you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Foxape 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (30 children)

How do you explain low IQ white people? Ever been to West Virginia? How do you explain high IQ black people? Ever been to suburban Maryland?

[–]Zahn 14 insightful - 4 fun14 insightful - 3 fun15 insightful - 4 fun -  (10 children)

How do you explain low IQ white people?

Genetics

How do you explain high IQ black people?

Genetics

[–]whereswhat 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

So you agree that this racially charged post is inappropriate?

[–]Zahn 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

No, I don't think it's racially charged. It's not right or wrong, it just is what it is.

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Then you have a more optimistic lens than I do. To me, this post is insinuating that black people are genetically predisposed to be less intelligent than other races, which is an unfounded claim.

[–]Zahn 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Though I don't care so much about the racial aspect of inherited Iq, invariably it will gravitate toward that topic.

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

I respect and agree with that.

[–]Chipit[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Why'd your brain immediately jump to that? Psychological projection? You're secretly racist as fuck, and to stop the horrible effects of cognitive dissonance, you need to constantly accuse others of your own faults?

It's a method that works, to be sure.

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

If I were looking for justification of my own racial superiority, this is exactly the type of thing I might latch on to. I would be wrong to do so though.

If this concerns you too, then I suggest you make a comment clarifying how you intended this post to be interpreted.

[–]Chipit[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Wow, for someone who's not racist, you certainly have a good handle on what you think your enemies think. One might get the idea that you're actually what you hate inside, which is why you're so loud about it - best not to let others catch on.

It is rather interesting how predictable people with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (and NPD is more than just being full of yourself) can be. Their thinking is flawed in that they can not conceptualize of people thinking any differently than they do. And so they will often give away their true thoughts and beliefs unintentionally through their accusations of others.

And if you say something that makes them think negatively, they believe you are the problem, not them.

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

Did you reply to the wrong comment? This is completely irrelevant to what I said.

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

you appear to be projecting

[–]Chipit[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

It's a bell curve. There are going to be outliers at both ends. At one end are going to be a lot of people in prison, because one of the hallmarks of low intelligence is low impulse control, which means you do whatever you think of at the time without any regard of how it will affect you in the future. At the other end is going to be a lot of well-off people, because they can make plans and follow them through for a long-term payoff.

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Common ground found. Intelligence, however you define it, is likely a normal distribution. Now, do you think the "bell curve" would shift significantly when filtered by race?

[–]Chipit[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Sure it does. But that result is politically unacceptable, so you are immediately faced with anti-science protesters who can and will do everything they can to stop the truth from getting out. It's because leftists have harm reduction as their only value, whereas everyone else has many values which we balance. See Haidt which I already cited. He explains the whole thing.

https://wqad.com/2019/10/03/new-study-concludes-women-and-liberals-more-likely-to-support-censorship-hold-double-standards/

Recent work has suggested that Liberals have sacred values about protecting low-status groups and thus are particularly prone to bias against any information that portrays those groups unfavorably. In a preregistered study (n = 559), we tested whether Liberals would support more censorship of information that portrays low status groups unfavorably (that men evolved to be better leaders than women, that Islam is violent and incites terrorism, and that white people score higher on intelligence tests than black people) than similar information that portrays high status groups unfavorably (that women evolved to be better leaders than men, that Christianity is violent and incites terrorism, and that black people score higher on intelligence tests than white people).

Across multiple topics and conditions, women were consistently more supportive of censorship than men. The one exception was for text that argued that women evolved to be better leaders than men. For this passage, women were equally as (non)supportive of censorship as men.

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

Notice the correlation between average IQ and country in the plot at the top of the article linked below. I suspect you are hung up on data like that. To understand what the data actually indicates, you must read the commentary:

None of the studies used here, conclude that the intelligence quotient is influenced by a particular race. In some cases, differences within population groups were found (e.g. in Basil: Blacks 71, Mulatto 81, Whites 95, Japaneses 99), but all differences could be attributed to their origin, level of education or other factors.

In 2006 Donald Templera and Hiroko Arikawab found a connection between increasing skin pigmentation and a decreasing IQ. Even this was not racially dued, because the pigmentation grade is climatically conditioned. The observations were also made within the same groups of other races, e.g. caucasians.

Criticism: The IQ was developed by West Europeans for West Europeans according to West European standards. It is still debatable whether this procedure can be applied to people(s) with entirely different social structures, cultures, values and ways of thinking.

https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-country.php

[–]Chipit[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Ah, yeah that's the old data. Modern intelligence tests are language and culture-free. I know the intelligence tests you're talking about. Today they don't ask questions like "how many innings in a baseball game?" any more. Those are long gone.

Intelligence can be measured more accurately than anything else in the social sciences. It differs tremendously and importantly between individuals. It is the single most important determinant of life success. You need to read the modern research.

"Dr. Richard Haier has recently written a major book on the topic, The Neuroscience of Intelligence http://amzn.to/2em55A9, summarized in the following manner: “This book introduces new and provocative neuroscience research that advances our understanding of intelligence and the brain. Compelling evidence shows that genetics plays a more important role than environment as intelligence develops from childhood, and that intelligence test scores correspond strongly to specific features of the brain assessed with neuroimaging."

In understandable language, Richard J. Haier explains cutting-edge techniques based on genetics, DNA, and imaging of brain connectivity and function. He dispels common misconceptions, such as the belief that IQ tests are biased or meaningless, and debunks simple interventions alleged to increase intelligence. ” We recently spent an hour and a half talking about such things."

Dr. Haier: http://www.richardhaier.com/

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

That is actually a fantastic reference. It is acknowledged over and over in the text, however, that we do not yet understand the correlation between the genetics associated with race and intelligence. The book also claims that the classic 1970s argument from Lewontin cannot be discarded in light of more recent evidence. We need more evidence.

You may find the paper below to be an interesting read too. It focuses on the social stigma against such research being done but also acknowledges that this is not something we understand yet.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2019.1697803

Let's not jump to conclusions.

[–]bobbobbybob 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

it isn't normal. the distribution is very skewed, and upper tail length varies significantly with genetic history (race)

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Care to share any sources on that? The only data I know to exist that you might be talking about is binned by country, not race.

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I could have 20 years ago, but these days that science is no longer available. even my JSTOR account doesn't bring up the early allele studies anymore. The guy who discovered DNA even got cancelled for continuing to speak the truth about it.

who am I kidding. Its all still there. I'm just too lazy to go and do a google scholar search to find it, when you could if you could be arsed. I'm not here to convince you, just call out your BS.

Prove it doesn't exist.

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim. In this case, you are making the claim.

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

says the person making all the claims.

sad.

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I have provided evidence for everything I have claimed. I asked you to provide data for one specific claim of yours and you have only given me excuses for why you can't share the data in response.

Now you are just trolling. Bravo.

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

Yes, there exists no data on the subject of Jerry Springer fan base "intelligence". That's not my problem though.

also

I have provided evidence for everything I have claimed

liar.

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

with genetics.

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

The difference between quality of education for kids.