“You don’t need advanced education or training to see and comment on the reality of race and intelligence. You just need common sense and the ability to think independently of social pressure.”
To comment knowlegeably, is, of course, another kettle of fish altogether, as you and NDD have so ably demonstrated. NDD, can, as we’ve seen, estimate Jefferson’s IQ. Ignorantly, of course, as he knows nothing of IQ or intelligence testing, or related fields, but nothing will stop him from commenting.
Ahh, so you don’t have to have knowledge and expertise on a subject – as you apparently don’t. So the fact that people who do have knowledge and expertise on it disagree with your conclusions doesn’t matter!
That’s a neat argument.
Proof that ‘refusal to accept defeat’ is not the same as ‘winning’…
Agree, and the factual assertions I have made are based on my knowledge.
I can’t speak for NDD, but obviously your problem with me is that you do not like my conclusions.
Perhaps NDD is not as knowledgeable about intelligence testing as he should be. Estimating Jefferson’s IQ at 175 seems like a stretch to me. But it seems to me you are nitpicking him.
Even without knowing a thing about IQ testing, it’s possible to know from general experience and simple observation that blacks are less intelligent than whites and that the difference is in large part due to genetics.
“…simple observation that blacks are less intelligent than whites and that the difference is in large part due to genetics.”
Dude, “simple observation” won’t cut it when it comes to higher biological sciences.
Bwa Ha Haaaa! He is still good for a laugh indeed :D, like if brazil is not the dictionary’s definition of being a nitpicker.
Yes, it’s easy to develop a dogmatic opinion and keep asserting it in the absence of any knowledge. In fact, without any knowledge, it’s even easier.
By the way Truman Burbank, are you still willing to bet “huge money” that I didn’t know who Spearman was?
Because I’m willing to bet you ten thousand dollars that I can demonstrate that I took advanced statistics classes as an undergraduate, subject to mutual agreement over the terms of the bet and confidentiality for my identity.
I also think a reasonable person would concede that anyone who took advanced statistics classes in college would have heard of Spearman before.
So they’d never develop the technology to harvest the moon cheese, and even if they did somebody would just steal it anyway.
Oh really, so 500 years ago if somebody observed that men are generally taller than women, you would reject their observation? You would tell them that their “simple observations” “won’t cut it”?
What a fucking moron you are. This is an absurd comparison.
Of course he thinks his wild-ass guess is better than the other person’s wild-ass guess – that’s hardly surprising, given that he believes that his wild-ass guess is better than the other person’s hard evidence and rigorous logic.
Geez, he’s already put his head up his own ass so far he’s turned himself into a Klein bottle. What more do you want from him?
The claim on the table is that “simple observation won’t cut it” (ETA: wrt “higher biological science”, whatever that means) That claim is wrong.
And the pattern repeats itself:
-
“Anti-racists” engage in special pleading.
-
“Anti-racists” are called out on it.
-
“Anti-racists” hurl insults.
Simple observations won’t cut it for higher biological sciences. Height measurements probably don’t qualify.
Keep picking those nits. It’s all you’ve got.
“Higher”, moron. The possible relationships between genetics and innate intelligence, for example. You know, like “Complicated”. The problem is you really are making the same mistake NDD is, but by definition you can’t see it. Otherwise, you’re confident that having lots of lice help you be healthy (I’m sure you recognize the reference).
You may have taken stats, I’m willing to take you at your word. I was more referring the issues that would have covered Spearman in intelligence testing issues, rather than the statistical arena per se.
So the study of differences in height do not count as “higher biological science”? Can you explain to me what you mean by “higher biological science”? And can you give a couple examples outside the realm of intelligence?
Oh, is there a mote in my eye? Or perhaps there is a log in your eye. Look, just a few moments ago you were very confident that I did not know who Spearman was. Probably you are far less confident now that I’ve offered to bet ten thousand dollars on the issue.
Perhaps you should wonder if you are not overconfident of other positions you hold, i.e. perhaps there is a log in your own eye.
Jesus, really. You don’t have to go far in any of the sciences. You can only go so far in Astronomy before you need bigger and better telescopes. If I have cancer, I’d rather have a modern oncologist than Theodoric, Barber of York.
I concede you’ve taken Stats. It furthers my disbelief that you can argue such simplistic positions regarding complicated phenomenon. In fact, if everything is so obvious, why do we need *Advanced *Stats?
I am asking you a simple question: to define what you mean by “higher biological science.”
Does the study of cancer qualify?
Why is it so hard to answer the question?
Advanced Statistics classes And do you concede that I probably heard of Spearman before?
Not everything is obvious. Duh. But it’s reasonably obvious to anyone with experience (and common sense) that men are taller than women; whites are smarter than blacks; Florida is warmer than New Hampshire; and eating fried foods makes you fat.
“Here” has four letters, particularly that e on the end.