PDA

View Full Version : I thought that only "right tards" were fearful of Science...


txtebow
08-11-2013, 03:10 PM
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/opinion-jason-richwine-95353.html?hp=r17

“IQ is a metric of such dubiousness that almost no serious educational researcher uses it anymore,” the Guardian’s Ana Marie Cox wrote back in May. It was a breathtakingly ignorant statement. Psychologist Jelte Wicherts noted in response that a search for “IQ test” in Google’s academic database yielded more than 10,000 hits — just for the year 2013.

But Cox’s assertion is all too common. There is a large discrepancy between what educated laypeople believe about cognitive science and what experts actually know. Journalists are steeped in the lay wisdom, so they are repeatedly surprised when someone forthrightly discusses the real science of mental ability.

If that science happens to deal with group differences in average IQ, the journalists’ surprise turns into shock and disdain. Experts who speak publicly about IQ differences end up portrayed as weird contrarians at best, and peddlers of racist pseudoscience at worst.

I’m speaking from experience. My Harvard Ph.D. dissertation contains some scientifically unremarkable statements about ethnic differences in average IQ, including the IQ difference between Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites. For four years, the dissertation did what almost every other dissertation does — collected dust in the university library. But when it was unearthed in the midst of the immigration debate, I experienced the vilification firsthand.

For people who have studied mental ability, what’s truly frustrating is the déjà vu they feel each time a media firestorm like this one erupts. Attempts by experts in the field to defend the embattled messenger inevitably fall on deaf ears. When the firestorm is over, the media’s mindset always resets to a state of comfortable ignorance, ready to be shocked all over again when the next messenger comes along.

At stake here, incidentally, is not just knowledge for the sake of knowledge, but also how science informs public policy. The U.S. education system, for example, is suffused with mental testing, yet few in the political classes understand cognitive ability research. Angry and repeated condemnations of the science will not help.


THE PLAIN TRUTH? BOTH PARTIES AND THEIR LACKEYS WILL ONLY SUPPORT SCIENCE IF IT SUPPORTS THEIR ALREADY FORMED NOTIONS


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/9FnO3igOkOk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

txtebow
08-11-2013, 03:18 PM
Liberals think that IQ is largely irrelevant...... Until it's time to get a minority murderer off of death row.

Rohirrim
08-11-2013, 03:58 PM
Man! Is that guy naive, or what? Has he spent his entire life in the ivory tower? The danger does not come from the science. It comes from what some people might do with the science. Look at his last paragraph:

This is not just about academic freedom or any one scholar’s reputation. Cognitive differences can inform our understanding of a number of policy issues — everything from education, to military recruitment, to employment discrimination to, yes, immigration. Start treating the science of mental ability seriously, and both political discourse and public policy will be better for it.

"Better for it?" I highly doubt that. This is the kind of foundational criteria the Nazis used to select people for euthanasia.

txtebow
08-11-2013, 04:21 PM
Man! Is that guy naive, or what? Has he spent his entire life in the ivory tower? The danger does not come from the science. It comes from what some people might do with the science. Look at his last paragraph:

This is not just about academic freedom or any one scholar’s reputation. Cognitive differences can inform our understanding of a number of policy issues — everything from education, to military recruitment, to employment discrimination to, yes, immigration. Start treating the science of mental ability seriously, and both political discourse and public policy will be better for it.

"Better for it?" I highly doubt that. This is the kind of foundational criteria the Nazis used to select people for euthanasia.

Euthanasia? Reach much plastic man? Andwhat good is data if you're not willing to make INFORMED decisions based upon it? This is a football message board. Does the Broncos front office not have standards by which they measure and sort through potential members of our favorite football team? Admit it. It's science and it scares you.

W*GS
08-11-2013, 04:26 PM
Group differences are allowed to persecute specific individuals. That's what txtebow wants.

Never mind that the range of individual ability swamps the inter-group differences. txtebow and his ilk deliberately ignore that so they can engage in their collectivist bigotry.

Rohirrim
08-11-2013, 05:14 PM
Euthanasia? Reach much plastic man? Andwhat good is data if you're not willing to make INFORMED decisions based upon it? This is a football message board. Does the Broncos front office not have standards by which they measure and sort through potential members of our favorite football team? Admit it. It's science and it scares you.

Do you think the Broncos judge players by what racial group they belong to, or by what individual skills they bring to the game?

How would you implement this science? A few examples?

txtebow
08-11-2013, 05:50 PM
Do you think the Broncos judge players by what racial group they belong to, or by what individual skills they bring to the game?

How would you implement this science? A few examples?

I would do away with all race based initiatives and quotas in schools and in the work force. Let the cards fall where they may regarding achievement which if juxtaposed to America's current policies of explaining away in-congruencies in wealth and accomplishment as "White privilege" and therefore implementing programs designed to award unworthy candidates opportunity that they don't deserve based upon their own merits.

It's like keeping a roster spot on the Broncos for a 5.5 40 time WR solely because he fits a quota.......but that's our nation's policy in opportunity in education and business...

txtebow
08-11-2013, 05:51 PM
Group differences are allowed to persecute specific individuals. That's what txtebow wants.

Never mind that the range of individual ability swamps the inter-group differences. txtebow and his ilk deliberately ignore that so they can engage in their collectivist bigotry.

IQ Group differences in a civilized, western based society explain why White Privilege is a liberal MYTH.

txtebow
08-11-2013, 06:01 PM
The emotional mind cannot be moved by reason. Liberals are very emotional and even anti-reason, much to the same extent as the "creationist" Right wing morons are. It's yet another example of actually becoming that which you espouse to be steadfastly against:

1) I'm not racist, but I refuse to acknowledge racist practices of blacks towards whites.

2) "right-tards" are anti science! but I refuse to acknowledge that IQ and genetics play a role in accomplishment in a western civilized society despite Science baring that out....

txtebow
08-11-2013, 06:16 PM
But go ahead and criticize SCIENCE you hypocrites.
The reality is that psychometric outcomes are correlated with various academic and socio-economicoutcomes. Far more so than any other variable in psychology. Hence the use of things such as SAT's and psychometric tests in organizations and the military. 



University of Delaware Professor Linda Gottfredson has noted that this has implications in diverse societies where there are different group averages. 



Gottfredson, L. S. (2005).
Implications of cognitive differences for schooling within diverse societies. Pages 517-554 in C. L. Frisby & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Comprehensive
Handbook of Multicultural School Psychology. New York: Wiley. 





It is also extraordinary that people who claim to believe in evolution are so surprised at the suggestion that groups differ. Consider:

1. Behavioural traits, including cognitive ability, are heritable.

2. Different environments and cultures may favor different traits (greater re-productive success).

3. There is evidence of 1 standard deviation shifts in population average occurring over a 1000 year period. Groups were separated for 50,000 years, why wouldn't you expect to see population differences?

As Jonathan Haidt writes, it's only a matter of time before genomics reveals the basis for these differences.

"But the writing is on the wall. Russian scientists showed in the 1990s that a strong selection pressure (picking out and breeding only the tamest fox pups in each generation) created what was — in behavior as well as body — essentially a new species in just 30 generations. That would correspond to about 750 years for humans. Humans may never have experienced such a strong selection pressure for such a long period, but they surely experienced many weaker selection pressures that lasted far longer, and for which some heritable personality traits were more adaptive than others. It stands to reason that local populations (not continent-wide "races") adapted to local circumstances by a process known as "co-evolution" in which genes and cultural elements change over time and mutually influence each other. ..

Recent "sweeps" of the genome across human populations show that hundreds of genes have been changing during the last 5-10 millennia in response to local selection pressures. (See papers (See papers by Benjamin Voight, Scott Williamson, and Bruce Lahn).

http://www.edge.org/response-d...

Also, see Rindermann et al 'Haplogroups as evolutionary markers of cognitive ability' Intelligence Volume 40, Issue 4, July–August 2012, Pages 362–375. The authors conclude:

"Based on their evolutionary meaning and correlation with cognitive ability these haplogroups were grouped into two sets. Combined, they accounted in a regression and path analyses for 32–51% of the variance in national intelligence relative to the developmental indicator (35–58%). This pattern was replicated internationally with further controls (e.g. latitude, spatial autocorrelation etc.) and at the regional level in two independent samples (within Italy and Spain). These findings, using a conservative estimate of evolutionary influences, provide support for a mixed influence on national cognitive ability stemming from both current environmental and past environmental (evolutionary) factors."


Go spend $31.50 and enlighten yourselves.....http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289612000529

W*GS
08-11-2013, 07:47 PM
Yep - txtebow is playing the "whites are superior to blacks" canard.

As expected.

Never mind that he drags down the collective IQ of humanity...

txtebow
08-11-2013, 08:03 PM
Yep - txtebow is playing the "whites are superior to blacks" canard.

As expected.

Never mind that he drags down the collective IQ of humanity...

I'm simply pointing out the absolute hypocrisy of the leftist swine like you when it comes to critiquing the right wing about their aversion to science. You are no different. This thread is a prime example of that. What makes you worse than the right wing idiots? You pick and choose which science you choose to characterize as legitimate to suit your fallacies. leftists are not just disingenuous but cowardly as well...

W*GS
08-11-2013, 08:25 PM
I'm simply pointing out the absolute hypocrisy of the leftist swine like you when it comes to critiquing the right wing about their aversion to science. You are no different. This thread is a prime example of that. What makes you worse than the right wing idiots? You pick and choose which science you choose to characterize as legitimate to suit your fallacies. leftists are not just disingenuous but cowardly as well...

Thanks for posting just about what I thought you would...

Your favorite, eh?

http://tightrope.cc/catalog/images/whitepowerfist.gif

Rohirrim
08-11-2013, 09:39 PM
I would do away with all race based initiatives and quotas in schools and in the work force. Let the cards fall where they may regarding achievement which if juxtaposed to America's current policies of explaining away in-congruencies in wealth and accomplishment as "White privilege" and therefore implementing programs designed to award unworthy candidates opportunity that they don't deserve based upon their own merits.

It's like keeping a roster spot on the Broncos for a 5.5 40 time WR solely because he fits a quota.......but that's our nation's policy in opportunity in education and business...

It would make sense to give those who score less on the tests more help, wouldn't you think? Perhaps the best thing to do would be to segregate schools by race? Asians in one school, whites in another, etc. What do you do with mixed race kids?

And then there's immigration. Do we only allow asians and whites to emigrate to America? Or perhaps put quotas on the "lesser" races?

What group do Jews fit in with? Are they white?

You also seem to be implying with the above post that selective breeding might be a consideration. Should we simply make sure that whites only breed with whites, or should we test for the best of the whites and only allow them to breed? Is it okay for whites to breed with Asians? What if Asians decide that they shouldn't breed with whites?

And what do we do about hispanic breeding. They're outbreeding us whites. What should we do about it?

So many questions...

W*GS
08-11-2013, 10:37 PM
txtebow thinks blacks are inherently inferior, stupid, and violent.

Nothing he's written is evidence against that interpretation.

txtebow
08-12-2013, 06:35 AM
It would make sense to give those who score less on the tests more help, wouldn't you think? Perhaps the best thing to do would be to segregate schools by race? Asians in one school, whites in another, etc. What do you do with mixed race kids?

And then there's immigration. Do we only allow asians and whites to emigrate to America? Or perhaps put quotas on the "lesser" races?

What group do Jews fit in with? Are they white?

You also seem to be implying with the above post that selective breeding might be a consideration. Should we simply make sure that whites only breed with whites, or should we test for the best of the whites and only allow them to breed? Is it okay for whites to breed with Asians? What if Asians decide that they shouldn't breed with whites?

And what do we do about hispanic breeding. They're outbreeding us whites. What should we do about it?

So many questions...
See post #7. You're projecting your own personal biases onto me and my original point. Tried and true, when you are backed into a corner by fact simply yell "racism!"

Rohirrim
08-12-2013, 06:45 AM
See post #7. You're projecting your own personal biases onto me and my original point. Tried and true, when you are backed into a corner by fact simply yell "racism!"

You're the one who brought up the study. I'm just trying to get you to admit what the policy implications are. That's what it's all about. Even the writer sums up the article with that point.

You tell me what the policy implications are.

As far as your post #7 goes, that's the exact opposite policy I would expect from such a scientific finding. Seems to be that race-based special treatment should expand, not contract, in the interest of helping those who need the most help. Right?

txtebow
08-12-2013, 06:50 AM
You're the one who brought up the study. I'm just trying to get you to admit what the policy implications are. That's what it's all about. Even the writer sums up the article with that point.

You tell me what the policy implications are.

The policy implications are that we should do away with quotas for outcomes. Trying to fit a square peg into a round hole is the failure of your ilk and you choose to support artificial outcomes via government led programs. This study simply tells you that's like banging your head against the wall. Repeatedly.

Rohirrim
08-12-2013, 06:58 AM
The policy implications are that we should do away with quotas for outcomes. Trying to fit a square peg into a round hole is the failure of your ilk and you choose to support artificial outcomes via government led programs. This study simply tells you that's like banging your head against the wall. Repeatedly.

That's a very limited policy, based on these findings. How could education be successful if you put the naturally more advanced asian and white kids in the same classrooms with brown and black kids? Seems self-defeating. Wouldn't it hold back the asian and white kids? A policy of segregation is self-evident in these findings.

txtebow
08-12-2013, 07:08 AM
You're the one who brought up the study. I'm just trying to get you to admit what the policy implications are. That's what it's all about. Even the writer sums up the article with that point.

You tell me what the policy implications are.

As far as your post #7 goes, that's the exact opposite policy I would expect from such a scientific finding. Seems to be that race-based special treatment should expand, not contract, in the interest of helping those who need the most help. Right?


Our immigration system should be reformed to allow in only needed degreed professionals. Our post 1960s immigration policy has favored and led to an increase in uneducated low IQ third worlders... Another abysmal failure of your political ilk.

txtebow
08-12-2013, 07:12 AM
That's a very limited policy, based on these findings. How could education be successful if you put the naturally more advanced asian and white kids in the same classrooms with brown and black kids? Seems self-defeating. Wouldn't it hold back the asian and white kids? A policy of segregation is self-evident in these findings.

Interesting you focus on this. Incredibly diverse Florida has a policy it wishes to implement to deal with just your concern...... And it's to hold AA's and Latinos to lower educational standards....sad really.

EDIT: apparently Virginia is attempting to implement the same policies...


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/12/echoing-virginia-florida-_n_1959151.html

txtebow
08-12-2013, 07:25 AM
Making fun of Right Wingers who don't believe in evolution is like shooting fish in a barrel! However, science that challenges your most basic leftist assumptions is NOT truly science, right? Any intellectually honest person who reads this thread is going to be taken aback by your blatant hypocrisy. ROFL!

"Right Tards are ANTI-SCIENCE!" --Roh, Wigs, etc

Rohirrim
08-12-2013, 07:37 AM
Making fun of Right Wingers who don't believe in evolution is like shooting fish in a barrel! However, science that challenges your most basic leftist assumptions is NOT truly science, right? Any intellectually honest person who reads this thread is going to be taken aback by your blatant hypocrisy. ROFL!

"Right Tards are ANTI-SCIENCE!" --Roh, Wigs, etc

Nobody is arguing about the science. We're talking about the policy implications of such a finding and trying to understand why you would, on the one hand, cherry pick this particular study out of the world of science and post it on this board, and then refuse to openly state what you think the implications of such a study are.

txtebow
08-12-2013, 07:51 AM
Nobody is arguing about the science. We're talking about the policy implications of such a finding and trying to understand why you would, on the one hand, cherry pick this particular study out of the world of science and post it on this board, and then refuse to openly state what you think the implications of such a study are.

But in fact you ARE Anti Science for the simple fact that you and your ilk support artificial outcomes via government led programs. I already stated the implications of the study; outcomes will never be equal unless artificial intervention takes place in the form of AA and quotas. This and other studies explain why. Artificial intervention makes our country weaker. The Broncos holding a roster spot for 5.5 second 40 yard dash running WR is the perfect analogy for it....

Rohirrim
08-12-2013, 07:59 AM
But in fact you ARE Anti Science for the simple fact that you and your ilk support artificial outcomes via government led programs. I already stated the implications of the study; outcomes will never be equal unless of artificial intervention. Artificial intervention makes our country weaker. The Broncos holding a roster spot for 5.5 second 40 yard dash running WR is the perfect analogy for it....

I've got an ilk? I wish they would chip in once in awhile.

What is an "artificial outcome?"

What is "artificial intervention?"

So, helping those who are fundamentally less advanced is pandering to weakness and will lead to the downfall of our nation, or simply losing the great, existential ballgame? Seems rather anti-Christian. I thought we were supposed to reach out and help the less fortunate?

txtebow
08-12-2013, 08:21 AM
I've got an ilk? I wish they would chip in once in awhile.

What is an "artificial outcome?"

What is "artificial intervention?"

So, helping those who are fundamentally less advanced is pandering to weakness and will lead to the downfall of our nation, or simply losing the great, existential ballgame? Seems rather anti-Christian. I thought we were supposed to reach out and help the less fortunate?

Well let's break it down one word at a time:

Artificial: lacking in natural or spontaneous quality

Outcome: something that follows as a result or consequence


Any person who has been given an artificial opportunity based on their race through a government sanctioned program. Anyone who has benefitted from AA programs and set aside government grants. You're either for equality or you are not.....

Bacchus
08-12-2013, 08:32 AM
more times than not I am ashamed that i live in texass and I get associated with these rednecks.

Rohirrim
08-12-2013, 08:50 AM
Well let's break it down one word at a time:

Artificial: lacking in natural or spontaneous quality

Outcome: something that follows as a result or consequence


Any person who has been given an artificial opportunity based on their race through a government sanctioned program. Anyone who has benefitted from AA programs and set aside government grants. You're either for equality or you are not.....

In other words, education is artificial.

Rohirrim
08-12-2013, 09:31 AM
Here's the funny thing about this "science." The guy is a graduate student sponsored by the Koch Bros. American Enterprise Institute, who then moves on to the Heritage Foundation. They use his "science" to back up their anti-immigration policy. So, obviously they are big believers in science.

Oh, I mean except for when the science overwhelmingly supports the idea of man-made global warming. Then they're not such big believers.

houghtam
08-12-2013, 09:49 AM
I suppose the "science" used to defend the tobacco industry (paid for by the tobacco industry) was real "science" too.

LOL txtebow is a ****ing tool.

Rohirrim
08-12-2013, 10:42 AM
If we are going to start making policy decisions based on the tested out intelligence of people, I say we start with testing this guy:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/12/dana-rohrabacher-global-warming_n_3743390.html

txtebow
08-12-2013, 12:23 PM
Here's the funny thing about this "science." The guy is a graduate student sponsored by the Koch Bros. American Enterprise Institute, who then moves on to the Heritage Foundation. They use his "science" to back up their anti-immigration policy. So, obviously they are big believers in science.

Oh, I mean except for when the science overwhelmingly supports the idea of man-made global warming. Then they're not such big believers.

IQ studies have been going on for years with largely the same differentiation and score stratification. Again, another case of Liberals choosing to believe in Science when it suits them.....which makes you more vile than the right wing nut jobs who are simply ignorant. Your type is deceitful...

Rohirrim
08-12-2013, 12:41 PM
IQ studies have been going on for years with largely the same differentiation and score stratification. Again, another case of Liberals choosing to believe in Science when it suits them.....which makes you more vile than the right wing nut jobs who are simply ignorant. Your type is deceitful...

Okay. You like science? Let's try the largest single study into human cognition testing 100,000 people. And this one was conducted by the Canada Excellence Research Chair in Cognitive Neuroscience and Imaging, not a grad student working for the Heritage Foundation to support their immigration racism.

“For a century or more many people have thought that we can distinguish between people, or indeed populations, based on the idea of general intelligence which is often talked about in terms of a single number: IQ. We have shown here that’s just wrong,” he said.

Studies over the past 50 years based on IQ tests have suggested that there could be inherent differences in intelligence between racial groups, social classes and between men and women, but these conclusions are undermined by the latest findings, Dr Highfield said.

“We already know that, from a scientific point of view, the notion of race is meaningless. Genetic differences do not map on to traditional measurements of skin colour, hair type, body proportions and skull measurements. Now we have shown that IQ is meaningless too,” Dr Highfield said.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-finds-8425911.html

Like the organizations and ideas you shill for, you use selective science.

Why don't you have the guts to state clearly what you are really trying to sell here instead of constantly masking it in bull****?

The scientists found that no single component, or IQ, could explain all the variations revealed by the tests. The researcher then analysed the brain circuitry of 16 participants with a hospital MRI scanner and found that the three separate components corresponded to three distinct patterns of neural activity in the brain.

“It has always seemed to be odd that we like to call the human brain the most complex known object in the Universe, yet many of us are still prepared to accept that we can measure brain function by doing a few so-called IQ tests,” Dr Highfield said.

Another report on the same study: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121219133334.htm

W*GS
08-12-2013, 01:39 PM
If we are going to start making policy decisions based on the tested out intelligence of people, I say we start with testing this guy:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/12/dana-rohrabacher-global-warming_n_3743390.html

One of the biggest fookheads in Congress.

DenverBrit
08-12-2013, 02:31 PM
Okay. You like science? Let's try the largest single study into human cognition testing 100,000 people. And this one was conducted by the Canada Excellence Research Chair in Cognitive Neuroscience and Imaging, not a grad student working for the Heritage Foundation to support their immigration racism.

“For a century or more many people have thought that we can distinguish between people, or indeed populations, based on the idea of general intelligence which is often talked about in terms of a single number: IQ. We have shown here that’s just wrong,” he said.

Studies over the past 50 years based on IQ tests have suggested that there could be inherent differences in intelligence between racial groups, social classes and between men and women, but these conclusions are undermined by the latest findings, Dr Highfield said.

“We already know that, from a scientific point of view, the notion of race is meaningless. Genetic differences do not map on to traditional measurements of skin colour, hair type, body proportions and skull measurements. Now we have shown that IQ is meaningless too,” Dr Highfield said.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-finds-8425911.html

Like the organizations and ideas you shill for, you use selective science.

Why don't you have the guts to state clearly what you are really trying to sell here instead of constantly masking it in bull****?

The scientists found that no single component, or IQ, could explain all the variations revealed by the tests. The researcher then analysed the brain circuitry of 16 participants with a hospital MRI scanner and found that the three separate components corresponded to three distinct patterns of neural activity in the brain.

“It has always seemed to be odd that we like to call the human brain the most complex known object in the Universe, yet many of us are still prepared to accept that we can measure brain function by doing a few so-called IQ tests,” Dr Highfield said.

Another report on the same study: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121219133334.htm

Interestingly, that study received a lot of coverage. Apparently our resident 'race' expert didn't like its findings.

IQ tests 'do not reflect intelligence'

IQ tests are misleading because they do not accurately reflect intelligence,
according to a study which found that a minimum of three
different exams are needed to measure someone's brainpower.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9755929/IQ-tests-do-not-reflect-intelligence.html

txtebow
08-12-2013, 02:58 PM
more times than not I am ashamed that i live in texass and I get associated with these rednecks.

You should actually be ashamed for falling in line with the rest of the politically correct sheeple.........and I'm anything but a "redneck"...ironic since your speculating through your comment that I'm the one who is ignorant/prejudiced.

txtebow
08-12-2013, 03:02 PM
Interestingly, that study received a lot of coverage. Apparently our resident 'race' expert didn't like its findings.

IQ tests 'do not reflect intelligence'

IQ tests are misleading because they do not accurately reflect intelligence,
according to a study which found that a minimum of three
different exams are needed to measure someone's brainpower.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9755929/IQ-tests-do-not-reflect-intelligence.html

Right. IQ doesn't matter. It's pure coincidence that those who tend to score highest have split the atom, flown a man to the moon and developed life span altering vaccines. Nothing to see here.....

txtebow
08-12-2013, 03:06 PM
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/05/14/is-christopher-jencks-a-racist/

"What I do want to insist is that the premise behind almost all the attacks – that there is no empirical evidence of IQ differences between broad racial categories – is not true. It is true (pdf), if you accept the broad racial categories Americans use as shorthand for a bewilderingly complex DNA salad (a big if, of course). There’s no serious debate about that. The serious debate is about what importance to assign to the concept of “IQ” and about the possible reasons for the enduring discrepancies: environment, nurture, culture, or genes – or some variation of them all"

"But please don’t say truly stupid things like race has no biological element to it or that there is no data on racial differences in IQ (even though those differences are mild compared with overwhelming similarity). Denying empirical reality is not a good thing in any circumstance. In a university context, it is an embrace of illiberalism at its most pernicious and seductive: because its motives are good."

Rohirrim
08-12-2013, 03:20 PM
Don't forget this part:

For my part, I’ve come to doubt the existence of something called “g” or general intelligence, as the research has gathered over the years. I believe IQ is an artificial construct created to predict how well a random person is likely to do in an advanced post-industrial society. And that’s all it is. It certainly shouldn’t be conflated with some Platonic idea of “intelligence.” I don’t think it carries any moral weight at all, either, and I don’t think it should be used in any way in immigration policy. In fact, any public policy that rests on this kind of data is anathema to me. It’s far too close to eugenics, and to the morally repugnant idea that smarter people are somehow better in any meaningful sense.

txtebow
08-12-2013, 03:22 PM
Don't forget this part:

For my part, I’ve come to doubt the existence of something called “g” or general intelligence, as the research has gathered over the years. I believe IQ is an artificial construct created to predict how well a random person is likely to do in an advanced post-industrial society. And that’s all it is. It certainly shouldn’t be conflated with some Platonic idea of “intelligence.” I don’t think it carries any moral weight at all, either, and I don’t think it should be used in any way in immigration policy. In fact, any public policy that rests on this kind of data is anathema to me. It’s far too close to eugenics, and to the morally repugnant idea that smarter people are somehow better in any meaningful sense.

Then you're against affirmative action too? Great! We're getting somewhere..

DenverBrit
08-12-2013, 03:42 PM
Right. IQ doesn't matter. It's pure coincidence that those who tend to score highest have split the atom, flown a man to the moon and developed life span altering vaccines. Nothing to see here.....

Now who's being a 'disingenuous twat?' :spit:

txtebow
08-12-2013, 04:12 PM
Now who's being a 'disingenuous twat?' :spit:

There's nothing disingenuous about my post. I was simply showing your folly for everyone to see........

DenverBrit
08-12-2013, 04:30 PM
There's nothing disingenuous about my post. I was simply showing your folly for everyone to see........

Then you must simply be incapable of comprehending basic English, one or the other.

Now go and find where I claimed 'IQ doesn't matter' or are you so threatened by facts contrary to your agenda that you have to lie??

txtebow
08-12-2013, 04:52 PM
Then you must simply be incapable of comprehending basic English, one or the other.

Now go and find where I claimed 'IQ doesn't matter' or are you so threatened by facts contrary to your agenda that you have to lie??

You're making the assertion that IQ exams do not accurately predict INTELLIGENCE (that's what your posted article says)and that therefore IQ isn't an accurate predictor of success in a civilized modern society.

1)Since you don't feel that IQ measures intelligence, what do you think that IQ measures?

2)And why does whatever you decide IQ actually measures correlate with the likelihood of economic success in a modern society?
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/02/06/correlations-of-iq-with-income-and-wealth/

Requiem
08-12-2013, 05:32 PM
IQ is a pretty useless measurement of our intellectual capabilities or prowess.

txtebow
08-12-2013, 05:33 PM
IQ is a pretty useless measurement of our intellectual capabilities or prowess.

Says Requiem. Now go read my links above...

Requiem
08-12-2013, 05:54 PM
Says Requiem. Now go read my links above...

I had these debates in evolutionary and biological anthro courses as an undergrad. No reputable research exists that can identify polygenic differences between races that would lead anyone to believe a reputable link between race and IQ exists. Your statements are as dumb as nyuk'S who also brought this up a long time ago. Though he/she also tried to link cranial capacity (larger size = smarter) into the argument as well.

Pretty stupid.

DenverBrit
08-12-2013, 07:31 PM
You're making the assertion that IQ exams do not accurately predict INTELLIGENCE (that's what your posted article says)and that therefore IQ isn't an accurate predictor of success in a civilized modern society.

1)Since you don't feel that IQ measures intelligence, what do you think that IQ measures?

2)And why does whatever you decide IQ actually measures correlate with the likelihood of economic success in a modern society?
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/02/06/correlations-of-iq-with-income-and-wealth/

I made no such assertion. The study was the largest ever conducted and that's what I posted, as did others.

I'm sure you think you know what you're talking about, so explain how and why the research/study is wrong.

nyuk nyuk
08-12-2013, 09:25 PM
LOL We've already seen this here, which is why I said liberals fear and hate any science that contradicts The Narrative.

Dealing with many of these libs is like dealing with flat-earther fundie Christians or Muslims.

nyuk nyuk
08-12-2013, 09:26 PM
I had these debates in evolutionary and biological anthro courses as an undergrad. No reputable research exists that can identify polygenic differences between races that would lead anyone to believe a reputable link between race and IQ exists. Your statements are as dumb as nyuk'S who also brought this up a long time ago. Though he/she also tried to link cranial capacity (larger size = smarter) into the argument as well.

Pretty stupid.

There is a correlation in this. I certainly didn't invent it nor did I invent anything I said about IQ and the heritability of IQ. Perhaps the issue is you need to look beyond anthro?

nyuk nyuk
08-12-2013, 09:32 PM
Now we have shown that IQ is meaningless too,” Dr Highfield said.

He's at odds with the establishment of psychology as well as decades of IQ studies which have shown it to be proven valid. That's pretty wild. I'd suggest his politics are somewhere to the left.

Let's face it though, this wouldn't be an issue if these IQ tests were slathered in equals signs. It's that they aren't is why people become hostile and defensive and try to dismiss them, much like some Christians have been known to do with whatever contradicts their faith as well.

The problem here is that you are talking about "a study," when these IQ studies are compiled studies by many different people over decades. See the problem?

nyuk nyuk
08-12-2013, 09:33 PM
Don't forget this part:

For my part, I’ve come to doubt the existence of something called “g” or general intelligence, as the research has gathered over the years. I believe IQ is an artificial construct created to predict how well a random person is likely to do in an advanced post-industrial society. And that’s all it is. It certainly shouldn’t be conflated with some Platonic idea of “intelligence.” I don’t think it carries any moral weight at all, either, and I don’t think it should be used in any way in immigration policy. In fact, any public policy that rests on this kind of data is anathema to me. It’s far too close to eugenics, and to the morally repugnant idea that smarter people are somehow better in any meaningful sense.

Too bad I didn't learn that in psych. Notice he says, "For my part..." IQ has been proven valid by decades of research and the scientific method. The fact that this guy invokes trash neo-Marxist terms such as "artificial construct" tell me all I have to know about this guy.

I smell Karl Marx.

You fall for this ****?

Requiem
08-12-2013, 09:36 PM
There is a correlation in this. I certainly didn't invent it nor did I invent anything I said about IQ and the heritability of IQ. Perhaps the issue is you need to look beyond anthro?

No, not really.

You had stated previously that higher CC = higher intellectual capabilities, which is false. You also provided studies generally dismissed in almost unanimous fashion by the AAA and APA.

Intelligence is a polygenic trait. What difference in genes exists among races that bear your IQ / Race arguments out?

nyuk nyuk
08-12-2013, 09:48 PM
No, not really.

You had stated previously that higher CC = higher intellectual capabilities, which is false. You also provided studies generally dismissed in almost unanimous fashion by the AAA and APA.

Intelligence is a polygenic trait. What difference in genes exists among races that bear your IQ / Race arguments out?

There is a positive correlation that has been shown. Keep in mind your anthro heroes such as Gould were worried about it enough to use bogus data about cranial capacity to attack Morton which I have already referenced. There is also a well-known correlation between function and size of the parts of the brain, such as the pons. Bipeds have much larger ones than quadrupeds due to the necessity for higher and more sophisticated function in maintaining balance. Are there exceptions to the rule? Quite possibly but they don't invalidate the general rule.

I'd love to see where these studies are "dismissed in almost unanimous fashion by the AAA and APA." On the contrary; these are published in peer-reviewed journals. You don't seem to understand that this is literally decades of compiled data done by many international researchers. It's not a few rogues.

I wouldn't know what trait differences there are. That I don't know of any is isn't relevant. It doesn't mean they don't exist. There are known physical and genetic differences among the human races. They even respond differently to medications. Why people would deny this is idiotic. Indeed, there is a blossoming research field of race-based medicine which politically correct neurotics are trying to suppress fearing "Hitler."

Rohirrim
08-12-2013, 10:07 PM
Too bad I didn't learn that in psych. Notice he says, "For my part..." IQ has been proven valid by decades of research and the scientific method. The fact that this guy invokes trash neo-Marxist terms such as "artificial construct" tell me all I have to know about this guy.

I smell Karl Marx.

You fall for this ****?

The Heritage Foundation could smear **** on cookies and you Right Wingers would gobble them up.

W*GS
08-13-2013, 07:07 AM
As expected, two of our resident right-wing knuckledraggers (but I repeat myself) are attempting to use (manipulate, cherry-pick, and otherwise mutilate) science to rationalize their bigotry.

Nothing new, in other words.

W*GS
08-13-2013, 07:09 AM
The Heritage Foundation could smear **** on cookies and you Right Wingers would gobble them up.

Obama: Eating poop is bad.
Sean Beckbaugh: Poop is the best thing for you - eat lots every day!
Mindless minions: Yum, yum, yum. Please poop on us so we can eat!

nyuk nyuk
08-13-2013, 09:00 AM
The Heritage Foundation could smear **** on cookies and you Right Wingers would gobble them up.

If all else fails, lob ad hominem. You actually think that makes facts you don't like go away? Notice how the clown you quoted admitted that his personal views impacted his opinion on IQ studies.

nyuk nyuk
08-13-2013, 09:03 AM
As expected, two of our resident right-wing knuckledraggers (but I repeat myself) are attempting to use (manipulate, cherry-pick, and otherwise mutilate) science to rationalize their bigotry.

Nothing new, in other words.

Great, give us an example. Even egalitarians have come up with studies on the topic that show not only the heritability aspect of IQ, but also the unequal distribution of it in world populations. Refer to the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study), founded in part by the United States government, not the KKK.

Rigs11
08-13-2013, 11:05 AM
Their messiah limbaugh recently stated that if you believe in god then man cannot be blamed for global warming...ROFL!Ha!

W*GS
08-13-2013, 11:28 AM
Great, give us an example. Even egalitarians have come up with studies on the topic that show not only the heritability aspect of IQ, but also the unequal distribution of it in world populations. Refer to the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study), founded in part by the United States government, not the KKK.

Like I said, you're misusing science to justify bigotry.

Since when is a thoroughgoing right-winger such as yourself using the same collectivist bullshyte that hardcore lefties use?

DenverBrit
08-13-2013, 11:37 AM
Like I said, you're misusing science to justify bigotry.

Since when is a thoroughgoing right-winger such as yourself using the same collectivist bullshyte that hardcore lefties use?

When they have been indoctrinated as Marxists? :wiggle:

Rohirrim
08-13-2013, 11:56 AM
If all else fails, lob ad hominem. You actually think that makes facts you don't like go away? Notice how the clown you quoted admitted that his personal views impacted his opinion on IQ studies.

Notice that I didn't post that piece? It was posted by your fuhrer, txtebow. I was responding to his post. Clue? Rent one.

nyuk nyuk
08-13-2013, 03:04 PM
You're the one who brought up the study. I'm just trying to get you to admit what the policy implications are. That's what it's all about. Even the writer sums up the article with that point.

You tell me what the policy implications are.

"Implications" shouldn't get in the way of science, yet that's exactly what has happened with this subject, just like in the old days when it was heresy to say the earth was round and orbits the sun, which I believe was the point txtebow was correctly making on this thread.

People need to shut up and let science go where it may, and many people simply cannot handle it.

nyuk nyuk
08-13-2013, 03:07 PM
Their messiah limbaugh recently stated that if you believe in god then man cannot be blamed for global warming...ROFL!Ha!

He appreciates your listening to his show.

nyuk nyuk
08-13-2013, 03:08 PM
Notice that I didn't post that piece? It was posted by your fuhrer, txtebow. I was responding to his post. Clue? Rent one.

I can't see where it came from. I see a broken link in one of tx's posts that I cannot look up. Whoever wrote it was disingenuous.

nyuk nyuk
08-13-2013, 03:11 PM
Interestingly, that study received a lot of coverage. Apparently our resident 'race' expert didn't like its findings.

IQ tests 'do not reflect intelligence'

IQ tests are misleading because they do not accurately reflect intelligence,
according to a study which found that a minimum of three
different exams are needed to measure someone's brainpower.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9755929/IQ-tests-do-not-reflect-intelligence.html

Who needs years of valid psychological testing in intelligence and its heritability when you have the news media and their version of science?

Hint: "A study." Not the overall consensus which is that IQ testing is valid and due to that is in frequent use.

Though as txtebow already stated in this thread, with the left, IQ never matters until its time to invoke low IQ as a reason to not execute a murderer.

Funny how that works.

Requiem
08-13-2013, 03:15 PM
There is a positive correlation that has been shown.

Lol, no there hasn't been.

nyuk nyuk
08-13-2013, 03:26 PM
Like I said, you're misusing science to justify bigotry.

Since when is a thoroughgoing right-winger such as yourself using the same collectivist bullshyte that hardcore lefties use?

So what about the data in this test indicates that I am guilty of what you claim? That I state accurately what the test result says, which is that outcomes in IQ testing are not equal? Indeed not only are they not equal, they are consistently unequal. Or is that the researchers concede IQ has a genetic component which is commonly taught in even FRESHMAN psychology which the egalitarian dimwits on this forum still cannot wrap their heads around? If it is merely a justification for bigotry, then clearly the NIH is also responsible for this since they helped fund the testing which didn't come out with results that you find acceptable.

Your beef isn't with me, it's with science itself and your attempts to keep together your egalitarian house of cards.

If all else fails, you could do what I saw done in a current-issue Sociology textbook. Admit the 15 point white-black IQ gap exists and with a quick stroke of a brush-off in spite of lack of evidence to the effect, blame it on whitey.


I'm not against collectivism in and of itself necessarily, just the left-wing version of it. I reject extreme individualism which is partly why I'm not a fan of Rand.

Rohirrim
08-13-2013, 03:29 PM
So what about the data in this test indicates that I am guilty of what you claim? That I state accurately what the test result says, which is that outcomes in IQ testing are not equal? Indeed not only are they not equal, they are consistently unequal. Or is that the researchers concede IQ has a genetic component which is commonly taught in even FRESHMAN psychology which the egalitarian dimwits on this forum still cannot wrap their heads around? If it is merely a justification for bigotry, then clearly the NIH is also responsible for this since they helped fund the testing which didn't come out with results that you find acceptable.

Your beef isn't with me, it's with science itself and your attempts to keep together your egalitarian house of cards.

If all else fails, you could do what I saw done in a current-issue Sociology textbook. Admit the 15 point white-black IQ gap exists and with a quick stroke of a brush-off in spite of lack of evidence to the effect, blame it on whitey.


I'm not against collectivism in and of itself necessarily, just the left-wing version of it. I reject extreme individualism which is partly why I'm not a fan of Rand.

There's such a thing as Right Wing collectivism? Ha!

You hate egalitarianism? You must despise the Bill of Rights.

Rigs11
08-13-2013, 03:38 PM
He appreciates your listening to his show.

I appreciate seeing your ilk following along like good little sheep. Shouldn't you be praying?

nyuk nyuk
08-13-2013, 03:44 PM
Lol, no there hasn't been.

Ok then why did Gould do what he did (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/06/stephen-jay-gould-mismeasured-skulls-in-racial-records-dispute/1#.UgqoCk7nZjo)?

nyuk nyuk
08-13-2013, 03:44 PM
I appreciate seeing your ilk following along like good little sheep. Shouldn't you be praying?

I'm not religious and I don't listen to him. Perhaps entering the adult world and having adult conversations instead of bitching at caricatures are in order today?

W*GS
08-13-2013, 03:45 PM
So what about the data in this test indicates that I am guilty of what you claim?

Because one potentially-flawed study based on a flawed and insufficient measure isn't enough to declare blacks inherently more stupid than whites.

Like I said, misusing science to justify your bigotry.

nyuk nyuk
08-13-2013, 03:47 PM
There's such a thing as Right Wing collectivism? Ha!

You hate egalitarianism? You must despise the Bill of Rights.

1. Dictionary
2. Pre-civil rights era Constitution was not egalitarian. Note the slaves.

nyuk nyuk
08-13-2013, 03:49 PM
Because one potentially-flawed study based on a flawed and insufficient measure isn't enough to declare blacks inherently more stupid than whites.

Like I said, misusing science to justify your bigotry.

That's a gross mischaracterization, and worse than that, you're intentionally stating that it's only one study. Decades of studies show a consistent average IQ gap of 15 points, including studies done by egalitarian-minded researchers like I have just mentioned. I've said this already.

Pretending otherwise certainly doesn't further your cause or advance your mythical idea of equal IQ distribution.

Rigs11
08-13-2013, 04:32 PM
I'm not religious and I don't listen to him. Perhaps entering the adult world and having adult conversations instead of b****ing at caricatures are in order today?

missing the point, as usual. The majority of your ilk do listen to him

Rohirrim
08-13-2013, 04:33 PM
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. (Matthew 7:15)

nyuk nyuk
08-13-2013, 05:25 PM
missing the point, as usual. The majority of your ilk do listen to him

My ilk. One of the favorite catchwords of the left right up there with spew.

I don't see him as any worse than Maddow or any other weirdo the left love to listen to howl, so gives a turkey?

nyuk nyuk
08-13-2013, 05:26 PM
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. (Matthew 7:15)

Quote scripture as you throw the wood into a pile and get the fires burning to burn the witches and heretics.

Atta boy.

DenverBrit
08-13-2013, 05:42 PM
Who needs years of valid psychological testing in intelligence and its heritability when you have the news media and their version of science?

Hint: "A study." Not the overall consensus which is that IQ testing is valid and due to that is in frequent use.

Though as txtebow already stated in this thread, with the left, IQ never matters until its time to invoke low IQ as a reason to not execute a murderer.

Funny how that works.

The news media reported, not conducted, the tests.

I have no idea if there is a consensus of agreement with the findings, obviously neither do you.

“It has always seemed to be odd that we like to call the human brain the most complex known object in the Universe, yet many of us are still prepared to accept that we can measure brain function by doing a few so-called IQ tests,” Dr Highfield said.

“For a century or more many people have thought that we can distinguish between people, or indeed populations, based on the idea of general intelligence which is often talked about in terms of a single number: IQ. We have shown here that’s just wrong,” he said.

Studies over the past 50 years based on IQ tests have suggested that there could be inherent differences in intelligence between racial groups, social classes and between men and women, but these conclusions are undermined by the latest findings, Dr Highfield said.

“We already know that, from a scientific point of view, the notion of race is meaningless. Genetic differences do not map on to traditional measurements of skin colour, hair type, body proportions and skull measurements. Now we have shown that IQ is meaningless too,” Dr Highfield said

El Minion
08-13-2013, 06:17 PM
White People Think College Admissions Should Be Based on Test Scores, Except When They Learn Asians Score Better Than Whites
(http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/08/13/white_people_s_meritocracy_hypocrisy.html)
Should college admissions be based on simple quantitative metrics of academic skill such as standardized test scores and grade point averages? According to new research from Frank Samson, a sociologist at the University of Miami, white people sure think this is how admissions should work. That's what they think, that is, unless they're informed that such a system actually advantages Asian-American applicants (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/08/13/white-definitions-merit-and-admissions-change-when-they-think-about-asian-americans) rather than white ones:

The white adults in the survey were also divided into two groups. Half were simply asked to assign the importance they thought various criteria should have in the admissions system of the University of California. The other half received a different prompt, one that noted that Asian Americans make up more than twice as many undergraduates proportionally in the UC system as they do in the population of the state.

When informed of that fact, the white adults favor a reduced role for grade and test scores in admissions—apparently based on high achievement levels by Asian-American applicants.

As I said last week, the entire debate over affirmative action misses what's really unfair in college admissions (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/08/05/affirmative_action_and_its_critics.html) and this is further evidence that there's no stable underlying concept of "meritocracy" undergirding the system. But rather than dedicating the most resources to the "best" students and then fighting over who's the best, we should be allocating resources to the people who are mostly likely to benefit from additional instructional resources.

Rohirrim
08-13-2013, 07:25 PM
Quote scripture as you throw the wood into a pile and get the fires burning to burn the witches and heretics.

Atta boy.

You seem to have an unerring talent for missing the point.

It means that racists always come cloaked in the garments of benevolent intention.

nyuk nyuk
08-13-2013, 07:37 PM
The news media reported, not conducted, the tests.

I have no idea if there is a consensus of agreement with the findings, obviously neither do you.

I've already stated repeatedly that what I've learned about the validity of IQ testing and the heritability of IQ I learned in college psychology, not from pasting links to single studies in the media or questionably-motivated lefty professors.

So yes I have a clue. There is a consensus.

txtebow
08-13-2013, 07:43 PM
White People Think College Admissions Should Be Based on Test Scores, Except When They Learn Asians Score Better Than Whites
(http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/08/13/white_people_s_meritocracy_hypocrisy.html)
Should college admissions be based on simple quantitative metrics of academic skill such as standardized test scores and grade point averages? According to new research from Frank Samson, a sociologist at the University of Miami, white people sure think this is how admissions should work. That's what they think, that is, unless they're informed that such a system actually advantages Asian-American applicants (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/08/13/white-definitions-merit-and-admissions-change-when-they-think-about-asian-americans) rather than white ones:

The white adults in the survey were also divided into two groups. Half were simply asked to assign the importance they thought various criteria should have in the admissions system of the University of California. The other half received a different prompt, one that noted that Asian Americans make up more than twice as many undergraduates proportionally in the UC system as they do in the population of the state.

When informed of that fact, the white adults favor a reduced role for grade and test scores in admissions—apparently based on high achievement levels by Asian-American applicants.

As I said last week, the entire debate over affirmative action misses what's really unfair in college admissions (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/08/05/affirmative_action_and_its_critics.html) and this is further evidence that there's no stable underlying concept of "meritocracy" undergirding the system. But rather than dedicating the most resources to the "best" students and then fighting over who's the best, we should be allocating resources to the people who are mostly likely to benefit from additional instructional resources.

Lol!! This white person is for merit based admissions. We will address that subject once race based quotas have gone the way of the do-do bird....

Rohirrim
08-13-2013, 07:44 PM
It is almost as though the "dark arts of race and IQ" were an untapped field of potential knowledge, not one of the most discredited fields of study in modern history. We should first be clear that there is nothing mysterious or forbidden about purporting to study race and intelligence. Indeed, despite an inability to define "race" or "intelligence," such studies are one of the dominant intellectual strains in Western history. We forget this because its convient to believe that history begins with the Watts riots. But it's important to remember the particular tradition that Charles Murray and Jason Richwine are working in. A brief reminder seems in order.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/the-dark-art-of-racecraft/275783/

nyuk nyuk
08-13-2013, 07:47 PM
White People Think College Admissions Should Be Based on Test Scores, Except When They Learn Asians Score Better Than Whites
(http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/08/13/white_people_s_meritocracy_hypocrisy.html)
Should college admissions be based on simple quantitative metrics of academic skill such as standardized test scores and grade point averages? According to new research from Frank Samson, a sociologist at the University of Miami, white people sure think this is how admissions should work. That's what they think, that is, unless they're informed that such a system actually advantages Asian-American applicants (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/08/13/white-definitions-merit-and-admissions-change-when-they-think-about-asian-americans) rather than white ones:

The white adults in the survey were also divided into two groups. Half were simply asked to assign the importance they thought various criteria should have in the admissions system of the University of California. The other half received a different prompt, one that noted that Asian Americans make up more than twice as many undergraduates proportionally in the UC system as they do in the population of the state.

When informed of that fact, the white adults favor a reduced role for grade and test scores in admissions—apparently based on high achievement levels by Asian-American applicants.

As I said last week, the entire debate over affirmative action misses what's really unfair in college admissions (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/08/05/affirmative_action_and_its_critics.html) and this is further evidence that there's no stable underlying concept of "meritocracy" undergirding the system. But rather than dedicating the most resources to the "best" students and then fighting over who's the best, we should be allocating resources to the people who are mostly likely to benefit from additional instructional resources.

Aside from your grotesquely oversized screaming font which I had to edit out, Asians likewise benefit from AA programs and diversity scholarships which put them in advantageous (and absolutely unnecessary) position over whites. Knowing this then, why wouldn't whites view that negatively?

Test scores aren't that much different between the two groups to justify the disproportionate representation. AA and other handouts would explain that.

The white adults in the survey were also divided into two groups. Half were simply asked to assign the importance they thought various criteria should have in the admissions system of the University of California. The other half received a different prompt, one that noted that Asian Americans make up more than twice as many undergraduates proportionally in the UC system as they do in the population of the state.

When informed of that fact, the white adults favor a reduced role for grade and test scores in admissions -- apparently based on high achievement levels by Asian-American applicants. (Nationally, Asian average total scores on the three parts of the SAT best white average scores by 1,641 to 1,578 this year.)

txtebow
08-13-2013, 07:48 PM
White People Think College Admissions Should Be Based on Test Scores, Except When They Learn Asians Score Better Than Whites
(http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/08/13/white_people_s_meritocracy_hypocrisy.html)
Should college admissions be based on simple quantitative metrics of academic skill such as standardized test scores and grade point averages? According to new research from Frank Samson, a sociologist at the University of Miami, white people sure think this is how admissions should work. That's what they think, that is, unless they're informed that such a system actually advantages Asian-American applicants (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/08/13/white-definitions-merit-and-admissions-change-when-they-think-about-asian-americans) rather than white ones:

The white adults in the survey were also divided into two groups. Half were simply asked to assign the importance they thought various criteria should have in the admissions system of the University of California. The other half received a different prompt, one that noted that Asian Americans make up more than twice as many undergraduates proportionally in the UC system as they do in the population of the state.

When informed of that fact, the white adults favor a reduced role for grade and test scores in admissions—apparently based on high achievement levels by Asian-American applicants.

As I said last week, the entire debate over affirmative action misses what's really unfair in college admissions (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/08/05/affirmative_action_and_its_critics.html) and this is further evidence that there's no stable underlying concept of "meritocracy" undergirding the system. But rather than dedicating the most resources to the "best" students and then fighting over who's the best, we should be allocating resources to the people who are mostly likely to benefit from additional instructioal resources.
And how Exactly do you define who will most likely benefit from additional resources? Those with the highest IQ's perhaps? Underachieving sons and daughters of physicians and other elite fields? Honestly what you wrote is a big word pile of empty meaning....

Rohirrim
08-13-2013, 07:54 PM
Read here to find out how quickly the Heritage Foundation (heritage of what, you might ask) distanced itself from Richwine once they got wind of his dissertation.

This is not to denigrate Richwine's dissertation committee. Still, as someone all too familiar with the Ph.D. life, let's just say that an argument based solely on authority is not convincing. I've perused parts of Richwine's dissertation, and … well … hoo boy. Key terms are poorly defined, auxiliary assumptions abound, and the literature I'm familiar with that is cited as authoritative is, well, not good. It's therefore unsurprising that, until last week, Richwine's dissertation disappeared into the ether the moment after it was approved. According to Google Scholar, no one cited it in the four years since it appeared. Furthermore, Richwine apparently didn't convert any part of it into any kind of refereed or non-refereed publication. Based on the comments that Weigel and others have received from Richwine's dissertation committee, one wonders just how much supervising was going on.
http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/05/11/regarding_richwine

nyuk nyuk
08-13-2013, 07:54 PM
It is almost as though the "dark arts of race and IQ" were an untapped field of potential knowledge, not one of the most discredited fields of study in modern history. We should first be clear that there is nothing mysterious or forbidden about purporting to study race and intelligence. Indeed, despite an inability to define "race" or "intelligence," such studies are one of the dominant intellectual strains in Western history. We forget this because its convient to believe that history begins with the Watts riots. But it's important to remember the particular tradition that Charles Murray and Jason Richwine are working in. A brief reminder seems in order.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/the-dark-art-of-racecraft/275783/

And here we are with invoking the Hitler card to stifle uncomfortable science, right on time, which is what this thread was about to begin with: The reactive, fearful, hostile knee-jerk liberal response to science they don't like. My, what would happen to the faith of the people if it were leaked that the world isn't flat! O****!

Thank you for providing an illustration to prove tx's point on this here tidy thread.

Do us a favor and make sure to email the National Institutes of Health and tell them stop funding research that concludes there is an IQ gap or at least demand they don't come to unequal results. Don't forget there is also a pressing need to suffocate research into the field of race-based medicine. Regardless of that certain heart medicines help black people more than white people (http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/25688/title/Race-based-medicine-/), it's best to give them the standard treatment and keep those death rates nice and elevated.

In the name of equality.

KEEP THE FAITH!!!

nyuk nyuk
08-13-2013, 07:56 PM
Read here to find out how quickly the Heritage Foundation (heritage of what, you might ask) distanced itself from Richwine once they got wind of his dissertation.

Unsurprisingly, which I find all too common even though I've already pointed it out on this thread, the anti side of the IQ debate insist on spinning it as if it's only a small group of rogues producing these studies.

False. Let's pretend Redwine is a cannibal and faked everything he wrote.

It changes nothing.

Back to your programming.

nyuk nyuk
08-13-2013, 07:58 PM
You seem to have an unerring talent for missing the point.

It means that racists always come cloaked in the garments of benevolent intention.

Science isn't racist.

:clown:

Rohirrim
08-13-2013, 08:02 PM
And here we are with invoking the Hitler card to stifle uncomfortable science, right on time, which is what this thread was about to begin with: The reactive, fearful, hostile knee-jerk liberal response to science they don't like. My, what would happen to the faith of the people if it were leaked that the world isn't flat! O****!

Thank you for providing an illustration to prove tx's point on this here tidy thread.

Do us a favor and make sure to email the National Institutes of Health and tell them stop funding research that concludes there is an IQ gap or at least demand they don't come to unequal results. Don't forget there is also a pressing need to suffocate research into the field of race-based medicine. Regardless of that certain heart medicines help black people more than white people (http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/25688/title/Race-based-medicine-/), it's best to give them the standard treatment and keep those death rates nice and elevated.

In the name of equality.

KEEP THE FAITH!!!

Oh. You mean the idea that people wouldn't just swallow Richwine's assertions without question? And to question is to be a "...reactive, fearful, hostile knee-jerk liberal?" What do you think science is? Isn't the whole idea of science to question? Like the articles I posted point out, this dissertation was not peer reviewed until Richwine became a policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation. Of course, once the nature of this paper came out he was canned. The more this dissertation gets held up to the light, the more holes one finds. Like Drezner at Foreign Policy pointed out, "Key terms are poorly defined, auxiliary assumptions abound, and the literature I'm familiar with that is cited as authoritative is, well, not good."

nyuk nyuk
08-13-2013, 08:05 PM
Yawn... Richwine... rant rave rant rave... Heritage... growl roarrr...

I've already posted multiple sources for these IQ tests. They stretch back many decades, internationally. Just get the hell over this Redwine fetish and move on.

Please put the Hitler card down and step away.

Rohirrim
08-13-2013, 08:16 PM
Yawn... Richwine... rant rave rant rave... Heritage... growl roarrr...

I've already posted multiple sources for these IQ tests. They stretch back many decades, internationally. Just get the hell over this Redwine fetish and move on.

Please put the Hitler card down and step away.

Which is why I will no longer waste time arguing anything with you. Once again, we have arrived at the point in the discussion where you plug your ears, sit on the ground and start bleating "Hitler, Hitler..." You and txtebow are a whole lot closer to that man's philosophy than I am. Read the Atlantic article I posted for some "history" on IQ tests and race. There's plenty of history, alright.

Of course, I know that you have no intention whatsoever of reading anything I post. It's so easy to simply ignore evidence that is contrary to your prejudices, isn't it?

Why does your racist buddy txtebow not come up with some heavy-weight, large scale study conducted by reputable scientists to make his claim that blacks are mentally inferior to whites, rather than some half buried dissertation by a grad student?

Rohirrim
08-13-2013, 09:15 PM
Oh, and BTW, did you hear about this study?

Meanwhile, the genetic ancestry of the typical African American is 22 percent European with around 10 percent of U.S. Blacks being of more than 50 percent European ancestry.
http://www.eurweb.com/2010/05/latest-genetic-study-says-african-americans-are-22-percent-white/

Oops!

nyuk nyuk
08-14-2013, 10:15 AM
Oh, and BTW, did you hear about this study?

Meanwhile, the genetic ancestry of the typical African American is 22 percent European with around 10 percent of U.S. Blacks being of more than 50 percent European ancestry.
http://www.eurweb.com/2010/05/latest-genetic-study-says-african-americans-are-22-percent-white/

Oops!

I've been aware of it for years. And? It goes with one of the IQ studies I already linked to on this page.

nyuk nyuk
08-14-2013, 10:30 AM
Which is why I will no longer waste time arguing anything with you. Once again, we have arrived at the point in the discussion where you plug your ears, sit on the ground and start bleating "Hitler, Hitler..." You and txtebow are a whole lot closer to that man's philosophy than I am. Read the Atlantic article I posted for some "history" on IQ tests and race. There's plenty of history, alright.

Of course, I know that you have no intention whatsoever of reading anything I post. It's so easy to simply ignore evidence that is contrary to your prejudices, isn't it?

Why does your racist buddy txtebow not come up with some heavy-weight, large scale study conducted by reputable scientists to make his claim that blacks are mentally inferior to whites, rather than some half buried dissertation by a grad student?

You don't answer my points about the validity and heritability of IQ (because you can't) and go off on tangents that are personal attacks against a single irrelevant person in a single organization that you don't like based on an article by an offended black person to attack the entire study of IQ and try to make a guilt-by-association tie to Hitler as if invoking a scary historical narrative article in a liberal magazine overrides and invalidates decades of studies which have been proven valid using the scientific method and have been replicated internationally for decades. DUH!

Yep. You're a liberal. Funny how guilt by association was called racist when done to Obama. At least with Obama's critics, Obama actually associated with these people!

Wow, so like some dude(s) mentioned scientific studies in ways you and yours find offensive so we should... What? Squelch the science itself? Why would you want to stifle science, sir? Again, you sound like a flat earther fundamentalist religious moonbat for even insinuating such a thing. Contratu-****ing-lations.

Don't even bother waiting for someone to engage in such behavior. Pre-emptively profile them as guilty and attack them before they have a chance to flinch! Yeah! :egbgb:

I mean, who needs decades of valid scientific study when you have Ta-Nehisi Coates? (Oh hey, you think if IQ data showed blacks on top that Coates would be soiling the carpets and drapes?)

You've done dick on this thread. Nothing. At this point, I don't think you even have pants anymore.

W*GS
08-14-2013, 10:35 AM
Yet more rationalizations from nyuk for his anti-black bigotry.

nyuk nyuk
08-14-2013, 10:40 AM
Yet more rationalizations from nyuk for his anti-black bigotry.

Science is neither rationalization nor bigotry. Since you claim it is, state your case. How many times have I had to repeat this to you because of your habit of "debating" by calling names, throwing one-liner slurs, and then bailing from threads?

In a debate forum it is expected you do more than get a good wind-up before throwing poop

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/SQHKlxKjyfM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

W*GS
08-14-2013, 10:46 AM
Science is neither rationalization nor bigotry.

That's how you're using it.

nyuk nyuk
08-14-2013, 10:52 AM
That's how you're using it.

All I've done is state a combination what I learned in college psych and what studies have shown over decades. No more, no less. That alone is enough to threaten people of certain philosophical views.

How have I used it to "rationalize bigotry"? Test data you don't like isn't evil. Period. You think it is. Get over it. What I suspect is you want to hear is that any such testing which shows such unequal data to automatically be blamed on (white) society, nice and tidy-like the way The Narrative says it is.

Rohirrim
08-14-2013, 11:17 AM
I've been aware of it for years. And? It goes with one of the IQ studies I already linked to on this page.

Which one?

DenverBrit
08-14-2013, 11:34 AM
I've already stated repeatedly that what I've learned about the validity of IQ testing and the heritability of IQ I learned in college psychology, not from pasting links to single studies in the media or questionably-motivated lefty professors.

So yes I have a clue. There is a consensus.

Hilarious! :spit: Do tell us about your Phd and years of research and peer reviewed papers.

http://images.mylot.com/userImages/images/postphotos/1722578.jpg

nyuk nyuk
08-14-2013, 11:41 AM
Hilarious! :spit: Do tell us about your Phd and years of research and peer reviewed papers.

Don't need one when you've gone to college and have learned from those who do, hun.

You realize, of course, that in this retarded attempt to slam me, you just caught yourself in your own net for the idiotic statements you've been making on this thread?

No, of course you didn't realize it. :wave:

Rohirrim
08-14-2013, 12:16 PM
I've been aware of it for years. And? It goes with one of the IQ studies I already linked to on this page.

Which one?

DenverBrit
08-14-2013, 12:31 PM
Don't need one when you've gone to college and have learned from those who do, hun.

You realize, of course, that in this retarded attempt to slam me, you just caught yourself in your own net for the idiotic statements you've been making on this thread?

No, of course you didn't realize it. :wave:

Wow, just wow.

For someone who thinks they know as much as a peer reviewed Phd you're really making a total ass of yourself on a message board. Well done. :spit:

Now back to the study.

As you know everything about IQ and the validity of the study we're discussing:

What is wrong with the study and its methodology?

What were the results of the 'Neuron' peer review?

W*GS
08-14-2013, 02:03 PM
Even this lowly Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence) goes right over nyuk's and txtebow's head...

Particularly contentious in the ongoing debate has been the definition of both the concept "race" and the concept "intelligence", and especially whether they can in fact be objectively defined and operationalized. While several environmental factors have been shown to affect group differences in intelligence, it has not been demonstrated that they can explain the entire disparity. But on the other hand, no genetic factor has been conclusively shown to have a causal relation with group difference in intelligence test scores.

Those two skip right over the above.

nyuk nyuk
08-14-2013, 06:42 PM
Which one?

If you got off your can and looked you may find out.

nyuk nyuk
08-14-2013, 06:43 PM
Wow, just wow.

For someone who thinks they know as much as a peer reviewed Phd you're really making a total ass of yourself on a message board. Well done. :spit:

Now back to the study.

As you know everything about IQ and the validity of the study we're discussing:

What is wrong with the study and its methodology?

What were the results of the 'Neuron' peer review?

You're the detractor. As such, you prove your assertions. You don't act like you have an inverted sex organ and cop out and try to get someone to do it for you.

nyuk nyuk
08-14-2013, 06:45 PM
Even this lowly Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence) goes right over nyuk's and txtebow's head...



Those two skip right over the above.

An ongoing debate doesn't mean the data is invalid. There is also an ongoing debate on the out of Africa theory as well.

Spider
08-14-2013, 07:35 PM
Lmao .I see the right still getting their ass kicked ...

nyuk nyuk
08-14-2013, 07:37 PM
Lmao .I see the right still getting their ass kicked ...

Oh clearly. Those dreaded hate facts.

DenverBrit
08-14-2013, 08:00 PM
You're the detractor. As such, you prove your assertions. You don't act like you have an inverted sex organ and cop out and try to get someone to do it for you.

I made NONE, YOU did.

As usual you dismiss anything that doesn't fit with your movable doctrine, yet can't substantiate your dismissive claims.

Typical of someone who swings from American hating Marxist to Far Right, leftist hating, moonbat.

How menopausal of you.

Rohirrim
08-14-2013, 09:13 PM
Lmao .I see the right still getting their ass kicked ...

Be careful or he/she will start commenting on your reproductive organs. It seems to be his/her fixation.

W*GS
08-15-2013, 06:55 AM
An ongoing debate doesn't mean the data is invalid. There is also an ongoing debate on the out of Africa theory as well.

Define intelligence. Define black.

Bacchus
08-15-2013, 07:24 AM
Lmao .I see the right still getting their ass kicked ...

You cannot blame the posters on the right for getting their ass kicked. I mean really look at the material they are forced to work with.

Anti-women
Anti-black
Anti-hispanic
Anti-environment
Anti-health care
Anti- Tax for rich
Anti-EPA
Anti-Dept of Education
Anti-Public schools
Anti Dept of Housing
Pro Big Oil
Pro Tax for the poor
Pro big Business
Pro Assault Rifles
Pro church in school


I mean really look at what they have to work with.

Nyuck Nyuck and TXtebow are doing the best they can

Arkie
08-15-2013, 08:48 AM
Define intelligence. Define black.

Genetically, we're all black. Whites are more black than the Aboriginals from Australia.

http://pjt111.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/campbell_tishkoff_fig-2labeled.jpg

nyuk nyuk
08-15-2013, 09:24 AM
Define intelligence. Define black.

Maybe this will help you since you're confused about what race is

Race matters when a patient needs a stem cell or marrow transplant (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-05/national/41085742_1_stem-jeffrey-chell-ancestors)

nyuk nyuk
08-15-2013, 09:25 AM
I mean really look at what they have to work with.

Nyuck Nyuck and TXtebow are doing the best they can

We work with science. You work with ad hominem. Very good.

nyuk nyuk
08-15-2013, 09:25 AM
Be careful or he/she will start commenting on your reproductive organs. It seems to be his/her fixation.

You mean like how numerous people on this forum insist I am lying when I say I'm a woman?

nyuk nyuk
08-15-2013, 09:28 AM
I made NONE, YOU did.

As usual you dismiss anything that doesn't fit with your movable doctrine, yet can't substantiate your dismissive claims.

Typical of someone who swings from American hating Marxist to Far Right, leftist hating, moonbat.

How menopausal of you.

Making claims isn't proving any of them. I have no "movable doctrine." You tried to undercut my understanding of psychology by my experience in taking psych classes with childish mockery. When that fails, you take a predictable fallback position of making vague statements of how poor my argument is without addressing anything whatsoever.

Gee, I've never seen this before.

nyuk nyuk
08-15-2013, 09:30 AM
Genetically, we're all black. Whites are more black than the Aboriginals from Australia.

Huh? Genetic studies don't show this. I've taken 3 ancestry DNA tests, there is no "black" that shows up.

DenverBrit
08-15-2013, 09:56 AM
Making claims isn't proving any of them. I have no "movable doctrine." You tried to undercut my understanding of psychology by my experience in taking psych classes with childish mockery. When that fails, you take a predictable fallback position of making vague statements of how poor my argument is without addressing anything whatsoever.

Gee, I've never seen this before.

Ha! Of course not, going from self proclaimed Marxist to Right Wing whatever, is a stable doctrine.

As for 'making claims,' again, you're the one dismissing the study with the ridiculous rational that it was conducted by 'questionably-motivated lefty professors.'

Critical thinking? Nah, just more of your silliness. :loopy:

TonyR
08-15-2013, 10:15 AM
You mean like how numerous people on this forum insist I am lying when I say I'm a woman?

You were either lying under your previous member names or this one. I think it's the latter. If you are a woman I bet you're really popular! ROFL!

Arkie
08-15-2013, 10:18 AM
Huh? Genetic studies don't show this. I've taken 3 ancestry DNA tests, there is no "black" that shows up.

Then those tests only cover your recent ancestry.

nyuk nyuk
08-15-2013, 10:18 AM
Ha! Of course not, going from self proclaimed Marxist to Right Wing whatever, is a stable doctrine.

As for 'making claims,' again, you're the one dismissing the study with the ridiculous rational that it was conducted by 'questionably-motivated lefty professors.'

Critical thinking? Nah, just more of your silliness. :loopy:

You're harping on one ONLINE study (WTF???) and I'm talking about cumulative data of multiple legitimate, scientific studies (not online!) taken over decades and further what the general scientific consensus is in terms of the validity of IQ studies and the heritability of IQ as shown by years of longevity studies. Avoiding this by mockery and grossly overstating the validity of one select piece of information doesn't cut it, and if someone is going to co-opt Marxist jingoism to defend their personal view of things (which is outside of scientific consensus), yes I am going to point it out.

I have critical thinking. You have critical theory and a philosophy which places higher importance to your political views than valid scientific data.

The theory of multiple intelligences is also well-known in psychology regardless of what the butthole that wrote Rohirrim's article said. That, however, does not undermine the validity of IQ testing, which is still widely used. BOTH of these are commonly discussed in college psych textbooks. If you think the concept of multiple intelligences invalidates IQ testing, state your case, other than pasting the personal view of a few people based on an article of a single ONLINE study posted by someone else for the sole reason you do not like the conclusions of IQ tests.

Rohirrim's hilarious article makes ridiculous claims by a disingenuous idiot who indirectly admitted his own idiocy when he said,

Studies over the past 50 years based on IQ tests have suggested that there could be inherent differences in intelligence between racial groups, social classes and between men and women, but these conclusions are undermined by the latest findings, Dr Highfield said.

MMmmn... Decades of IQ studies (which I mentioned) all suggested the idea of different IQ averages for different human populations (which I mentioned).... I've already said ALL of this on this thread and you've all tried to crap on it by posting a quotation by a guy who agrees with what I said! Brilliant! Too bad this Highfield goes off the rails and wildly suggests his ONE AMAZING ONLINE study knocks all that down. Such obvious and grotesquely dishonest behavior by a scientist should be met with disciplinary action. What a fraud!

One study does not knock down decades of research, let alone an ONLINE study. My effing GOD you illiterates.

Jesus ****ing CHRIST you people are dense.


ROFL!ROFL!ROFL!

Decades of scientific study is invalidated by a single online study.

OH GENIUS! EPIC GENIUS! :strong:

nyuk nyuk
08-15-2013, 10:19 AM
Then those tests only cover your recent ancestry.

Actually the 23andme study shows that I have 2.7% Neanderthal DNA dating back about 30,000 years.

If you think physically modern black people emerged from Africa at that period, I'd love to see evidence of that.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-15-2013, 10:41 AM
http://www.bartcop.com/science-vs-fear.jpg

DenverBrit
08-15-2013, 10:48 AM
You have critical theory and a philosophy which places higher importance to your political views than valid scientific data.



LOL ROFL! Classic!!

nyuk nyuk
08-15-2013, 10:48 AM
Lookit teh piktur! It invalidates decades of valid scientific studies!

sc0re!

nyuk nyuk
08-15-2013, 10:49 AM
LOL ROFL! Classic!!

Thank you for your voluminous and erudite response. :wiggle:

Bacchus
08-15-2013, 10:50 AM
Huh? Genetic studies don't show this. I've taken 3 ancestry DNA tests, there is no "black" that shows up.

I bet you have. Trying to keep that arian heritage alive huh.

DenverBrit
08-15-2013, 10:52 AM
Thank you for your voluminous and erudite response. :wiggle:

It was still more than your comment deserved. :wiggle:

Bacchus
08-15-2013, 10:55 AM
Actually the 23andme study shows that I have 2.7% Neanderthal DNA dating back about 30,000 years.

If you think physically modern black people emerged from Africa at that period, I'd love to see evidence of that.

I thought the earth was only 10,000 years old. So you aren't a Christian?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-15-2013, 11:02 AM
Lookit teh piktur! It invalidates decades of valid scientific studies!

sc0re!

Drama Llama:

"Doggone it, I've tried changing my screen name a dozen times, and they still know it's me.

I know! Maybe if I pretend I'm a girl..."

nyuk nyuk
08-15-2013, 11:04 AM
I bet you have. Trying to keep that arian heritage alive huh.

If you're going to throw a slur at someone, spell it right. And if you're going to accuse someone of engaging in an "evil" act of preserving their heritage, attack everyone. Don't single out members of one racial group. That makes you a racist.

nyuk nyuk
08-15-2013, 11:07 AM
I thought the earth was only 10,000 years old. So you aren't a Christian?

The anger scientific fact stirs up in liberals proves the title of this thread is accurate. Browbeating caricatures and straw men aren't an argument against anyone or for anything.

The hostility that liberals on this thread are showing to decades of valid scientific research proves that science is the enemy of liberalism when science goes out of the boundaries of liberal taboo.

Tough ****.

W*GS
08-15-2013, 11:09 AM
Maybe this will help you since you're confused about what race is

I was hoping for something more science-y.

You know, the specific genetic markers that define "race", the specific genetic markers that define "intelligence", and how the two are interrelated so you can claim that "race" and "intelligence" are genetically linked.

Got anything, peer-reviewed, along those lines?

nyuk nyuk
08-15-2013, 11:10 AM
Drama Llama:

"Doggone it, I've tried changing my screen name a dozen times, and they still know it's me.

I know! Maybe if I pretend I'm a girl..."

True, and I also live in Texas (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3887322&postcount=54).

W*GS
08-15-2013, 11:11 AM
drama is getting all dramatic again...

http://www.englishexercises.org/makeagame/my_documents/my_pictures/2011/jun/AF4_certified_drama_queen.jpg

nyuk nyuk
08-15-2013, 11:12 AM
I was hoping for something more science-y.

You know, the specific genetic markers that define "race", the specific genetic markers that define "intelligence", and how the two are interrelated so you can claim that "race" and "intelligence" are genetically linked.

Got anything, peer-reviewed, along those lines?

So you're trying to raise the bar against science itself, against decades-old trends in data as shown by even liberal sources on this thread because you don't like the results that the decades of research show.

Now just who are you again?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-15-2013, 11:12 AM
and I also live in Texas.

I'm sorry.

Arkie
08-15-2013, 11:20 AM
Actually the 23andme study shows that I have 2.7% Neanderthal DNA dating back about 30,000 years.

If you think physically modern black people emerged from Africa at that period, I'd love to see evidence of that.

Your ancestors were from Africa 150,000 years ago. We may not all be brothers, but we're all distant cousins.

W*GS
08-15-2013, 11:28 AM
So you're trying to raise the bar against science itself, against decades-old trends in data as shown by even liberal sources on this thread because you don't like the results that the decades of research show.

Now just who are you again?

So, you have nothing.

Why couldn't you just say that?

nyuk nyuk
08-15-2013, 01:04 PM
Your ancestors were from Africa 150,000 years ago. We may not all be brothers, but we're all distant cousins.

"From Africa" doesn't mean modern humans as we see them existed then. That's my point.

nyuk nyuk
08-15-2013, 01:04 PM
So, you have nothing.

Why couldn't you just say that?

Wog knows better than 50+ years of international scientific research. Kewl!

W*GS
08-15-2013, 02:25 PM
Wog knows better than 50+ years of international scientific research. Kewl!

Oh, so there *is* scientific research that defines, from genetics, what "race" and "intelligence" are, and that these are concrete definitions, and you can present the science that correlates the two.

Please provide references from the peer-reviewed literature. Thanks!

Rohirrim
08-15-2013, 03:11 PM
"From Africa" doesn't mean modern humans as we see them existed then. That's my point.

When the bones of two early humans were found in 1967 near Kibish, Ethiopia, they were thought to be 130,000 years old. A few years ago, researchers found 154,000- to 160,000-year-old human bones at Herto, Ethiopia. Now, a new study of the 1967 fossil site indicates the earliest known members of our species, Homo sapiens, roamed Africa about 195,000 years ago.

"It pushes back the beginning of anatomically modern humans," says geologist Frank Brown, a co-author of the study and dean of the University of Utah's College of Mines and Earth Sciences.

The journal Nature is publishing the study in its Thursday Feb. 17, 2005, issue. Brown conducted the research with geologist and geochronologist Ian McDougall of Australian National University in Canberra, and anthropologist John Fleagle of New York state's Stony Brook University.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-02/uou-toh021105.php

nyuk nyuk
08-15-2013, 03:24 PM
When the bones of two early humans were found in 1967 near Kibish, Ethiopia, they were thought to be 130,000 years old. A few years ago, researchers found 154,000- to 160,000-year-old human bones at Herto, Ethiopia. Now, a new study of the 1967 fossil site indicates the earliest known members of our species, Homo sapiens, roamed Africa about 195,000 years ago.

"It pushes back the beginning of anatomically modern humans," says geologist Frank Brown, a co-author of the study and dean of the University of Utah's College of Mines and Earth Sciences.

The journal Nature is publishing the study in its Thursday Feb. 17, 2005, issue. Brown conducted the research with geologist and geochronologist Ian McDougall of Australian National University in Canberra, and anthropologist John Fleagle of New York state's Stony Brook University.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-02/uou-toh021105.php

That's nice. I was referring to the existence of the modern human races.

W*GS
08-15-2013, 03:25 PM
That's nice. I was referring to the existence of the modern human races.

You mean humans that aren't conservative trogs.

Rohirrim
08-15-2013, 04:14 PM
That's nice. I was referring to the existence of the modern human races.

Perhaps you should brush up on your reading skills?

"It pushes back the beginning of anatomically modern humans."

Once homo sapiens became homo sapiens, that was it.

Genetic studies and fossil evidence show that archaic Homo sapiens evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa, between 200,000 and 150,000 years ago,[2] that members of one branch of Homo sapiens left Africa by between 125,000 and 60,000 years ago, and that over time these humans replaced earlier human populations such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans

We are all Africans, whether you like it or not.

nyuk nyuk
08-15-2013, 04:56 PM
Perhaps you should brush up on your reading skills?

"It pushes back the beginning of anatomically modern humans."

Once homo sapiens became homo sapiens, that was it.

Genetic studies and fossil evidence show that archaic Homo sapiens evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa, between 200,000 and 150,000 years ago,[2] that members of one branch of Homo sapiens left Africa by between 125,000 and 60,000 years ago, and that over time these humans replaced earlier human populations such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans

We are all Africans, whether you like it or not.

Again missing the point. Aside from that not all scientists subscribe to the Out of Africa theory, I've not seen evidence that modern human races we see today existed at that time. I didn't say humans didn't come out of Africa. I'm taking for granted that it is the case. What I question is that Nat X stepped out of Africa and spread across the earth. You equate African with modern black. I do not.

Requiem
08-15-2013, 05:54 PM
So what evidence do you have to support multiple origins?

txtebow
08-15-2013, 08:02 PM
So what evidence do you have to support multiple origins?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18093-chinese-challenge-to-out-of-africa-theory.html

txtebow
08-15-2013, 08:04 PM
So what evidence do you have to support multiple origins?



http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566

ABSTRACT
Seven thousand five hundred fifty-six (7556) haplotypes of 46 subclades in 17 major haplogroups were considered in terms of their base (ancestral) haplotypes and timespans to their common ancestors, for the purposes of designing of time-balanced haplogroup tree. It was found that African haplogroup A (originated 132,000 ± 12,000 years before present) is very remote time-wise from all other haplogroups, which have a separate common ancestor, named β-haplogroup, and originated 64,000 ± 6000 ybp. It includes a family of Europeoid (Caucasoid) haplogroups from F through T that originated 58,000 ± 5000 ybp. A downstream common ancestor for haplogroup A and β-haplogroup, coined the α-haplogroup emerged 160,000 ± 12,000 ybp. A territorial origin of haplogroups α- and β-remains unknown; however, the most likely origin for each of them is a vast triangle stretched from Central Europe in the west through the Russian Plain to the east and to Levant to the south. Haplogroup B is descended from β-haplogroup (and not from haplogroup A, from which it is very distant, and separated by as much as 123,000 years of “lat- eral” mutational evolution) likely migrated to Africa after 46,000 ybp. The finding that the Europeoid haplogroups did not descend from “African” haplogroups A or B is supported by the fact that bearers of the Europeoid haplogroups, as well as all non-African haplogroups do not carry either SNPs M91, P97, M31, P82, M23, M114, P262, M32, M59, P289, P291, P102, M13, M171, M118 (haplogroup A and its subclades SNPs) or M60, M181, P90 (haplogroup B), as it was shown recently in “Walk through Y” FTDNA Project (the reference is incorporated therein) on several hundred people from various haplogroups.

txtebow
08-15-2013, 08:06 PM
So what evidence do you have to support multiple origins?

http://www.livescience.com/20738-primate-fossil-origins-asia.html


The ancestors of monkeys, apes and humans may have originated in Asia and not Africa as often thought, new fossils suggest.

The origin of anthropoids — the simians, or "higher primates," which include monkeys, apes and humans — has been debated for decades among scientists. Although fossils unearthed in Egypt have long suggested that Africa was the cradle for anthropoids, other bones revealed in the last 15 years or so raised the possibility that Asia may be their birthplace.

Now, an international team of scientists has unearthed a new fossil in Southeast Asia that may prove that anthropoids originated in what is now the East, shedding light on a pivotal step in primate and human evolution.

txtebow
08-15-2013, 08:11 PM
So what evidence do you have to support multiple origins?

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/30/science/la-sci-denisovan-genome-20120828

The Denisovan genome, reported online Thursday in the journal Science, was derived from tiny quantities of shredded DNA extracted from a finger bone found in a Russian cave in 2008, as well as a tooth found later.

What is striking, scientists said, is that it is every bit as detailed as a sequence generated with a fresh blood or saliva sample from someone alive today.

Analysis of the genome and comparisons with ours and the Neanderthals' will offer insights into the history of Homo sapiens — who we mated with, where and when — as well as the unique genetic changes that make modern humans who they are, scientists said.

Study leader Svante Paabo, a pioneer in decoding ancient genomes, said it would take biologists decades to understand the meaning of all these tiny differences.

"Many of them may have no function — but among them will undoubtedly hide some crucial changes that are essential for what made modern human history possible," said Paabo, director of the department of evolutionary genetics at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

txtebow
08-15-2013, 08:20 PM
So what evidence do you have to support multiple origins?

http://phys.org/news119947859.html

"Majewski and his colleagues have demonstrated that the natural processing of messenger RNA (mRNA), via a process called splicing, is genetically controlled by these SNPs. The SNPs in certain individuals lead to changes in splicing and result in the production of drastically altered forms of the protein. These out-of-proportion consequences may lead to the development of genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis and Type 1 diabetes."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news119947859.html#jCp

txtebow
08-15-2013, 08:31 PM
http://www.newscientist.com/search?doSearch=true&query=out+of+africa+theory

Rohirrim
08-15-2013, 09:09 PM
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18093-chinese-challenge-to-out-of-africa-theory.html

"From the parts preserved, this fossil could just as likely be related to preceding archaic humans, or even to the Neanderthals, who at times seem to have extended their range towards China."

Rohirrim
08-15-2013, 09:11 PM
Again missing the point. Aside from that not all scientists subscribe to the Out of Africa theory, I've not seen evidence that modern human races we see today existed at that time. I didn't say humans didn't come out of Africa. I'm taking for granted that it is the case. What I question is that Nat X stepped out of Africa and spread across the earth. You equate African with modern black. I do not.

No doubt the same ratio of scientists who dispute AGW. You can always find a scientist to refute the widely accepted theory, if you pay them enough. "Nat X?" What's that. Genetically speaking, the homo sapiens that existed then are no different than the h. sapiens that exist now.

Requiem
08-15-2013, 09:12 PM
Stopped reading when Denisovan's was brought up.

Rohirrim
08-15-2013, 09:14 PM
http://www.livescience.com/20738-primate-fossil-origins-asia.html


The ancestors of monkeys, apes and humans may have originated in Asia and not Africa as often thought, new fossils suggest.

The origin of anthropoids — the simians, or "higher primates," which include monkeys, apes and humans — has been debated for decades among scientists. Although fossils unearthed in Egypt have long suggested that Africa was the cradle for anthropoids, other bones revealed in the last 15 years or so raised the possibility that Asia may be their birthplace.

Now, an international team of scientists has unearthed a new fossil in Southeast Asia that may prove that anthropoids originated in what is now the East, shedding light on a pivotal step in primate and human evolution.

Please. 37 million years ago? The thing probably resembled a lemur. You're talking proto-simian here.

nyuk nyuk
08-17-2013, 09:57 AM
So what evidence do you have to support multiple origins?

I have acquaintances who believe in the theory but I've never explored their position in any detail. They say there is ample evidence against the Out of Africa theory.

nyuk nyuk
08-17-2013, 09:59 AM
No doubt the same ratio of scientists who dispute AGW. You can always find a scientist to refute the widely accepted theory, if you pay them enough. "Nat X?" What's that. Genetically speaking, the homo sapiens that existed then are no different than the h. sapiens that exist now.

The homo sapien reconstructions I have seen do not look like modern humans, which was my point. Their skulls are very distinctively different, not counting other features. And if they don't look like modern humans, how can they resemble modern human races as we know them? These were very early humans.

As far as I know of, the oldest skeleton of a modern black person was found in a dried riverbed in the Sahara Desert or somewhere near there and dates to about 5,000 years old. Humans as we look today are not that old.

nyuk nyuk
08-17-2013, 12:11 PM
Homo sapien reconstruction

http://i44.tinypic.com/352lowg.jpg


Nat X

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7ZckZ-8naz0/SUmcp2UKLGI/AAAAAAAACQQ/mk5qywZPfws/s400/natx.jpg

Rohirrim
08-18-2013, 01:12 PM
I have acquaintances who believe in the theory but I've never explored their position in any detail. They say there is ample evidence against the Out of Africa theory.

No. There is not.

Rohirrim
08-18-2013, 01:14 PM
Homo sapien reconstruction



That might be homo erectus or h. neanderthalis, but it's not home sapiens.

This is probably much closer:

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/617f4ae2636a.jpg

From skeletal remains 35,000 years old.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/revealed-the-face--of-the-first-european-1678537.html

W*GS
08-18-2013, 01:27 PM
nyuk will stick with his racist pseudoscience forever.

Requiem
08-22-2013, 09:33 PM
Homo sapien reconstruction

http://i44.tinypic.com/352lowg.jpg


Nat X

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7ZckZ-8naz0/SUmcp2UKLGI/AAAAAAAACQQ/mk5qywZPfws/s400/natx.jpg

Lol @ homo sapien reconstruction. Lol.

Requiem
08-22-2013, 09:35 PM
That might be homo erectus or h. neanderthalis, but it's not home sapiens.

This is probably much closer:

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/617f4ae2636a.jpg

From skeletal remains 35,000 years old.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/revealed-the-face--of-the-first-european-1678537.html

Not a Neanderthal. Cranial and facial structure is not remotely close. Erectus, perhaps.

Requiem
08-24-2013, 02:09 PM
http://newobserveronline.com/evolutionary-out-of-africa-theory-gets-dna-jolt/

nyuk nyuk
08-24-2013, 02:11 PM
Not a Neanderthal. Cranial and facial structure is not remotely close. Erectus, perhaps.

Perhaps you can post a good homo sapien reconstruction?

W*GS
08-24-2013, 02:39 PM
Perhaps you can post a good homo sapien reconstruction?

According to the most advanced right-wing science:

http://children.pfcblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/adamandeve1.jpg

Requiem
08-24-2013, 02:49 PM
Perhaps you can post a good homo sapien reconstruction?

Homo sapiens are modern humans.

Homo sapien sapiens would be the older version of us, otherwise known as Cro-Magnon's. I am on a cell phone, and don't know how to copy pictures.

I can assure you that what you posted is neither of the above. Not H. Ergaster or a Neanderthal either. The link to your picture came from tinypic.com or something. What was the original source?

nyuk nyuk
08-24-2013, 02:57 PM
Homo sapiens are modern humans.

Homo sapien sapiens would be the older version of us, otherwise known as Cro-Magnon's. I am on a cell phone, and don't know how to copy pictures.

I can assure you that what you posted is neither of the above. Not H. Ergaster or a Neanderthal either. The link to your picture came from tinypic.com or something. What was the original source?

It was some science page I found several days ago. Layman science articles don't seem to have accurate examples, apparently. It was some science news website or some crap.

Rohirrim
08-24-2013, 03:00 PM
Perhaps you can post a good homo sapien reconstruction?

Post #169. BTW, I found the one you posted. It's homo habilis.

Requiem
08-24-2013, 03:05 PM
Post #169. BTW, I found the one you posted. It's homo habilis.

Makes sense. The cranial capacity and other morphology bear that out. That and the controversy surrounding whether or not Habilis deserved being placed in its genus.

nyuk nyuk
08-24-2013, 03:05 PM
Post #169. BTW, I found the one you posted. It's homo habilis.

I googled sapiens and swear it was labeled as such. Oh well.

Requiem
08-24-2013, 05:36 PM
I googled sapiens and swear it was labeled as such. Oh well.

You have failed me for the last time Admiral Nyuk Nyuk. *Darth Vader choke*

houghtam
08-24-2013, 05:44 PM
I googled sapiens and swear it was labeled as such. Oh well.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3800715&postcount=226

There are things in the world much more complicated than dramallama can Google away. This basic fact of life will never change.

I love it. Better idea to stay out of a conversation where the science and logic is way over your head. I just said it to Beavis, and I'll say it to you: Google is your friend, but don't attempt to substitute it for a ****ing education. You can ise it to supplement or recall something you already know, but it's not a very good idea to wade into an area where you're clearly outclassed.

I know for a fact I wouldn't get into a football argument with Med, just as I wouldn't argue NASA history with broncosteven. Not sure about Rohirrim's academic background, but I'm well aware that this discussion was right up Req's alley, and you walked right into it.

I had all teh lulz.

Oh yeah, and...

:yayaya:

nyuk nyuk
08-24-2013, 09:52 PM
You have failed me for the last time Admiral Nyuk Nyuk. *Darth Vader choke*

Wait a minute. We were going to start getting it on and making out at the movies. What happened?

nyuk nyuk
08-24-2013, 10:11 PM
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3800715&postcount=226

There are things in the world much more complicated than dramallama can Google away. This basic fact of life will never change.

I love it. Better idea to stay out of a conversation where the science and logic is way over your head. I just said it to Beavis, and I'll say it to you: Google is your friend, but don't attempt to substitute it for a ****ing education. You can ise it to supplement or recall something you already know, but it's not a very good idea to wade into an area where you're clearly outclassed.

I know for a fact I wouldn't get into a football argument with Med, just as I wouldn't argue NASA history with broncosteven. Not sure about Rohirrim's academic background, but I'm well aware that this discussion was right up Req's alley, and you walked right into it.

I had all teh lulz.

Oh yeah, and...

:yayaya:

I understand your bruised ego has caused you to wait in the wings like an injured animal, waiting for a chance to pounce. I however did state that I did not have intimate knowledge of the topic but have conversed with some who have much more knowledge than I do. I've already stated that though considered modern human, the ancient homo sapiens did not have the distinct appearance of different human races of today, and indeed Req's article (http://newobserveronline.com/evolutionary-out-of-africa-theory-gets-dna-jolt/) mentioned that, if you cared to look at it. The oldest Negroid racial skeleton that I know of, for example, is only about 5,000 years old.

From Req's link:

Using those novel mutation rates—capitalizing on information from ancient DNA—the authors calculate the last common ancestor for human mitochondrial lineages to around 160,000 years ago.

This means that, according to the “out of Africa” theory, the most recent common ancestor of Africans and non-Africans was between 62,000 and 95,000 years ago—the maximum date for mass migration out of Africa, if that theory is correct.

What it means is that the widely divergent racial types found on earth would have had far less time to speciate than previously believed. This in turn might very well underpin the rival multi-origin evolutionary theory, even though the new study did not say that.

houghtam
08-24-2013, 10:43 PM
I understand your bruised ego has caused you to wait in the wings like an injured animal, waiting for a chance to pounce. I however did state that I did not have intimate knowledge of the topic but have conversed with some who have much more knowledge than I do. I've already stated that though considered modern human, the ancient homo sapiens did not have the distinct appearance of different human races of today, and indeed Req's article (http://newobserveronline.com/evolutionary-out-of-africa-theory-gets-dna-jolt/) mentioned that, if you cared to look at it. The oldest Negroid racial skeleton that I know of, for example, is only about 5,000 years old.

From Req's link:

Using those novel mutation rates—capitalizing on information from ancient DNA—the authors calculate the last common ancestor for human mitochondrial lineages to around 160,000 years ago.

This means that, according to the “out of Africa” theory, the most recent common ancestor of Africans and non-Africans was between 62,000 and 95,000 years ago—the maximum date for mass migration out of Africa, if that theory is correct.

What it means is that the widely divergent racial types found on earth would have had far less time to speciate than previously believed. This in turn might very well underpin the rival multi-origin evolutionary theory, even though the new study did not say that.

LOL

Bruised ego? That's rich, son! I took you to school and its there in digital form in perpetuity for all to see. Please, tell us more about employment law.

As far as the link, I will defer to someone with far greater knowledge on the subject than I have. Unlike you, I don't generally post about things that are outside my or my area of expertise and/or experience. But I will gladly put the smack down on you yet again, should you care to talk about constitutional law, linguistics, pre-imperial Roman history, 19th Century American history, German history including the Nazizeit and Hitler's expansion of gun ownership (ask errand about that one, LOL), the ins and outs of running a movie theater, and, of course, popping popcorn.

:yayay:

Now gtfo. I'm done abusing you for the night.

nyuk nyuk
08-24-2013, 11:34 PM
Are you repeating it hoping it'll stick this time? Yet again you have ruffled your feathers for a peacock strut without answering a single iota of my post. I get it. You don't know.

Unless you're that hot guy at the Century Aurora, I don't want you touching my popcorn. :D

Requiem
08-25-2013, 02:15 PM
Wait a minute. We were going to start getting it on and making out at the movies. What happened?

We can still do that.

nyuk nyuk
08-25-2013, 02:20 PM
We can still do that.

Am I about to be spanked?

If not, why?

Requiem
08-25-2013, 02:31 PM
Am I about to be spanked?

If not, why?

*bites ear and whispers* Come to the kitchen and find out baobay.

nyuk nyuk
08-25-2013, 02:32 PM
*bites ear and whispers* Come to the kitchen and find out baobay.

Coming darling....

Requiem
08-25-2013, 02:35 PM
Coming darling....

Already? Babe, you are waterfall!