelligence is the single best predictor of success in a wide variety of professions. Organizations would be foolish not to use this information to select the most qualified candidates for these roles.
[/quote]
Exactly. The real issue is not whether or not these bleeding heart high IQ liberals think it’s valuable, but whether or not employers do. Clearly, they do. Clearly, colleges value IQ as well, as the SAT used to be a pretty heavily g-loaded exam.
But it has more implications than that. If we’re letting a lot of lower-IQ people move into this country, they will probably not be able to compete with higher IQ people already here. They will become part of the race grievance industry, further eroding social capital and the social contract.
California is a prime example of this, and we’re seeing the implications for the future of our nation in the minority mortgage meltdown, covered recently on CNBC’s documentary “House of Cards.”
If we allow a lot of higher-IQ people to move here, they could possibly establish a lot of influence and wealth disproportionate to their population percentage. The Chinese living in Indonesia are an example of this. Of course, they are subject to pogroms and massacres from time to time - things we don’t need here.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
<<< Current social policy is based upon the idea that all races are genetically similar and that differences in achievement are therefore due to racism. >>>
[/quote]
No way pal.
On it’s face this is correct… however…
I will defer to your correction if one is forthcoming, but seemingly implied in your statement is the notion that the sooner we recognize the innately inferior character and intellectual powers of blacks the sooner we can get the appropriate caste system in place.
I reject that. I am blond n blue and white as the wind driven snow. I also have no problem addressing issues of race wherever the truth falls out, but the idea that white people are “better” than black people, which it sure seems like you’re saying, is incorrect and entirely counterproductive. I don’t care what somebody’s neato study says. I know better.
I will defer to your correction if one is forthcoming, but seemingly implied in your statement is the notion that the sooner we recognize the innately inferior character and intellectual powers of blacks the sooner we can get the appropriate caste system in place.
I reject that. I am blond n blue and white as the wind driven snow. I also have no problem addressing issues of race wherever the truth falls out, but the idea that white people are “better” than black people, which it sure seems like you’re saying, is incorrect and entirely counterproductive. I don’t care what somebody’s neato study says. I know better.[/quote]
You are being hysterical. I said absolutely nothing to the effect that white people as a group are “better” than black people. Collectivist statements like that are always wrong. My argument is that all people are indivuals of varying degrees of ability, that all racial are comprised of spectrums of individuals ranging from retarded to genius, and that the AVERAGE intelligence level of each race is not the same. Nothing racist about that. Furthermore, human value is not measured strictly in terms of intelligence so I would not even make the statement that a highly intelligent individual is automatically “better” than an individual of lesser intelligence. It’s distortionists like you who create this fucking dichotomy between utterly phony and aritifical liberal egalitarianism on one end and notions of outright racial superiority at the other. Bottom line, there are a lot of perspectives on race out there and mine is the correct one. I am a realist not a racist. Racism is when you hate someone solely because of his race regardless of his characteristics as an individual. Idiocy is when you can’t make the distinction.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
belligerent wrote:
<<< Current social policy is based upon the idea that all races are genetically similar and that differences in achievement are therefore due to racism. >>>
No way pal.
On it’s face this is correct… however…
I will defer to your correction if one is forthcoming, but seemingly implied in your statement is the notion that the sooner we recognize the innately inferior character and intellectual powers of blacks the sooner we can get the appropriate caste system in place.
I reject that. I am blond n blue and white as the wind driven snow. I also have no problem addressing issues of race wherever the truth falls out, but the idea that white people are “better” than black people, which it sure seems like you’re saying, is incorrect and entirely counterproductive. I don’t care what somebody’s neato study says. I know better.[/quote]
Where did he say that?
Affirmative action is a prime example of what he’s talking about. If one race has a mean IQ a standard deviation below another, that race will be under-represented in college admissions based on the fact that they are statistically less likely to be smart enough to get admitted. We have affirmative action because, it is believed, “racism” is the cause for certain groups underperforming others academically. By groups, I mean “blacks and hispanics.” What if, as we’ve been arguing, these groups simply have a lower mean IQ? If that were the case, “racism” really isn’t the underlying cause of the underperformance of these groups - biology is. It has nothing to do with whether one group is “better” than another. No one wants these differences to exist, but they do. And no one in 50 years of trying in this country has been able to close the achievement gaps.
Our country is not the only country to experience these problems. Indonesia and Malaysia are also examples with the Chinese tending to float to the top over the native Malays and other groups, even though they’re a minority. The Chinese tend to have a high mean IQ, which is obvious to anyone taking any engineering classes.
Of course, we can continue with our public policy as it is and perpetuate the racial grievance industry for the sake of closing these mysterious, persistent achievement gaps. The logical outcome of that is that whites will get in on the gig along with everyone else as they become a minority in this country. Then we can have a system of ethnic spoils akin to the now-defunct Ottoman empire writ large. And a dictatorship to go along with it. You have to have harsh government to keep disinterested ethnic groups from killing one another when they are forced to live next to one another as the late Saddam Hussein proved.
<<< I will defer to your correction if one is forthcoming, >>>[/quote]
Anybody who’s read anything I’ve ever said here knows that nobody hates affirmative action and federally coerced “fairness” more than I do.
I said in a previous post that there probably are differing mean averages of all kinds of human characteristics including intelligence. I stand by my statement in that same post (implied anyway) that I doubt that the difference in actual innate intelligence taken as entirely distinct from environmental influences is great enough to account for the disparities in advancement particularly in our society.
I contend that the destructive influences, especially on the family, of the very social programs instituted allegedly to help them go much further in accounting for contemporary circumstances than anything in or missing from their genes.
I want the defining principles that made this country great for white people to have the opportunity to work for everybody. We have not done that. Those principles by definition cannot be legislated. As soon as we began attempting to FORCE the population of this country into equality we were at that moment and to that extent abandoning those defining principles and dooming ourselves and especially the objects of this misguided compassion to exactly what we have today.
[quote]I said in a previous post that there probably are differing mean averages of all kinds of human characteristics including intelligence. I stand by my statement in that same post (implied anyway) that I doubt that the difference in actual innate intelligence taken as entirely distinct from environmental influences is great enough to account for the disparities in advancement particularly in our society.
I contend that the destructive influences, especially on the family, of the very social programs instituted allegedly to help them go much further in accounting for contemporary circumstances than anything in or missing from their genes.[/quote]
Well, that is partially true. To graduate high school and thus complete one of the requirements of teh “middle class values” test (originating with Charles Murray), you need a certain minimum IQ. And California of all places just upped the HS graduation requirements, especially in math, which means that fewer people have that mean IQ.
But what you are saying certainly has merit. The problem is, the same low-IQ people we are importing to do the jobs Americans won’t do* also have an illegitimacy rate approaching 50-60%, with that rate also having an upward 2nd derivative. Low IQ, low legitimacy, high fertility - put that in your pipe and smoke it for awhile. We are all aware that having a deadbeat dad makes a child much more likely to end up in prison.
Well, white people also made European countries great for white people, after a 1000 year dark ages. The people make the laws, not the other way around. As a though experiment, ask yourself if we transported the populations of Saudi Arabia and the USA into each other’s countries. Would you and I just start having a blast going to the weekly beheadings in Jedda? Would the Saudis suddenly start defending the first amendment when it comes to religious freedom for non-Muslims? Of course not. The laws are a reflection of the people. In small numbers, different peoples can be assimilated, but it’s too late for that now.
*There aren’t actually jobs Americans won’t do, there are just jobs Americans won’t do at certain wages. The Big Business robber barons know this, which is why we have unrestricted third world immigration. The downside of this is that the robber barons are now going to have to live in a garrison society where hordes of police officers have to keep the low class peasants from marching up the hills to their houses, torches and pitchforks in hand, whenever economic conditions get bad enough. We’re taking a middle class society and replacing it with a lower class society with a tiny elite. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Based on the information we have, it isn’t possible to know how much of the IQ difference is due to environment and how much is due to genetics.
Racist assholes choose to believe that the entire difference is due to genetics whereas hippy douchebags choose to believe that it’s entirely due to environmental differences.
The truth is that we don’t know how much (if any) of the IQ differences between races is determined by genetics. [/quote]
Actually the truth is that the liberal learning establishment here are not truth seekers.
It would seem to me that intelligence is probably 80% genetic and 20% environmental in some cases. In the case of a mongoloid it would be absurd to suggest that its an “environmental” thing. It wouldn’t also surprise me if much of human behavior had a strong criminological/genetic component to it as well.
This whole taboo against this type of research could be the last great flat earth society.
I believe if a link was found, it could be the beginning of solving a lot of problems, because you cant cure a headache by taking pain medication for your toe.