[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You made it up. And as it’s a made up example it has no meaning because it might be easier in English rather than harder for all you know.[/quote]
And for all you know. That’s my point. You can never consider all the nuances of experience between cultures that different. But the fact that you just admitted that memorizing the same number string in different cultures is a different mental task acknowledges my point.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Moreover, the number 5,469,321 in Japanese would be go hyaku yonju roku man kyu sen sambyaku niju ichi, which is precisely the same number of syllables as “five million four hundred sixty-nine thousand three hundred twenty-one”, but is also more complicated in its conceptual language. Like Korean, Mandarin and all other languages burdened by the Chinese ideography, Japanese expresses large numbers in lumps of ten-thousands, rather than thousands as we do. Ergo the number above, if directly translated from Japanese, would be "five hundred forty-six ten-thousand, nine thousand, three hundred twenty-one. And it would take the Japanese speaker a few seconds before answering, because he would first have to count the number of decimal places in an Arabic numeral in order to translate it in his mind into a Chinese one.[/quote]
Thank you for proving my point.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Moreover, the number 5,469,321 in Japanese would be go hyaku yonju roku man kyu sen sambyaku niju ichi, which is precisely the same number of syllables as “five million four hundred sixty-nine thousand three hundred twenty-one”, but is also more complicated in its conceptual language. Like Korean, Mandarin and all other languages burdened by the Chinese ideography, Japanese expresses large numbers in lumps of ten-thousands, rather than thousands as we do. Ergo the number above, if directly translated from Japanese, would be "five hundred forty-six ten-thousand, nine thousand, three hundred twenty-one. And it would take the Japanese speaker a few seconds before answering, because he would first have to count the number of decimal places in an Arabic numeral in order to translate it in his mind into a Chinese one.[/quote]
Thank you for proving my point. [/quote]
I proved your point that in Japanese it’s easier to memorize number strings because numerical language is simpler and with fewer syllables by pointing out that it’s more complicated and with more syllables?
Okay. You’re welcome.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Moreover, the number 5,469,321 in Japanese would be go hyaku yonju roku man kyu sen sambyaku niju ichi, which is precisely the same number of syllables as “five million four hundred sixty-nine thousand three hundred twenty-one”, but is also more complicated in its conceptual language. Like Korean, Mandarin and all other languages burdened by the Chinese ideography, Japanese expresses large numbers in lumps of ten-thousands, rather than thousands as we do. Ergo the number above, if directly translated from Japanese, would be "five hundred forty-six ten-thousand, nine thousand, three hundred twenty-one. And it would take the Japanese speaker a few seconds before answering, because he would first have to count the number of decimal places in an Arabic numeral in order to translate it in his mind into a Chinese one.[/quote]
Thank you for proving my point. [/quote]
I proved your point that in Japanese it’s easier to memorize number strings because numerical language is simpler and with fewer syllables by pointing out that it’s more complicated and with more syllables?
Okay. You’re welcome.[/quote]
My point was that “2+2” is different with different cultures.
I was just pointing out differences. I have read some studies showing that the difference is the language. It is largely the cause for different math skills between cultures. Basically if you take an english speaking person of Japanese or Chinese descent, the math gap disappears. And I went back and starting looking and I think I misspoke and said Japanese instead of Chinese when I spoke specifically about syllables. But it’s all besides the point. Point being, even something as universal as math is a different mental task between cultures.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
And it would take the Japanese speaker a few seconds before answering, because he would first have to count the number of decimal places in an Arabic numeral in order to translate it in his mind into a Chinese one.[/quote]
Jesus H. I’d have to find a new career if I moved to Japan.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You made it up. And as it’s a made up example it has no meaning because it might be easier in English rather than harder for all you know.[/quote]
And for all you know. That’s my point. You can never consider all the nuances of experience between cultures that different. But the fact that you just admitted that memorizing the same number string in different cultures is a different mental acknowledges my point.[/quote]
It’s not a valid point because for starters the differences would be random(ie some things easier in English, some harder etc) and extremely small differences. Furthermore, such differences would be accounted for in one way or another. For example, Japanese tests would be comparing test scores with other Japanese and the whole outcome would be comparable to tests in any other language. Besides, these technical aspects of testing, of which you’re not even aware of specifics, could in no way be responsible for entire standard deviation differences between races. It’s a meaningless attempt to obfuscate and blur the very real fact that Japanese, Koreans and Han Chinese are significantly more skilled cognitively and less skilled verbally than Western Europeans. That is the point here and please stop trying to hide this fact and distract.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You made it up. And as it’s a made up example it has no meaning because it might be easier in English rather than harder for all you know.[/quote]
And for all you know. That’s my point. You can never consider all the nuances of experience between cultures that different. But the fact that you just admitted that memorizing the same number string in different cultures is a different mental acknowledges my point.[/quote]
It’s not a valid point because for starters the differences would be random(ie some things easier in English, some harder etc) and extremely small differences. Furthermore, such differences would be accounted for in one way or another. For example, Japanese tests would be comparing test scores with other Japanese and the whole outcome would be comparable to tests in any other language. Besides, these technical aspects of testing, of which you’re not even aware of specifics, could in no way be responsible for entire standard deviation differences between races. It’s a meaningless attempt to obfuscate and blur the very real fact that Japanese, Koreans and Han Chinese are significantly more skilled cognitively and less skilled verbally than Western Europeans. That is the point here and please stop trying to hide this fact and distract.[/quote]
Their cultures, or their races? Are the Chinese and Japanese and Koreans a race now? Or are they each a separate race? I can’t keep up with your ever changing race references.
I haven’t argued that there aren’t differences. I’ve actually argued there are differences. But from the information you’ve presented you haven’t controlled for culture. You’ve not understood my whole point.
And for the record there are a ton of mentally handicapped north Koreans if we are including them, though largely because they are malnourished and starved through life(another complicating factor in your assertion genetics are the reason).
But you haven’t answered the one simple question I’ve asked you over and over about race.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It’s not a valid point because for starters the differences would be random(ie some things easier in English, some harder etc) and extremely small differences.
[/quote]
You are just assuming this? Because a number of differences have been shown to be substantial.
Accounted for how and by whom? what are you talking about?
[quote]
For example, Japanese tests would be comparing test scores with other Japanese and the whole outcome would be comparable to tests in any other language. [/quote]
The first part of this sentence is contradictory to the second part. Are you drinking or something? This sentence is completely logically invalid. Differences are okay because you only compare japanese specifically with japanese, therfore, you can compare japanese with non-japanese? I can’t even follow what you are saying.
If you don’t agree with me that’s fine but stop pretending I haven’t answered this. Stop asking the exact same question over and over again. You’re ruining the discussion. Is that your intent? I think it is, even if it’s subconscious.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Their cultures, or their races?
[/quote]
What? What about their “cultures or their races?” I don’t even know what you’re asking.
Well, what did I say the last five times when you asked about Irish, Celts etc? Look back to the last time you asked. Don’t make me have to answer again or cut and paste my last answer.
They’ve never changed. And as you well know, the Japanese and Koreans are not the same people. They are separate and unique population clusters that diverged onto separate evolutionary paths. For the tenth fucking time, it is these “unique population clusters” that I refer to when I speak of a “race”. I am speaking of a “unique population cluster” that diverged from others and is on its own evolutionary path. Stop the games.
But you’ve tried to hide and minimise the differences. You’ve made all kinds of silly claims intended to show that these differences are miniscule or irrelevant.
Yes, “but”. This is the bit where you now try to minimise said differences or show they’re irrelevant and so on.
I’ve specifically said I’m not a biological determinist and that culture and environment play a part as well.
[quote]
And for the record there are a ton of mentally handicapped north Koreans if we are including them, though largely because they are malnourished and starved through life(another complicating factor in your assertion genetics are the reason).
But you haven’t answered the one simple question I’ve asked you over and over about race. [/quote]
What do you call what I’ve written above directly below your question? How is that not an answer?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You are just assuming this?
[/quote]
No, I’ve read a great deal about this exact subject. And you haven’t. When you’re familiar with both sides you’ll be able to discuss it intelligently(I hope). When I’ve got some time I’ll post some links to articles addressing this.
Such as? So far all you’ve done is make up a fictitious “example” and pretended it was real. Fortunately someone who actually speaks Japanese caught you and called you out. You are clearly not interested in the facts. You’re behaving like a fanatic. You’ve swallowed this leftist, cultural Marxist garbage and you’re going to defend it at all costs.
Accounted for by the people designing the test?
[quote]
The first part of this sentence is contradictory to the second part. Are you drinking or something? This sentence is completely logically invalid. Differences are okay because you only compare japanese specifically with japanese, therfore, you can compare japanese with non-japanese? I can’t even follow what you are saying.[/quote]
I’ll explain this and then I will have to have a break from this. It’s so tiring and stressful. Okay:
Hypothetical example - The Japanese test allows 12 seconds to answer a specific question. You get 1 point if you get it right. All the Japanese are being tested according to the same criteria - ie, all get 12 seconds to answer and 1 point if they get it right. By contrast, the English test only allows 10 seconds because the question is slightly quicker to answer due to language differences. So the English subjects get 10 seconds to answer and 1 point for getting it right. The English are competing against other English for the one point and the Japanese are competing against other Japanese for one point. And the outcome - whether they get a point or not; their overall score; the number of points they have is now universally relevant.
^^ This is all clear from what I initially said. It’s simple. I don’t know how you could fail to understand. Okay, I need a break from this particular merry-go-round for now.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You are just assuming this?
[/quote]
No, I’ve read a great deal about this exact subject. And you haven’t. When you’re familiar with both sides you’ll be able to discuss it intelligently(I hope). When I’ve got some time I’ll post some links to articles addressing this.
[/quote]
Why should I read your articles when you ignored mine that talked about the language difference? Oh that’s right, so you can continue to harp on a point where I misspoke and said Japanese instead of Chinese in a post that even after YOUR and others corrections proved the point. Though I corrected my point and posted articles on it and despite the fact that the poster that corrected me agreed that there were substantial language differences even in math, you keep on with that tangential aside so you can ignore the argument.
The math gap diapering by changing cultures without changing genetics is insubstantial? Oh right, you didn’t read. It’s not fictitious and the Japanese speaking guy agrees with me. There are substantial differences.
Well, at least you’ve changed from denying that there are differences. But no, it’s not humanly possible to account for all differences. And the error tolerance is probably larger that your difference.
[quote]
The adjustment in time is to normalize correct answer rates between populations. Meaning they plan the time so about the same percentage can answer the question in each population. The part that I don’t understand is that in your hypothetical, if 50% of the English people getting the question right while only 10% of Japanese speaking ones did, it would indicate a poorly adjusted test, not a difference in intelligence. It is this very adjustment and error in adjustment that makes absolute scores between cultures irrelevant. You can, as you seem to be indicating, normalize average scores and compare distributions, but normalizing means you are comparing relative, not absolute scores.
Besides the fact that even if there were a difference you’ve shown no evidence that it’s “racially” linked. There is a whole list of possibilities for different IQ scores and you’ve presented no evidence that it has to do with genes. It could be differences in education, differences in mental training, differences in nutrition, differences in stress, differences in the seriousness of the person taking the test, differences in test design and shortcomings in test design, differences in language and a million other things I canÃ?¢??t even think of because no one could ever consider them all.
Not once have I ever said there aren’t differences or they are small. Not once have I minimized any difference. The fact that you continue this false allegation so that you have something to attack is all too telling. And further for the record, I agree that there are discernable physical regional traits, though some of those are hard to control for also (height for example). I am more than a little skeptical on your intelligence assertion as I see no good evidence for it (the notion that it’s racially linked), and largely due to the difficulty even defining what intelligence is (I don’t buy IQ, at least across cultures, as a reasonable definition of it).
And again you are magically asserting something about my beliefs that’s completely false. I’m not even a little bit in with the liberals on the issue of race. I think race is a made up term. It’s gone from nationality, to color, to pseudoscience genetics. There are however genetic similarities in groups of humans. But, because there is no scientific reason to differentiate which groupings of how big and what kind constitute “race” all genetic links, from the large global region all the way down to the individual, should be treated equally. To me that means insulting a guy for being of dark skin color that runs in his ancestry is morally (and racist-ly) equal to insulting a guy for big ears that run in his family.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
So how is it that I’m both sane and stupid, clear-headed yet ignorant?
[/quote]
I don’t believe that black men are inherently more violent, because that would be racist (ha!). What I do know is that black males commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime, directed at whites, blacks, Asians, Latinos, etc.
In 2015, there have been 8 homicide arrests. All those arrested have been black. In 2014, there were 127 homicide arrests. Ninety-nine of those arrested were black (see graphic).
Edit: spelling.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
Uh, no. You either didn’t read or didn’t understand the article; it’s established no such thing. What you call “the caveman part of [the] brain” the authors refer to as an evolutionary adaptation that allowed humans to live and work in groups. So your conclusion that the behavior would have to be irrational doesn’t follow your premise, nor is it supported by the article
[/quote]
Varqanir described that feeling as a sub-rational impluse, based on instinct more than fact. Since it’s not based in known fact, I take it to mean it’s irrational.
And I disagree, I think the article backs my opinion. From the article:
“‘In arbitrarily constructed, meaningless groups with no history, people still think that those in their ingroup are smarter, better, more moral, and more just than members of outgroups,’ says Harvard University psychologist James Sidanius.”
That doesn’t sound like rational behavior to me.
The article goes on to say that this behavior is easily influenced by outside environmental factors completely unrelated to the individual of the outgroup being observed. Another quote from the article:
“In a variety of studies, Neuberg, Schaller, and their colleagues have manipulated people into feeling unconsciously more fearful or confident and found that measures of outgroup bias respond.”
Your dark alley, for example.
In modern society, we spend a lot of time trying to go against the behavioral adaptations developed tens of thousands of years ago. Our innate preference for fat-and-sugar-laden high calorie foods, for starters, is making us fat. Anyone trying to lose weight is going against thousands of years of evolution.
The same thought process that caused you to cross the street in your hypothetical is the same one that went through Zimmerman’s mind, except he had a gun:
“It was dark and raining. Martin, 17, though slender, was tall. Zimmerman, 28, was quite alert to crime in his neighborhood; he had started the neighborhood watch. Martin was young, male, and black, an outgroup stereotyped as dangerous by whites and Hispanics in the United States. ‘We would predict that under those circumstances this kind of thing would happen more often,’ Neuberg says.”
(I hope I don’t start a shitstorm by bringing that up.)
If you thought I was insinuating that you were a racist for wanting to cross the street, I apologize. It’s not at all what I meant. I do, however, think it’s a line of reasoning that we as a society should be working to abolish. Wouldn’t you agree that since we’ve been incorporating more and more people into our “ingroup”, we’ve accomplished more as a society? Do you think that assigning this label to young black men starts a self-fulfilling prophecy?
[quote]Ironskape wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
Uh, no. You either didn’t read or didn’t understand the article; it’s established no such thing. What you call “the caveman part of [the] brain” the authors refer to as an evolutionary adaptation that allowed humans to live and work in groups. So your conclusion that the behavior would have to be irrational doesn’t follow your premise, nor is it supported by the article
[/quote]
Varqanir described that feeling as a sub-rational impluse, based on instinct more than fact. Since it’s not based in known fact, I take it to mean it’s irrational.
And I disagree, I think the article backs my opinion. From the article:
“‘In arbitrarily constructed, meaningless groups with no history, people still think that those in their ingroup are smarter, better, more moral, and more just than members of outgroups,’ says Harvard University psychologist James Sidanius.”
That doesn’t sound like rational behavior to me.
The article goes on to say that this behavior is easily influenced by outside environmental factors completely unrelated to the individual of the outgroup being observed. Another quote from the article:
“In a variety of studies, Neuberg, Schaller, and their colleagues have manipulated people into feeling unconsciously more fearful or confident and found that measures of outgroup bias respond.”
Your dark alley, for example.
In modern society, we spend a lot of time trying to go against the behavioral adaptations developed tens of thousands of years ago. Our innate preference for fat-and-sugar-laden high calorie foods, for starters, is making us fat. Anyone trying to lose weight is going against thousands of years of evolution.
The same thought process that caused you to cross the street in your hypothetical is the same one that went through Zimmerman’s mind, except he had a gun:
“It was dark and raining. Martin, 17, though slender, was tall. Zimmerman, 28, was quite alert to crime in his neighborhood; he had started the neighborhood watch. Martin was young, male, and black, an outgroup stereotyped as dangerous by whites and Hispanics in the United States. ‘We would predict that under those circumstances this kind of thing would happen more often,’ Neuberg says.”
(I hope I don’t start a shitstorm by bringing that up.)
If you thought I was insinuating that you were a racist for wanting to cross the street, I apologize. It’s not at all what I meant. I do, however, think it’s a line of reasoning that we as a society should be working to abolish. Wouldn’t you agree that since we’ve been incorporating more and more people into our “ingroup”, we’ve accomplished more as a society? Do you think that assigning this label to young black men starts a self-fulfilling prophecy? [/quote]
That’s a “survival instinct” and it’s incredibly stupid and dangerous to try to dull it. Dozens of examples of idiots getting robbed, raped and murdered due to this dulling come to mind but I thought this one was particularly memorable:
The Haitian who raped her didn’t care that she was a “Malcolm X scholar”. And this silly bitch has since gone on to say she blames white racism for the Haitian raping her.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
That’s a “survival instinct” and it’s incredibly stupid and dangerous to try to dull it. Dozens of examples of idiots getting robbed, raped and murdered due to this dulling come to mind but I thought this one was particularly memorable:
The Haitian who raped her didn’t care that she was a “Malcolm X scholar”. And this silly bitch has since gone on to say she blames white racism for the Haitian raping her.[/quote]
Ever dieted? I hope not, that’s going against your “survival instinct”. What if there’s a famine, we need these fat cells damn it, quit losing them!
Also…Jesus Christ, dude, can you seriously not think of any instances of this “survival instinct” going the other way and causing the death of an innocent person?
And come the fuck on with your sources. It straight-up says “Pro-White, Pro-South, Pro-Independence” in the top right hand corner.
edited
Sex Machine, your thread got DD’d. LOL
Between that and the libtards, this thread never had a chance. Common sense is long gone. But I’ll offer my $0,02
I don’t care what anyone says, you can’t unwire a hundred thousand years of wiring in two generations. It simply won’t happen. Tribe “A” will NATURALLY distrust Tribe “B”. And for historically good reason. I could make a rational case for tribes today not trusting each other - on BOTH sides…
But what’s happened is that Liberals have hijacked the “cause of the minority” and uses that (contrived group shame and guilt) to control the “majority”. It is a political weapon at this point. No whites in America alive today have owned anyone - black OR white. Yes, there were white slaves too, as well as black slave owners - but you don’t hear about THAT in the liberal controlled Media, DO YOU? Some of the most level headed guys I know (with regard to race) are older black gentlemen who LIVED through the civil rights movement and watched the country change before their eyes. I happen to be friends with many such men (I bartended in a DC jazz club and befriended many of the patrons there). They know their history - They LIVED it. But that history is being twisted. It isn’t being ACCURATELY taught. People aren’t being taught to be self sufficient, they are taught to be VICTIMS. They aren’t taught about the FACT that now there are NO impediments to a minority gaining status and wealth through hard work. THAT just wont do. I mean, if we actually EMPOWERED minorities, we couldn’t control them through social welfare programs and the liberal Democratic party would gradually slide into oblivion. There’s too much MONEY at stake to allow that to happen, so they don’t want “equality” in our society. They don’t want to TEACH the truth: that ANY man or woman born and raised in America can be whatever they work hard to be - generally speaking. As long as they have the natural ability to succeed in their chosen endeavor. For example, I chose to be an electrician instead of a musician (like my brother). I am good at math and can solve complex problems, but I can’t carry a tune with both hands. My brother, on the other hand, has trouble understanding Ohms law, but got a PhD in Music Composition Theory and is now a College Professor. We both maximized the career potential that we had.
But that’s not what the message is to minorities. If they don’t succeed at something, it’s because of RACISM. It has nothing at all to do with their study habits or natural ability or talent. They don’t tell them that they CAN do anything they WORK HARD FOR. The word “entitlements” sums it up perfectly. If you are “entitled” to something, are you inclined to work for it? No. If you feel society “owes” you for something that happened before you were born and that “the white man” is keeping you down, will you even TRY? Liberals don’t want minorities to be empowered or equal. The very “programs” they champion send an implied message to every minority they try to “help”: you’re not quite good enough, so here’s something to compensate for that. The very basic POSITION the Left takes is FUNDAMENTALLY RACIST! But they won’t tell you that.
Instead they make historical fiction movies, but exaggerate the facts of history (and just plain LIE about things that never happened) and then cry when they don’t get any nominations… So let me get this straight: blacks represent less than 20% of the population in America. There are FIVE nominees. There have been black people nominated in other years, just not this one (maybe because of the shitty movies they happened to star in that pushed an OBVIOUS agenda and FREE people don’t appreciate propaganda - just a thought…). RAAAACIIIIIST!!! Give me a fucking break.
Racism is alive and well on ALL sides. I am white and grew up in a majority black neighborhood. When they showed Alex Haley’s Roots during history class, I got chased home from school the day they cut Kunta Kinte’s foot off. I’ve been attacked and beaten on MULTIPLE occasions for “being white”. If half the shit that happened to me had been a “reverse race” scenario, I’d be on the national news and Al Sharpton would be kissing my ass. But I am who I am, and the racism that I’ve experienced personally apparently “doesn’t count”. Which is fine - I’m not a fucking VICTIM and I was able to move beyond those experiences with nothing but a few scars to remind me of those times.
I treat EVERYONE as an individual. I don’t like hanging out with people moving in a negative direction and that includes Blacks, Whites, Yellows and <<>>. If I perceive someone is a threat, based on MY EXPERIENCE, then does that make me a “racist” or a “realist”? I’ve been attacked by a rainbow of people. I know when I “should” cross the street… Fact is, I present myself as a hard target, I weigh 220lbs and I don’t act like a scared little bitch when I’m around other alpha males - even when I’m out numbered, so I tend to keep on walking… Most of the time I get a nod, or other form of acknowledgement. I remember a former girlfriend was very astounded by that. She always commented, “why do black guys always nod their head like they know you?” (she was Asian and never dated a guy from “my side of the tracks” before).
Professionally, last year I hired exactly two people at my company - both of them happened to be black. That was not by design or intent, they were both QUALIFIED and interviewed well. Does that “mean anything”? Absolutely not - if two white guys had the same resume and interviewed the same day and did well, I would just as easily hired them.
I guess the whole point of all this is that you fucking Liberals are the ones keeping racism alive. But that’s not surprising since the Democratic party was the party of slavery and racism. It hasn’t changed, it’s just substituted “slave owner” with “parole officer” or “welfare check” or “food stamps” or “entitlements” Or “equal opportunity” or “here’s some money for college based not on your hard work, character and innate ability, but SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU ARE BLACK (oh, and it doesn’t matter if you cant read, we have a program to help you with that too)”… What that is, is a total MIND FUCK. It’s mixed message and one that fundamentally undermines ANY progress (assuming the definition of “progress” is rewarding people for hard work and the best person getting the best job regardless of what color, race, gender or class they are). But that’s not “progress” for you lefties, is it? LOL It’s more like, “tax the white man”, “boys are bad and need medication”, “minorities need our help”, “feelings are more important than facts” and EVERYONE has the the RIGHT not to be OFFENDED in ANY fashion (except the white man, cuz you evil crackers have it coming)
/rant
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Why is Celtic a race but the Irish town with big ears isn?t?
[/quote]
Why is Australia a continent, but the North Island of New Zealand isn’t?
[quote]undoredo wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Why is Celtic a race but the Irish town with big ears isn?t?
[/quote]
Why is Australia a continent, but the North Island of New Zealand isn’t?[/quote]
They are both islands. One happens to be larger than the other. And in fact, at one time the were the same landmass.