CNBC commentator Marc Faber says "Thank God white people populated America, not black
- Thread starter Smallcock
- Start date
Show us how it should be done then. Line up the authorities to support a rational, well-reasoned proposition that convinces others by logic and evidence.
Not that 2017 has offered many examples of that hackneyed approach succeeding. On the other hand, assuming yours is 2017-typical, it certainly hasn't succeeded either.
The 'bluster' is your attempt to pretend that the science backs your racist claims about intelligence.
Its all there in the wiki page you gave us, but either didn't read fully or can't understand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
Just read the page and try to understand it this time.
If you come back with the same racist attitudes we'll confirm you're beliefs are despite the science, not because of it.
Here's what I've shown:
1) 100 years of IQ research demonstrates an IQ gap of 1 standard deviation between White and Black Americans. Similar differences are found worldwide meaning the data is cross-cultural rather than culturally biased.
2) Studies in IQ done in the early 20th Century hold up to this day, and they show that American Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians score higher than White Americans which put to rest the "superior race" theory some of you claimed
3) Adoption studies have been undertaken to show the role of genetics in intelligence; kids exhibit the IQ of their biological parents despite their adoptive environment; Data on white, white/black, and black kids displayed a predictable pattern.
4) When controlled for environment and SES, the gap remains. Gaps often persist despite SES e.g. poverty stricken Jews and Asians still outscore Whites.
5) IQ and other data are not merely academic exercises. They have important real world implications.
6) IQ research and eugenics do not make scientists or readers Nazis, Supremacists, but the fear of these labels is what make this research difficult and even prohibitive. The authors of the Bell Curve were victims of this in the mid 90s even though their book had virtually nothing to do with race.
7) Environment AND genetics play a role in individual (and by proxy group) differences
What you have shown:
1) You're in denial about the 100 years of IQ research because you don't like the results
2) You're in denial about evolution and group differences the theory implies
3) You're in denial about how difficult it is to explore this data without being potentially pilloried by colleagues, media, and society
4) You're in denial about the real world effects of IQ, and therefore instead of attempting solutions, you'd rather maintain the status quo with clear haves and have-nots
5) You call the messengers of the data Nazis rather than acknowledge the data
6) You deny population groups because it's your only effective loophole
7) You're in denial that environment AND genetics play a role in intelligence among groups. You cling to a ridiculous belief that ONLY environment plays a role.
Here's where we're going:
1) Research (direct and/or indirect) in these areas are ongoing and will continue, and as they have over the past decade, they continue to affirm, confirm, and validate the aforementioned data. Everything from eugenics "designer babies" to educational policies will be influenced by it in the future.
2) Blacks and Hispanics will not overtake Jews and East Asians in over-representation in academics. 100 Years of data which strongly implies a genetic component to IQ ensures this.
3) Blacks and Hispanics will continue to suffer due to the bigotry of low expectations of people like you who are happy to accept the way things are without exploring genuine solutions to help everyone
4) Whites will be displaced by East Asians in academia
Jeez Small, you put so much work into that summation, and it looks so compelling I hate to say it doesn't yet make your case.
It could, but I for one am not going to buy those first seven points under your 'What I've shown:' on just your say so here. Not when I haven't detected them in the back and forth as we've gone along. Nor am I going to search back through the ten pages this thread runs on my MacBook to find them. There's enough detail that I didn't see before, in that heading to make me think your supporting research isn't far away. Your case would be very much stronger if you noted those new sources. Or if they're in the first mention you made, if you linked or cited your Post number.
Under the second 'What you've shown' heading, what I read saddens me, but your misconceptions and misunderstandings have outlasted my energy.
And under the last, which is about what we're doing now and the future we're making, all you seem to be saying is that irrational 'race' prejudice will continue, and far from being interested or concerned about it, you're quite content to indulge your own.
You can retire from the thread now; honour has been served. Unless you make those items in that first heading into actual established points, I won't bother coming back.
It could, but I for one am not going to buy those first seven points under your 'What I've shown:' on just your say so here. Not when I haven't detected them in the back and forth as we've gone along. Nor am I going to search back through the ten pages this thread runs on my MacBook to find them. There's enough detail that I didn't see before, in that heading to make me think your supporting research isn't far away. Your case would be very much stronger if you noted those new sources. Or if they're in the first mention you made, if you linked or cited your Post number.
Under the second 'What you've shown' heading, what I read saddens me, but your misconceptions and misunderstandings have outlasted my energy.
And under the last, which is about what we're doing now and the future we're making, all you seem to be saying is that irrational 'race' prejudice will continue, and far from being interested or concerned about it, you're quite content to indulge your own.
You can retire from the thread now; honour has been served. Unless you make those items in that first heading into actual established points, I won't bother coming back.
No one agrees with you, Smallcock - except maybe those bigots and racists in the Neo Nazi Party that you say you're not a member of, but seem to agree with wholeheartedly in all your beliefs. Give it up.
You don't have to agree with me (though you're just virtue signaling based on your overuse of "Nazis"), I'm merely the the messenger of the data.
Here's a brief overview of IQ applied to the real world: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ah2tc3leE4. (Peterson is a fellow Torontonian!). Still just "academic", Oagre?
Considering that racial groups have genetically based different averages, it's a real conundrum that society may have to tackle at some future time.
If it's silly and inaccurate, you shouldn't have posted it in the first place. As it is, your posts align quite closely with Mein Kampf.
The science, and most of the posters here, have noted that there is no evidence that IQ results are predetermined by membership in any human 'group' or 'race'. Differences in IQ results are generally explained by different socioeconomic or cultural influences, not genetics. From your wiki page:
There is no evidence to back up your statements.
On the contrary, I posted a study that tested genetic twins who grew up in different socioeconomic settings and ended up with different IQ results, showing that the influence from biological parents wasn't to be outweighed by socioeconomic influences.
Please post links to the studies that back up these claims.
What do you think makes people into Nazis and white supremacists?
You, Oagre, and frankfooter keep saying I share beliefs of nazis and hitler, which is baffling. I'm only aligning myself with science that is impervious to social or political whim.
When you claim that Jews have taken all the good jobs, you are saying the exact same thing as the racist fucks that marched in Charlottesville.
Your desire to categorize people's abilities based on race doesn't help either.
I don't condemn Jews for their success. The fact that they're born on average more intellectually gifted, is the luck of the draw.
Society and individuals categorize themselves based on race, and the data reflect test results based on those identifiers. They're quite important for a society that should want to pride itself on equality for all.
No, as we keep pointing out you are ignoring the findings of science and jumping on a highly disputed book because it backs your biases.
That's the opposite of science.
Frank, you mustn't say things like there is "no evidence" to support my claims. The sentence you've quoted multiple times is evidence of the evidence you say doesn't exist. If you read between the lines it says "currently, there is ONLY circumstantial evidence that these differences in test scores have a genetic component". You want a silver bullet but that does not exist. All that exists is a body of research across multiple disciplines spanning a century that suggest a generic component. Common sense would suggest it, too.
I will look at you twin study closely later. Thanks for sharing it.
Le me put it another way. If blacks or Hispanics routinely out-scored Asians and Jews when placed in enriched environments, I would argue the evidence is strongly environmental. But that just doesn't happen very much, if at all on any significant level.
And thus you end up justifingy racist quotas, similar to Germany enacted on April 25, 1933.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_quota
The statement says there is only circumstantial evidence to support your claims.
Circumstantial evidence doesn't cut it.
As the APA stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#APA_task_force_report
I think the APA statement is a perfect example of the PC culture surrounding this topic. The fact that they admit not knowing what causes the difference in scores must necessarily mean that a genetic interpretation could explain it. They dismiss this possibility outright for no reason other than to ensure the statement is socially palatable.
If they even remotely suggested otherwise, you and Oagre and a media choir would be calling to dismantle and defund the APA for being a racist research group. All members of the APA would lose their jobs and never find work in the field again without blowback. Their professional and personal lives would be jeopardized.
Also, the statement contradicts the points you've been arguing here, namely that bias and SES cause the difference. Little empirical support for that. So if cultural bias and SES (collectively 'environment') are eliminated, what are you left with? Genes!
