PDA

View Full Version : The "Im a Racist for Legitimate reasons" thread



Pages : [1] 2

WastedTime
06-02-2008, 05:32 PM
---

NicoDread
06-02-2008, 05:34 PM
I want to see where this thread goes.

Jerm05
06-02-2008, 05:36 PM
I'm not touchin this

Young blood
06-02-2008, 05:36 PM
Douche bag honkey.

gaypalmsprings
06-02-2008, 05:44 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/Picaninny_Freeze.jpg

Mr.Nipples
06-02-2008, 05:45 PM
Douche bag honkey.

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t39/RetardoTronFiveThousand/1206084343085-1.jpg

Mr.Nipples
06-02-2008, 05:48 PM
what the fuck are you keeping score for?

Mr.Nipples
06-02-2008, 05:52 PM
don't do that...

jackstraw94086
06-02-2008, 05:52 PM
that watson guy's pretty smart. If he says it then who are we to say it isn't true? Doesn't he know more about genetics than the average whiney politically correct tightass?

summerkid
06-02-2008, 05:56 PM
Wow.

Young blood
06-02-2008, 05:57 PM
that watson guy's pretty smart. If he says it then who are we to say it isn't true? Doesn't he know more about genetics than the average whiney politically correct tightass?

its true cuz hes white.

Mr.Nipples
06-02-2008, 05:59 PM
*** you will understand one day maybe in '09 <_< >_> <_<

I'll destroy you.

jackstraw94086
06-02-2008, 06:00 PM
the guy's a nobel prize-winning geneticist.

full on idle
06-02-2008, 06:00 PM
Way to demonstrate the accuracy of the observer in your signature, Wasted Time.

jackstraw94086
06-02-2008, 06:00 PM
its true cuz hes white.

he beat God's dice roll.

It's not his fault.

Young blood
06-02-2008, 06:01 PM
the guy's a nobel prize-winning geneticist.

a white nobel prize-winning geneticist.

Hopeless Semantic
06-02-2008, 06:07 PM
Is it time to bring back phrenology?

Young blood
06-02-2008, 06:08 PM
"Fire the sound engineer, right now!"

amyzzz
06-02-2008, 06:09 PM
Nice karate-kid-bad-guy avatar, jackstraw.

Hopeless Semantic
06-02-2008, 06:24 PM
Phrenology never really went away, psychologists learn bogus techniques like that in plenty of their courses in hypnotising seminars.

I went to one of those just to see, waste of my money, infact the majority of the things I do in life have been a waste.

Isn't that the truth. Well stated Mr. Time.

RotationSlimWang
06-02-2008, 06:42 PM
Jews and Chinese are inherently genetically the smartest races. Somebody has to suck hind teet, don't they?

PotVsKtl
06-02-2008, 08:45 PM
Holy fuck do I ever hate French colony blacks.

MissingPerson
06-02-2008, 08:51 PM
I tend to assume that white South Africans are racist.

I am aware that this, in turn, makes me racist and therefore an asshole, but anyway, how's that for irony?

MassiveChemicalPunk
06-02-2008, 09:08 PM
the guy's a nobel prize-winning geneticist.

Dude, that's the best avatar EVER.

Backwater
06-02-2008, 10:24 PM
There is tons of racism in Cincinnati! It really gets out of hand at times like the 2001 riots.

Even though L.A. is much more diverse, I don't see nearly as much racism here.

Hannahrain
06-02-2008, 10:33 PM
Even though L.A. is much more diverse, I don't see nearly as much racism here.

In a more diverse area, there's going to be less of a "hey, that guy looks different than all the rest of us" attitude. Not to mention more of a sense of solidarity between the more ubiquitous members of whichever minority you happen to be persecuting. One isn't in spite of the other.

Hannahrain
06-02-2008, 10:37 PM
I'm not saying my words very well. I wouldn't consider your "even though" to be an accurate assessment because racism is generally a product of lack of diversity, not abundance of it.

BlackSwan
06-02-2008, 10:39 PM
are there really that many jackasses on the internet that gravitate to the coachella message board or is WastedTime Randy?.. because this has his name written all over it.

Hannahrain
06-02-2008, 10:42 PM
are there really that many jackasses on the internet that gravitate to the coachella message board or is WastedTime Randy?.. because this has his name written all over it.

Sixty-one percent of all humans are jackasses, and the concentration is even more severe on the internet. I really don't know what you were expecting.

Hannahrain
06-02-2008, 10:46 PM
I feel like I'm trying to read something that was just translated in BabelFish right now.

mountmccabe
06-02-2008, 11:01 PM
Pretty damn good assumption just from solid thought, perfect example, me... Black people have been inferior long before Watson said anything about it

Just for the record:

Watson said things that were misunderstood, misquoted and misapplied.

As Jack was saying - I figure, at least - just because Watson did some great things that doesn't mean he knows anything about anything else.

And, as a follow-up to the above, Watson didn't say anything related to his fields of expertise that mean near what you or other fucks have tried to say they mean.

bballarl
06-02-2008, 11:02 PM
Eugenics.

mountmccabe
06-02-2008, 11:04 PM
and who the fuck comes to a messageboard about a music festival that is 11 months away with the intention to not just be a total jackass or at least argue?

There are plenty of people that post here because they have friends that post here, because they like reading about the new (and old) music and movies and such discussed and because there are a lot of people here that are funny.

There are plenty of assholes, though. And if I came here for the first time now or in the past few months I can't imagine that I'd stay.

PrettyRagdoll
06-02-2008, 11:04 PM
... Black people have been inferior long before Watson said anything about it

Did you even read the interview? I'm guessing not.

mountmccabe
06-02-2008, 11:06 PM
Beyond that, fuck this thread. The odds of any significant amount of interesting, insightful, intelligent discussion happening are mind-boggling.

eNVyartist
06-02-2008, 11:10 PM
I'm not touchin this


I'm so with you on that! I won't touch this one with a ten foot pole (20 even) This could get ugly! I'm by noooooooooooo means a racist but definitely by default of being white whatever we say, we're fucked, and that goes double for those in the state assistance programs in Nevada's crooked crooked ways!

Hannahrain
06-02-2008, 11:12 PM
A Jack isn't the same thing as a James.

eNVyartist
06-02-2008, 11:18 PM
There are plenty of people that post here because they have friends that post here, because they like reading about the new (and old) music and movies and such discussed and because there are a lot of people here that are funny.

There are plenty of assholes, though. And if I came here for the first time now or in the past few months I can't imagine that I'd stay.


I'd have to agree being fairly new to the board, but at the same time, some of the people here, need to learn to fucking grow a brain stem, a little spinal fluid, and some thicker skin. Evolution ok!? But those of us, who may have just found out about the board, and were lucky enough to be grandfathered in, and enlightened by some old school peeps, get it. I feel sorry for other noobs! It's just the way this board is, not necessarily the festival. People take shit way too serious and personal half the time, but its nature here! Get with it or GET OFF!

eNVyartist
06-02-2008, 11:22 PM
http://blog.orly.ch/files/lolz-you-fail.jpg

bmack86
06-03-2008, 02:35 AM
Go back to /b/

RotationSlimWang
06-03-2008, 06:50 AM
I guess my point is you're all dumber than Jews. Who gives a fuck which one of you dumb motherfuckers is dumber than the next?

Alchemy
06-03-2008, 10:30 AM
This alleged "science of racism" website isn't even loading on my computer, but I'm sure the main point of the website is going to be that there aren't enough anthropology books in circulation.

PotVsKtl
06-03-2008, 11:27 AM
Bullshit Watson was misquoted.

PotVsKtl
06-03-2008, 11:31 AM
Winning a Nobel Prize is not a Get Out of Asshole Prison Free card.

Mr.Nipples
06-03-2008, 11:50 AM
bTIklFsMjjU&hl=en

marooko
06-03-2008, 11:56 AM
I'm by noooooooooooo means a racist but definitely by default of being white whatever we say, we're fucked, and that goes double for those in the state assistance programs in Nevada's crooked crooked ways!

well why not start by asking those who would "fuck you"(used in your context) to justify their racism?

marooko
06-03-2008, 11:58 AM
Winning a Nobel Prize is not a Get Out of Asshole Prison Free card.

sure it is. go down the list of winners and ask them about it.

thelastgreatman
06-03-2008, 11:58 AM
Pot, are you saying that there's no chance there are ethnically correlated variations in IQ? What about height? I'm not even necessarily saying it has to be that blacks are dumber, but I'd be amazed if there wasn't some kind of deviation.

PotVsKtl
06-03-2008, 11:58 AM
I'm by noooooooooooo means a racist but definitely by default of being white whatever we say, we're fucked, and that goes double for those in the state assistance programs in Nevada's crooked crooked ways!

Poor oppressed white girl. I hope your womb gets a quato.

rage patton
06-03-2008, 11:58 AM
Nevermind.

PotVsKtl
06-03-2008, 12:01 PM
Pot, are you saying that there's no chance there are ethnically correlated variations in IQ? What about height? I'm not even necessarily saying it has to be that blacks are dumber, but I'd be amazed if there wasn't some kind of deviation.

No, I'm not saying that. But the idea that an IQ variation would be so pronounced as to require a total reworking of social programs for a specific people is just not reasonable and stems from somewhere other than genetics or genetic research.

mountmccabe
06-03-2008, 12:18 PM
Bullshit Watson was misquoted.


Winning a Nobel Prize is not a Get Out of Asshole Prison Free card.

This true.

Also I did not mean to imply that Watson was not an asshole. Or, for that matter, that he isn't a racist. From the information I have, he's both.

I have no problem knocking him for things he really has done but it's ridiculous to claim that anything he has said yields a legitimate or scientific reason for racism.

thelastgreatman
06-03-2008, 12:38 PM
The real question is:

Does stating that there is a genetic differential in IQ from one race to another constitute "racism?" See, I don't think it does. Australians have the lowest IQ of any nation--it's not racist, it's just a fucking fact. Saying that ALL Australians are stupid, however, is racist. Just because your cultural subset is genetically predisposed is one thing, it's when that generalization is implied as an absolute that governs all members of the subset that it becomes discriminatory.

/owning this thread

full on idle
06-03-2008, 12:53 PM
if you don't say so yourself.

RotationSlimWang
06-03-2008, 12:56 PM
I actively campaign for respect and kindness between all races and creeds, Foi.


Except women, of course.

chairmenmeow47
06-03-2008, 12:58 PM
I actively campaign for respect and kindness between all races and creeds, Foi.


Except women, of course.


yeah, cause not everyone can be as awesome as us :lips

and i'm racist against rand mcnallians. they wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people. shit ain't right.

RotationSlimWang
06-03-2008, 01:09 PM
You can't be racist against anything that starts with "rand." It's simply against the rules.

jackstraw94086
06-03-2008, 01:18 PM
edit: fuck it. Watson's racist.


we're all geniuses.

jackstraw94086
06-03-2008, 01:42 PM
Sickle Cell Anemia is a racist disease.

PotVsKtl
06-03-2008, 01:58 PM
There's a difference between noting that genetic differences may account for marginal fluctuations of "IQ" among different races (and really, we're talking about specific geographical clusters of specific races here) and claiming that that difference is so stark as to require a complete reworking of international policy in dealing with said cluster. If it were the case that Africans were so dumb that standard social programs were invalid in that country, it sure seems magical as fuck when they come to the United States and act all smart and uppity.

jackstraw94086
06-03-2008, 02:03 PM
There's a difference between noting that genetic differences may account for marginal fluctuations of "IQ" among different races (and really, we're talking about specific geographical clusters of specific races here) and claiming that that difference is so stark as to require a complete reworking of international policy in dealing with said cluster. If it were the case that Africans were so dumb that standard social programs were invalid in that country, it sure seems magical as fuck when they come to the United States and act all smart and uppity.

I'll grant that Watson took his claim too far. I'll also grant that there may be other bases for what he's observed other than pure skin color.

However, I still think that it's completely arrogant to dismiss it out of hand as racist nonsense.

Also, while it may be untrue that people with black skin (or more accurately, of black descent) have lower IQs, it's not reasonable to think that every person on earth is built the same way. It seems reasonalbe to accept that some portions of the human race must developmental advantages and disadvantages.


W

PotVsKtl
06-03-2008, 02:07 PM
Personally I believe he's a brilliant man who unfortunately, and perhaps entirely subconsciously, holds a certain view of minorities and was able to find marginal evidence in his daily duties to back up his preconceived notion -which then manifested itself in hyperbole. That doesn't mean his underlying statement (that there are real and verifiable genetic differences among subsets of cultures - something so obvious it's hardly worth mentioning) isn't valid. It's just been co-opted here by an inaccurate screed.

TomAz
06-03-2008, 02:23 PM
it seems just as likely to me that the IQ test is a flawed tool. and I don't necessarily mean the whole old "cultural bias" argument. I mean that I'm not confident in the depth and breadth of science's (or at least psychology's) grasp of the human brain to know if we're even measuring "intelligence" correctly.

in other words Australians scoring lowest on the IQ test could just be noise generated by the test's imprecision rather than a measure of anything actually real.

full on idle
06-03-2008, 02:39 PM
black complexion not black skin

PotVsKtl
06-03-2008, 02:42 PM
No, it's black all the way through. I've got one hanging on my wall.

full on idle
06-03-2008, 02:47 PM
I was thinking about this this morning, about how you say things like that and I don't get offended but when Li'l Wang says stuff like that it's so offensive. What is the difference?

Young blood
06-03-2008, 02:47 PM
pot means it.

marooko
06-03-2008, 03:41 PM
while in Vegas last week, the comedian we were watching suggested that the beverage of choice of the black guy, donning the orange suit, was Hennessey and grape soda. i almost peed my fucking pants.

gaypalmsprings
06-03-2008, 03:44 PM
Our new president will have to repaint the Whitehouse, since white is racist. He'll have to make room for Saturday night dog fights & add a shooting range too.

marooko
06-03-2008, 03:48 PM
how many burning crosses you think are gonna show up at the white house over the next 8 years?

jackstraw94086
06-03-2008, 03:55 PM
it seems just as likely to me that the IQ test is a flawed tool. and I don't necessarily mean the whole old "cultural bias" argument. I mean that I'm not confident in the depth and breadth of science's (or at least psychology's) grasp of the human brain to know if we're even measuring "intelligence" correctly.

While I believe there's not a true absolute quotient for intelligence, there's still an argument for placing the stake somewhere. There are real world constraints modern civilization works within and the current (admittedly flawed) IQ tests are at least in some way a measure of how well an average person can function within them.



in other words Australians scoring lowest on the IQ test could just be noise generated by the test's imprecision rather than a measure of anything actually real.
I don't know, Tom. There are lots of Australians. And not only are they descended from criminals, they're descended from unsuccessful criminals.

thinnerair
06-03-2008, 03:56 PM
the black is the better athlete.

jackstraw94086
06-03-2008, 04:01 PM
the black is the better athlete.

Jimmy The Greek will one day be vindicated


... in the eyes of all instead of just most.

PotVsKtl
06-03-2008, 04:06 PM
I'm Jedi Master, Mase Windu, what you been through
Keep MC's heads wrapped like Erykah Ba-du
Hip-Hop's Cleon Jones, when Eon Jones
Wackest MC's, we pee on those
No need to impede The High and Mighty mystique
That shit would be as ignorant as Jimmy the Greek
Claimin they Godzilla's when they really Godzooki
Got a mill' from Charlie Brown, when I kidnapped Snoopy
Eon, sale or performance, in any ordinance
Rhyme menace, that burst your verbal nuisance
in accordance, with all the laws from the cordless
Starbuck coming through, leavin any pimp whoreless
Stereo stompin -- defeatin me is like
Latrell chokin up John Thompson, Charles Bronson
had a Death Wish for this next to left shit
Leavin all these hot air MC's breathless

TomAz
06-03-2008, 04:07 PM
I don't know, Tom. There are lots of Australians. And not only are they descended from criminals, they're descended from unsuccessful criminals.

oh. good point. who can forget this?

qm61svN4U5g

Young blood
06-03-2008, 04:19 PM
http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii94/TheWalkingDude/1208341479486.jpg

thinnerair
06-03-2008, 04:37 PM
RACE WARS!

TomAz
06-03-2008, 04:39 PM
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/16/tommy-thompson-channels-reggie-white/

RotationSlimWang
06-03-2008, 06:28 PM
Wait wait wait--you're trying to claim blacks are dumber than Ricans? Well, now I KNOW you're racist, 'cause there's no fucking way that's true.

marooko
06-03-2008, 07:00 PM
wow!!! thats shocking randy. im shocked. arent you all?

PotVsKtl
06-03-2008, 07:36 PM
You're proving Watson wrong right now WastedTime.

Yablonowitz
06-03-2008, 08:26 PM
IQ, which to me is a nebulous concept at best, has been shown to be very fluid. There was a time when people who lived in the South (blacks and whites) had lower IQs, demonstrably lower IQs, than people from northern and western regions of the country. Over time, the regional variation was completly eliminated.

Intelligence isn't a static "thing" like sickle cell anemia. Also, there's more genetic diversity in the continent of Africa than there is throughout the rest of the entire world.

Let's not also forget that a high percentage of people with high IQs are assholes anyway.

jackstraw94086
06-03-2008, 09:04 PM
IQ, which to me is a nebulous concept at best, has been shown to be very fluid. There was a time when people who lived in the South (blacks and whites) had lower IQs, demonstrably lower IQs, than people from northern and western regions of the country. Over time, the regional variation was completly eliminated.

Intelligence isn't a static "thing" like sickle cell anemia. Also, there's more genetic diversity in the continent of Africa than there is throughout the rest of the entire world.

Let's not also forget that a high percentage of people with high IQs are assholes anyway.

k so there's more genetic diversity in africa than there is throughout the rest of the world yet sickle cell anemia is still almost exclusively affects people of african descent. What's the commonality amongst all of that diversity in Africa?

And your example of regional statistical differences in IQ being eliminated actually damages the argument that race has nothing to do with it if a certain race or ethnicity generally scores lower.
Actually I'm done with the IQ discussion. There's really no point.

miscorrections
06-03-2008, 09:09 PM
They talk about sickle cell anemia in every goddamn cell biology/genetics/boring basic science class ever from 9th grade on.

Backwater
06-03-2008, 10:16 PM
Everyone should see the 1982 movie White Dog.

It's about a racist dog who was conditioned by his white supremicist owner to only attack black people.

It's fucking hilarious.

Hopeless Semantic
06-04-2008, 12:24 AM
Everyone should see the 1982 movie White Dog.

It's about a racist dog who was conditioned by his white supremicist owner to only attack black people.

It's fucking hilarious.

I've seen that flick...and as much as I hate to say it, it is funny.

Yablonowitz
06-04-2008, 07:14 AM
k so there's more genetic diversity in africa than there is throughout the rest of the world yet sickle cell anemia is still almost exclusively affects people of african descent. What's the commonality amongst all of that diversity in Africa?

And your example of regional statistical differences in IQ being eliminated actually damages the argument that race has nothing to do with it if a certain race or ethnicity generally scores lower.
Actually I'm done with the IQ discussion. There's really no point.

My point is that I don't think IQ is a static genetic trait such as something like sickle cell anemia. If it can change over time, how can we say it's in inherent, innate, fixed trait? It's completely different from something highly biological like sickle cell anemia.

I don't know what argument I'm undermining. IQ rates changing affected both black AND whites in the south. Not to mention that IQ rates have shown to change in a person's lifetime. Your susceptibility to sickle cell anemia doesn't change over time.

RotationSlimWang
06-04-2008, 07:31 AM
Who the fuck said it was static? And I don't think you're necessarily right about that, Yabs--IQs might drop over a lifetime but I sincerely doubt they ever increase.

Yablonowitz
06-04-2008, 08:00 AM
Who the fuck said it was static? And I don't think you're necessarily right about that, Yabs--IQs might drop over a lifetime but I sincerely doubt they ever increase.

The racist interpretation of IQ rates being lower in blacks than whites assumes it's a natural condition - a fixed trait that simply can't be changed by anything other than evolutionary changes over time. I'm rebutting that notion.

IQ is a concept, not a trait.

RotationSlimWang
06-04-2008, 08:04 AM
Um... well not that much, at least not with true IQ tests that only test the brain's ability to recognize patterns. Technically a proper IQ test only measures a brain's ability to learn--not what it has or has not learned.

allyjoy
06-04-2008, 08:11 AM
k so there's more genetic diversity in africa than there is throughout the rest of the world yet sickle cell anemia is still almost exclusively affects people of african descent. What's the commonality amongst all of that diversity in Africa?

Sickle cell trait is a genetic adaptation to protect against malaria and similar blood born diseases.

RotationSlimWang
06-04-2008, 08:12 AM
And paternal responsibilities.

allyjoy
06-04-2008, 08:13 AM
randy, you've already sucked my cock. next time you're taking it up the ass. :)

Yablonowitz
06-04-2008, 08:24 AM
There's also the issue of whether or not "race" is a meaningful concept as well, biologically speaking.

Edit: And I'm not disputing the results of rigorous studies on the issue, just the way they are interpreted and the assumptions of what the concepts mean.

RotationSlimWang
06-04-2008, 08:26 AM
And all I'm saying is Puerto Ricans are fucking morons.

TomAz
06-04-2008, 08:26 AM
in that interview Watson himself said his DNA tested "16% African origin".

jackstraw94086
06-04-2008, 10:09 AM
My point is that I don't think IQ is a static genetic trait such as something like sickle cell anemia. If it can change over time, how can we say it's in inherent, innate, fixed trait? It's completely different from something highly biological like sickle cell anemia.

I don't know what argument I'm undermining. IQ rates changing affected both black AND whites in the south. Not to mention that IQ rates have shown to change in a person's lifetime. Your susceptibility to sickle cell anemia doesn't change over time.

Intelligence isn't a divine property of the soul. Even if we don't 100% about how the brain functions it's pretty clear at this point that the more efficient it is at forming, maintaining, and accessing nueron connections. It is entirely plausible that some branches of the human species have adapted (selectively procreated) such that their brain chemistry is more efficient at this. Other branches where the environmental pressures were less or were such that made competing traits more advantageous may have developed slower or in different ways. Some DNA may be wired to produce the necessary protiens for brain maintenance in greater quantity. Some less.
Even if you don't buy the current notions of how the brain functions you'll still have to admit that it's biological at some level. Unless of course you believe that God gives us our smarts.

And you don't realize that you're undermining the race/IQ argument because you're taking for granted that there can't be a difference in IQ between whites and blacks. By eliminiting geography as a factor you're leaving race as a more plausible reason for difference if it is found that there is one.

TomAz
06-04-2008, 10:32 AM
asians, for example, have evolved the specific DNA set to make a television into a watch.

RotationSlimWang
06-04-2008, 10:43 AM
The real question is are Ricans that stupid because of their black blood?

Mr.Nipples
06-04-2008, 10:51 AM
slim wang

RotationSlimWang
06-04-2008, 11:44 AM
dress barn

Mr.Nipples
06-04-2008, 11:45 AM
does anyone in california remember the plus sized women's outlet Pretty and Plump?

RotationSlimWang
06-04-2008, 11:47 AM
I got a lot of pussy through that place.


Big ones, too.



BLACK ones.

RotationSlimWang
06-04-2008, 11:47 AM
(They were all stupid of course, but MAN could they ever run.)

Mr.Nipples
06-04-2008, 11:50 AM
Some of us actually went for the clothing

RotationSlimWang
06-04-2008, 11:51 AM
Gotta love moo moos.

Yablonowitz
06-04-2008, 12:25 PM
Intelligence isn't a divine property of the soul. Even if we don't 100% about how the brain functions it's pretty clear at this point that the more efficient it is at forming, maintaining, and accessing nueron connections. It is entirely plausible that some branches of the human species have adapted (selectively procreated) such that their brain chemistry is more efficient at this. Other branches where the environmental pressures were less or were such that made competing traits more advantageous may have developed slower or in different ways. Some DNA may be wired to produce the necessary protiens for brain maintenance in greater quantity. Some less.
Even if you don't buy the current notions of how the brain functions you'll still have to admit that it's biological at some level. Unless of course you believe that God gives us our smarts.

And you don't realize that you're undermining the race/IQ argument because you're taking for granted that there can't be a difference in IQ between whites and blacks. By eliminiting geography as a factor you're leaving race as a more plausible reason for difference if it is found that there is one.

Ok, I see what youíre saying. But Iím saying that IQ has been shown to be malleable over a period shorter than would be explained by evolution. The fact that studies might still show a difference between white and black IQ only suggests to me that whatever was responsible for the change in region isnít the same as what would be needed to change it between races.

But all this is not terribly significant to me because I donít really think IQ is a very informative or reliable indicator of anything. I know that Stephen J Gould strongly criticized the notion of IQ in his book ďThe Mismeasurement of Man,Ē but I havenít read that so I canít really expand on the scientific reason. Itís more of an opinion based on reading definitions of what IQ is and how it can be measured. Itís not that I am against the idea of genetic differences playing a part in either cultural or sociological diversity, itís just that thereís nothing to base any of the differences as indicators of empirical superiority. As Reverend Wright said, ďDifferent does not mean deficient.Ē

RotationSlimWang
06-04-2008, 12:38 PM
But... have you ever talked to a Puerto Rican?

Yablonowitz
06-04-2008, 12:48 PM
Actually, not face-to-face, but my company has a sizable set of offices in Puerto Rico and I have had email exchanges with them and it's a little strange. Mainly because of the ESL issue. I think. At least that's what I'm crediting to, you know, to give them the benefit of the doubt.

RotationSlimWang
06-04-2008, 12:51 PM
I knew quite a few back east, some of whom would probably shoot me for saying these things.


Thankfully, the dumb fucks can't read.

full on idle
06-04-2008, 12:53 PM
My friend Erica from high school was 100% Puerto Rican and both her parents were doctors and they lived in a huge house and drove fancy cars. She went to Ivy League college and I believe she's a surgeon now.

RotationSlimWang
06-04-2008, 12:56 PM
Sigh, Foi. Sigh. You still don't get it yet. A white woman should be smarter than that.






Oh wait, "woman," right. =)

full on idle
06-04-2008, 01:00 PM
I'm proof positive that the white is not the smarter race.

RotationSlimWang
06-04-2008, 01:01 PM
You're proof positive that vaginas are not the smarter genitals.



Just kidding, let's cuddle and rub our junk together.

jackstraw94086
06-04-2008, 01:04 PM
Ok, I see what youíre saying. But Iím saying that IQ has been shown to be malleable over a period shorter than would be explained by evolution. The fact that studies might still show a difference between white and black IQ only suggests to me that whatever was responsible for the change in region isnít the same as what would be needed to change it between races.

But all this is not terribly significant to me because I donít really think IQ is a very informative or reliable indicator of anything. I know that Stephen J Gould strongly criticized the notion of IQ in his book ďThe Mismeasurement of Man,Ē but I havenít read that so I canít really expand on the scientific reason. Itís more of an opinion based on reading definitions of what IQ is and how it can be measured. Itís not that I am against the idea of genetic differences playing a part in either cultural or sociological diversity, itís just that thereís nothing to base any of the differences as indicators of empirical superiority. As Reverend Wright said, ďDifferent does not mean deficient.Ē

I'd agree that the current measurement methods or "quotient" for intelligence is inadequate, but like I said earlier it's a stake in the sand, and it's not completely arbitrary.

If you raise two newborns in the exact same environment, one the offspring of two 145 IQ individuals, and the other of two 90 IQ individuals, which one do you think will learn quicker and further givin what modern society has to teach them?

If you accept that the child of higher IQ parents will usually be "smarter" in a survival sense than the child of the lower IQ parents then just extend that notion out.

I don't believe intelligence has progressed faster than evolution (which is what I think you're getting at). I think that advances in civilization have unlocked unused potential.

I just think that it's possible that the potential ends for some people in different places (on a large scale, not an individual within a race).

For all I know it could be whites that have less capacity than blacks. We're not advanced enough to know that, and by the time we would the races may be mixed beyond the point where we could tell.

RotationSlimWang
06-04-2008, 01:08 PM
Africa doesn't look too fucking smart. Just sayin'.






MAN I love this topic.

Yablonowitz
06-04-2008, 01:19 PM
I don't believe intelligence has progressed faster than evolution (which is what I think you're getting at). I think that advances in civilization have unlocked unused potential.


No, I just mean the IQ #s. Not intelligence. I don't think you can quantify intelligence and I think there are different kinds of intelligence and it's such a subjective notion that it's not doing anyone any favors by trying to pin it down to results from a test.

I don't discount the influence of genes and biology in anything, though.

RotationSlimWang
06-04-2008, 01:21 PM
I find intelligence is best measured in the size of the explosions you know how to generate.

jackstraw94086
06-04-2008, 02:24 PM
No, I just mean the IQ #s. Not intelligence. I don't think you can quantify intelligence and I think there are different kinds of intelligence and it's such a subjective notion that it's not doing anyone any favors by trying to pin it down to results from a test.

I don't discount the influence of genes and biology in anything, though.

You're fixated on IQ as if it were an a single standardized thing. It's not. There are many types of IQ tests. Mensa, for example, used to administer at least two tests that used to be popular (not sure if they still are) are the Catell B, which is a British test, math intensive, time constrained, and the California Test of Mental Maturity, which is more qualitative and untimed. They would grant admission to their little club if you get a qualifying score in at least one.

I'm talking about IQ in an more abstract sense, an attempt to measure relative problem solving ability. No one single test could ever be an absolute measure of intelligence since it depends a certain person's subjective choice of questions, but the notion of an IQ test is valid IMO. Trying to put a number on someone's intelligence is doing favors for some people. Just because it's not perfect isn't an excuse to throw out any and all ways of trying to measure two people's relative intelligence in the absence of direct experience.


If you've got two people, one that scored an average of 145 on two or three IQ tests and another that averaged 90, are you seriously going to try to tell me that you can't make a guess at which one's smarter (in a generic problem solving sense)?

RotationSlimWang
06-04-2008, 02:39 PM
I have another way of looking at it:


You drive SUVs and have swimming pools. Probably fairly smart.



You live in a fucking desert where nothing can grow and you're all starving 'cause the only thing to eat is AIDS. Probably not so smart.

TomAz
06-04-2008, 02:44 PM
which one's smarter?

http://www.cardcow.com/images/albert-einstein-at-beach-1945-celebrities-28954.jpg


http://www.stuff.co.nz/images/713020.jpg


clearly it's Daniel Craig. that other guys' a fucking slob.

Mr.Nipples
06-04-2008, 02:45 PM
alberts lookin' sassy this season

Young blood
06-04-2008, 02:48 PM
oooohhhh girl look at them shoes.

MissingPerson
06-04-2008, 02:51 PM
I've done a lot of IQ tests, and the scores I got varied by up to twenty points. Which is a lot. So I don't have a lot of faith in them generally.

The other thing, as has been previously noted, is that any IQ test only tests a specific, test-able form of intelligence, and really doesn't necessarily translate to actual practical smarts. Problem solving for instance: I mean, some of the folks who tested high... well, they might be able to match up the geometric shapes or whatever... but I wouldn't trust them to not to run with scissors without specific warning.

Young blood
06-04-2008, 02:53 PM
HEnXHTytX3s

jackstraw94086
06-04-2008, 03:22 PM
I've done a lot of IQ tests, and the scores I got varied by up to twenty points. Which is a lot. So I don't have a lot of faith in them generally.

The other thing, as has been previously noted, is that any IQ test only tests a specific, test-able form of intelligence, and really doesn't necessarily translate to actual practical smarts. Problem solving for instance: I mean, some of the folks who tested high... well, they might be able to match up the geometric shapes or whatever... but I wouldn't trust them to not to run with scissors without specific warning.

all you people that keep harping on the "IQ doesn't translate to real world smarts" shit are just not getting it or your just fooling yourselves. Of course one single test isn't going to decide who's the "smartest" by whatever arbitrary subjective standard you choose to pick to prove your point.

Go ahead and point at a "genius" who shouldn't run with scissors and ignore the vast majority of high scorers that can run with them better than you can. Go ahead and flaunt your "street smarts" as if wisdom and intelligence were mutually exclusive or even inversely related. Keep dreaming.

The point is that human beings can't just look at a group of people and instantly know who's cognitive skills (depending on the task at hand or the requirements of the observer) are greater. You need some sort of basis to narrow shit down. Some people like to use IQ if it suits them. Employers and educators can't have intimate knowledge and experience with everyone at once.

Not everyone's the same. People who consistently score low on traditional IQ tests are not as "smart" in the commonly accepted, reality sense as people who score high. Stop fucking crying about it or pretending it's not true. Society is going to try to measure the intelligence of its members and it's usually going to be reasonably good at it.

full on idle
06-04-2008, 03:24 PM
do you think I am smart

RotationSlimWang
06-04-2008, 03:24 PM
IQ tests test the brain's ability to learn. That's all. I'm not gonna say it again. This thread leads me to believe you're all Puerto Rican.

Backwater
06-04-2008, 03:27 PM
Anyone a fan of Blaxploitation?

Sweet Sweetback is the classic but it's overrated.

Blackqula is fucking great!

jackstraw94086
06-04-2008, 03:28 PM
do you think I am smart

because I have direct experience interacting with you I can say that I think you are a smart person.


If I didn't know anything about you but an IQ score (which just for argument's sake we'll say is low), I would probably assume you're not that intelligent, and statistically speaking I'd usually be right.

If I had to choose between anonymous low-scoring you (again hypotheticial), and anonymous high-scoring someone else, for a task that required strong problem solving skills, what the fuck kind of idiot would I be to blindly pick you?

full on idle
06-04-2008, 03:30 PM
I don't know my IQ

Where is a legitimate test

I want to know if I am smart

ps you would pick me because I have the best shoes

MissingPerson
06-04-2008, 03:33 PM
Go ahead and point at a "genius" who shouldn't run with scissors and ignore the vast majority of high scorers that can run with them better than you can.

Albert Einstein, on more than one occasion, forgot where he lived.

I'm not saying IQ isn't a generally useful guide, or relevant to this thread. Just thought it was worth adding.

Mr.Nipples
06-04-2008, 03:34 PM
Anyone a fan of Blaxploitation?

Sweet Sweetback is the classic but it's overrated.

Blackqula is fucking great!

overrated my ass

dorkfish
06-04-2008, 03:34 PM
I'm really really smart and really really white.

RotationSlimWang
06-04-2008, 03:35 PM
What the fuck does remembering where you live have to do with problem solving? Shut the fuck up, Rican.

MissingPerson
06-04-2008, 03:39 PM
The thing is; I have quite high IQ scores. So either that makes me smart, or you guys wrong.

So you see I have drawn you into my fiendish trap. What with my mighty brain and all.

jackstraw94086
06-04-2008, 03:44 PM
I don't know my IQ

Where is a legitimate test

I want to know if I am smart

ps you would pick me because I have the best shoes


You should take an SAQ test. You'd score through the roof.

RotationSlimWang
06-04-2008, 03:48 PM
The thing is; I have quite high IQ scores. So either that makes me smart, or you guys wrong.

So you see I have drawn you into my fiendish trap. What with my mighty brain and all.

The odds of you having taken a true IQ test are pretty fucking steep. Also it wouldn't make you smart--it would mean that you have the capacity to not be dumb. Whether or not you exercise that capacity by learning is up to the individual.

TomAz
06-04-2008, 03:50 PM
Go ahead and point at a "genius" who shouldn't run with scissors and ignore the vast majority of high scorers that can run with them better than you can.


Albert Einstein, on more than one occasion, forgot where he lived.


The thing is; I have quite high IQ scores. So either that makes me smart, or you guys wrong.


solve the contradiction.

RotationSlimWang
06-04-2008, 03:53 PM
This is a good demonstration of how the real measure of "smarts" is whether or not you cause yourself to look like a fucking retard.

jackstraw94086
06-04-2008, 03:53 PM
how did you trap us? Did you demonstrate that you're not smart before revealing your high IQ?

RotationSlimWang
06-04-2008, 03:57 PM
"Oh yeah? So you guys think I'm dumber than a Puerto Rican, huh? WELL GUESS WHAT MOTHERFUCKERS--I HAVE A HIGH IQ.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it. THREAD FUCKING OVER."

full on idle
06-04-2008, 03:57 PM
You should take an SAQ test. You'd score through the roof.

me: what is an saq test
(Jack): test of smart-ass quotient
me: hee hee

Posted because I didn't get it and I figure other people didn't either.

MissingPerson
06-04-2008, 03:59 PM
Anyway, yes, in school I was earmarked as above-average intelligence, so yes, I've done quite a few legitimate IQ tests. I was told my scores were high, and of the discrepancies between the tests - hence the number of them - but I wasn't told of the actual scores.

However, I once cut off the tip of a toe because I was frolicking - literally frolicking - around my house in a pair of open-toed sandals to celebrate the onset of spring, and then accidentally sheared off the toe-tip on the edge of a door frame.

Those are not the actions of a smart person - smart people have ten toes.

TomAz
06-04-2008, 04:03 PM
smart people never have accidents.

stinkbutt
06-04-2008, 04:04 PM
I've known some smart people that are complete fucking idiots when it comes to common sense.

Common Sense=Not frolicking if you're a grown man

TomAz
06-04-2008, 04:04 PM
me: what is an saq test
(Jack): test of smart-ass quotient
me: hee hee

Posted because I didn't get it and I figure other people didn't either.

you're both right

jackstraw94086
06-04-2008, 04:04 PM
Anyway, yes, in school I was earmarked as above-average intelligence, so yes, I've done quite a few legitimate IQ tests. I was told my scores were high, and of the discrepancies between the tests - hence the number of them - but I wasn't told of the actual scores.


You know how handlers at the Special Olympics are constantly telling their charges "good job!", "way to go!", "you're doing great!", etc.


just sayin'

Young blood
06-04-2008, 04:06 PM
"handlers at the Special Olympics."

Mr.Nipples
06-04-2008, 04:07 PM
smart people never have accidents.

J. Robert Oppenheimer was a pants shitter

RotationSlimWang
06-04-2008, 04:07 PM
High school faculty typically don't have a fucking clue whether or not someone is actually smart or just not PR. This is because you have to actually be smart to tell the difference.

Yablonowitz
06-04-2008, 04:08 PM
Watch me quote wikipedia about a book I haven't read on an issue I don't know that much about:


Gould also rejects the very thing that IQ is meant to measure, "general intelligence" (or g). IQ tests, he points out, ask many different kinds of questions. Responses to different kinds of questions tend to form clusters. In other words, different kinds of questions can be given different scores Ė which suggests that an IQ test is really a combination of a number of different tests that test a number of different things. Gould claims that proponents of IQ tests assume that there is such a thing as general intelligence, and analyze the data so as to produce one number, which they then claim is a measure of general intelligence. Gould argues that this one number (and therefore, the implication that there is a real thing called "general intelligence" that this number measures) is in fact an artifact of the statistical operations psychologists apply to the raw data. He argues that one can analyze the same data more effectively and end up with a number of different scores (that are as or more valid, meaning they measure something) rather than one score.

MissingPerson
06-04-2008, 04:11 PM
I've known some smart people that are complete fucking idiots when it comes to common sense.

Common Sense=Not frolicking if you're a grown man

Woman, but yes.

And I reserve the right to frolick; a world without frolicking is a world I don't want to live in.

stinkbutt
06-04-2008, 04:13 PM
Woman

Well know this all makes sense

RotationSlimWang
06-04-2008, 04:13 PM
Woman?

End conversation.

RotationSlimWang
06-04-2008, 04:13 PM
Hahaha, assholes in unison.

jackstraw94086
06-04-2008, 04:15 PM
Watch me quote wikipedia about a book I haven't read on an issue I don't know that much about:


Gould also rejects the very thing that IQ is meant to measure, "general intelligence" (or g). IQ tests, he points out, ask many different kinds of questions. Responses to different kinds of questions tend to form clusters. In other words, different kinds of questions can be given different scores Ė which suggests that an IQ test is really a combination of a number of different tests that test a number of different things. Gould claims that proponents of IQ tests assume that there is such a thing as general intelligence, and analyze the data so as to produce one number, which they then claim is a measure of general intelligence. Gould argues that this one number (and therefore, the implication that there is a real thing called "general intelligence" that this number measures) is in fact an artifact of the statistical operations psychologists apply to the raw data. He argues that one can analyze the same data more effectively and end up with a number of different scores (that are as or more valid, meaning they measure something) rather than one score.

He's just whining. The whole bit is redundant. Anyone with half a brain knows that IQ alone isn't bulletproof.

MissingPerson
06-04-2008, 04:17 PM
Tests were administered independently.

Once again, my argument here is that I'm quite obviously not smarter than your average bear.

And also; That frolicking cost me a digit - Always frolick responsibly, people.

RotationSlimWang
06-04-2008, 04:18 PM
Also, evolutionists are pants shitters.

TomAz
06-04-2008, 04:20 PM
However, I once cut off the tip of a toe.


That frolicking cost me a digit

I don't understand. Did you just slice off the tip or did you lose the whole toe?

stinkbutt
06-04-2008, 04:21 PM
Also, evolutionists are pants shitters.

squirt>shard>shit

MissingPerson
06-04-2008, 04:23 PM
It was the little toe, and yes, just the tip. But man, I mean without that bit, it's just... it's like it's not a real toe anymore, you know? Like it's been neutered or something.

Sigh. I miss my toetip. Well, not really, but I miss wearing sandals in public.

TomAz
06-04-2008, 04:25 PM
you should make a website asking people for money so you can buy a prosthetic toe tip.

amyzzz
06-04-2008, 04:28 PM
This thread is retarded.

MissingPerson
06-04-2008, 04:30 PM
you should make a website asking people for money so you can buy a prosthetic toe tip.

Tempting... but... Ethically wrong. It would set back the cause of the Toe Diminished everywhere. I want the able-bodied world to know that - except that we don't get the full use out of those individually-toed novelty socks - we're just like them. We don't need special treatment, or charity. We can do everything they can do.

We're people too! We're people too!

Just...

People with less toe-functionality.

RotationSlimWang
06-04-2008, 04:38 PM
The real question is:

Is randy dumber than a broad?

jackstraw94086
06-04-2008, 04:45 PM
this guy's probably got a high IQ

FSovRFisxTc

PotVsKtl
06-04-2008, 05:01 PM
It's not his fault, he's Russian.

Young blood
06-04-2008, 05:12 PM
Jnz-WsVoGX8
I think a swift testicle taze brought him down

stinkbutt
06-04-2008, 10:42 PM
So does being smart make you an absolute pussy cause some white folks taking 2 minutes to take down some crazy commie is just weak sauce. Randy since "you're the most intelligent" does this make you the biggest pussy here? Since you're widely known as the biggest dick on the board and by my observations possibly the biggest pussy on the board as well, will you please do us a favor and go fuck yourself.

stinkbutt
06-04-2008, 10:51 PM
I know i'm drunk and retiring while I'm really really far behind

BlackSwan
06-04-2008, 11:34 PM
wow, 7 pages of the "The "Im a Racist for Legitimate reasons" thread", really people? and it ends with someone bowing to randy... sad.

Alchemy
06-05-2008, 01:34 AM
Why are people talking about IQ and race? Haven't you guys heard of Stephen Jay Gould? Isn't it quite clear that we can pretty much do without any thoughts which are sociobiological?

Yablonowitz
06-05-2008, 06:58 AM
Why are people talking about IQ and race? Haven't you guys heard of Stephen Jay Gould? Isn't it quite clear that we can pretty much do without any thoughts which are sociobiological?

Dude - I just posted SJG's argument about intelligence. Pay attention. Jack thinks he was just whining though.

RotationSlimWang
06-05-2008, 07:32 AM
All threads end with bowing to Randy, where the fuck have you dumb Randy's been?

algunz
06-05-2008, 07:59 AM
I'm here now.

jackstraw94086
06-05-2008, 08:34 AM
Why are people talking about IQ and race? Haven't you guys heard of Stephen Jay Gould? Isn't it quite clear that we can pretty much do without any thoughts which are sociobiological?

Careful carrying the banners of experts. Even Stephen Hawking eventually changed his mind about the big bang. Plus, there are several possible motivations for Gould's arguments. One possible motivation was to make evolution more palatable for religious types, and help ensure it's place in american education, a battle he fought all his life.

I'm not saying there definitely is a relation between IQ (the notion of IQ, not one fucking single test) and race. Just saying it's possible. Thoughts, just like everything else, are chemical reactions. There's a recipe for how to make them. We already know not everyone is cooking with the same recipe.

full on idle
06-05-2008, 08:46 AM
you're spicy

jackstraw94086
06-05-2008, 09:02 AM
I love this video. I don't care if it's old.

Aa5KSu9OMDQ

full on idle
06-05-2008, 09:41 AM
Prince talks about white people clapping on the fourth beat in his song D.M.S.R.

betao
06-05-2008, 09:54 AM
this guy's probably got a high IQ

FSovRFisxTc

looks like a case of the mondays.

Young blood
06-05-2008, 10:03 AM
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f93/auroramndz/whtppl.jpg

rage patton
06-05-2008, 11:37 AM
I love this video. I don't care if it's old.

Aa5KSu9OMDQ

That was pretty awesome. The beat that starts at 48 seconds sounds like an Underworld song.

RotationSlimWang
06-05-2008, 12:00 PM
Prince talks about white people clapping on the fourth beat in his song D.M.S.R.

Fourth beat? That can't be right. The problem with white people is clapping on one and three instead of two and four.

mountmccabe
06-05-2008, 12:00 PM
The bit Alchemy brings up (and Jack's solid response) reminds me that I wanted to comment on this bit from the article linked to in the original post:


If such differences in intelligence were purported to have a genetic basis, as David Duke proclaimed on his Web site with such naked glee, all of the social intervention in the world could have only so much effect. (Head Start? Why bother, when nature is to blame.) Sooner or later, in a time of increasing economic scarcity, members of these supposedly "different" or "lesser" ethnic groups or genetic populations could very well find their life possibilities limited and perhaps even regulated. Who among us can doubt that this would be true?

My answer to that final (rhetorical) question is me. I mean, sure, idiots like David Duke might push for such things but that doesn't mean it is at all reasonable.

It is stupid to say that genes are the only influence on a person. It is just as stupid to say that genes have no influence on a person. Nature vs nurture is a stupid debate because it's a false dilemma.

Furthermore it is ridiculous to focus solely only IQ (or whatever) as a judge of a person as a whole. Any sort of test created has to work against a standard, against a goal. And there's no absolute goal, no such thing as absolute perfection, only local, situational.

Einstein wasn't the greatest person that ever lived; he was very good at math and physics but that's where that stops.

And furthermore, if everyone was like Albert Einstein the world would be terrible. Maybe even worse than a world with no one like Albert Einstein.

Evolutionarily/etc successful groups are diverse groups.


That's way more than I was planning on posting.

jackstraw94086
06-05-2008, 12:13 PM
I mean, sure, idiots like David Duke might push for such things but that doesn't mean it is at all reasonable.

and just the same, just because an asshole said it doesn't mean it isn't possible.



It is stupid to say that genes are the only influence on a person. It is just as stupid to say that genes have no influence on a person. Nature vs nurture is a stupid debate because it's a false dilemma.
nobody here ever tried to argue any of that.



Furthermore it is ridiculous to focus solely only IQ (or whatever) as a judge of a person as a whole. Any sort of test created has to work against a standard, against a goal. And there's no absolute goal, no such thing as absolute perfection, only local, situational.

everyone in this thread concedes that a single IQ stat doesn't define a person, and no "absolute goal" (whatever that means) was postulated. Situational goals do exist, however, and IQ is useful and accurate in some of those situations.



Einstein wasn't the greatest person that ever lived; he was very good at math and physics but that's where that stops.


And furthermore, if everyone was like Albert Einstein the world would be terrible. Maybe even worse than a world with no one like Albert Einstein.

I really don't see what citing an individual like Einstein has to do with any of this. I guess people are trying to say something like "being book smart isn't necessarily the best thing to be".

Again, that's something that was never argued.

People are way too defensive about this. The notion of quality of life or value to society is not at issue.


(however, isn't it interesting how human evolution appears to be producing increasingly booksmart humans?)

RotationSlimWang
06-05-2008, 12:42 PM
Relativity has not been proven.

Einstein was a smart motherfucker outside of physics. He was funny--the ultimate judge of intelligence.

And depending on how nuclear weapons turn out (which eventually has to be bad), there's a very good possibility the world would have been better off with no one like him. Complexity can't necessarily be said to have strictly improved the world. There was something to be said for dumber ages.

jackstraw94086
06-05-2008, 12:56 PM
Not to mention Einstein's notion of the Universal Constant has now been vindicated.

TomAz
06-05-2008, 12:57 PM
Einstein was something of an asshole though. Philanderer and irresponsible father (including an illegitimate child he never recognized or supported). the "gentle genius" stuff was a carefully cultivated public persona that wasn't really true.

or so say these books (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DEFDC1138F93BA2575AC0A9629582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print).

full on idle
06-05-2008, 12:57 PM
He does say on the four, I googled and checked. Maybe he's trying to help the white people.

jackstraw94086
06-05-2008, 01:02 PM
Einstein was something of an asshole though. Philanderer and irresponsible father (including an illegitimate child he never recognized or supported). the "gentle genius" stuff was a carefully cultivated public persona that wasn't really true.

or so say these books (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DEFDC1138F93BA2575AC0A9629582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print).

Irrelevent. Unless you're trying to suggest that higher intelligence and infidelity/irresponsible parenting are directly related. Good luck with that.

RotationSlimWang
06-05-2008, 01:02 PM
That's weird, and inaccurate. I guess even Prince can be dumb.

Jack--Universal Constant vindicated? The use of "vindicate" confuses me.

TomAz
06-05-2008, 01:04 PM
Irrelevent. Unless you're trying to suggest that higher intelligence and infidelity/irresponsible parenting are directly related. Good luck with that.

no, I'm substantiating John's point that the world would be better with no Einstein, than with everybody being (and behaving like) Einstein.

RotationSlimWang
06-05-2008, 01:08 PM
I think what you're trying to say is that smart guys sometimes act black, too.

jackstraw94086
06-05-2008, 01:10 PM
no, I'm substantiating John's point that the world would be better with no Einstein, than with everybody being (and behaving like) Einstein.

both you and john are picking on Einstein out of context then unless you're suggesting that his faults are a result of his intelligence.

RotationSlimWang
06-05-2008, 01:14 PM
Can you prove they aren't?

RotationSlimWang
06-05-2008, 01:14 PM
That was for Jack, of course.

algunz
06-05-2008, 01:18 PM
This is becoming a pissing contest. Very cute.

jackstraw94086
06-05-2008, 01:21 PM
That was for Jack, of course.

yeah "vindicated" isn't completely accurate because Einstein was somewhat right, but not exactly for the right reason.

His constant that he used to resolve a gravity and a static universe was tossed out with the big bang theory, but like WastedTime said, scientists have relatively recently discovered that the universal expansion is actually accelerating. So his gravitational constant was actually replaced by dark matter, but in a way he was sort of right. There is a force out there that is preventing the eventual collapse of the universe.

algunz
06-05-2008, 01:23 PM
You are not miserable or drunk, you're not allowed in here.

Now, how would you know that? Unless you are omnipotent, which I guess should allow the win in this pissing contest.

RotationSlimWang
06-05-2008, 01:30 PM
Well shit, I could've told you everything was accelerating. Scientists are dumb.

TomAz
06-05-2008, 02:13 PM
are you the product of a slave raped by his master, you are obviously not dumb enough to be black, possible a mix though.

You're like the Special Olympics kid.

bmack86
06-05-2008, 02:15 PM
This thread reminds me of a Family Guy quote where the male newscaster, thinking that he isn't on the air says, "And I plain just don't like black people."

mountmccabe
06-05-2008, 03:59 PM
and just the same, just because an asshole said it doesn't mean it isn't possible.

This is true.


It is stupid to say that genes are the only influence on a person. It is just as stupid to say that genes have no influence on a person. Nature vs nurture is a stupid debate because it's a false dilemma.


nobody here ever tried to argue any of that.

Alchemy did:

Why are people talking about IQ and race? Haven't you guys heard of Stephen Jay Gould? Isn't it quite clear that we can pretty much do without any thoughts which are sociobiological?



everyone in this thread concedes that a single IQ stat doesn't define a person, and no "absolute goal" (whatever that means) was postulated. Situational goals do exist, however, and IQ is useful and accurate in some of those situations.

I agree here.



I really don't see what citing an individual like Einstein has to do with any of this. I guess people are trying to say something like "being book smart isn't necessarily the best thing to be".

Again, that's something that was never argued.

It had not been stated explicitly in this thread but posting a picture of Einstein tends to be rather loaded.

And my take on one of your first posts in this thread:

that watson guy's pretty smart. If he says it then who are we to say it isn't true? Doesn't he know more about genetics than the average whiney politically correct tightass?

Was that you were sarcastically mocking the very same idea; that Watson is "smart" and therefore an expert on everything. The Watson comments being discussed weren't about or supported by genetics and I figured you were in on that.



People are way too defensive about this. The notion of quality of life or value to society is not at issue.

It's one of those "it goes without saying" things that I felt uncomfortable participating in the discussion without actually saying.



(however, isn't it interesting how human evolution appears to be producing increasingly booksmart humans?)

There's a difference between evolution and cultural development.

mountmccabe
06-05-2008, 04:34 PM
Wow dude, wow, try to ah, not sound like an idiot by using crappy analogies.

Einstein, pretty much the most ridiculous thing that fucking took place on the earth since Leibniz. So don't pretend like you understand his pattern of thought or how he behaves around himself with other people with a statement like "if everyone was like Albert Einstein the world would be terrible. Maybe even worse than a world with no one like Albert Einstein." the latter part of that statement is just not true, and I am pretty sure you did not think through the rest of the statement... If you had even taken a basic physic class or just read a book on relativity, you would have never said "...Maybe even worse than a world with no one like Albert Einstein." The world we live in today, has no Albert Einstein. Relativity was not at first a physics question, it was a philosophical question, Einstein just proved it with mechanistic terminology. Before relativity, people thought everything happens and happened at the same time, but then Einstein came along, and FOREVER changed the world of science, everything that concerns reality, including biological and economical systems, must be concerned now with relativity. So please don't think that Einstein was..."only good at math and physics." Everything else to Einstein, was trivial, so he just concerned himself more with math.

I took a basic physics class in 11th grade. And then my friends and I set up our own self-directed study class to study further in 12th grade. And I took 3 or 4 more physics classes at the university level including Modern Physics (not an introductory course) and have plenty of reading on my own. I don't claim to understand everything and I am not a physicist by trade so that is admittedly not my focus but I'm not the uneducated moron you seem to assume I am.

What I was trying to say, though, with the "if everyone was like Albert Einstein the world would be terrible. Maybe even worse than a world with no one like Albert Einstein" was that the world needs uneducated morons. The world needs people that are interested in and focused upon different things. The world needs people with different skills.

When I say that I'm not denying that Einstein was a brilliant man. I'm not denying that he started/caused/etc several significant revolutions in how the world is viewed and I'm not underestimating the effects of those changes.

What I was saying... well, it's not really important. You either didn't understand or dismissed what I said thinking I was a moron. And, seriously, I can't even begin to imagine what kind of person it would take to argue that a world of Einstein clones would be a good thing.



And when you say, "Evolutionary/etc successful groups are diverse groups."
You also are wrong in the context you used it. There is a very easy system used to class evolutionary distance based on genetics, and sometimes environmental influenced behavior(eib) : its called biological taxonomy. Taxonomic classes are; species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom and domain.

Humans fall under the same species, they only have eib differences now, which can overtime change even the original genetics, but not by any "diverse" standards.

A population of only Einsteins would be less diverse than our current population. That is the context in which I used "diverse." That population of only Einsteins would be very fragile; they'd all be susceptible to the same maladies.

And, as I was saying above, there'd be exactly one model (so to speak) for every single task required. That model would be great at math and physics and some types of philosophy and I'm sure it would do well at many other things... but there'd be huge gaps and no way of ever filling them. The population wouldn't last long enough to evolve so that there'd be some variety.

mountmccabe
06-05-2008, 04:44 PM
Relativity has not been proven.

You don't understand how science works. Or, at least, how science uses words like "theory" and "proof."

Special Theory of Relativity is not a thing that can be proven, much like Gravitational Theory or the Theory of Evolution.

These aren't theories in the sense that they are hypotheses that are argued about.

They can't be proven true even though they can be proven false. They're valid theories because they haven't been proven false, because they are useful and accurate and offer valid predictions.

They're also not complete or assumed to be perfect. That isn't how such things work.

RotationSlimWang
06-05-2008, 04:49 PM
I am well aware how science works, and of the terminology of "theory." Relativity certainly could be proven in so far as anything in existence can be proven, but we are not remotely close to the capabilites by which we could produce any evidentiary data for it. For starters, light speed would be a little required. That's a ways off. I personally think relativity is bullshit for other reasons, but the point I think you are trying to make is that relativity is more of a concept by which perceiving the effects of space, time, and velocity can be shaped--not a force or relationship in and of itself. Just a different lens.

Please don't tell me I don't understand how science works while tossing shitbombs at the guy who discovered DNA. Thanks. =)

jackstraw94086
06-05-2008, 05:00 PM
Alchemy did:
missed that. sorry.



It had not been stated explicitly in this thread but posting a picture of Einstein tends to be rather loaded.
granted. I find it unfortunate that Einstein was even brought up.




Was that you were sarcastically mocking the very same idea; that Watson is "smart" and therefore an expert on everything. The Watson comments being discussed weren't about or supported by genetics and I figured you were in on that.

It was a bit of both. I realize watson's comments didn't have actual targeted studies (that we know of) behind them. It was more a knee-jerk reaction to instantly discrediting the entire notion of differences amongst races just because they found the delivery upsetting. Watson may be old school but his educational guess is worth more in my book than the average rube on the internet who just "knows" he's wrong without any qualification to say so.




It's one of those "it goes without saying" things that I felt uncomfortable participating in the discussion without actually saying.

I don't think it should go without saying. I think people should read the thread and excersize some thought before demonstrating how homogenously stupid they human race can be.




There's a difference between evolution and cultural development.I'm talking in an even grander scale, as in the development of civilization. The adaptions that we've developed to enable culture itself. I shouldn't have said "humans". Our brains have been getting bigger and bigger with apparently no other biological advantage than to enable complex thought and problem solving. There's no other excuse. Physically, big brains are a huge liability and disadvantage to survival.

mountmccabe
06-05-2008, 05:03 PM
You still misused the word "proof." Or, rather, "proven."

Also I fail to see how clarifying for folks reading along at home that you don't know what you're making a common error has to do with anything I've said about Watson. I also don't understand how I'm "tossing shitbombs" at him. My first post in this thread was defending him. At least to the point of saying that we should knock him for his real faults rather than for stuff that is misrepresented and misapplied by various bigots.

RotationSlimWang
06-05-2008, 05:13 PM
Tossing shitbombs is still an amusing term. Perhaps you should have just adapted your interpretation of "proven" to take into account that we all know it's something that can't be empirically proven instead of lecturing me like a high school student. Thanks.

mountmccabe
06-05-2008, 05:22 PM
missed that. sorry.

granted. I find it unfortunate that Einstein was even brought up.

No problem. And agreed.



It was a bit of both. I realize watson's comments didn't have actual targeted studies (that we know of) behind them. It was more a knee-jerk reaction to instantly discrediting the entire notion of differences amongst races just because they found the delivery upsetting. Watson may be old school but his educational guess is worth more in my book than the average rube on the internet who just "knows" he's wrong without any qualification to say so.

If I had to choose between Watson's educated guess (his comments were at least tangentially related to his fields of study) and the average rube, sure, I'd tend towards Watson. BUT I don't have to decide, right now, in the discussed situation. I don't have to accept an argument from authority (such as it is) blindly; I can take time to think and weigh the actual evidence. And the burden of proof is on folks that make grandiose or new or controversial claims.

Also, being an asshole does not make one wrong but it does tend to get in the way of effecting positive change, of convincing people that what you are saying is reasonable.



I don't think it should go without saying. I think people should read the thread and excersize some thought before demonstrating how homogenously stupid they human race can be.

Agreed.



I'm talking in an even grander scale, as in the development of civilization. The adaptions that we've developed to enable culture itself. I shouldn't have said "humans". Our brains have been getting bigger and bigger with apparently no other biological advantage than to enable complex thought and problem solving. There's no other excuse. Physically, big brains are a huge liability and disadvantage to survival.

Your last sentence is one of the big reasons there aren't other sentient species on the planet. It's a feature that doesn't do a lot of good except in the long term. Once it gets going, though, it feeds upon itself and becomes very useful.

MissingPerson
06-05-2008, 05:26 PM
I think the Einstein tangent was my fault from waaaaaaaaaaay back. Sorry all.

RotationSlimWang
06-05-2008, 05:27 PM
Einstein told me Puerto Ricans are fucking RETARDED.

MissingPerson
06-05-2008, 05:34 PM
Einstein told me yo mama's ass is HUGE, assuming there's some constant by which it can be relatively measured and still considered huge to an observer, regardless of their position or speed relative to the ass in question. Not a barrel of laughs, Einstein.

Which reminds me, I can't work out, is Puerto Rican hate like... your default thing, or do you think I, specifically, am Puerto Rican?

jackstraw94086
06-05-2008, 05:40 PM
And the burden of proof is on folks that make grandiose or new or controversial claims.

IMO the idea that every branch of human evolution, however short, has EXACTLY the same developed capacity for intelligence is more outrageous and grandiose than the alternative, which is that there could be differences, however small. And again, I'm not even assuming whites are at the top. Whites may have come to positions of power because of their relative advances in technology (which were likely no greater than the Asians') accelerated by environmental factors combined perhaps with an innately higher aggression instinct. Who knows. The Chinese were pretty smart. They taught us how to make noodles. Maybe if blacks had guns and boats etc. as good as whites did at the time whites may be sweating away on african plantations. Black Watson might would be talking about how it's naive to assume whites could think as quick as blacks.






Your last sentence is one of the big reasons there aren't other sentient species on the planet. It's a feature that doesn't do a lot of good except in the long term. Once it gets going, though, it feeds upon itself and becomes very useful.
I'd say that the larger brains did do instant good at every step of the way. Nature doesn't invest in the future at the expense of the present. Richard Dawkins is good at explaining what creationists would like to consider examples of "irreducible complexity". Every aspect of evolution that looks designed (the eye is usually the example of an organ that many people refuse to believe could have come into existence randomly) can be shown to be the result of many small steps. He's got a book called "Climbing Mount Improbable" that goes deep into it (I only know of it from his condensed explanation in "The God Delusion").

RotationSlimWang
06-05-2008, 05:44 PM
Einstein told me yo mama's ass is HUGE, assuming there's some constant by which it can be relatively measured and still considered huge to an observer, regardless of their position or speed relative to the ass in question. Not a barrel of laughs, Einstein.

Which reminds me, I can't work out, is Puerto Rican hate like... your default thing, or do you think I, specifically, am Puerto Rican?

It wasn't directed at you, I'm just trying to keep this thread appropriately racist since it evolved into something not so much.

MissingPerson
06-05-2008, 05:46 PM
Oh right, fair enough. In which case I'd like to restate my racism against South Africans. Racist bastards.

RotationSlimWang
06-05-2008, 05:48 PM
Seriously. The worst is South African Puerto Ricans. FUCKING RETARDED.


Plus it's way funny to imagine Einstein slipping into a moment of unveiled bigotry at such an odd target. "Well I first got the idea for relativity when I was chucking rotten tomatoes at some Jap bitch walking down the street. I was all, 'Take this, slanty!' and then, BOOM--relativity. DON'T QUESTION MY PROCESS!"

MissingPerson
06-05-2008, 05:57 PM
That is a brilliant image.

Thing is, if Einstein turned out to be a nazi, it would just punch a quantum irony hole right in the universe, and then reality would collapse. That's science right there.

mountmccabe
06-05-2008, 06:03 PM
I'd say that the larger brains did do instant good at every step of the way. Nature doesn't invest in the future at the expense of the present. Richard Dawkins is good at explaining what creationists would like to consider examples of "irreducible complexity". Every aspect of evolution that looks designed (the eye is usually the example of an organ that many people refuse to believe could have come into existence randomly) can be shown to be the result of many small steps. He's got a book called "Climbing Mount Improbable" that goes deep into it (I only know of it from his condensed explanation in "The God Delusion").

His book "The Blind Watchmaker" tackles that topic well; that's the only book of his I've read other than "River Out of Eden" but that's just a short overview.

Also I agree. What I said was "doesn't do a lot of good" which is very different from "doesn't do any good." It certainly did some good, which is why it was passed on.

My point was that it doesn't do enough immediate good for it to be passed on in a lot of species. Large brains certainly have value but they are also very costly (so to speak.) They don't do things for you (so to speak) they help you do the things that you do better, more efficiently. They are a luxury item.

Larger brain size isn't always an immediate positive (when taking into account opportunity costs), which is why we see more legs and lungs and claws than huge brains.

Then again maybe what I am saying doesn't make sense. Or is just plain wrong. I don't know, I'm kinda speculating here.

MissingPerson
06-05-2008, 06:13 PM
Internet science fights are the coolest kind of fight, definitely.

MissingPerson
06-05-2008, 06:16 PM
Dude! You changed my answer by observing it!

RotationSlimWang
06-05-2008, 06:36 PM
Thing is, if Einstein turned out to be a nazi, it would just punch a quantum irony hole right in the universe, and then reality would collapse. That's science right there.

Let's be best friends.

MissingPerson
06-05-2008, 07:06 PM
My scientific reasoning is flawless. I'd blaze a trail right through the scientific world if it weren't for that one terrible weakness holding me back.

http://www.bostonblueyes.com/blog/tracy.jpg

Curse you, math.

RotationSlimWang
06-05-2008, 07:08 PM
Aw, man, you're a woman?

I retract my offer of friendship.

MissingPerson
06-05-2008, 07:13 PM
Sigh. I understand.

SjxY9rZwNGU

RotationSlimWang
06-05-2008, 07:16 PM
Yeah. That's more like it. Now bend over.

Yablonowitz
06-05-2008, 09:01 PM
You can not define intelligence without demonstrating the bias of values in the society you come from. There is no neutral intelligence that would help make one as successful in one form of society from another. What is called intelligence is just the ability to succeed in the environment you live in and means nothing about the quality of your humanity (which I know most people aren't claiming).


Also, there's this from an article in Scientific American:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=how-stereotyping-yourself-contributes-to-success

Stereotype Threat
In the past decade such issues have been put on center stage by social psychologists who have been researching the phenomenon of ďstereotype threat.Ē The impressive body of work they have built up demonstrates not only that such underperformance occurs but also that it is especially common for individuals who are aware that their group is considered inferior to others with which it is compared. Pioneering studies conducted at Stanford University by Claude Steele and Joshua Aronson are particularly illuminating in this respect.

Steele and Aronsonís classic demonstration of stereotype threat emerged from a series of studies in the mid-1990s in which high-achieving African-American students at Stanford completed questions from the verbal Graduate Record Examinations (GRE) under conditions where they thought either that the test was measuring intelligence or that it was not a test of ability at all. Intriguingly, these participantsí performance was much worse when they were told that the test was a measure of intelligence. This slide, the researchers argued, occurred because ďin situations where the stereotype is applicable, one is at risk of confirming it as a self-characterization, both to oneís self and to others who know the stereotype.Ē

Yablonowitz
06-06-2008, 07:06 AM
There are more issues than biasness to consider when trying to interpret intelligence. Intelligence is an opinion all by itself. That is why people like James Watson are saying iq.

You lack reading comprehension skills.

jackstraw94086
06-06-2008, 08:52 AM
You lack reading comprehension skills. IQ is just an attempt to capture an opinion into a quantifiable entity. IQ is just a different way of expressing that opinion.

You're still fixated on the word "IQ". Stop thinking of it as a number.
Intelligence as a basic notion of problem solving skill capacity is not conjured from nowhere and not completely dependent on the society that teaches you.

"smart" people in the sense we're discussing here are extremely likely to excel in any society. Their brains are firing on more cylinders than the average person. They remember things better (and it's more than just idiot savants that can remember shit), they can comprehend large, complex, abstract concepts better than the average person. They may be able to predict other people's behavior and interactions more quickly than the average person. Just giving one kid a science text book doesn't make him "smarter" than another who didn't get a chance to read it. People have different capacities to learn. Different isolated groups of people on a long enough time frame may have similar capacities to learn.

TomAz
06-06-2008, 09:06 AM
WAAHAHAHAHA fucking idiot and total liar. I know you didn't study or become intrigued in physics. Physics was my minor, Applied mathematics was my major, I know your lying about your skillzz. WOW just WOW. Special relativity... IS THE ONLY TYPE OF RELATIVITY THAT CAN BE MATHEMATICALLY PROVEN. Hense the name "special" it accounts for I think about .4% of forces in the Universe that can possibly occur at any given time, p`y^3 = U`x^2, bitches. Stick that in your Eigenvectors and smoke it. General Relativity, is a theory which encompasses "Gravitational Theory," which I have never heard called that in my life, it is either Gravitational Field strength or General Relativity dumbass.

AND FURTHERMORE, this bullshit about "they're also not complete or assumed to be perfect."

I believe you just struckout there. Special Relativity, Gravity, Evolution.... they proved that shit. You could try it out at home just jump off your fucking roof you, you pultrybrain fuck.

and "evolution" has no theory, is constantly proving itself. Its natural selection that is the theory if you want to get specific. Natural Selection is very very detailed in its "proof," which in biology you will find, doesn't really exist, BECAUSE OF THE CONSTANT "EVOLUTION" of itself, reproving its proof, rather philosophical I might add, but the original proof of evolution if just something that even I don't fully understand, and don't believe anyone else would here. Maybe the concepts behind it, but not the function of determination and dominating factors, so dont bring it up, or I will destroy your brain, if you have one.

you just slammed the intelligence of a guy with a chemical engineering degree from a pretty good school. just sayin'.




P.S. I'm sorry daddy didn't hug you enough.

Yablonowitz
06-06-2008, 09:48 AM
You're still fixated on the word "IQ". Stop thinking of it as a number.
Intelligence as a basic notion of problem solving skill capacity is not conjured from nowhere and not completely dependent on the society that teaches you.

"smart" people in the sense we're discussing here are extremely likely to excel in any society. Their brains are firing on more cylinders than the average person. They remember things better (and it's more than just idiot savants that can remember shit), they can comprehend large, complex, abstract concepts better than the average person. They may be able to predict other people's behavior and interactions more quickly than the average person. Just giving one kid a science text book doesn't make him "smarter" than another who didn't get a chance to read it. People have different capacities to learn. Different isolated groups of people on a long enough time frame may have similar capacities to learn.

I don't really know anything about this. I just have a bias that leans heavily toward equality - not samness - but equality in general. And that differences in whatever we mean by smarts or cognitive skills are mostly the product of environmental factors and in the valuing of some skills over other skills. From what I can see out there in the field of "experts" is consistently inconsistent in terms of coming up with an explanation for differences between racial/ethnic groups.

I do find the results of the studies detailed in that Scientific American article worth considering.

RotationSlimWang
06-06-2008, 09:50 AM
A bias for equality is still a bias. Tell me how your equality explains professional sports.

Yablonowitz
06-06-2008, 10:11 AM
A bias for equality is still a bias. Tell me how your equality explains professional sports.

Well, first of all I was talking about the elusive concept of intelligence/smarts/congnitive abilities. But I'll put that aside for right now.

When you look at racial grouping in sports you see blacks over-represented (in relation to their population in the US) in basketball and football. You also see them under-represented in hockey, golf, tennis, etc.

Baseball is the most interesting sport because it is one of the most diverse. It's also, I would argue, a sport that one has to have a more general skillset to succeed in. I don't know the over/under representation of racial/ethic groups in that sport, but my hunch is that it is less than either basketball or football.

Now, I'm not about to dispute genetics as a factor in these differences. That's completely ridiculous to do so (just as I would never argue that men are biologically the same as women), but I don't think we can dismiss environmental factors either. Basketball is a sport that can most easily be played in the areas where you're likely to find quasi-segregated communities. Likewise, golf and hockey are more easily accessible sports in certain regions and communities where you will find clusterings of people more likely to fall in a specific socio-economic section.

Beyond that, the sports where you find an overrepresentation of blacks are team sports and white overrepresentation is largely in individual sports, with the exception of hockey.

So, I see that and I come to the conclusion that there is more than just biological differences in the overall disproportionate representation.

But I'm not sure how this applies to my bias (and that's all it is) toward general equality, I'm not saying "sameness."

jackstraw94086
06-06-2008, 10:14 AM
I don't really know anything about this. I just have a bias that leans heavily toward equality - not samness - but equality in general. And that differences in whatever we mean by smarts or cognitive skills are mostly the product of environmental factors and in the valuing of some skills over other skills. From what I can see out there in the field of "experts" is consistently inconsistent in terms of coming up with an explanation for differences between racial/ethnic groups.

I do find the results of the studies detailed in that Scientific American article worth considering.



Point: if you can believe that "intelligence" (in an abstract, yablo-approved sense) can vary from person to person, then it has to be possible that it varies from people to people.

You can treat people equally while still accepting differences.

I fail to find a lot of science in that article. Its message is basically "don't psych yourself out just because you're not supposed to win." It's saying people do worse than they normally would if they acknowledge stereotype pressure. It doesn't suggest that everyone inherently performs the same.

Yablonowitz
06-06-2008, 10:31 AM
Point: if you can believe that "intelligence" (in an abstract, yablo-approved sense) can vary from person to person, then it has to be possible that it varies from people to people.

You can treat people equally while still accepting differences.

I fail to find a lot of science in that article. Its message is basically "don't psych yourself out just because you're not supposed to win." It's saying people do worse than they normally would if they acknowledge stereotype pressure. It doesn't suggest that everyone inherently performs the same.

I think the article is interesting in a limited sense of trying to understand why there are differences in test scores between whites and blacks.

We are basically saying the same thing in different ways, I think. Aren't we?

But, hey, I have no approved concept of what intelligence means. That's not to say I don't think you're a dumbass though.

higgybaby23
06-06-2008, 11:32 AM
Dude! You changed my answer by observing it!

Quantum physics humor? Well played!

mountmccabe
06-06-2008, 11:47 AM
WAAHAHAHAHA fucking idiot and total liar. I know you didn't study or become intrigued in physics. Physics was my minor, Applied mathematics was my major, I know your lying about your skillzz. WOW just WOW. Special relativity... IS THE ONLY TYPE OF RELATIVITY THAT CAN BE MATHEMATICALLY PROVEN. Hense the name "special" it accounts for I think about .4% of forces in the Universe that can possibly occur at any given time, p`y^3 = U`x^2, bitches. Stick that in your Eigenvectors and smoke it. General Relativity, is a theory which encompasses "Gravitational Theory," which I have never heard called that in my life, it is either Gravitational Field strength or General Relativity dumbass.

AND FURTHERMORE, this bullshit about "they're also not complete or assumed to be perfect."

I believe you just struckout there. Special Relativity, Gravity, Evolution.... they proved that shit. You could try it out at home just jump off your fucking roof you, you pultrybrain fuck.

and "evolution" has no theory, is constantly proving itself. Its natural selection that is the theory if you want to get specific. Natural Selection is very very detailed in its "proof," which in biology you will find, doesn't really exist, BECAUSE OF THE CONSTANT "EVOLUTION" of itself, reproving its proof, rather philosophical I might add, but the original proof of evolution if just something that even I don't fully understand, and don't believe anyone else would here. Maybe the concepts behind it, but not the function of determination and dominating factors, so dont bring it up, or I will destroy your brain, if you have one.

I find it interesting that you ignored my response in the conversation we were having and attacked what I said in a comment to Randy.

Also I never claimed or meant to imply that I had studied physics more than you, just that I do have some background in the subject.

But this is a tangent off a tangent in a ridiculous thread. And you're claiming that jumping off a roof "proves" gravity.

And I seem to get the impression that in addition to calling me a liar with respect to schooling you seem to think that I don't accept General Relativity or Evolution or whatever the fuck. Which means you're reading my posts very selectively, jumping at any possible chance to attack rather than engaging in a reasonable discussion, actually attempting to understand what I'm saying.

That doesn't sound very fun to me.


Also, see, Jack? I don't think this guy's a moron but he's certainly an asshole showing off poor writing skills so he's not going to get anywhere.

jackstraw94086
06-06-2008, 11:49 AM
I think the article is interesting in a limited sense of trying to understand why there are differences in test scores between whites and blacks.

We are basically saying the same thing in different ways, I think. Aren't we?

But, hey, I have no approved concept of what intelligence means. That's not to say I don't think you're a dumbass though.

that article is only suggesting that blacks MAY score lower on tests because they understand that society expects them to or at least doesn't expect them to excel. It also says the same about women in sports.

I don't think we're not saying the same thing.

And c'mon. You must understand the concept of a person being smarter in a general sense than another person.

jackstraw94086
06-06-2008, 11:50 AM
Also, see, Jack? I don't think this guy's a moron but he's certainly an asshole showing off poor writing skills so he's not going to get anywhere.

are you analogizing him and me?

mountmccabe
06-06-2008, 11:52 AM
So, I see that and I come to the conclusion that there is more than just biological differences in the overall disproportionate representation.

Yes. There is certainly more going on than just genes. But that doesn't mean that genes are nothing.

It's an error to go too far either way.



You can treat people equally while still accepting differences.

Yes. Exactly.

jackstraw94086
06-06-2008, 11:55 AM
yablo thinks everyone claps on 1.5 and 3.5

Yablonowitz
06-06-2008, 11:55 AM
The Earth is shaped like a burrito.

Yablonowitz
06-06-2008, 11:55 AM
yablo thinks everyone claps on 1.5 and 3.5

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Fucker.

I like 1&3 and 2&4 though. Like 'em both.

mountmccabe
06-06-2008, 12:01 PM
are you analogizing him and me?

Haha. No. Not at all.

I was jokingly referencing earlier comments re: David Duke and James Watsons about assholes and how that doesn't mean they're wrong but how it does mean they're going to have problems getting anyone to reasonably consider their views.

I'm not saying WastedTime is totally wrong - I do think he's misusing a good amount of terminology (or at least using it differently than I have learned to use it) - but the incoherence combined with the belligerance means it'sn't going to cause me to lose any sleep.

Yablonowitz
06-06-2008, 01:02 PM
Yes. There is certainly more going on than just genes. But that doesn't mean that genes are nothing.

It's an error to go too far either way.


You just said what I just said.

Sometimes I question your intelligence, Mac.

MissingPerson
06-06-2008, 01:13 PM
Quantum physics humor? Well played!

Ahthankyou.

Young blood
06-12-2008, 10:05 AM
METRO NEWS BRIEFS: CONNECTICUT; Judge Rules That Police Can Bar High I.Q. Scores


Published: September 9, 1999

A Federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by a man who was barred from the New London police force because he scored too high on an intelligence test.

In a ruling made public on Tuesday, Judge Peter C. Dorsey of the United States District Court in New Haven agreed that the plaintiff, Robert Jordan, was denied an opportunity to interview for a police job because of his high test scores. But he said that that did not mean Mr. Jordan was a victim of discrimination.

Judge Dorsey ruled that Mr. Jordan was not denied equal protection because the city of New London applied the same standard to everyone: anyone who scored too high was rejected.

Mr. Jordan, 48, who has a bachelor's degree in literature and is an officer with the State Department of Corrections, said he was considering an appeal. ''I was eliminated on the basis of my intellectual makeup,'' he said. ''It's the same as discrimination on the basis of gender or religion or race.''

TomAz
06-12-2008, 10:25 AM
9/9/99

full on idle
06-12-2008, 10:28 AM
Never Forget.