Critique of the alt-right and why you must accept “blackpills”

submitted by marc_gee from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Vegethu 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (19 children)

A few questions here from me and critiques.

Why shouldn't there be outrage over police brutality? If this is a country of freedom how can anyone allow police brutality?

24 Hr anti-white TV? Can you prove this?

Diversity is of benefit though, especially economically. I do have sources on this fact, what proof do you have to back your claim.

What good justification is there for oppossing diversity. Many Republicans have called out against ANTIFA and BLM, and diversity such as Trump and Carlson to name a few.

And lastly, who are "the elites", and what are they doing?

[–]marc_gee[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Diversity is of benefit though, especially economically. I do have sources on this fact, what proof do you have to back your claim.

What good justification is there for oppossing diversity.

More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion. Source: http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/

Diversity increases psychotic experiences. Source: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.full

Diversity increases social adversity. Source: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.full

A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes. Source: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.full

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health. Source: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full

Ethnic diversity harms health for Hispanics and Blacks. Source: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787

Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group. Source: http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment. Source: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6

Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust. Source: http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf#page=2

Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities. Source: https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf

Ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods are beneficial for health. Source: https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/living-ethnically-homogenous-area-boosts-health-minority-seniors

In America, more diverse cities have more segregation. Source: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism. Source: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10464-013-9608-0

States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality. Source: http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar. Source: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/n&n%202005-1.pdf

Borders, not multiculturalism, reduce intergroup violence. Source: http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1409

Diversity reduces charity and volunteering. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

People who live in diverse communities rather than homogenous ones are poorer and less educated. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Black people trust their neighbors less than do White people. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Spanish speakers trust their neighbors less than do English speakers. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Asians trust their neighbors less than do White people. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Ethnically diverse workplaces have lower cohesion, lower satisfaction and higher turnover. Source: http://jom.sagepub.com/content/23/3/239.short?rss=1&ssource=mfc

Ethnic diversity reduces social trust. Source: http://www.nber.org/papers/w5677

Ethnic diversity among members of the same race reduces infrastructure quality, charity, and loan repayment. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Diversity of any sort makes people more likely to defect in game theoretic scenarios. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Homogeneous military units have less desertion than diverse units. Source: http://www.nber.org/papers/w8627

Diversity correlates with low GDP. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/

Ethnic homogeneity correlates with strong democracy. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/

Genetic diversity causes societal conflict. Source: https://www.nber.org/papers/w21079

Ethnic diversity causally decreases social cohesion. Source: http://esr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/08/20/esr.jcv081.full

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Epic list.

[–]Vegethu 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not really. Have read any of these?

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Go troll somewhere else.

[–]Vegethu 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

ases psychotic experiences

!WHEW! There is a lot of misinformation going on in your comment, so much in fact I wonder if you 've even read any of the stuff you've cited.

Let's go ;)

  1. From Bloomberg is a study that these were based off simulations and not reality, the article itself says so "this is the result of computer simulations of reality, not reality itself. Our identities, social relationships and actual neighborhoods are far more complex than simulations can get at." Society is far more complex than just a simulation. Moreover, in the end the article advocates for diversity claiming we should bridge different communities, it even cites Robert Putnam who has advocated for diversity calling "bridging" social capital.

Not only is this article based off of a simulation it only accounts for small neighborhoods, even the article advocates for diversity at a city level. And even the article views segregation as a bad thing.

  1. These study you linked about diversity increases psychotic experience doesnt suggest what you seem to think it suggests. The English woman who made the study herself said, when asked about her study said "When people live in ares that are more ethnically diverse the outcomes can be a bit better" She says the reason this could be is because of better social support and better social networks. In other words SOCIAL COHESION. But don't take my word for it, here is the English women who ACTUALLY made the study explaining what it means: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxv9MeSfjNM

No where does it say that there's a causal link between diversity and mental illness.

In this study, they looked at black african people and South East Asian people and concluded that there's actually "a reduced mortality risk in psychosis relative to white British people" and goes on to say that the health outcomes in ethnically diverse comunities BECAUSE OF SOCIAL COHESION. But don't take my word for it, here is the English women who ACTUALLY made the study explaining what it means in layman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxv9MeSfjNM

  1. You posted the same source twice in a row.

  2. You posted the same source again (now 3x in a row)

  3. I dont know how to tell you this but this source you cited doesn't make the claim you think it makes. Let's go through it together ;)

"Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships . Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract "

Though diversity does have certain drawbacks, these drawback only exist in the SHORT TERM. The benefits of diversity are plentiful in the long term and I think that as a society we should make plans that benefit us LONG TERM.

I will qoute the abstract YOU cited:

"In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits...In the long run, however, successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new, cross‐cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities. Illustrations of becoming comfortable with diversity are drawn from the US military, religious institutions, and earlier waves of American immigration."

  1. You cited the same study (again)

  2. This website references a book written by Robert Putnam which many right wingers have either knowingly or unknowingly misintepreted what Putnam actually claims. I'll explain to you why Putnam isn't saying what you think he's saying:

I'll link you a video of Putnam himself talking about the PROS and CONS of immigration. Robert Putnam claims asserts that immigration does have benefits for countries. A disproportanate number of America's Nobel Prize winners are either immigrants or children of immigrants; Same goes for many of our best Artists, musicians, etc. Putnam does claim that the costs are only in the SHORT TERM and that we should diminish those negative costs and extract the MASSIVE benefits of immigration which are LONG TERM.

Here is an interview where Robert Putnam himself elaborates on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grAAOjdvcrI

In conclusion: The source that the article is citing doesnt make the claim you THINK it claims. Robert Putnam makes the assertation that the positives outweigh the costs when it comes to immigration and diversity, see above link.

  1. Again the source doesnt claim what you think it claims:

First of all the first sentence clearly states that, "Research suggests that greater ethnic density correlates with worse health among African Americans but better health among Hispanic Americans" - so not for both groups, BETTER HEALTH FOR HISPANICS. So youve misqouted your own source.

In the study (THE FIRST FUCKING PARAGRAPH) the study claims that the reason for this was because the Black population was older than the Hispanic population. Once they controled for that they concluded that, "These conflicting patterns may arise from Hispanic American samples being older than African American samples. We found that among 2367 Mexican American and 2790 African American participants older than 65 years, ethnic density predicted lower rates of cardiovascular disease and cancer, adjusting for covariates, showing that the health benefits of ethnic density apply to both minority communities."

So you either dishonestly represented your data or you didn't even read it to begin with, either way I am sorely disappointed.

  1. "Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group. Source: http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57"

When I opened the link it gave me a 404 error so...could you link another source please?

  1. "Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment. Source: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6"

Good to see a right winger who cares about the environment. The obvious solution to this seems to be education, not just "slow down immigration".

There is definitely a lot of misinformation going on in your comment. I've already debunked your 1st 10 sources, I doubt the rest will be any better. I suggest you actually read and proof check the data and sources you cite before you post them especially before you make false claims about them so confidently. But I am open to any specific sources you may have that you are CERTAIN support the things you say. I'd be more than happy ;)

[–]Vegethu 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Now here are my sources, enjoy:

Here is an enormous meta-analysis of 90 cross-sectional studies analyzing relationship between diversity & social cohesion. Vast majority of studies on the subject fail to prove the relationship between two variables. In fact, study finds positive relationship between inter-ethnic contact & trust in ethnically heterogeneous communities. Only contrary data shows small-scale (intra-neighborhood) trust suffers with ethnic heterogeneity in some circumstances, and even then only in America. Plurality of data does not support - and largely contradicts - assertion that diversity hurts social cohesion.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://sci-hub.tw/https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043309%2523article-denial%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;ust%3D1595926849270000%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0wrWqGprzyjySQMpSr3wiJ&sa=D&ust=1595926849392000&usg=AFQjCNHsz5W7Ukdy1HgQAJGLCUhG3QmiPA

Here is a study which tested around 200 students in a trust based experiment and compared results from diverse groups and homogenous groups .Finds no statistically significant negative relationship between diversity and social cohesion. https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://scholar.harvard.edu/files/laibson/files/measuring_trust.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;ust%3D1595926849272000%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1c0X9NWCvoQUs354zHEHEy&sa=D&ust=1595926849392000&usg=AFQjCNFGAnUf85EvW_yhvdv-scmTk8NF2g

Longitudinal study comparing the change in social cohesion over time in an area which experienced a large increase in diversity with a comparative control which didn’t. The two areas did not differ significantly in how their levels of social cohesion changed over time, suggesting the increased level of diversity had no statistically significant impact on social cohesion.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttp://www.fisherwilliamson.com/downloads/MPSA040508.FINAL2.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;ust%3D1595926849273000%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0LPq6BMfwKCtHdAaBqNlxF&sa=D&ust=1595926849393000&usg=AFQjCNE_WdFFh1xCoyNA03a8um1yyvltFw

Another longitudinal study analyzing changes in trust in 22 European countries between the years 2002 and 2010. Study suggests immigration often leads to decrease in social trust, but results were heavily affected by ethnic polarization & economic stability. With low polarization and a good economy, immigration was shown to actually increase social trust. Results suggest it isn’t the diversity of immigrants which lessens trust, but rather the economic and political context in which they arrive. https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://sci-hub.tw/https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/93/3/1211/2332107?redirectedFrom%253Dfulltext%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;ust%3D1595926849274000%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2vUlhKJEOTj2vmqdQAhHC5&sa=D&ust=1595926849393000&usg=AFQjCNHIFDPXMHFL3Eh2vOIMbC6DSVTyVA

Extensive summary on the effects immigration has on the US economy, with sources “While some policymakers have blamed immigration for slowing U.S. wage growth since the 1970s, most academic research finds little long run effect on Americans’ wages”. “The available evidence suggests that immigration leads to more innovation, a better educated workforce, greater occupational specialization, better matching of skills with jobs, and higher overall economic productivity”. “Immigration also has a net positive effect on combined federal, state, and local budgets”. “Economists generally agree that the effects of immigration on the U.S. economy are broadly positive”. https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2016/1/27/the-effects-of-immigration-on-the-united-states-economy%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;ust%3D1595926849268000%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1AcgI0wFNZMlR4VELcmaJv&sa=D&ust=1595926849391000&usg=AFQjCNFVRJvL44FvaUke4WKWHOjqEZzPNg

National Bureau of Economic Research paper on the effects immigration has on wages in the United States Study contends previous analyses on the relationship between immigration and wages falsely assumed perfect labor substitutability between immigrants and native workers of similar education levels, distorting results Research shows average American wage RISES due to immigration, both short-term and long-term Only native demographic whose wages drop are High School dropouts who suffer a decrease in wages of approximately ~2% short-term, alleviating to ~1.1% over time. Study finds new immigration does severely impact wages of prior immigrants, suggesting lack of substitutability with *natives. Overall, vast majority of American workers’ wages increase from immigration, High School dropouts (<10% of population) experience a slight decrease which alleviates with time (and there is evidence that immigration may increase native High School graduation rates, too).

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.nber.org/papers/w12497.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;ust%3D1595926849265000%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0XFwg6LvZEpPGVoQkGjrwa&sa=D&ust=1595926849390000&usg=AFQjCNFg_8zutE0cetWXdwIfckSOK_nnHA

[–]EuropeanAwakening 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes, we know if you flood your society with low wage workers, the GDP will go up. No, 200 college students is not evidence that diversity works. Your studies show nothing that we didn't already know.

[–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No, 200 college students is not evidence that diversity works.

The most hilarious part about this is that the study showed the exact opposite. It was even cited by AltHype about how diversity destroys social cohesion.

Along with the correlational and longitudinal data already presented, the negative relationship between pro social behavior and ethnic diversity has been demonstrated experimentally. For instance, Glaeser et al (2000) had participants play an economic “game” in which one person sent another person a sum of money of their choosing. That money was then doubled money they were sent and the receiver had a chance to send some money back to the person who gave them the initial sum of money. This is a very basic measure of altruism, fairness, and trustworthiness. The researchers found that the receivers sent back far less money when they were paired with someone of another race. In fact, over 90% of the cases in which no money was sent back took place with racial diverse pairs of people.

https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/ethnic-diversity-and-social-cohesion/

He copy-pasted it directly from Vaush' google doc along with all others. I doubt he even opened any of them because even in the abstract they say: "When individuals are closer socially, both trust and trustworthiness rise. Trustworthiness declines when partners are of different races or nationalities."

You can't make this shit up.

[–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

He's either Vaush himself or a very devout fan of Vaush. He uses the exact same talking points as Vaush, uses the exact same disingenuous way arguing (full of pilpul, semantics games and sealioning), and even has the same "sassy black girl" overtone to some of his comments.

[–]marc_gee[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for your critique. I should have said that I didn't read the links, I got them from a reddit archive of DAE. I don't want to get in the weeds with you on this. I see I broke rule #4 and I will be more mindful of this rule from now on.

Here are more studies you can research if you care to, which I also haven't read: https://archive.fo/LRe05

[–]marc_gee[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Why shouldn't there be outrage over police brutality? If this is a country of freedom how can anyone allow police brutality?

Outrage over it is one thing, but it shouldn't have the anti-white lie connected to it of "systemic racism."

24 Hr anti-white TV? Can you prove this?

All the media supports a non-white future for whites. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox all denounce white wellbeing as racist while promoting non-white interests.

Many Republicans have called out against ANTIFA and BLM, and diversity such as Trump and Carlson to name a few.

They don't specifically oppose diversity itself.

And lastly, who are "the elites", and what are they doing?

Generally they are people of significant power, influence, and/or wealth.

[–]Vegethu 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They don't specifically oppose diversity itself.

Trump and Tucker Carlson dont call out diversity? But they do. Thats why he got elected.

Outrage over it is one thing, but it shouldn't have the anti-white lie connected to it of "systemic racism."

There is a wealth of evidence provic systemic racism though. How is it anti-white to point out the facts?

Generally they are people of significant power, influence, and/or wealth.

Who and how do they operate/ Can you prove any of this empirically or is it just a conspiracy theory?

All the media supports a non-white future for whites. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox all denounce white wellbeing as racist while promoting non-white interests.

Citation needed. Prove it.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What good justification is there for oppossing diversity.

Not going extinct.

[–]Vegethu 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Could you elaborate please?

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Do I need to elaborate on that? Hybridization is one of the factors that can cause extinction.

[–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Diversity is of benefit though, especially economically. I do have sources on this fact, what proof do you have to back your claim.

Tatu Vanhanen in his book Ethnic Conflicts: Their Biological Roots in Ethnic Nepotism analyzed 176 countries in period from 2003-2011. He found that Ethnic diversity has 0.812 correlation with ethnic conflict. Meaning that more diverse countries tend to have more violent conflicts in them.

He summarized his findings:

As explained in Chapter 1, the original cause of conflicts is in the fact that we are bound to the endless struggle for permanently scarce resources. The theory of ethnic nepotism does not explain the evolutionary origin of conflicts, but it explains why many kinds of interest conflicts tend to become canalized along ethnic lines in ethnically divided societies. The evolutionary roots of nepotism are assumed to be in our genome because it has been genetically rational to support relatives. Ethnic nepotism is an extended form of family nepotism. On average, the members of an ethnic group are genetically more closely related to each other than to outsiders. Because the rules of ethnic nepotism are engraved in our genes by evolution, it is hardly possible to eradicate this behavior pattern from human nature.

Ethnic diversity has -0.40 correlation with life satisfaction, -0.55 correlation with national wealth and -0.66 with life expectancy. [1]

Finally, there are studies, often experiments, which look at how well small groups perform. Hulsheger and Anderson (2009) meta-analyzed 8 studies and found background diversity correlated at -.133 (95% CI: -.318:+.052) with innovation.

Williams and O’Reilly (1998) came to this conclusion in their review of the literature:

“There is substantial evidence from both laboratory and field studies conducted over the past four decades that variations in group composition can have important effects on group functioning. These studies show that increased diversity, especially in terms of age, tenure, and ethnicity, typically have negative effects on social integration, communication, and conflict.”

[–]Vegethu 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Tatu Vanhanen in his book Ethnic Conflicts: Their Biological Roots in Ethnic Nepotism analyzed 176 countries in period from 2003-2011. He found that Ethnic diversity has 0.812 correlation with ethnic conflict. Meaning that more diverse countries tend to have more violent conflicts in them.

The issue I have with Tatu Vanhanen and even his colleague, Richard Lynn, is that the methodology they use to come to their conclusion is deeply FLAWED. When comparing IQ between Whites and blacks Lynn himself admitted he used mentally retarded, disease ridden, and starving Africans as a control instead of controlling for Africans with comprable health and environment to Europeans.

There have been many criticisms of Lynn and his work over the years. The main critiques come from Jelte Wicherts and his team of Dutch researchers. The argument is mostly that Lynn uses samples from diseased, starving, illiterate, not smart enough, or otherwise disqualifiable African populations, and that this understates the true IQ of Sub-Saharan Africa. Jelte Wicherts criticized Lynn’s selection of studies. He argued that Lynn included studies with developmentally disabled, with people who didn’t understand the test, with people who have HIV, malaria and parasites. Lynn’s response was basically that those things represent black Africa, and to exclude those studies is to, in essence, exclude the problems of Africa. And Lynn and Wicherts went back and forth on that.

Again, the probable with the methodology of people like Lynn and Vanhanen is that much of their racial theories depend on the Race and IQ issue but their controls for these citations are deeply flawed.

Finally, there are studies, often experiments, which look at how well small groups perform. Hulsheger and Anderson (2009) meta-analyzed 8 studies and found background diversity correlated at -.133 (95% CI: -.318:+.052) with innovation.

I clicked this link and it just gave me an error. So i Googled it. \it says nothing about diversity, perhaps you could spare another link. When i googled it it said nothing about diversity unless i googled the wrong study.

Williams and O’Reilly (1998) came to this conclusion in their review of the literature:

I wish you would have cited something more recent than 1998, but ok.

Having read this source you've cited it seems to gibve a very nuanced answer to the question of diversity.

In the conclusion of the study it is argued that heterogeneous groups ALSO struggle with much emotional conflict that impedes group functionality. The study you cited iutself claims that diversity is a "important social value in our society".

This study acknowlegeds the drawbacks of diversity but advocates for organisations to minimise the negatives and exploit the positives. It doesnt make the claim that there are no positives.

Also this study accounts for several types of diversity that being diversity in age, backroud and sex. Unless I'm missing it there doesnt seem to be anything here about Racial or cultural diversity, if it is here. Can you point what pages or sections I may have missed?

Also it seems the study (under the heading "defining Diversity") indicates that prejudice and biases about a particular group. So my solution to the issue is to mitigate the amount of biases the group majority may have towards the group minority.

Moreover in this study that you've cited under the heading "Information and decision making" on page 86-87 it clearly states:

Information and decision-making theories proposes that variants in group compositions can have a direct positive and increase in skills, abilities, information, and the knowledge that diversity brings, independent of what happens in the group process.

This study doesnt seem to say in totality what i think you're advocating for in fact just the opposite.

[–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The issue I have with Tatu Vanhanen and even his colleague, Richard Lynn, is that the methodology they use to come to their conclusion is deeply FLAWED. When comparing IQ between Whites and blacks Lynn himself admitted he used mentally retarded, disease ridden, and starving Africans as a control instead of controlling for Africans with comprable health and environment to Europeans.

Lynn made numerous responses to Wicherts where ho pointed some low-quality studies he used to estimate African IQ. Like the one for Sierra Leone.[1][2][3]. It is also worth noting that Lynn's national IQ estimates have 0.876 correlation with PISA scores so they are pretty valid. The text you quoted explains why Lynn was justified in using those unhealthy samples of Africans. I won't dwell on this any further since it is irrelevant. Vanhanen didn't use Lynn's national IQ data to estimate the relationship between diversity and ethnic conflict. Your argument boils down to guilt by association: "Vanhanen is Lynn's co-author and Lynn has flawed research therefore Vanahnen's must be flawed too." This is no argument.

I clicked this link and it just gave me an error. So i Googled it. \it says nothing about diversity, perhaps you could spare another link. When i googled it it said nothing about diversity unless i googled the wrong study.

Sorry, here it is. They didn't mention diversity in the abstract but in Table 1 they have it as "background diversity".

In the conclusion of the study it is argued that heterogeneous groups ALSO struggle with much emotional conflict that impedes group functionality. The study you cited iutself claims that diversity is a "important social value in our society".

Not sure what you mean by "also". Heterogeneity is another word for diversity. And yes, even I agree that it is important social value too, anyone who spend some time in America knows that diversity is great social value but that doesn't tell you whether it has positive impact.

Also this study accounts for several types of diversity that being diversity in age, backroud and sex. Unless I'm missing it there doesnt seem to be anything here about Racial or cultural diversity, if it is here. Can you point what pages or sections I may have missed?

on page 82: "...age, sex, race/ethnicity..."

Moreover in this study that you've cited under the heading "Information and decision making" on page 86-87 it clearly states:

Information and decision-making theories proposes that variants in group compositions can have a direct positive and increase in skills, abilities, information, and the knowledge that diversity brings, independent of what happens in the group process.

Yes and on page 83 they state: "Researchers have used a number of theories to explain the effects of diversity on organizational process and performance. Different theories often lead researchers to offer plausible but contradictory predictions of the effects of diversity on groups and individuals. This section begins with a brief discussion of the three most common, on theoretical bases for investigating diversity:..."

On pages 85-86 they describe negative effects diversity can have. They were just presenting views of other researchers in the field, like many studies do. They weren't reporting results of their study.

This study doesnt seem to say in totality what i think you're advocating for in fact just the opposite.

They are very clear in their conclusion:"Overall, this research offers convincing support for the argument that variations in group demography can have both direct and indirect effects on group process and performance. Under ideal conditions increased diversity may have the positive effects predicted by information and decision theories. However, consistent with social categorization and similarity/attraction theories, the preponderance of empirical evidence suggests that diversity is most likely to impede group functioning. Unless steps are taken to actively counteract these effects, the evidence suggests that, by itself, diversity is more likely to have negative than positive effects on group performance. Simply having more diversity in a group is no guarantee that the group will make better decisions or function effectively. In our view, these conclusions suggest that diversity is a mixed blessing and requires careful and sustained attention to be a positive force in enhancing performance. "

They apparently want diversity to work so they at the end say it could beneficial if done right similarly like you said that we need to "mitigate biases". But I'm skeptical of this. US spends billions of dollars on diversity trainings and multicultural education and whatever else with no results. I can't imagine what should be done to make diversity work that hasn't been tried already.

[–]EuropeanAwakening 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Now that your shitty arguments have been trashed, can you tell us why you think White people should become hated minorities in our own countries? That is the result of what you are advocating, so I just want to know why you think this way.