NationStates

British Tackeettlaus wrote:

Blackledge wrote:Could you cite those for my own edification?

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1995/09/the-great-sorting/376451/

Thanks! I am familiar with the Flynn effect, I'm just curious about the other bits. Do you also have your source for the sub-Saharan African IQ rising?

Blackledge wrote:

British Tackeettlaus wrote:
Funny how IQ testing on Jewish immigrants in the 1920s found them to be below average. Or how IQs in Sub-Saharan Africa have been rising significantly since the 1980s.

Could you cite those for my own edification?

That doesn't seem to be the case, though.

http://web.mit.edu/fustflum/documents/p ... socsci.pdf
"This high IQ and corresponding high academic ability have been long known. In 1900 in London Jews took a disproportionate number of academic prizes and scholarships in spite of their poverty (Russell and Lewis, 1900). In the 1920s a survey of IQ scores in three London schools (Hughes, 1928) with mixed Jewish and non-Jewish student bodies showed that Jewish students had higher IQs than their schoolmates in each of three school, one prosperous, one poor, and one very poor. The differences between Jews and non-Jews were all slightly less than one standard deviation. The students at the poorest Jewish school in London had IQ scores equal to the overall city mean of non-Jewish children.

The Hughes study is important because it contradicts a widely cited misrepresentation by Kamin (Kamin, 1974) of a paper by Henry Goddard (Goddard, 1917). Goddard gave IQ tests to people suspected of being retarded, and he found that the tests identified retarded Jews as well as retarded people of other groups. Kamin reported, instead, that Jews had low IQs, and this erroneous report was picked up by many authors including Stephen Jay Gould, who used it as evidence of the unreliability of the tests (Seligman, 1992). "

Darussalam wrote:Let's take it for granted that I'm a racist, or a Nazi, or whatever. Does it justify dismissing something without considering whether it could possibly be right?

Yep. Being right for the wrong reasons is like building a house upon sand.

Then how is it different from creationism? Then why leftists waste their time to insult creationists?

Because they're amusingly pathetic, just like "race realists".

Trumptonium1 wrote:

Caracasus wrote:
OP was non ironically arguing that South Africa and Zimbabwe were better off under colonial rule in another thread. I think this entire thing falls under "stuff there's no point arguing" to be honest. It's like a racist flavour of moon landing hoax or loch ness monster.

Going by the other thread, what this poster is doing is creating a nonsense strawman "leftist" position and then inferring their own racist and clearly nonsense opinion. That way, it appears as if people arguing with them are supporting the aforementioned nonsense strawman.

This isn't controversial. Zimbabwe and South Africa were better off under colonial rule. This isn't even something controversial among blacks.

Why don't you go shout that in the streets of Johannesburg, buddy?

Holomodoria wrote:

Bombadil wrote:
Within Indonesia there are still perceptions of who is ‘whiter’ and who is more negroid, that this translates to a theory of racial hierarchy is not odd.

By whiter I mean perceived as superior over rural native.

So it’s as assumptive to assume non-whites can’t be racist, just look at caste in India.. stop viewing the world through the prism of Euro-Asian-African lens of colour, class, race or etc.,

Why not categorise people on their relative length of finger, or curve of spine.. these can have generalised local genes by wider global spread.. why do certain genetic outcomes act as the categorisation by which we define the whole world?

As if you can't readily find the distinction of civilized vs. savage at the heart of (extremely racist) Eurocentric authors of socialist and communist thought. All of them cast their prescriptions upon the world from the bias of wipipo.

Here's where you facepalm about Pacific Islander tribes not writing books.

I think you’re chasing your own tail but as someone here in Asia it’s end of night for me, hope you catch it one day.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Trumptonium1 wrote:
This isn't controversial. Zimbabwe and South Africa were better off under colonial rule. This isn't even something controversial among blacks.

Why don't you go shout that in the streets of Johannesburg, buddy?

I did that once. I got promoted and some locals bought me drinks.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Darussalam wrote:Let's take it for granted that I'm a racist, or a Nazi, or whatever. Does it justify dismissing something without considering whether it could possibly be right?

Yep. Being right for the wrong reasons is like building a house upon sand.

What do you mean "for the wrong reasons"? What if the researchers are leftists?

Conserative Morality wrote:

Then how is it different from creationism? Then why leftists waste their time to insult creationists?

Because they're amusingly pathetic, just like "race realists".

So it has nothing to do with whether their views have any bearing to reality - just tribal disdain? Makes sense, then.

Blackledge wrote:I did that once. I got promoted and some locals bought me drinks.

I'm sure you did! This is a plausible scenario.

Blackledge wrote:

British Tackeettlaus wrote:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1995/09/the-great-sorting/376451/

Thanks! I am familiar with the Flynn effect, I'm just curious about the other bits. Do you also have your source for the sub-Saharan African IQ rising?

I'm pretty sure my source got their data for from this study of Kenyans

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d824/d41d360d8660b64b44e5c0067f50725a78a4.pdf

I personally feel that if genetics plays a role in Intelligence (it probably does), Far more important is education, environment, nutrition, disease etc.

When you remove impediments IQs tend to rise across all ethnic groups

Darussalam wrote:What do you mean "for the wrong reasons"? What if the researchers are leftists?

Why does that matter? Do you expect me to have some tribal connection with-

So it has nothing to do with whether their views have any bearing to reality - just tribal disdain? Makes sense, then.

Ah, projection. Classic.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Trumptonium1 wrote:
This isn't controversial. Zimbabwe and South Africa were better off under colonial rule. This isn't even something controversial among blacks.

Why don't you go shout that in the streets of Johannesburg, buddy?

Screaming "Orange Man BAD" in the Rust Belt or Deep South is probably also very unwise but that doesn't mean that Orange Man Good.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Darussalam wrote:What do you mean "for the wrong reasons"? What if the researchers are leftists?

Why does that matter? Do you expect me to have some tribal connection with-

So it has nothing to do with whether their views have any bearing to reality - just tribal disdain? Makes sense, then.

Ah, projection. Classic.

I just don't get the "for the wrong reasons" part. What are the wrong reasons?

I actually used the "leftist researchers" example because I thought you mean that the researchers arrive to the conclusion to advance Nazi agenda, or something. You are insinuating something that isn't there.

Darussalam wrote:

Blackledge wrote:Could you cite those for my own edification?

That doesn't seem to be the case, though.

http://web.mit.edu/fustflum/documents/p ... socsci.pdf

Aren't those tests misleading though? As B-Tack observed, education and environment are big boosts and (traditionally) Ashkenazi Jews have been big on education.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Blackledge wrote:I did that once. I got promoted and some locals bought me drinks.

I'm sure you did! This is a plausible scenario.

Wait, hold up, I didn't even get to the part where people started clapping.

British Tackeettlaus wrote:

Blackledge wrote:Thanks! I am familiar with the Flynn effect, I'm just curious about the other bits. Do you also have your source for the sub-Saharan African IQ rising?

I'm pretty sure my source got their data for from this study of Kenyans

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d824/d41d360d8660b64b44e5c0067f50725a78a4.pdf

I personally feel that if genetics plays a role in Intelligence (it probably does), Far more important is education, environment, nutrition, disease etc.

When you remove impediments IQs tend to rise across all ethnic groups

Thanks m8, I'll check it out.

Blackledge wrote:

Darussalam wrote:That doesn't seem to be the case, though.

http://web.mit.edu/fustflum/documents/p ... socsci.pdf

Aren't those tests misleading though? As B-Tack observed, education and environment are big boosts and (traditionally) Ashkenazi Jews have been big on education.

This specific part:
"In the 1920s a survey of IQ scores in three London schools (Hughes, 1928) with mixed Jewish and non-Jewish student bodies showed that Jewish students had higher IQs than their schoolmates in each of three school, one prosperous, one poor, and one very poor. The differences between Jews and non-Jews were all slightly less than one standard deviation. The students at the poorest Jewish school in London had IQ scores equal to the overall city mean of non-Jewish children."

Darussalam wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:Why don't you go shout that in the streets of Johannesburg, buddy?

Screaming "Orange Man BAD" in the Rust Belt or Deep South is probably also very unwise but that doesn't mean that Orange Man Good.

Sure as hell means that it's controversial amongst people in the Deep South, though I note that you very carefully ignored that part of Trumptonium's statement. I am sure for wholly benign reasons!

Conserative Morality wrote:

Trumptonium1 wrote:
This isn't controversial. Zimbabwe and South Africa were better off under colonial rule. This isn't even something controversial among blacks.

Why don't you go shout that in the streets of Johannesburg, buddy?

Why don't you go to Serbia and shout Kosovo is real

Trumptonium1 wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:Why don't you go shout that in the streets of Johannesburg, buddy?

Why don't you go to Serbia and shout Kosovo is real

So you admit it is controversial amongst blacks. Good to know that you admit to lying! That's the first step on the road to recovery, my friend.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Darussalam wrote:Screaming "Orange Man BAD" in the Rust Belt or Deep South is probably also very unwise but that doesn't mean that Orange Man Good.

Sure as hell means that it's controversial amongst people in the Deep South, though I note that you very carefully ignored that part of Trumptonium's statement. I am sure for wholly benign reasons!

I missed that part, my mistake. I don't exactly agree with it, but I do think there are valid reasons blacks will prefer Rhodesia to Zimbabwe.

Holomodoria wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:Sure as hell means that it's controversial amongst people in the Deep South, though I note that you very carefully ignored that part of Trumptonium's statement. I am sure for wholly benign reasons!

I'm guessing if you screamed "Orange Man Bad!" anywhere in the United States the worst that would happen is you'd wind up mocked on YouTube.

That too.

Bombadil wrote:

Holomodoria wrote:
"Yeah Darussalam you damned brown person. You're not supposed to agree with non-approved white people. Get back in your cage! Hrrrrr grrrrr!"

Within Indonesia there are still perceptions of who is ‘whiter’ and who is more negroid, that this translates to a theory of racial hierarchy is not odd.

By whiter I mean perceived as superior over rural native.

So it’s as assumptive to assume non-whites can’t be racist, just look at caste in India.. stop viewing the world through the prism of Euro-Asian-African lens of colour, class, race or etc.,

Why not categorise people on their relative length of finger, or curve of spine.. these can have generalised local genes by wider global spread.. why do certain genetic outcomes act as the categorisation by which we define the whole world?

Population clusters are generally more accurate way to categorize human population, in the same way subspecies in other species are generally defined by their regional concentration.

Categorizing by other categories might be useful depending on the context. All that matters is that categorical analysis is not literally useless.

The problem is that you're trying to narrow down multi-billion groups to simple statistics.

Is there going to be a difference between the average woman and man, or black and white person? Maybe. Maybe not.

But it does not change the fact that it's an average of many individuals, who do not have to compare to each other the same way groups do. For example, even if the average white person could play the guitar better than the average black man, I still would be unable to play a single chord of Purple Haze.

Interesting that OP paints anyone who disagrees with his bs as a Leftist.

Darussalam wrote:

Caracasus wrote:
OP was non ironically arguing that South Africa and Zimbabwe were better off under colonial rule in another thread. I think this entire thing falls under "stuff there's no point arguing" to be honest. It's like a racist flavour of moon landing hoax or loch ness monster.

Going by the other thread, what this poster is doing is creating a nonsense strawman "leftist" position and then inferring their own racist and clearly nonsense opinion. That way, it appears as if people arguing with them are supporting the aforementioned nonsense strawman.

...what strawman? The reaction in this thread is exactly like what is being described in the OP.

Because you're doing more than just acknowledging the existence of heredity. You're peddling racial pseudo-science using sources that genuinely are flawed and out of date.

There are people that do the same thing from the other side, using bad sources to claim, for example, that race has absolutely no correlation to biology rather than having only limited correlation. But that doesn't excuse you peddling racial pseudo-science. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Holomodoria wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Interesting that OP paints anyone who disagrees with his bs as a Leftist.

You need to show how he's mischaracterized the left. Between all the Bronx cheers of heresy in this thread, that is.

Do I? No not really.

Holomodoria wrote:

USS Monitor wrote:
Because you're doing more than just acknowledging the existence of heredity. You're peddling racial pseudo-science using sources that genuinely are flawed and out of date.

There are people that do the same thing from the other side, using bad sources to claim, for example, that race has absolutely no correlation to biology rather than having only limited correlation. But that doesn't excuse you peddling racial pseudo-science. Two wrongs don't make a right.

"Statistics show black people tend to perform poorly in intelligence tests" =/= "Ferdinand LaSalle is wrong because he looks like a n*gger"

Recalibrate your crusade against racism accordingly.

Wow way to misrepresent someone's position, 10/10.