What if poster A presents well documented facts that demonstrate that blacks everywhere in the world tend to be less intelligent than whites, and that they have never created a black majority government and economy that was well run?
What if poster A demonstrates that women tend to have less mathematical aptitude than men, and that they tend to be more emotional and less sexually voracious?
What if poster A points out that 85 percent of the victims of priestly pedophiles are boys, and uses this, and other facts, to argue that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than are heterosexuals?
In that case, shouting insults at poster A will not disprove his arguments. It will substantiate them, because it will demonstrate that poster B cannot refute them rationally.
Can you not see the difference betwen the two statements? Poster A made a broad claim that can be refuted by facts.
Poster B simply hurled insults at Poster A.
Poster B is permitted to demonstrate that Poster A is wrong without resorting to name-calling.
As I noted in an earlier post, (possibly a different thread), there are dozens of positions held by the vast majority of posters that a large number of other posters consider stupid, ludicrous, or contemptible. If everyone who felt that any other poster could be called names, “because that’s what s/he is” then every thread would degenerate into name-calling. WQe already have The BBQ Pit for that. GD is for people who want to discuss, (or challnege or refute), the ideas of other people without the name-calling.
What I dislike about the use of the word “racist” is that definitions are too broad to be very useful. An adjective and a noun that can be used for Charles Murray, or a member of the Klu Klux Klan or the American Nazi Party who burns down black churches is worthless as a descriptive term. It is only a weapon, and not a precise one.
How it can be a weapon, praytell? No one has censored your bullshit–you’ve actually been given two platforms. Racists abound in this society, and the sad thing is that they can hide behind the “racism is hard to define” myth to try to portray themselves as something other than what they are. But you, sir, are a racist. And not only a racist, but a stupid racist. That’s the worse kind.
That the races differ in terms of average personality, character, and aptitude is becoming increasingly obvious. The failure of No Child Left Behind is providing fresh evidence of innate racial differences in intelligence. The discovery of genes for intelligence and crime will end the argument.
Ha! Chief is soooo not leaving. I’ll give him a couple weeks tops before he’s back again to regale us with his pet theories about the NBA and MCAT scores. He’s addicted to talking about blacks and their inferior intelligence, and he likes to do it here because there’s always someone who will take up his bait and treat him as though he’s actually an open-minded debator instead of a True Believer–with racism serving as the religion and The Bell Curve as the bible.
The only way he’ll stop is if some loved ones of his (assuming he has any) throw an intervention for him. And I’m not kidding when I say this. Scientific racism is his crack. NDD and Chen are his fellow crackheads.
Oh I think we established that you are stupid just by showing all how inept you were at following or reading cites that were already posted, and then you compounded that stupidity with your demonstrated pigheadedness of not admitting that you where wrong on even such a small issue.
It is just gravy that the article from Nature - that you cowardly avoided dealing with - , regarding the pro side to continue investigating connections with intelligence and human conditions, showed all how unsupported your say so’s are in academia.
Do you think the same is true of Gigobuster and global warming?
Also, why do you think he’s “addicted” to his “pet theories” instead of just being a guy who’s read the studies and doesn’t automatically dismiss them for being “racist”? That is, what specific facts allow you to distinguish one group from the other?
If you had bothered to read what I posted, there was a lot that I didn’t know about the state of affairs regarding the levels of acceptance of the “science” (actually the trash that NDD gets from the research) that NDD claims to follow.
There was no need to become an expert of Climate Change, the reason why you think I obsess with it is just because there is an unfortunate correlation with conservatives denying the science (and unnecessary link as the evidence shows), the reality is that many of the deniers of climate science, like the most notorious sources of the “scientific” racists, also rely on publishing books instead of publishing scientific papers.
It then follows that there is a mountain of evidence, published papers and expert blogs that do the work for me.
Now, getting back to the current subject, I see that the consensus on this intelligence and race subject is a mixed one, and there are no in pro official positions by the mayor orgs involved on this issue; however, I can see that the trend is towards counteracting most of the conclusions that NDD gets from controversial research, it is clear that you will see me more often in discussions like this, when science is in favor of something and I notice fools misusing it, I’m there.
As it is clear you are missing it, my main point is that the research is not the problem, it is what racists and crackpots conclude and propose to do about it. It is indeed following crackpottery when the efforts of the fools are to twist the research to support stupid solutions, an effort that most of the researchers that continue doing the controversial research clearly do not support as demonstrated when there are no citations from the researchers that crackpots claim to follow showing that they (the researchers) approve of the solutions that the crackpots propose.
I have no idea, but it’s interesting that you want to know my opinion on global warming and GIGObuster all of the sudden. Like WTF? Am I that interesting to you?
Stop making this more difficult than necessary. He’s addicted to the subject because he’s the epitome of a one trick pony. Chen and NDD even more so, but Chief has been around longer, so his behavioral patterns are that much more hackneyed and repetitious (and entertaining in a sideshow type of way). Black intellectual inferiority is the only subject he can talk about at length, with any amount of passion.
He’s probably reading what I’m typing now, going purple in the face because he wants to respond in classic form but won’t because he’ll lose face given his dramatic donkey-story farewell last night.
Well, yeah. You read my comment. We’re all racist, at least to some degree. However, that article doesn’t prove or disprove it. You may be shocked, but I actually agree with much of what he said! More below!
Uh, yeah, that was the point of what I was saying. Intelligence is an incredibly complicated trait that is not easily reducible to “It’s genetics!”. It undoubtedly has a genetic component, just as any human behavior probably does. However, our genes are not our destiny. Human behavior is, as I’ve said many times before, incredibly plastic. Environment and culture both affect our development. I don’t see why it’s so difficult to see that a trait like intelligence, which is so complex, has a very important cultural element. I mean, that Chabris article even points to some of the studies that I’d’ve mentioned. Yeah, these are looking at short-term changes that he dismisses as “test anxiety”. However, minorities and women are constantly reminded of our Other status. How does that affect us? Moreover, how does a lifetime of poverty, with its lower nutritional status and lessened access to educational materials, affect a complicated trait like intelligence? It sure as hell affects something as simple as height. Finally, you are dismissing the notion that there are more kinds of intelligence than just the IQ test kind. Yeah, I get what Chabris was saying about general intelligence, but that can be expressed in numerous ways, some of which simply are not tested by the standard IQ tests, which, again, are culture-bound. You will not do well on a Maori-approved test, no matter how smart you are, unless you are well-versed in Maori culture.
Again, Chabris and I don’t disagree on many things, but I see this as a cultural phenomenon. And that’s what I get pissed about. If we’re ever going to have honest discussions about human differences, you guys are going to have to get over your assumptions. Culture is important. Cultural context is important. History is friggin’ important. Denial of that is, quite frankly, short-sighted and dumb. It’s that denial that makes me think you are less interested in science (which recognizes cultural and historical contexts!) and more interested in preserving the status quo.
Well, duh. I just had a big ol’ bowl of cereal with milk. I have to adjust to the high altitude of where I live now after leaving for a couple of weeks, while my Peruvian friend doesn’t. Why do agriculturalists require more intelligence than hunter-gatherers, though? Granted, h-gs had a much easier life, day-to-day choreswise, than the agriculturalists did. However, it wasn’t exactly the Garden of Eden. You need to know a hell of a lot to survive in the wild. Plus, h-gs are at least as social, if not more so, than agriculturalists, which is the number one trait that’s heavily correlated with intelligence in primates. I want some actual data here, please, and not just IQ test, which we’ve already seen are flawed and culture-bound.
Are you aware of the survey by Mark Snyderman & Stanley Rothman of 661 professionals? 45% agreed that b-w psychometric disparities are due to environmental & genetic variation. Only 15% agreed it was solely due to environmental factors.
So, three times as many were prepared to accept the Jensen/Murray/Herrnstein view compared to the Kamin/Gould view.
The nature/nurture debate does rage on in science as a whole, but I’d be really surprised if more than a minority was solely on one side or another. Biological determinism is just not feasible, any more than some tabula rasa kind of view of humans. Frankly, the kind of crap you get in the popular press is not what makes it into reputable journals. I have all kinds of theories about that, because I am a navel-gazing former philosophy major, but the truth is, the more you learn about the science, the more you realize how little anyone knows for sure. Anyone who says anything but “human behavior is a mix of biology and culture” is talking out of their ass, and anyone who talks about race as if it has objective meaning is about fifty years behind the times.
