the neoliberal vision of the future

[Bernie Gunther]

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?

Well, that was predictable

 

[FridgeMagnet]

However, in the classes for the exceptionally gifted the majority would be Jews and Orientals.

They are pretty wily.

 

[SpineyNorman]

They are pretty wily.

A little bit too wily if you ask me.

 

[ViolentPanda]

That's simply untrue, and viciously so. There has been done quite a lot of twin and adoption studies in America with many different races.

Quite a lot, eh?

In which case you won't mind citing a few.
Just the names of a couple of papers, title and authors.

They show that identical twins reared apart will have nearly identical IQs, even when one of the twins is raised in a poor family and the other in a successful rich one.

I'd especially like to see the paper for this study that managed to find a significant sample of identical twins that had been raised in such different social settings.

How do you explain that? How do you explain that adopted children have an IQ that is no more correlated to their adoptive parents than a stranger and that their IQ is still significantly correlated to their biological mothers that they have never seen. This is true of several races. How do you explain that? How is that even possible if IQ is a myth? Telepathic transfer? How do you explain that families that adopt children of different races (blacks, half-blacks, hispanics, whites and asians) get children that are on average ranked according to their racial averages? How do you explain that two black parents with IQ 90 on average get children that have a LOWER IQ than themselves, whereas white parents with an IQ of 90 on average get children that have a HIGHER IQ than themselves?

And the paper that shows this mechanism you write of, please.

This is easily explained by a regression to the biological mean of the ethnic group one belongs to, but makes no sense if IQ is a "myth." (Black children regress DOWNWARD towards the black mean of 82, whereas white children regress UPWARDS towards the white mean of 100)

I thought you said you were good at mathematics. perhaps not when it involves statistics, eh?

Furthermore, how du you explain that children with a low IQ born in successful middleclass families on average end up with low-pay jobs and low education, whereas children with a high IQ born into poor families on average end up with high-pay jobs and a good education?

Hmmm, how do you explain that, contrary to your claims, children with below-mean IQs from "successful middle-class families" on average end up with better jobs than the children of poor parents who nonetheless have high IQs?

Because that's reality - that connections are as important, if not more important, than your IQ score. Your above scenario only exists in an absolute meritocracy, and there is nowhere that has an absolute meritocracy.

Explaining this without a biologically based IQ requires contortions of the mind that are simply unimaginable, but WITH a biologically based IQ it all becomes logical and easy. You have to resort to epicycles and phlogistons, whereas the biological theory gets a walk in the park.

Merely because your own imagination is limited doesn't mean that others don't have the wit to see where you cannot see.

Try not to be so Onar-centric. Obviously you'll always be the centre of your universe, but try not to project yourself into the centre of others.

 

[Dillinger4]

damn celestials

 

[ViolentPanda]

Those crazy Jewish people! What zany antics will they be up to next?

It'l be something to do with gefilte fish, you mark my words!

 

[sihhi]

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.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1271

No mate that's how race-and-IQ-realists operate. Charles Murray, Richard Lynn, J.P. Rushton, R. Travis Osborne, Frank C.J. McGurk, Edward M. Miller, Audrey Shuey, Volkmar Weiss [Thilo Sarrazin uses his IQ arguments against the problem of Turkish blood in Germany], Thomas J. Bouchard, Linda Gottfredson, Arthur Robert Jensen and Michael Levin.

Give or take some, they are a hive grouping, they cite each other's papers which usually consist of witless experiments by comparing scores of people taking tests, and cherry-picked meta-studies of reviews of results of said experiments.

Ocassionally they attempt to rescue the old 'realists' such as Hans Eysenck, Sir Cyril Burt and Francis Galton by claiming their work has been misinterpreted and rubbished on account of political correctness.

None of them actually consider the 'g' concept might be all wrong. None of them can actually do double-blind experiments to repeat the twin experiments done by Burt - because if they did they would prove inconclusive besides it's not possible to tear away twin siblings from one another. Instead they assert racist nonsense like Linda Gottfredson who claims that black people's IQ is lower than whites, the number of black people lying in the top intelligence bracket (the outlying end of the bell-curve or normal distribution of black intelligence) necessary for university admission is lower than the number of black people in higher education in the USA, hence there's massive positive pro-black discrimination in the USA, hence there's no need to examine any wider social structures, things are just fine.

Usually in their experiments they usually include someone half Asian as 'Asian'. It's their basic fear of a miscegenated planet.

They have their own peer-reviewed society which publishes peer-reviewed journals - the International Society for Intelligence Research - interestingly also has human resources and management academics alongside the psychologists who basically defending the concept of IQ aswell as g as meaningful in job-hiring and in social and historical comparisons.

Occasionally they hawk sexism for right-wing media consumption

http://www.metro.co.uk/lifestyle/19712-men-are-smarter-than-women

Ladies. It's a fact. You can argue until you're blue in the face but as of today men are officially smarter than women! New research carried out by a man (we must mention) shows that men's IQs are almost four points higher than women's.

Men are more intelligent than women, claims new study
He claims the 'glass ceiling' phenomenon is probably due to inferior intelligence, rather than discrimination or lack of opportunity.
The University of Western Ontario psychologist reached his conclusion after scrutinising the results of university aptitude tests taken by 100,000 students aged 17 and 18 of both sexes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-405056/Men-intelligent-women-claims-new-study.html

And surprise, surprise, they end up in the same field as the holocaust revisionists who onarchy also defends.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1271

Rushton's creepy obsessions intersect with the ugliest sides of politics: A 1986 article by Rushton suggested that the Nazi war machine owed its prowess to racial purity, and worried that demographic shifts were endangering our "Northern European" civilization. Rushton co-authored a paper that argued that blacks have a genetic propensity to contract AIDS because of their "reproductive strategy" of promiscuous sex (cited in Newsday, 11/9/94). The other author was Bouchard, the author of those amazing twin studies celebrated in mainstream news outlets.

They just want "the debate" to continue, and they are paid for saying 'the chances are it is the minorities' fault, even if you tried to help them by giving training and jobs, they'd screw it up, so on balance it's not worth the waste of resources'

 

[onarchy]

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.

Actually it means that 30% of the variation is due to differing environments + measuring errors. IQ tests are proxies, you know. So 70% is pretty darn high.

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.

NOBODY!?!?!?!?!?!? How about "IQ is a myth"? How can a myth be heritable?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Actually it means that 30% of the variation is due to differing environments + measuring errors. IQ tests are proxies, you know. So 70% is pretty darn high.



NOBODY!?!?!?!?!?!? How about "IQ is a myth"? How can a myth be heritable?

Both IQ and intelligence are social constructs; being such doesn't mean they can't be measured. It does mean that you can't successfully attach the 'scientific' meaning to them that you want to. However, that won't stop you from trying your racist shenanigans, so carry on digging that hole.

Louis MacNeice

 

[SpineyNorman]

A quick google reveals that Onar has been touting this race "science" stuff on an objectivist loon forum. If you scan through the thread he "proves" that women are almost as shit as blacks.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Edited.

That Bouchard paper is worthless. I'm not going to debate its findings.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Excuse me? What gives you the expertise to make such a claim? Because some guy says so? Rushton is one of the world's most referenced psychologists...

No, he's really not.

He may be one of the world's most referenced scientists in his branch of psychology (although even that is extremely doubtful), but he's certainly not one of the world's most referenced psychologists, unless by "referenced", you mean "gets media column inches" rather than "has his work cited by other psychologists".

and has published dozens of papers in peer reviewed scientific journals.

Hey, who hasn't?

You, I suspect.

That particular book "Race, Evolution, Behavior" contains no new research in itself, it is merely a summary and structuring of existing research published by hundreds of scientists in peer reviewed journals. So how can you without having read it know that it is "political propaganda"? I can equally well come with a positive quote, by no other than the famous biologist E.O. Wilson:

"I think Phil is an honest and capable researcher. The basic reasoning by Rushton is solid evolutionary reasoning; that is, it is logically sound. If he had seen some apparent geographic variation for a non-human species-a species of sparrow or sparrow hawk, for example-no one would have batted an eye. (...) when it comes to [human] racial differences, especially in the inflamed situation in this country, special safeguards and conventions need to be developed."

from Knudson P. (1991), A Mirror to Nature: Reflections on Science, Scientists, and Society; Rushton on Race, Stoddart Publishing (ISBN 0773724672) pg 190

Ed Wilson is hardly a neutral voice on this sort of matter, given his prominence in sociobiology.

No basis except hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers.

Weird. At the beginning of your post it's "dozens", now it's "hundreds"!

Is the pressure of keeping up your lies starting to get to you, without your loyal circle of sycophants to boost you?

 

[frogwoman]

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.

Hello Jared.

 

[frogwoman]

Just in case Onan doesn't get the reference.

 

[rekil]

A quick google reveals that Onar has been touting this race "science" stuff on an objectivist loon forum. If you scan through the thread he "proves" that women are almost as shit as blacks.

I see there's some rubbish about 'value-destroying hip-hop music' in there as well.

 

[onarchy]

They just want "the debate" to continue, and they are paid for saying 'the chances are it is the minorities' fault, even if you tried to help them by giving training and jobs, they'd screw it up, so on balance it's not worth the waste of resources'

If I understand you correctly you're saying that IQ is a myth. Intelligence doesn't exist other than as a human fantasy and has nothing to do with the brain. We have really, really big brains that make up 20% of the body's energy consumption at rest but this has absolutely NOTHING to do with intelligence, and there was NO heritable factors during the evolution of man which natural selection could grab hold on to evolve a bigger brain. It just sort of happened for some reason that has NOTHING to do with heritable cognitive abilities. Is this your position?

Also, is it your position that the twin studies I cited which was authored by Bouchard et al is bogus because Bouchard co-authored a paper with Rushton, which you found ridiculous? So the twin study is completely tainted by his association with Rushton? Is that it?

The thing I always find very, very strange about all the critics of IQ research is that very few of them actually do any research on IQ themselves. I've always wondered why it is so important to quelch research in this area. Why not go the other way? Why not do the ultimate superduper comprehensive study and use a lot of resources to prove once and for all that intelligence has nothing to do with the brain? Why not do a superduper-comprehensive study of penis lengths, brain sizes and the whole enchilada just to prove once and for all that all this research is just racist bogus? Could it possibly be because there is a very real chance that such a comprehensive study with the full force of the scientific community and massive public funding would prove them right?

In the end you ARE claiming that intelligence has nothing to do with the brain, that natural selection somehow managed to evolve what we perceive as human cognitive abilities without any shred of heritability involved. The problem with this claim is that it is ridiculous and it's obvious to anyone.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Actually it means that 30% of the variation is due to differing environments + measuring errors. IQ tests are proxies, you know. So 70% is pretty darn high.



NOBODY!?!?!?!?!?!? How about "IQ is a myth"? How can a myth be heritable?

You're conflating intelligence and the mythical "IQ" (aka "Intelligence Quotient") again, you schmendrick.

 

[onarchy]

Both IQ and intelligence are social constructs; being such doesn't mean they can't be measured.

Ok, just to check: do you think "dog" is a social construct too?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

A little bit too wily if you ask me.

We should probably ban Jews and Orientals from this thread. They have an unfair genetic advantage.

 

[onarchy]

You're conflating intelligence and the mythical "IQ" (aka "Intelligence Quotient") again, you schmendrick.

Ok, so intelligence is *something* but it isn't heritable and it can't be measured?

 

[SpineyNorman]

If I understand you correctly you're saying that IQ is a myth. Intelligence doesn't exist other than as a human fantasy and has nothing to do with the brain. We have really, really big brains that make up 20% of the body's energy consumption at rest but this has absolutely NOTHING to do with intelligence, and there was NO heritable factors during the evolution of man which natural selection could grab hold on to evolve a bigger brain. It just sort of happened for some reason that has NOTHING to do with heritable cognitive abilities. Is this your position?

Also, is it your position that the twin studies I cited which was authored by Bouchard et al is bogus because Bouchard co-authored a paper with Rushton, which you found ridiculous? So the twin study is completely tainted by his association with Rushton? Is that it?

The thing I always find very, very strange about all the critics of IQ research is that very few of them actually do any research on IQ themselves. I've always wondered why it is so important to quelch research in this area. Why not go the other way? Why not do the ultimate superduper comprehensive study and use a lot of resources to prove once and for all that intelligence has nothing to do with the brain? Why not do a superduper-comprehensive study of penis lengths, brain sizes and the whole enchilada just to prove once and for all that all this research is just racist bogus? Could it possibly be because there is a very real chance that such a comprehensive study with the full force of the scientific community and massive public funding would prove them right?

In the end you ARE claiming that intelligence has nothing to do with the brain, that natural selection somehow managed to evolve what we perceive as human cognitive abilities without any shred of heritability involved. The problem with this claim is that it is ridiculous and it's obvious to anyone.

No Onar, that's a conversation you had in your own head. Nobody said there was no link between brain size/makeup and intelligence, neither did they say intelligence didn't exist. You've also already been told that the "research" you cite is dismissed on the basis of scientific merit. The links to eugenicists and the like are just an added bonus.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I see there's some rubbish about 'value-destroying hip-hop music' in there as well.

Nothing about church-destroying Norwegian death metal though, I bet!

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> In the end you ARE claiming that intelligence has nothing to do with the brain, that natural selection somehow managed to evolve what we perceive as human cognitive abilities without any shred of heritability involved.<snip>

Are you actually reading any of the substantive criticisms being put forward at all?

Or just claiming that they're what you'd like them to be for rhetorical purposes?

You certainly don't seem to be responding to any of the substantive criticisms.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Onarchism doesn't look as attractive to me any more. I'm thinking of going back to being a fascist

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What about Robert Bean, Onar? Tell me your thoughts on Robert Bean.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Ok, so intelligence is *something* but it isn't heritable and it can't be measured?

Intelligence is the sum of an individual's knowledge and their ability to deploy it. The potential to accrue and deploy knowledge less or more easily is heritable. The ability to do so is not.

IQ is a measurement (often arbitrary, if you look into the various constituents of IQ tests). It measures less than a fraction of an individual's knowledge or their ability to deploy that knowledge. The forms of measurement vary (there's at least a couple of dozen "standard" IQ tests in circulation even now, although they're given prettier names) and aren't amenable to cross-comparison (something Mr. Rushton and Messrs Herrnstein and Murray weren't very open about).

Why should I pay attention to IQ tests when they're so very marginal at producing data that is useful to psychology?

 

[ViolentPanda]

We should probably ban Jews and Orientals from this thread. They have an unfair genetic advantage.

Fuck you, Goy-boy!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Onarchism doesn't look as attractive to me any more. I'm thinking of going back to being a fascist

I'd offer you a swastika armband, but apparently the people that wore those were actually socialists. It says so in their name, you know.

 

[audiotech]

"The irrational rationalising of an irrational system."

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Ok, just to check: do you think "dog" is a social construct too?

Would that be toy poodle or dingo? This is a genuine question.

Louis MacNeice

p.s. Why no answer to my question re. the distribution of your proposed fantasy child porn?