the neoliberal vision of the future

[onarchy]

You actually watched that start to finish didn't you?

I have read most of Dawkins' books and also seen that particular video several times. I didn't see it over again this time, but I know its content well.

 

[frogwoman]

I know that it is a favorite methodology of left-wingers to have a black list of people who should be associated with Great Evil and therefore not listened to or considered, even though they have published dozens of peer reviewed articles in scientific journals. Basically you are using the argument "He is not trustworthy because someone in my Circle of Trust (typically other socialists) says so" or "He is not trustworthy because he has talked to/been funded by people who are not in my Circle of Trust."

Translated into plain English you're saying: he's talking to people I don't like, therefore I can safely disregard anything he says as bullshit. This is how socialism works. It's all about the right social relations with you guys, the right connections, who grooms who, who is on the top of the gossip list. That's really intersubjectivity at work. You don't care about arguments, you care only about what people in your Circle of Trust say. Therefore your first reaction is not "is this argument good?" No, your first reaction is "does he belong to my tribe?" If not, you dismiss him, no questions asked.

I think there are more reasons to dismiss someone who goes around asking people how big their penises are for the purposes of "scientific research" than that they dont belong to my tribe, tbf

 

[frogwoman]

I have read most of Dawkins' books and also seen that particular video several times. I didn't see it over again this time, but I know its content well.

I love a self-righteous racist.

 

[stethoscope]

I know that it is a favorite methodology of left-wingers to have a black list of people who should be associated with Great Evil and therefore not listened to or considered, even though they have published dozens of peer reviewed articles in scientific journals. Basically you are using the argument "He is not trustworthy because someone in my Circle of Trust (typically other socialists) says so" or "He is not trustworthy because he has talked to/been funded by people who are not in my Circle of Trust."

Translated into plain English you're saying: he's talking to people I don't like, therefore I can safely disregard anything he says as bullshit. This is how socialism works. It's all about the right social relations with you guys, the right connections, who grooms who, who is on the top of the gossip list. That's really intersubjectivity at work. You don't care about arguments, you care only about what people in your Circle of Trust say. Therefore your first reaction is not "is this argument good?" No, your first reaction is "does he belong to my tribe?" If not, you dismiss him, no questions asked.

ROFL. Not looking good is it Onar.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Can you reply, please, to the substantive criticism of Rushton's work in the paper I cited - i.e. that Rushton relies on an entirely discredited model of the relationship between environment and evolution?

I'd be quite interested to see him do that. I reckon what you're going to get though is more flat assertions without anything to back them up, then after about three pages of people yelling at him to produce sources, he'll produce a quote from some other wingnut welfare recepient offering purported evidence that's already been shredded a couple of times on this thread, by people who actually do back their stuff up with legit references.

Then he'll make another flat assertion of raving nonsense and the whole cycle will start all over again.

Got to admire the boy's stamina and total lack of shame though, like I say, I expect to see him on Fox News one day shouting Stephen Hawking down with his ether theories.

 

[frogwoman]

How dare you be so dismissive.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Here's a reference from that Rushton book taken more or less at random – a 1906 study by Robert Bean, a man who, let us remember, considered that "the Negro evidently stands in an intermediate position [between]… man and the ourang-outang".

Bean "omits comparative measurements of brain size from his paper. He did measure brain size and cranial capacity of blacks and whites, but failed to find any significant differences in his measurements. Bean introduced other factors – sex and social class – to account for his failure to find a difference in brain size." He adjusted for the presumed higher social class of the brains of black people that he measured – only presumed, as he did not know – in order to reach his conclusion. Furthermore, a year later:

Bean’s mentor, Franklin P. Mall, who had initially encouraged the study, thought the data were too good, and became suspicious. He therefore made his own comparisons of brains from blacks and whites, and failed to find any difference, even though he performed the same measurements as Bean, and his sample contained 18 brains – 8 from blacks and 10 from whites – used by Bean himself.

In other words, Bean was a fraud. This man Rushton actually cites Bean's work, saying:

In 1906, Robert Bean reported on 150 brains of autopsied Blacks and Whites in the American Journal of Anatomy. Brain weight varied with the amount of White ancestry from no White ancestry = 1,157 grams to half-White ancestry = 1,347 grams. He found the brains of Blacks were less folded than those of Whites and had fewer fibers leading to the frontal lobes.

http://neurophilosophy.wordpress.com/2007/03/14/on-the-peculiarities-of-the-negro-brain/

 

[Idris2002]

I'd be quite interested to see him do that. I reckon what you're going to get though is more flat assertions without anything to back them up, then after about three pages of people yelling at him to produce sources, he'll produce a quote from some other wingnut welfare recepient offering purported evidence that's already been shredded a couple of times on this thread, by people who actually do back their stuff up with legit references.

Then he'll make another flat assertion of raving nonsense and the whole cycle will start all over again.

Got to admire the boy's stamina and total lack of shame though, like I say, I expect to see him on Fox News one day shouting Stephen Hawking down with his ether theories.

He should have stuck to sniffing ether.

 

[frogwoman]

The Caucasian is subjective, the Negro objective. The Caucasian…is dominant and domineering, and possessed primarily with determination, will power, self-control, self-government…with a high development of the ethical and aesthetic values…

When you think about what was to come later in the 20th century that quote is extremely disturbing.

 

[SpineyNorman]

He's not trustworthy because his work has been discredited by actual scientists and, if he isn't one himself, he seems to hang around with neo-nazis and eugenicists. Strange how tax = fascism because fascists tax people, yet we shouldn't find your support for theories of racial hierarchy suspicious. Double standards?

Something has just occurred to me. Onar believes that we should have "special" schools for people with high/medium/low IQs. He also thinks that race and IQ are intrinsically linked. Does that not mean, in reality, segregated schools? Are you just trying to put a new face on old fashioned racism there Onar? I'm not sure that I even want to be an onarchist any more. You're supposed to be our guiding light, the one who will force us, using dog rape and sports stadia converted into concentration camps, to be free - I'm not sure I trust you to be my leader now.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Notice how he calls these 'known characteristics', though. He finds exactly what he's looking for even if he has to falsify his results in order to do so.

How can any academic today reference such nonsense?

 

[audiotech]

The baker makes money by being nice to other people, i.e. creating bread that his customers value more than their money.

How quaint. Have you another reference beside what's clearly taken from a Hovis commercial?

 

[TruXta]

Notice how he calls these 'known characteristics', though. He finds exactly what he's looking for even if he has to falsify his results in order to do so.

How can any academic today reference such nonsense?

I thought you were done with this thread? I'm starting to have a grudging admiration for Onar's herculean efforts at trolling half the P&P crue.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yeah yeah...

 

[SpineyNorman]

I'd be quite interested to see him do that. I reckon what you're going to get though is more flat assertions without anything to back them up, then after about three pages of people yelling at him to produce sources, he'll produce a quote from some other wingnut welfare recepient offering purported evidence that's already been shredded a couple of times on this thread, by people who actually do back their stuff up with legit references.

Then he'll make another flat assertion of raving nonsense and the whole cycle will start all over again.

Got to admire the boy's stamina and total lack of shame though, like I say, I expect to see him on Fox News one day shouting Stephen Hawking down with his ether theories.

But our time is not wasted - he must be spending hours every day responding to people on this thread. If he's doing it here he can't be doing it elsewhere, where there may not be people with the knowledge to refute his nonsense. Keep posting Onar, there's an onarchist in every one of us, just waiting for you to free it from the chains of socialismfascismcommunism.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I know that it is a favorite methodology of left-wingers to have a black list of people who should be associated with Great Evil and therefore not listened to or considered, even though they have published dozens of peer reviewed articles in scientific journals. Basically you are using the argument "He is not trustworthy because someone in my Circle of Trust (typically other socialists) says so" or "He is not trustworthy because he has talked to/been funded by people who are not in my Circle of Trust."

Translated into plain English you're saying: he's talking to people I don't like, therefore I can safely disregard anything he says as bullshit. This is how socialism works. It's all about the right social relations with you guys, the right connections, who grooms who, who is on the top of the gossip list. That's really intersubjectivity at work. You don't care about arguments, you care only about what people in your Circle of Trust say. Therefore your first reaction is not "is this argument good?" No, your first reaction is "does he belong to my tribe?" If not, you dismiss him, no questions asked.

This has already been answered, but let me reiterate. First we demonstrate that the purported science is flawed, that Rushton is assuming concepts of race, IQ etc that simply don't stack up, or let's say in terms of climate change, that McIntyre and McKitrick have misrepresented or misunderstood the satellite data or that Dembski doesn't understand or misrepresents algorithmic information theory in his attempts to construct a 'scientific creationism'.

Having first shown the science is crap, then the question arises, 'if this was such obvious shit, how did it get published?' Which is where showing that the authors and indeed, often the publication in question are funded by some form of wingnut welfare by some organisations or individuals with a demonstrable interest in creating the illusion of scientific credibility for some political position.

You've got it backwards, as demonstrated by the willingness of several of us here to take the Gini coefficient seriously, even though Gini was also the author of the "Scientific Basis of Fascism" and would probably have agreed with most of your 'smaller brains, bigger dicks' friends ideas otherwise.

 

[onarchy]

Can you reply, please, to the substantive criticism of Rushton's work in the paper I cited - i.e. that Rushton relies on an entirely discredited model of the relationship between environment and evolution?

You're talking about the r/K-model? First of all, E.O. Wilson, the father of the r/k-model (which is NOT discredited), obviously thought that Rushton's work did not need discrediting. Second, even if we completely accept the premise that Rushton's evolutionary explanation for the racial differences is utter bogus it still doesn't change the fact that IQ is largely biologically based. The book I referenced is merely a summary of mostly other people's work. Therefore any critique of Rushton, even if it should turn out that he is completely untrustworthy in every respect, still doesn't change the papers he is siting. I will give you ONE such reference, namely the Minnesota twin studies.

http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/spring05/hicksb/psy3135/bouchard_1990.pdf

According to this research (which is one of the very many studies Rushton cites and summarizes in his book) the heritability of IQ was found to be about 70% for identical twins reared apart.


What's really, really, really annoying with you left-wingers (and this is a consistent pattern) is that it is EXTREMELY hard to get you to actually look at the evidence. You look for all possible ways to discredit the evidence even before you have used one second to review it. In this way you insulate yourself from the evidence that is available and dismiss things you have never actually seen or read yourself. You are 100% certain it's bogus even though you've not actually read any of it, only read what other's have written about it, or even written about completely incidental things. In this case you were willing to dismiss this perfectly mainstream and much-cited twin study because Philippe Rusthon, a third party, wrote a summary of its content. And since this third party has been financed by a fourth party which you *suspect* of being white supremicist, then the whole chain of evidence is tainted. If Rushton had a grandfather who once made a racial slur about blacks I am certain that you would use this as an excuse not to look at this twin study which is not even written by Rusthon.

So in order for you to actually read the evidence it has to be 100% untouched by sources that are considered suspect by socialists. If the sister of the mailboy who delivered the scientific paper proving definitively the heritability of IQ turned out to be *suspected* of being a white supremicist then you would dismiss the scientific paper out of hand without even reading it, even if the paper had nothing to do with the mailboy or his sister. It was after all *touched* by someone who knows someone who *might* be a white supremicist, and that is for you sufficient ground to mark the evidence as Tainted (tm).

Basically this extreme requirement for "untainted" sources insulates you from evidence. It's right there for you to read, and you can inform yourself, but since no untainted source is interested in reading it, the evidence remains untouched and dismissed as bogus. That's the modus operandi of socialists. That's for instance why you guys are so completely uninformed by all the evidence showing that socialism contributes to killing thousands of children every day. It's "tainted" evidence and hence dismissed as crap, unread.

I on the other hand am willing to get my hands dirty. I read arguments by people who disgust me all the time. I even read the arguments of socialists, even though they are partially responsible for the deaths of thousands of children every single day. Now, if *I* am willing to read the arguments of people like you with blood on their hands, why can't you at least read peer reviewed evidence, even though it has been "touched" by third parties which you *suspect* of being something you don't like?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Explain, please, the presence of Robert Bean in the work of Rushton.

And remember, that this is a reference that I took at random from his book. I had never heard of Bean – or Rushton for that matter. What other horrors await or was I incredibly unlucky to plump for the only dud reference in the whole book?

 

[SpineyNorman]

socialists lol

 

[rekil]

Not only have I read history books, I also happen to know which parts of that history isn't told properly in the standard story. For instance, how many history books say that The German National SOCIALIST Worker's Party was as their name indicates, socialist? How many people know that Mussolini and Hitler were immensely popular on the left before WWII?

Going back a bit here but what history books are you referring to, and how have you come to the conclusion that the authors haven't researched fascism 'properly'.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I have read most of Dawkins' books and also seen that particular video several times.

As I said, you need to get laid.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Going back a bit here but what history books are you referring to, and how have you come to the conclusion that the authors haven't researched fascism 'properly'.

They couldn't have researched it properly because they were fascist socialist communist subjectivists.

 

[onarchy]

You've got it backwards, as demonstrated by the willingness of several of us here to take the Gini coefficient seriously, even though Gini was also the author of the "Scientific Basis of Fascism" and would probably have agreed with most of your 'smaller brains, bigger dicks' friends ideas otherwise.

You're willing to take the Gini coefficient seriously for two reasons: a) it plays right into your ideological stance and so you have a motivation to read it, regardless of source. (Example: you accept STALIN's branding of centrist "third way" Mussolini as "extreme rightwing" because it suits your political agenda, namely to oust Fascism from the left) b) you would not have accepted the Gini-index if it hadn't been Blessed by someone in your Circle of Trust. If *I* had presented you with the Gini-coefficient for the first time you would have googled the author and found that this guy wrote "the Scientific Basis of Fascism" and dismiss it as crap, unread.

Finally, have you ever reflected over why the same guy who wrote the "Scientific Basis of Fascism" also was concerned a typical left-wing topic, social inequality?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

According to this research (which is one of the very many studies Rushton cites and summarizes in his book) the heritability of IQ was found to be about 70% for identical twins reared apart.

Do you even understand what you're writing here? In other words, for two clones who have developed for nine months in exactly the same womb, it is found that 30% of the variation in their IQ scores can be attributed to their differing environments after they were separated.

Nobody has disputed that there is a hereditary factor to intelligence. Bernie's quote from Gould applies again here. You're going round in circles.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Explain, please, the presence of Robert Bean in the work of Rushton.

And remember, that this is a reference that I took at random from his book. I had never heard of Bean – or Rushton for that matter. What other horrors await or was I incredibly unlucky to plump for the only dud reference in the whole book?

Oh, and answer this question.

 

[rekil]

They couldn't have researched it properly because they were fascist socialist communist subjectivists.

Apart from this obviously, and no links to vaticansassassins or other such loon nodes please.

 

[SpineyNorman]

You're willing to take the Gini coefficient seriously for two reasons: a) it plays right into your ideological stance and so you have a motivation to read it, regardless of source. (Example: you accept STALIN's branding of centrist "third way" Mussolini as "extreme rightwing" because it suits your political agenda, namely to oust Fascism from the left) b) you would not have accepted the Gini-index if it hadn't been Blessed by someone in your Circle of Trust. If *I* had presented you with the Gini-coefficient for the first time you would have googled the author and found that this guy wrote "the Scientific Basis of Fascism" and dismiss it as crap, unread.

Finally, have you ever reflected over why the same guy who wrote the "Scientific Basis of Fascism" also was concerned a typical left-wing topic, social inequality?

You've got it the wrong way round you fuckwit, Bernie has already told you, twice, that first the research is assessed on its own merit and, when found to be garbage, it is then necessary to see how the author managed to get it published in the first place. You're being deliberately dishonest.

Do you want a link to a dating site Onar? I think you need one.

 

[onarchy]

Does that not mean, in reality, segregated schools?

Let me emphasize here that I am not for public schools at all. I think it should be up to the parent what schools they send their kids to. I'm just saying what MY preference is, because it's good for the kids. However, even if everyone for some reason should adopt MY preference it would still not mean racially segregated schools since the individual variation is very large. 1/3 of blacks in the US are smarter than half the whites. Thus, you would not find racially segregated schools or classes even with my preference. However, in the classes for the exceptionally gifted the majority would be Jews and Orientals.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Jews?

You do know that there is virtually zero genetic basis for the 'Jewish' race, don't you?

And answer this point, please.

Explain, please, the presence of Robert Bean in the work of Rushton.

And remember, that this is a reference that I took at random from his book. I had never heard of Bean – or Rushton for that matter. What other horrors await or was I incredibly unlucky to plump for the only dud reference in the whole book?

 

[SpineyNorman]

Onar's willing to admit that a few blacks are as smart as the thickest whites - and that Jews and Orientals are the cleverest. He can't be a racist!