I pit 'racial realism' projectionism.

Now right-wing abuse of science/humanities, especially in the late 20th century/this one isn’t anything remotely new so when stacked up against grievous errors like AGW denialism and anti-evolutionism and more piddling ones like Silent Spring = Genocide or Abstinence Education = A-OK! this shouldn’t bug me too much. I mean it’s just a little ‘it’s so bleeding obvious that AAs have genetically inferior IQs don’t wave your statistical/historical/biological crap at me’.

But it does. For some particular reason people are especially proud of holding this form of pseudoscientific belief, subtly and not-so-subtly indicating that people poking holes in their stupid-ass arguments are living in fairy-tale land and that people living in the ‘real’ world blithely assume those stereotypes. It’s really irritating.


Has this been declared a fail pitting yet?

You had all that material to work with and that’s the best you could come up with?

Could you make your post a little more understandable? Anyway, as David Friedman asks, who is really against evolution? :slight_smile:

“I am an academic economist who teaches at a law school and has never taken a course for credit in either field.”

Yeah, THERE’S a motherfucker to take seriously.


I haven’t even been in that thread. Guess I should take a peek at it.

Apparently you’re going to need a white or Asian person to help you with the bigger words.

Join date: Aug 2011. Mystery solved.

Lol. Milton Friedman’s son is a smart guy with a Phd in Physics from the University of Chicago. In any case, his comment rings true regardless of his background.

I’m genuinely not sure which side of the argument the OP is pitting.

Even though I’m white!

Apparently you’re going to need some help in understanding a normal distribution and how population distributions can overlap. Example: