Take the test and see how well you do.
“I may be ignorant of evidence that blacks behave and perform as well as whites.”
Your thesis statement is too imprecise, overgeneralized, and subjective to be verifiable either way. You can’t get to reliable science from there. Further, people who don’t know anything about Social Psychology, say, generally overestimate the importance of innate characteristics (such as character, or personality) and woefully underestimate the importance of external social influences. Without some understanding of these issues further attempts to educate you are pointless, you literally do not know what you do not know, therefore accept as prima facie evidence articles and impressions which don’t prove what you think they do.
You also don’t appear to know anything about construction of IQ tests, or their history. You think you can cherry-pick evidence to support your biases. You claim to think independently, but your beliefs appear to have evolved with Mommy and Daddy’s in tandem.
You are ignorant of much more relevant areas of study as well, of course, such as genetics (I don’t claim to have that expertise) than that, as well, but I don’t want to waste further time.
I took it, I got them all right, and that tells you absolutely nothing about my ability to evaluate science. In fact, one of the questions related to my field was too simplistic to be rigorously answered - it relies on a superficial understanding of basic scientific principles, but neglects the finer details that would allow you to definitively answer the question. I’d guess that a few other questions did this as well, but I’m not well-versed enough in those subjects to pick them out.
I agree with samclem that your score is about what I’d expect from a sharp high school student. Better than the average American, perhaps, but a far cry from working knowledge of any particular scientific field. That’s why people are asking you about degrees - those do indicate that proficiency.
Ok, so in your view, Richard Nixon and David Duke were superior to Mohamed Ali?
I’m not sure what you are talking about here – what charts and figures have I cited?
Oh, you’re a goddamn troll. I refuse to believe you’re an actual person. Jesus Christ.
And quit bitching about insults in the Pit. That’s what it’s here for. If you don’t want to be insulted then stop saying stupid shit.
FWIW I got 100%. I also took many advanced classes in statistics in college.
But I think it doesn’t matter so much. It doesn’t require a lot of intelligence or education to correctly conclude that the Egalitarian Hypothesis is false. The main requirement is the ability to discount social pressure and wishful thinking in deciding what to believe.
Oh, god. Now I feel old.
What?
And here I thought “Jews are a race” was ridiculous. Now it’s just one subset of Jew that’s a race? What are Sephardim, chopped liver?
Actually, no, there aren’t. Nothing is worse.
Until you mentioned it I had never heard of “the Equalitarian Hypothesis”. Is it the belief that every individual is intrinsically equal?
I vote banning New Deal Democrat.
Here’s a little story why:
My good friend once met a guy from Serbia. He asked him, “How could people commit the kinds of atrocities that you did on the Muslims in your country?” Have you forgotten Hitler? Why are your fellow countrymen suddenly worthy of being killed en masse?"
The Serb’s response was, “What if David Duke was on all your radio stations all day, every day, preaching hatred of blacks? Don’t you think that gradually, over months and years, that people would start hating blacks more and more, just because of the cumulative effect? This is what Milosevic was doing.”
Letting New Deal Democrat spread his nonsense is like letting David Duke run our radio stations, albeit on a smaller scale. He brings nothing useful to the forum, and is spreading something dangerous.
Just a thought.
Google China, cheating, exams and you may find a slightly different perspective. Now do the same with asian, mixed-race.
BTW, since IQ and tendency to commit crime are negatively correlated, you’re kind of doubling down on low IQ.
Finally, I don’t think IQ measures what you seem to think it measures.
The truth should never be considered dangerous. Censorship of facts and ideas is dangerous.
I disagree with David Duke about Jews.
Better comparisons would be between me and Charles Murray and between me and Professor J. Philippe Rushton.
Charles Murray is a respected political commentator who frequently gets articles published in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Commentary, and other newspapers and opinion journals. His book The Bell Curve sold over 500,000 copies in hardback.
Charles Murray is a fool. He has said he wants to prove that conservatives can care about the poor, which means he doesn’t grok what economic conservatism is. He’s a useful fellow traveler to the real business conservatives, who are really just out for their interests to too strong a degree to accept social justice.
Hm. I have some pretty sharp corners on my forehead, like a Jack Kirby character, which I suppose could be vestigial horns from my one Hebrew chromosome–I think Yaphet Kotto has them too–but I think I’ll continue to blame my Nordic ancestry.
A melange of Jew, Balt, and Kazar is distinct? :dubious:
I haven’t reviewed your posting record, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Taking it at face value, it looks like you’re arguing for the existence of racial groupings.
I’m starting to think you’re serious.
Surely to goodness nobody would say what you just did if they were idly trolling, right?
I think nobody would put so much effort into it, at any rate.
Sounds pretty distinct indeed when you put it that way. Nothing else like it in the world.
Just out of curiosity, do we have any persistent . . . let’s be kind and call them “scientific racists,” despite the oxymoronicity . . . that is, racists who do not always simply scream, but sometimes bring cites, even if they are of a pseudoscientific nature, and dishonestly defended . . . on the Board other than NDD, brazil84, and Chen019? I can’t think of any but those three.
Except David Duke has the freedom to as much airtime as he can get right now. So does New Deal Democrat. So why don’t you see the David Duke Show right now? Because advertisers won’t stand for it, because the masses won’t stand for it and would boycott anyone who they saw as supporting racist shit on their radios. It might work if David Duke had government connections and didn’t have to worry about funding, but if David Duke can worm his way into that position we have much, much worse to worry about than a few radio programs.
The flip side to that argument is that you need precisely two shits and a big mouth to get online and start spewing, and there’s always people willing to give you shit. However, online you’re spewing along with everyone else, so you kind of get lost in the noise.
On a more idealistic note, we don’t need to ban David Duke because we can disprove him as long as it’s legal to bring up his arguments in the first place. Banning someone is a very weak form of argumentation, and we can do better than that.