One possible way to end Affirmative Action?

[Genghis Pwn]

What if a bunch of white high school kids started listing themselves as "African American" on college applications in order to take advantage of the unfair Affirmative Action system?

If it came down to it, the white kids could cite recent mitochondrial DNA evidence (http://www.nature.com/nsu/001207/001207-8.html) that suggests all modern humans came from African ancestors. Or the white kids could just say, "Prove I am not African American." Then the schools would be in the messy position of having to make ALL applicants prove their African or Hispanic lineage. Lol, good luck with that. I'm from Europe and I can't even trace my family tree back more than a hundred and fifty years or so.

What would the liberals do to counter this tactic? Bring out the old skin color test cards? Haha. I would like to see that! It would expose them so perfectly.

[c0rbin]

If only our pale-faced ancestors had been so thoughtful.

[Tricky]

Oh, people have been finding loopholes for years. In fact, our erstwhile VP, Dan Quayle used a program that was designed for (but not limited to) disadvantaged students in order to get into law school (http://www.impactpress.com/articles/decjan98/mindpowr.htm). I guess he thought that just being Dan Quayle was disadvantage enough.:D

[Genghis Pwn]

Has anyone tried the DNA "out of Africa" thing in court? Do universities use skin color cards now?

[Tony]

Ive been putting "native american" on forms that have inquired about my "race" for years (since highschool).

[Genghis Pwn]

Smart move, Tony. ;)

I am going to put African American from here on out. I have been listing my religion as "The Force" for years already.

[jj]

Will someone please turn on the fan when they leave the outhouse?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
Smart move, Tony. ;)

I am going to put African American from here on out. I have been listing my religion as "The Force" for years already.
What a coincidence that sounds like Jedi Knight! You may have seen his posts, he's universally respected for his careful citation of fact and well-reasoned opinions.

[JAR]

Originally posted by subgenius
What a coincidence that sounds like Jedi Knight! You may have seen his posts, he's universally respected for his careful citation of fact and well-reasoned opinions.
I've noticed that Jedi Knight tends not to comment on subjects regarding race relations in the U.S. He tends to comment on gender relations and subjects regarding Arabs, Israel and Islam.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by subgenius

What a coincidence that sounds like Jedi Knight! You may have seen his posts, he's universally respected for his careful citation of fact and well-reasoned opinions.

Worshipped even.

JK

[Suddenly]

I'm partial to "other" as these race questions never have the correct answer ... "human."

[Dancing David]

"other" or "martian"

the problem is that there is bias in the system as a whole.

College admissions in the Michigan case, the person fighting affirmative action just happened to ignore all the unworthy white people who got into school as well. People get into law school because of influence, prestige, thier family giving money, thier family having gone to the law school.

In another thread there was a fair suggestion that only economic status should be considered in affirmative action.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Dancing David


College admissions in the Michigan case, the person fighting affirmative action just happened to ignore all the unworthy white people who got into school as well. People get into law school because of influence, prestige, thier family giving money, thier family having gone to the law school.


How do you know?

In another thread there was a fair suggestion that only economic status should be considered in affirmative action.

Yeah, that was me. But I didnt come up with the idea, I read it somewhere else.

[subgenius]

DD: "People get into (law-ed.) school because of influence, prestige, thier family giving money, thier family having gone to the (law) school."

Now what current president would you be referring to?
Think he got in on merit?

[Ladewig]

I see your point, GP. If I were on your side, I would recommend choosing "Native Alaskan or Innuit" over "African American." It would be harder to disprove and that minority is exceptionally underrepresented, so those applicants may have an edge on the black applicants.

I don't have a problem with affirmative action in colleges. If the goal of college is to provide a well-rounded education, then ensuring a variety of races (and ethnic backgrounds and economic backgrounds) helps achieve that goal. By allowing race to be one small factor in the application process, more good than harm is done.

Lastly, many white applicants point out that a black student may have been accepted even though that student had lower SAT scores. What they aren't aware of (or choose to ignore) is that many white students that were accepted had lower SAT scores as well. Schools that require admission interviews place emphasis on a variety factors: maturity, discipline, deportment, communication skills, background, leadership, etc. I've met teenagers that have acceptable SAT scores that I would not want in my university (if I ran one).

[c0rbin]

And, as I have discussed in other threads...race tends to find its way into many of the other criteria--even those that aren't outrightly race-based.

Like alumni consideration. Some colleges favor candidates whose parents were alumni. Since blacks were not even aloud in many universities barely 40 years ago, a black candidate might not get this kind of advantage.

So, it evens out over time.

[shuize]

My question is where do we draw the line? If affirmative action is used in undergraduate admissions, that's one thing. But after the "disadvantaged" individuals have received a "leg-up" to get into university and prove themselves, should affirmative action be used as a basis to get into graduate programs such as law school? If so, should it be used again to guarantee the now twice benefited job applicants an additional advantage in gaining employment? In this scenario I have to wonder about the stated purpose of affirmative action to "level the playing field."

If affirmative action programs are still in place two or three steps (undergraduate admissions, graduate school admissions, and employment recruiting) along the career path, doesn't that seem to suggest that no matter how many chances are provided for some to "compete equally," they really can't?

Personally, some of the brightest people I have ever met have come from so-called "under-represented" groups. On the other hand, I have met others who, I am certain, would never have been hired if not for some "diversity" program. Unfortunately, the second group reflects poorly on the first, who, I am certain, would never need such a crutch in the first place. They, of course, stand on their own merit and are the last ones to cry "racism" at the slightest criticism.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Ladewig
I don't have a problem with affirmative action in colleges. If the goal of college is to provide a well-rounded education, then ensuring a variety of races (and ethnic backgrounds and economic backgrounds) helps achieve that goal. By allowing race to be one small factor in the application process, more good than harm is done.
I see you are talking about forced integrated education where you take two or more ethnic groups that are quite different and possibly culturally incompatible with each other and force them to live together.

Using it at elementary schools, middle schools and high schools is an easy way to increase the white supremacists population. When middle and upper class white kids have their food stolen at lunch-time by lower class Mexican and black kids, are mugged in restrooms and are treated badly in other ways, it comes as no surprise when these kids seek to gain revenge against the system that hates them by joining neo-nazi organizations.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by JAR

Using it at elementary schools, middle schools and high schools is an easy way to increase the white supremacists population. When middle and upper class white kids have their food stolen at lunch-time by lower class Mexican and black kids, are mugged in restrooms and are treated badly in other ways, it comes as no surprise when these kids seek to gain revenge against the system that hates them by joining neo-nazi organizations.
Interesting theory. Do all Mexicans and blacks steal the white kids lunches or just the lower class ones ? Do they ever mug middle and upper class Mexicans and blacks. What about the lower class white kids do they mug and steal food from the upper and middle class blacks and Mexicans?

[Malachi151]

I never understood oposition to AA.

Its clear that some minorities are under privlidged.

Now, lets say that some black kid gets into a college because of his race, because of AA.

Are you saying that you would rather that this kid NOT get into college?

What do you think will ultimate better effect on society? Do you think that blacks staying poor and less educated is going to help in some way? Isn't there a better chance that this person will become a better and more productive member of society if they a job, an education, whatever.?

Or would you rather they just stay unemployed and collect welfare?

I don't get it, the same people who hate AA also hate welfare. So, which is it?

What you really want is for these people to just die and go away. Well, that's not going to happen.

You can either help the disadvantaged or let them help themselves to stealing your car and using welfare. Unless of couse you think that a black man with no college degree has other wonderful oppertunities waiting for him, asside of course from joining the front lines in Bush's imperial army.

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by Malachi151
I never understood oposition to AA.

Its clear that some minorities are under privlidged.

Now, lets say that some black kid gets into a college because of his race, because of AA.

Are you saying that you would rather that this kid NOT get into college?

What do you think will ultimate better effect on society? Do you think that blacks staying poor and less educated is going to help in some way? Isn't there a better chance that this person will become a better and more productive member of society if they a job, an education, whatever.?

Or would you rather they just stay unemployed and collect welfare?

I don't get it, the same people who hate AA also hate welfare. So, which is it?

What you really want is for these people to just die and go away. Well, that's not going to happen.

You can either help the disadvantaged or let them help themselves to stealing your car and using welfare. Unless of couse you think that a black man with no college degree has other wonderful oppertunities waiting for him, asside of course from joining the front lines in Bush's imperial army.

The government using race to favor one group over another is WRONG, no matter how you try to justify it. Why not use socioeconomic AA instead, for the "underprivileged"?

[Genghis Pwn]

Another farcical aspect of Affirmative Action is AA for "Hispanics." Basically "Hispanics" are a racial mixture of white Europeans (Conquistadors) and people of Mongloid/Asian descent (Mayan, Aztec, Inca, native Americans came from Asia through Alaska).

Whites and Asians (randomly) are not qualified for AA. But a mixture of white and asian IS qualified for Affirmative Action!!!??

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Malachi151
I never understood oposition to AA.

Oh it's dead easy--simply pick your strawman and off you go!

[Ladyhawk]

If you come from a low income family and you've worked your tail off in high school and you have the grades to show it, then AA should be helping you to get a college education because, ultimately, you will be a good return on investment for society. Race should have nothing to do with it. If a black student has higher SAT scores than his white counterpart, then he should get preference; vice versa.

AA is abused and, frankly, I'm getting real tired of the race card being played as much as it is. I grew up in a predominantly black neighborhood and went to the same schools as my neighbors did. How are they more disadvantaged than I was? They had access to the same library, the same teachers, the same resources. Yes, the neighborhood was a tough place to live and I didn't come from a wealthy family. So, why are my minority counterparts any more 'disadvantaged' than I was?

What do you suppose "disadvantaged" should really mean?

[c0rbin]

The government using race to favor one group over another is WRONG, no matter how you try to justify it. Why not use socioeconomic AA instead, for the "underprivileged"?

Awww, is the poor white man feeling oppressed? Poor guy. They should make special cases for all the poor white people who never had a chance :(

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by c0rbin


Awww, is the poor white man feeling oppressed? Poor guy. They should make special cases for all the poor white people who never had a chance :(

Yes. Maybe they should.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
The government using race to favor one group over another is WRONG, no matter how you try to justify it. Why not use socioeconomic AA instead, for the "underprivileged"?

Originally posted by c0rbin
Awww, is the poor white man feeling oppressed? Poor guy. They should make special cases for all the poor white people who never had a chance :(

Your use of sarcasm in response to a legitimate point is noted. Now, can you answer the question?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
If you come from a low income family and you've worked your tail off in high school and you have the grades to show it, then AA should be helping you to get a college education because, ultimately, you will be a good return on investment for society. Race should have nothing to do with it. If a black student has higher SAT scores than his white counterpart, then he should get preference; vice versa.

AA is abused and, frankly, I'm getting real tired of the race card being played as much as it is. I grew up in a predominantly black neighborhood and went to the same schools as my neighbors did. How are they more disadvantaged than I was? They had access to the same library, the same teachers, the same resources. Yes, the neighborhood was a tough place to live and I didn't come from a wealthy family. So, why are my minority counterparts any more 'disadvantaged' than I was?

What do you suppose "disadvantaged" should really mean?

Okay so, if we have a group like just say blacks. And let's say that they score lower on SATs nationally than whites or Asians.

Now, according to most accepted sociological ideology environment plays a big role in development and ultimately in how well educated people become.

We have a few choices. We can let blacks have access to a higher education based on a lower standard for acceptance in the hopes that by having access to college more will make it through college and graduate, to go on to have better jobs and live in a more affluent lifestyle, etc, i.e. getting people out of the ghetto. The idea is that by doing this then future generations of people, their children, will grow up in better environments and then do beter on thier own.

Now, the question can be:

#1 Does that really work?

The anwser has to be yes unless you think that blacks are genetically inferior mentally, which is a viable option.

#2 Assuming that it does work (and I think it does), when is enough enough?

The anwser to that would be when the lines between ethnic groups is blured in measures of success.

AA has a few problems though. #1 Successful people who are minorities still have access to AA policy(there is really no way around it), and #2 AA can't do it alone. AA is just one part of the equation and if the other parts aren't being given proper care, and that responsibility falls mainly on the minority populations themselves, then it still won't work.

AA says, look, we are giving you guys a chance. YOU have to take the responsibilty though and take advantage of this oppertunity. I would nto be opposed to weakening AA to let minorities know that they need to take heed and take this oppertunity seriously. I'm all for AA, but it takes effort on both sides.

[Genghis Pwn]

I thought Affirmative Action was supposed to be making up for intrenched racism and racial injustices. If so, why are blacks and "latinos" qualified for special privileges under AA, but Asians are not? Asians have been victims of racism every bit as much as "latinos". They were forced to work on the railroads, called Chinamen, spit on in the streets, you name it, and the Japenese were tossed into internment camps RECENTLY.

Why are Asians not elligible for AA? In fact, Asians get the opposite -- they are they actually discriminated against at many colleges and universities because too many of them have high scores and perfect grades.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
I thought Affirmative Action was supposed to be making up for intrenched racism and racial injustices. If so, why are blacks and "latinos" qualified for special privileges under AA, but Asians are not? Asians have been victims of racism every bit as much as "latinos". They were forced to work on the railroads, called Chinamen, spit on in the streets, you name it, and the Japenese were tossed into internment camps RECENTLY.

Why are Asians not elligible for AA? In fact, Asians get the opposite -- they are they actually discriminated against at many colleges and universities because too many of them have high scores and perfect grades.
They are eligible for AA, and have used it in the past successively. But it's a procedural problem, in that Asians are not automatically included in AA programs, because, as you note, Asians who do go to university tend to be successful.

But there's a greater problem which is a twofold form of racism; firstly that Asians are a homogenous group, when in fact there is as many different ethnicities as within the white population and secondly, that as some Asian do well in society, then all Asians must be doing well in society--the myth of the "model minority"--which leads to institutional prejudice against them. Fortunately this is not problem with AA per se, rather it's the way AA programmes have been developed, so it should be fairly simple to extend AA programs to automatically include Asian groups.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Malachi151
#1 Does that really work?

The anwser has to be yes unless you think that blacks are genetically inferior mentally, which is a viable option.

Just to clarify--do you really think genetic inferiority is a viable explanation of Black socio-economic failure?

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Malachi151


We have a few choices. We can let blacks have access to a higher education based on a lower standard for acceptance in the hopes that by having access to college more will make it through college and graduate, to go on to have better jobs and live in a more affluent lifestyle, etc, i.e. getting people out of the ghetto. The idea is that by doing this then future generations of people, their children, will grow up in better environments and then do beter on thier own.



I've got a real problem with the 'lower standard for acceptance' thing, because it's discriminatory. As a non-minority, the bar is raised higher for me than others. How can that possibly be fair or equitable? I earn a higher GPA, maybe I graduate cum laude. And a minority student gets my place at a prestigious university simply because they're a minority?

More to the point, how does lowering academic standards benefit anyone? Student, university, employers or society? :confused:

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
......And a minority student gets my place at a prestigious university simply because they're a minority?


Did they?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
What do you suppose "disadvantaged" should really mean?

disadvantaged should mean impoverished.
Nothing to do with race. Thats why AA is s**t.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Just to clarify--do you really think genetic inferiority is a viable explanation of Black socio-economic failure?

No, I don't but you have to give people that option as a viable opinion if they want to try and support that idea. Essentially its just giving people a rope to hang themselves with if they try to use that argument :D

You really only have to two options, environment or genetics. I want to make it clear that if you don't support AA based on its sociological ideology then you are saying that minorities who are not as successful as a group are "genetically inferior".

Its either a social issue or its a genetic issue, make no mistake about what it is that you say.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


disadvantaged should mean impoverished.
Nothing to do with race. Thats why AA is s**t.

Not really, because you assume that people would not be discriminated against based on race w/o it.

We know when AA was put into effect that out of a black and white of equal merit the white was almost always choosen.

There is no way to prevent people from discriminating. W/o the laws those in power, typically white males can choose whites over blacks even if the whites are less qualified.

I'm pro AA, but I also think a time will come when its time to get rid of it. I don't think that time is now.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Did they?

No, Dio....they didn't. I'm just asking if people are okay with that logic or not. It has happened to close friends of mine, but, to be fair, more in the employment arena than in the scholastic one.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Malachi151


No, I don't but you have to give people that option as a viable opinion if they want to try and support that idea. Essentially its just giving people a rope to hang themselves with if they try to use that argument :D

You really only have to two options, environment or genetics. I want to make it clear that if you don't support AA based on its sociological ideology then you are saying that minorities who are not as successful as a group are "genetically inferior".

Its either a social issue or its a genetic issue, make no mistake about what it is that you say.

Which sociological ideology are we talking about? Functional, structural, post-structural, interactionist, feminist or Marxist? ;) :P

There's a third option though--interaction between genetics and environment; you might have a gene to make you grow six foot tall, but without adequate nutrition it's not worth a damn.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk


No, Dio....they didn't. I'm just asking if people are okay with that logic or not. It has happened to close friends of mine, but, to be fair, more in the employment arena than in the scholastic one.

I'm not okay with that logic because it's fallacious--sorry. It assumes that someone has automatic entitlement to a place or a position, and if that place/position is "given" to someone else, then race/gender/(insert favourite AA card here) must be the only factor to explain why the other candidate got that place.

[c0rbin]

Why not use socioeconomic AA instead, for the "underprivileged"?

Okay...I agree. Why not?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Tony


How do you know?


I heard it on the NPR, thier was a radio piece about it, they said that there were something like 70 studrnts who got in with LOWER LSAT and GPA than the person whp brought the suit. And they just pointed out that the suit was only about affirmative action, not all the other ways people get into law school without having the best scores.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Which sociological ideology are we talking about? Functional, structural, post-structural, interactionist, feminist or Marxist? ;) :P

There's a third option though--interaction between genetics and environment; you might have a gene to make you grow six foot tall, but without adequate nutrition it's not worth a damn.

That still comes down to social. The potential is there, but not realized due ot environment.

The ideology that I just said in the previous post. That people are a product of their environment, so AA tries to help improve the environment in which future generations will grow up in by living those that are disadvantaged a leg up.

Is anyone going to claim that blacks as a group have not improved socioeconomically in the past 50 years? I think I rmember reading that they have shown the largest increase in income of any segment of the population, yet they are still behind most groups.

Is anyone goign to argue that that increase is a bad thing? I'd like to see that.

[Dancing David]

On a very broad level I agree that AA is not a nessecarily good thing. But at the University of Illinois it is very appaerent that for somereason there are very few ethnic african students. I think that the real problems come about when you have police and fire departments that don't reflect the community they serve. Its like trying to find male social workers, there are just very few.

But I think we still have to address the fact that there are plenty of ways that people use power to get ahead in life, the USA is not a meriticracy, money had a very strong influence on the system. There are too many people who get into college and jobs beacuse they have money or know someone with money.

I agree with the goals of AA, as a piss poor half measure, but this board has made me more aware that maybe it is a CLASS issue we should be addressing and not a 'minority' issue.

Peace

[c0rbin]

I agree with the goals of AA, as a piss poor half measure, but this board has made me more aware that maybe it is a CLASS issue we should be addressing and not a 'minority' issue.


Indeed. Unfortunately, due to the history of this nation, the two--class and ethnicity--are difficult to rend assunder.

Just my feelings here, having spent time in private and public schools throughout my education, I think it has been and will be a rare thing for the average white male to lose out to a minority simply because of the "minority issue." The doors open to white males across the board are many more.

Sure, one will be able to find the occasional dramatic case of "reverse discrimination", and I'm sure it makes for great conversation around the country club, but I think, as a society, we will be the better in the long run for the bending we do for the sake of inclusion.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
What if a bunch of white high school kids started listing themselves as "African American" on college applications in order to take advantage of the unfair Affirmative Action system?

If it came down to it, the white kids could cite recent mitochondrial DNA evidence (http://www.nature.com/nsu/001207/001207-8.html) that suggests all modern humans came from African ancestors. Or the white kids could just say, "Prove I am not African American." Then the schools would be in the messy position of having to make ALL applicants prove their African or Hispanic lineage. Lol, good luck with that. I'm from Europe and I can't even trace my family tree back more than a hundred and fifty years or so.

What would the liberals do to counter this tactic? Bring out the old skin color test cards? Haha. I would like to see that! It would expose them so perfectly.

Heres a better way to get rid of this Affirmative Action... we just stop using it. Simple, concise, effective. When did acedemics become more about skin color rather than merit. Affirmative Action supports the idea that people of different races are different and should be treated as such... and that sounds like a form of discrimination (actually I believe it would be something called "reverse descrimination")... and everyone knows descrimination = not good.

[Genghis Pwn]

Lol at people who pretend it's impossible that blacks are intellectually inferior. The BELL CURVE seemed pretty straightforward and clear to me when I read it.

I guess you can completely rule it out, even though you have no facts or evidence.

[c0rbin]

Lol at people who pretend it's impossible that blacks are intellectually inferior. The BELL CURVE seemed pretty straightforward and clear to me when I read it.


You see, the problem is that once you admit that you troll people must wonder if any statement you make is serious, or intended for trolling.

Like the boy who cried wolf.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
Lol at people who pretend it's impossible that blacks are intellectually inferior. The BELL CURVE seemed pretty straightforward and clear to me when I read it.

I guess you can completely rule it out, even though you have no facts or evidence.

Wasn't that just black broads, though?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
Lol at people who pretend it's impossible that blacks are intellectually inferior. The BELL CURVE seemed pretty straightforward and clear to me when I read it.

I guess you can completely rule it out, even though you have no facts or evidence.

I haven't ruled it out. I'm wanting you to make that argument.

[jj]

Originally posted by Malachi151


I haven't ruled it out. I'm wanting you to make that argument.

Well, Malachi, there are lots of people here who like to argue about the validity of the BullS**t Curve. I knew it would come up in this discussion sooner or later.

But for some reason, we never really see much addressing of prenatal care, education, etc, issues. A few people do bother to give lip service, and then proceed to claim that a few tests are completely unslanted socially, etc, and that they show that genetics is the primary determination... It gets tiresome, and the same people, when challenged, resort to simple, arrogant namecalling instead of addressing the issues.

(Which I suspect is because they can't, they don't show that race is what it's made out to be, they can't show that things like nutrition, prenatal care, etc, don't matter, and they don't want to take into account the economic implications. Given what has been demonstrated about early childhood development, making claims like "so you say it happens before year 2" and so on look like aggressive debating manouevers from someone who isn't interested in seeing the other side at all.)

Don't take me for one of them.

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by Malachi151


I haven't ruled it out. I'm wanting you to make that argument.

Read the BELL CURVE. The case is laid out clearly that blacks on average have significantly lower IQs than whites and asians.

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by jj


Well, Malachi, there are lots of people here who like to argue about the validity of the BullS**t Curve. I knew it would come up in this discussion sooner or later.

But for some reason, we never really see much addressing of prenatal care, education, etc, issues. A few people do bother to give lip service, and then proceed to claim that a few tests are completely unslanted socially, etc, and that they show that genetics is the primary determination... It gets tiresome, and the same people, when challenged, resort to simple, arrogant namecalling instead of addressing the issues.

(Which I suspect is because they can't, they don't show that race is what it's made out to be, they can't show that things like nutrition, prenatal care, etc, don't matter, and they don't want to take into account the economic implications. Given what has been demonstrated about early childhood development, making claims like "so you say it happens before year 2" and so on look like aggressive debating manouevers from someone who isn't interested in seeing the other side at all.)

Don't take me for one of them.

jj, even blacks from high income upper-middle-class black families score exactly the same, that is much lower than whites and asians, even whites and asians from poor, broken homes. THE BELL CURVE addresses that issue.

[DavidJames]

"blacks on average have significantly lower IQs than whites and asians."

Perhaps this thread should be moved to stormfront.org

[jj]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn


Read the BELL CURVE. The case is laid out clearly that blacks on average have significantly lower IQs than whites and asians.

BWAHA HAHAHAHHAHA

Let's get this straight.

Let us assume, PURELY for argument's sake, that IQ means something. Then, let us assume, again purely for argument's sake, that education, social climate, medical care (including prenatal) nuitrition, and all other environmental factors HAVE NO EFFECT on "IQ". Let us presume again, purely for argument's sake, that it makes any statistical sense to combine all those different tests, that the tests were all socially and culturally unbiased, etc.

Even if we accept all those absurd ideas, race accounts for 25% of the difference in IQ.

This is "clear" exactly how, Ghengis? It's "NOT CLEAR" at all that the data shows anything even remotely conclusive.

[jj]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn


jj, even blacks from high income upper-middle-class black families score exactly the same, that is much lower than whites and asians, even whites and asians from poor, broken homes. THE BELL CURVE addresses that issue.

No, sir, it does not "address" that issue, it BEGS it.

Just go back to Stormfront.

[jj]

Oh, and since I bothered to reply to Ghengis, which is obviously a waste of time since he's only here to try to get people to hate each other:

Ghengis, it comes as no surprise at all that your "solution" to affirmative action is simply advising minors to lie.

Pathetic.

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"blacks on average have significantly lower IQs than whites and asians."

Perhaps this thread should be moved to stormfront.org

Nice way to take that out of context. I said that is what the BOOK asserts.

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by jj


No, sir, it does not "address" that issue, it BEGS it.

Just go back to Stormfront.

Lol, the ad hom "racist" attacks commence simply because I offered a skeptical view of people who made blanket statements saying intelligence couldn't possibly be a factor in why different races perform differently in school. I asked for some evidence, then I provided the BELL CURVE as a source of evidence that contridicts the blanket statements about intelligence differences in races being "impossible."

That is very feeble of you to fall back on ad hom attacks so quickly! You did that in record time!

[DavidJames]

"Nice way to take that out of context. I said that is what the BOOK asserts."

Yes, you are correct, you are simply parroting the book, I didn't mean to imply (which is why I didn't use your name) that YOU believed that. My comment stands, however, the Bell Curve is nonsense and has been dismissed, here is one example.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/course/topics/curveball.html

So, my comment was more an editorial about how I feel about those that support that book.

Please don't let me stop you from continuing your discussion, however. I will find it very reveling.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Lothian

Interesting theory. Do all Mexicans and blacks steal the white kids lunches or just the lower class ones ? Do they ever mug middle and upper class Mexicans and blacks. What about the lower class white kids do they mug and steal food from the upper and middle class blacks and Mexicans?
Just the lower class Mexican and black kids do the lunch stealing. They might mug middle and upper class Mexicans and blacks. I don't know recollect them doing that at my school. When I was in sixth grade, I begged my mother to let me have my hair dyed black because I noticed that my friends who had darker hair than I did didn't get bothered as much by the local kids. My mother didn't let me and I'm glad she didn't because I later knew a girl who got into that goth stuff and dyed her hair black and it looked fake.

I never saw the lower class white kids stealing from people at my school, but there also wasn't very many of them. Due to their small numbers(I only remember seeing about five at my school), they couldn't do that thing where you get in a group and corner someone in a restroom.

[Dancing David]

There is alot of controversy surronding the bell curve, there are biasis in testing, especialy IQ testing.

So what was this thread about , oh yeah affirmative action. Wether people want to talk about it racism does exist, there is the 'redlining' phenomena where wihite and blacks are set different standards for buying houses.

I agree that AA is not the best solution but why are people in denial of the crap that does occur in the 'back room'. Seriously , in most cases the job hiring decision is made before the applicants are even interviewed and who you know counts for more than what you know.

So is economic status the only consideration for AA?

[Genghis Pwn]

David James, this debate is not about the BELL CURVE. I have seen all the half-ass, panicked rebuttals of the BELL CURVE. The fact is, many of the statitics in that book are so god damn clear that no human being alive could refute them. NO ONE. Even the critics pick and choose a few points to try to discredit the whole book, but numbers are numbers.

Anyway, there is no "proof" at all being offered here to show that race is not a factor in human intelligence, so all the blanket statements saying race "couldn't possibly" be a factor need to be backed up, or seen as what they are -- wishful thinking.

I know it's not popular to say things like this, just as the English skeptic in James Randi's column this week discussed . But I can't stand seeing flat out falsehoods being accepted at face value simply because they fall in line with PC thinking.

[DavidJames]

"this debate is not about the BELL CURVE"

True and it was going along guite nicely until YOU referenced it to support your beliefs. At that point, it becomes open for discussion as a viable source of information.

So if you want to retract YOUR use of the Bell Curve to support your claims, then you will not need address it anymore.

[Genghis Pwn]

David, people like Malachi151 are making pronouncements that intelligence differences between racial groups could not possibly have anything to do with why certain races do better than others in school. To make statements like that in support of government-funded discrimination policies (AA), he needs to back them up.

[Dancing David]

I think that there is good eveidence that if you come from a white middle calss familt then you will do well on an IQ test, the question is if the test is

1. Culturaly biased towards ethic europeans of the middle calss?
2. Do IQ tests reall mean anything?

If IQ tests were really good at determininbg who would make a good employee then I am sure most employers would use them. The problems with the genetics of race is that there is more divergence inside 'races' than between 'races.

GP, you are getting very good at this, you are making more points, I comend your more rational and less emotional approach.

(YOUR still wrong, nyah,nayh,nayh,naysh. WINK)

Where does this go with affirmative action?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
David, people like Malachi151 are making pronouncements that intelligence differences between racial groups could not possibly have anything to do with why certain races do better than others in school. To make statements like that in support of government-funded discrimination policies (AA), he needs to back them up.

I never said that, I specifically left that open as a possibility.

Furthermore, intelligence is not the only factor in doing well in school or work. In fact many intelligent people don't do well in school. Einstein did poorly in school, I was a C student in highschool and college, yet have an IQ in the 140s, while people with IQs in the 100 range make all As and Bs.

To say that genetics is the sole reason and that enviroment makes no difference though is to total cast out mountians of obvious data.

Its up to you to show that improvements in enviroment will have no positive effect of success or achievement.

[jj]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn

Lol, the ad hom "racist" attacks commence simply because I offered a skeptical view of people who made blanket statements saying intelligence couldn't possibly be a factor in why different races perform differently in school.

No, that's not what happened. First, you're not exactly showing any "skepticism" about your sources. Second, your "... intellegence ... factor" statement is a straw man, and finally, it's not ad-hom if it's true.

Stop dodging.

You asserted a position from the "Bell Curve".

So, address the criticisms or be known to have no support and no skeptical enquiry about your own sources.

[c0rbin]

Stop dodging.

Dude, JJ, GP is not dodging...he is trolling. And quite admitedly.

[jj]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
David James, this debate is not about the BELL CURVE.

It wasn't until you raised that nasty bit of trash.
I have seen all the half-ass, panicked rebuttals of the BELL CURVE.

Really? Have you seen the serious, telling, obvious ones that utterly destroy any idea that the book might have meaning?

Or did you ignore those?

The fact is, many of the statitics in that book are so god damn clear that no human being alive could refute them.

Ok, now we see your agenda showing. They have been refuted over and over. Furthermore, even the BEST results that the book shows are limited and questionable, and account for 25% of the variance in the data. That's really a pretty lame trend when you get down to it.

So what's to refute? A 25% trend that is only that if one accepts the idea that IQ tests measure anything beyond the ability to take IQ tests.

NO ONE. Even the critics pick and choose a few points to try to discredit the whole book, but numbers are numbers.

And the numbers are clear. There's nothing much, if anything, to the whole point of the book.

Now, understand I am not saying that there are not genetic tendencies in any given individual, it's obvious that there are. What is also obvious is that the assertions about races just don't hold up to any serious examination.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
Lol at people who pretend it's impossible that blacks are intellectually inferior. The BELL CURVE seemed pretty straightforward and clear to me when I read it.

I guess you can completely rule it out, even though you have no facts or evidence.
That American blacks in general are the intellectual inferiors of American white people in general is obvious. The question is whether this is due to genetic causes or environmental causes.

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by JAR

That American blacks in general are the intellectual inferiors of American white people in general is obvious. The question is whether this is due to genetic causes or environmental causes.

Jar, I'm sure both are factors.

Anyway, a good replacement for Racial AA is Socioeconimic AA. I hope the debate will begin to focus on what comes next. Using race to pit one part of America against another cannot be justified.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by JAR

That American blacks in general are the intellectual inferiors of American white people in general is obvious. The question is whether this is due to genetic causes or environmental causes.

Obvious to whom? I know black people, do you ? How do you define 'intellectualy', lets see, most black I know are better story tellers than white folks, they seem to have a higher understanding of the complex interedependant nature of reality and they seem to have better social skills. I could say something like 'most red necks are very shallow and intellectualy challenged' but it doesn't make it so.
Telling point, I scored two perfect scores on the ACT, rated 97% on the PSAT, I didn't learn to read til third grade , didn't learn to spell until I was twenty five. I still have the most horrible cursive handwriting.So am I stupid, or do I have strenths and deficits?
I have better intellectual capacity than most stupid people I know.

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Obvious to whom? I know black people, do you ? How do you define 'intellectualy', lets see, most black I know are better story tellers than white folks, they seem to have a higher understanding of the complex interedependant nature of reality and they seem to have better social skills. I could say something like 'most red necks are very shallow and intellectualy challenged' but it doesn't make it so.
Telling point, I scored two perfect scores on the ACT, rated 97% on the PSAT, I didn't learn to read til third grade , didn't learn to spell until I was twenty five. I still have the most horrible cursive handwriting.So am I stupid, or do I have strenths and deficits?
I have better intellectual capacity than most stupid people I know.

A bunch of anecdotal BS and fuzzy feel-good speak. :rolleyes:

[c0rbin]

Troll

[JAR]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Obvious to whom? I know black people, do you ? How do you define 'intellectualy', lets see, most black I know are better story tellers than white folks, they seem to have a higher understanding of the complex interedependant nature of reality and they seem to have better social skills. I could say something like 'most red necks are very shallow and intellectualy challenged' but it doesn't make it so.
Telling point, I scored two perfect scores on the ACT, rated 97% on the PSAT, I didn't learn to read til third grade , didn't learn to spell until I was twenty five. I still have the most horrible cursive handwriting.So am I stupid, or do I have strenths and deficits?
I have better intellectual capacity than most stupid people I know.
You bet I know black people. I live next door to black people and the people who live across the street from me are black people. I went to a middle school and a high school, both with more black people than white people. If you think they are intellectually superior than white people, I don't know what you're smokin'.

[JAR]

Originally posted by JAR

You bet I know black people. I live next door to black people and the people who live across the street from me are black people. I went to a middle school and a high school, both with more black people than white people. If you think they are intellectually superior than white people, I don't know what you're smokin'.
My apology Dancing David. Perhaps white people aren't so smart after all. White people like you who love affirmative action so much are pure evidence that white people are a bunch of stupid shmucks.

[bpesta22]

Originally posted by jj


Well, Malachi, there are lots of people here who like to argue about the validity of the BullS**t Curve. I knew it would come up in this discussion sooner or later.

But for some reason, we never really see much addressing of prenatal care, education, etc, issues. A few people do bother to give lip service, and then proceed to claim that a few tests are completely unslanted socially, etc, and that they show that genetics is the primary determination... It gets tiresome, and the same people, when challenged, resort to simple, arrogant namecalling instead of addressing the issues.

(Which I suspect is because they can't, they don't show that race is what it's made out to be, they can't show that things like nutrition, prenatal care, etc, don't matter, and they don't want to take into account the economic implications. Given what has been demonstrated about early childhood development, making claims like "so you say it happens before year 2" and so on look like aggressive debating manouevers from someone who isn't interested in seeing the other side at all.)

Don't take me for one of them.

JJ

These claims aren't true. I've always argued that the black white differences are neither due to environmental factors nor to test bias.

And, I've backed my claims by citing relevant peer reviewed literature at every step.

Plus, I don't think I did any name calling.

I'd just stop short in claiming the difference is genetic. I think the difference is real, we just don't know what causes it. And, if it is envionmental, it's escaped about 80 years of research on potential aspects of the environment that might cause the difference.

I think the error with AA is the assumption that education makes one smart.

It doesn't.

Smart people get educated.

Hence, accepting people into an academic program when the lack the cognitive ability to succeed in the program will always be doomed to failure.

On the other hand, I think AA in employment is reasonable. As outlined in Steelworkers V Weber, AA is ok if:

it's remedial (a disparity exists),

it's temporary (once the disparity is corrected, the plan ends)

It doesn't trammel the interests of whites (e.g., by saying no white person can get hired when the AA plan is in force).

Using race as a consideration in selection is ok, only as long as the candidates are otherwise qualified.

Letting unqualified blacks in (i.e., those that lack the cognitive ability to succeed, as evidenced by their test scores) is wrong on so many levels.

BTW, which issues do you want me to address with your claim that it's the solely the environment that's caused the black race to under achieve?

B

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn


A bunch of anecdotal BS and fuzzy feel-good speak. :rolleyes:

Oh GP you let me down. whats the matter sprain your brain?

Define intelectual and then explain how IQ testing has anything to do with it.(IQ testing has nothing to do with anything other than IQ testing it is not shown to have a relative coorelation to anything)

[bpesta22]

Originally posted by jj

And the numbers are clear. There's nothing much, if anything, to the whole point of the book.

Now, understand I am not saying that there are not genetic tendencies in any given individual, it's obvious that there are. What is also obvious is that the assertions about races just don't hold up to any serious examination.

JJ.

You could throw out the Bell Curve-- pretend it never existed-- and still make the same claims as it did using other data sets.

I think the quarrel isn't with their stats, methods or results. It's the conclusion that the differences are genetic that's shaky.

Other than that, I don't think scientists who publish in this area would consider the bell curve to be a piece of trash.

If you want trash, consider the mismeasure of man!

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by JAR

My apology Dancing David. Perhaps white people aren't so smart after all. White people like you who love affirmative action so much are pure evidence that white people are a bunch of stupid shmucks.

I'm glad to know you know some black people, usually when people making sweeping generalizations it is based on ignorance. Could you explain how you came to the conclusion that black people are intellectualy inferior?

And where do you get off with the stuff about affirmative action, I have joined the socioeconomic AA bandwagon. Do I love afirmative action, perhaps I should start sneaking around having an affair. Please don't tell my wife.

Your conclusion that I love affirmative action is based on as much evidence that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites.

Gee I can't say that your any good at insulting people but that must be a sign that you have an overpowering intellect.

[Malachi151]

I'd just stop short in claiming the difference is genetic. I think the difference is real, we just don't know what causes it.

Its the magical mystery difference. Sounds like garbage to me. :rolleyes:

I never said that there is no genetic difference, but even a general genetic difference does not preclude environmental factors either.

In order to prove that AA has no merit you would have to prove that NONE of the difference has to do with environment.

You would have to prove that every ethic groups has exactly equal oppertunity or that equal oppertunity is not affected by race in any way, etc.

Even if discrimination based on race completely went away, if everyone totally forgot about race, if you start off with a larger percentage of one group in poverty than another, the expectation would be if everyone really is equal, that that descrepancy will continue on forever. In order for it to change you would have to assume that the groups who are worse off are actually better then the other groups and will improve their status by being more competative than the rest.

Sorry, but you don't get the luxury of saying that its not environment nor is it genetic. Its one or the other, period. If its a combination of both then that means that environment is still an issue. In cannot be anything other that environment or genetics, there is nothing else unless you want to claim they are inferior for supernatural reasons.

The only way to say that AA is useless is to say that blacks, or whatever group, are simply naturally inferior in terms of what it takes to be sucessful in American culture.

I think the error with AA is the assumption that education makes one smart.

It doesn't.

Smart people get educated.

Wrong, but AA is not just about education, its also about employment. Education can help anyone, no matter how stupid they are. An educated person with an IQ or 80 is still better off then and uneducated person with an IQ of 80.

Not all intelligent people may have access to education, or may be in an enviroment condusive to learning. You can be intelligent and grow up in a single parent household with 5 siblings in a crack house and go to a crappy public school and not care about education because of your environment, yet still score high on an IQ test, yet never get a good education and never get a good job, and instead put your skills to dealing drugs and stealing cars.

Put the same person in a better setting and they may become a doctor instead, unless you think that everyone is a born this, or a born that, in which case why even have education at all.

Hence, accepting people into an academic program when the lack the cognitive ability to succeed in the program will always be doomed to failure.

You assume that the only reason someone may do poorly in school or SAT tests is intelligence, which it isn't. Lots of people do poorly in highschool and great in college, or visa versa. Furthermore the idea is that even if these people do not excel in higher education at least they get a higher education and it is then more likely that THEIR CHILDREN will be better off. Its not about helping the individual directly is about builidng future generations that are born into better circumstances.

Of course it also goes into the heart of capitalism. Capitalism naturally creates separate classes. We have to use programs to countract that tendancy. In a free-market system with no social or economic regulations classes would quickly become stratified and a cast system develops where people have little economic or social mobility.

[bpesta22]

Originally posted by Malachi151
I'd just stop short in claiming the difference is genetic. I think the difference is real, we just don't know what causes it. [/b]

Its the magical mystery difference. Sounds like garbage to me.



My point was just because the evidence for the environment is weak, doesn't mean the genetic conclusion follows.

I tend to go with the data-- so, although the difference could be genetic, I'm not convinced given the data.

I'm even less convinced given the data on environment.

Thus, my claim that the difference is real, and we just don't know still seems, IMO, to be the best conclusion.

Re: the rest of your post.

I disagree with your comments on education. I'm not sure a person with an 80 IQ could get an education, and I'm pretty sure the "education" he'd get wouldn't help him succeed in life any better. Unfortunately, this person's life accomplishments would be limited by a low IQ. Certainly, he could overcome this and succeed despite his lack of smarts, but the cards are stacked against him. The crime comes when we deny someone who deserves the education the opportunity because we feel compelled to correct something that probably can't be corrected (no one's ever done anything to raise a person's IQ in the long run).

Also, shouldn't we have some reasonable estimate of how much the black disadvantage is due to environment before we start implementing programs and preferences to correct the problem?

Isn't there some type of costs benefits analysis that should be applied?

We've poored gobs of money into head start, only to realize that trying to raise a kid's IQ by putting him in an enriched learning environment just doesn't work.

Again, I'm not necc. against AA for education, but I think you need the test scores first, and then we can give preference to certain races. Would you want to be the guy with the 90 IQ competing against the 115's, especially when your success or failure will confirm or refute their stereotypes.

Ignoring cognitive ability when deciding who gets accepted into college is just a dumb idea, IMO?

B

[Malachi151]

My point was just because the evidence for the environment is weak, doesn't mean the genetic conclusion follows

First of all, you have not backed up your claim that the evidence for environment is weak. As far as I know its quite strong.

Or am I wrong that people who grow up in poverty are more likely to be poor, that people who grow up in abusive households are more likely to be abusive, that people who grow up in families that argue a lot tend also to argue a lot, etc.

The evidence that I am aware of shows that genetics and environment play comparable roles. Its too simple to say they are equal, they are not. Genetics determine how environment affects behavior, but environment does, always, have some affect.

And of course environment definitely affects opportunity, obviously, and opportunity is what it's all about.

I tend to go with the data-- so, although the difference could be genetic, I'm not convinced given the data.

I'm even less convinced given the data on environment.

What data are you talking about?

Thus, my claim that the difference is real, and we just don't know still seems, IMO, to be the best conclusion.

That's just copout due to you not wanting to say that you think its all genetic.

disagree with your comments on education. I'm not sure a person with an 80 IQ could get an education, and I'm pretty sure the "education" he'd get wouldn't help him succeed in life any better.

That was an example, I didn't mean that they should be admitted to Yale at the expense of an intelligent white student. I just mean that education can always be positive to some degree.

Unfortunately, this person's life accomplishments would be limited by a low IQ.

Not really, look at George Bush ;) Its a factor, yes, but a lot depends on environment and opportunity, in fact even more so. People who are less intelligent are more likely to stay in their same socioeconomic status, so if a person is born into a poor family and they are not intelligent then they have little or no opportunity, yet a person of equal intelligence born into a wealthy family will likely still have plenty of opportunity and a good lifestyle. I saw a graph on this once, but I dunno where the link is now.

The crime comes when we deny someone who deserves the education the opportunity because we feel compelled to correct something that probably can't be corrected (no one's ever done anything to raise a person's IQ in the long run).

Education and IQ have nothing to do with each other. Going to school is about education, not changing IQs. Why do you keep talking about IQ anyway? It's not even the point. Education is about information and career preparation.

Also, do you have any information about white people being denied an education due to AA? Kind of a big claim to make with no "data".

We aren't talking about "correcting" anything. No one is trying to make people "smarter", the issue is opportunity, for the 100th time. The issue is taking people who have less opportunity and giving them a leg up so that their children will more likely have more opportunity.

We've poored gobs of money into head start, only to realize that trying to raise a kid's IQ by putting him in an enriched learning environment just doesn't work.

Head Start is not about IQ. Its about education, two SEPARATE things.

Again, I'm not necc. against AA for education, but I think you need the test scores first, and then we can give preference to certain races. Would you want to be the guy with the 90 IQ competing against the 115's, especially when your success or failure will confirm or refute their stereotypes.

Show me any AA policy that refers to IQ tests for anything. There is no such thing. IQ is not used for these things. Tests that measure education and knowledge are used for entry into schools, not IQ tests. Of two people with equal IQs its likely that the one with a better environment will also get more out of education and do better on tests.

Ignoring cognitive ability when deciding who gets accepted into college is just a dumb idea, IMO?

Well then all entry into college is dumb, because college entry is not based on cognitive ability, its based on tests of knowledge, two totally different things.

[jj]

Originally posted by bpesta22


JJ

These claims aren't true. I've always argued that the black white differences are neither due to environmental factors nor to test bias.

Err, don't assume I'm only talking about you, Mr Pest? Can that be right? B. Pest? ???? It doesn't sound right. Anyhow, ask your bud-in-posting Hammeg about why I might be a bit peeved by some of the terms applied.

And, I've backed my claims by citing relevant peer reviewed literature at every step.

I can also show lots of relevant peer-reviewed arguments for the 'cochlear amplifier' hypothesis, Lamarckism, and so on. Yes, I agree, you can find reviewed literature, that on all (I don't think 'both' is proper, it's not a two-valued proposition) sides of the fence.

I'd just stop short in claiming the difference is genetic. I think the difference is real, we just don't know what causes it. And, if it is envionmental, it's escaped about 80 years of research on potential aspects of the environment that might cause the difference.

I think prenatal care is quite clear, as is nuitrition as an infant/baby/toddler... As you say:

I think the error with AA is the assumption that education makes one smart.

It doesn't.

And if your mom isn't well fed and you don't get enough fats, etc, as an infant, yes, I agree, it might just be too late.

Smart people get educated.

Hence, accepting people into an academic program when the lack the cognitive ability to succeed in the program will always be doomed to failure.

But you can't presume that they can't succeed, either. I know of successful dyslexic research scientists (not one, mind you), just for one example, and I know more than one person who was a miserable failure at standardized testing OF THE KINDS THAT SCHOOLS USE until they got some education (aside from the second-language issue, that one is obvious and moot if you give the test in a first language) and were taught some of the "rules".

So it's not "doomed" in all cases, I dare say.

I have no idea how to separate the people, though, and I do agree that some people are much brighter than others. You've said (or was it Hammegk) that people's impressions were nearly always wrong, so we probably won't get anywhere there, but eventual results speak for themselves. I will say that with one or two exceptions, how a summer intern will produce seems to be predictable within a week or so of 9 weeks, but then again, the measures are hard to establish and experience suggests you'll quibble with the measures, which are subjective, but do involve patents, standards, etc, sometimes, which are quite concrete.

BTW, which issues do you want me to address with your claim that it's the solely the environment that's caused the black race to under achieve?
B
Once again, I have not claimed that. Please cease insisting otherwise. If you bother to go back to what I've said, I am VERY clearly not saying that it's "solely the environment". This is not the first time that that false, unethical straw man has been introduced on my "behalf", and I am exceptionally weary of it. Is there a reason that you continue with that particularly untoward straw man?

[JAR]

Originally posted by Dancing David
[snip]
Could you explain how you came to the conclusion that black people are intellectualy inferior?
[snip]
Plain and simple. I have noticed that intellectuals are much rarer among the black population than they are among the white population.

The American Heritage College Dictionary defines the noun "intellectual" as, "An intellectual person."

It defines the adjective "intellectual" as, "1.a. Of or relating to the intellect. b. Rational rather than emotional. 2. Appealing to or engaging the intellect. 3.a. Having or showing intellect, esp. to a high degree. b. Given to exercise of the intellect; inclined toward abstract thinking."

It defines the noun "intellect" as, "1.a. The ability to learn and reason; the capacity for knowledge and understanding. b. The ability to think abstractly or profoundly. 2. A person of great intellectual ability."

In view of these definitions and my personal experiences, I have found that white people are more likely to engage their ability to learn and reason and to think profoundly. Thus, white people generally are the intellectual superiors of black people.

[Malachi151]

Plain and simple. I have noticed that intellectuals are much rarer among the black population than they are among the white population.

You gotta be kidding me!

This is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard, and immediately places you in the "not and intellectual" category.

You have "noticed". Nice scientific study there.

Let's see, your observations can be influenced by:

#1 Personal bias
#2 Media bias
#3 Cultural bias (of your culture and their culture)

How involved are you in the black community? How many black lawyers, doctors, scientists, politicians, do you hang out with?

This is one of the most stupid statements I have ever heard on a variety of levels. #1 it totally ignores what AA is all about, which is environment, which is to say that even if there were merit to your observations there are environmental reasons for them, and #2 your observations are completely useless, #3 becoming a recognized intellectual has a lot to do with the very things that AA is trying to address, white prejudice in not recognizing the achievements or potential of minorities.

How many times have studies prven layman's observatoins wrong? Like millions of times.

[Genghis Pwn]

Malachi151, the guy is simply stating his observations. You are just pissed off because he is not bowing your politically correct guidelines.

You have not produced any facts showing that blacks are as intelligent as whites and asians (using IQ tests as a measure of intelligence), yet the BELL CURVE and mountains of data show in fact that they are not. And look at how well they do in school compared to whites and asians. Look at who leads the fields in intellectually demanding disciplines like physics, math, finance, etc. Look at military aptitude tests. Look at LSATs. Look at ASVABs. Look at SATs. The IQ numbers alone are beyond question.

I even pointed out that blacks from upper-middle-income "good homes" (from wealthy families in Boston, for example, who send their kids to the best private schools) score much lower than whites and asians as a whole. And this in the face of the fact that wealthier people are usually more intelligent than poor people. You have conveniently overlooked this point.

Have you read the BELL CURVE cover to cover? I have, twice. The raw number alone make the case, even if closed-minded liberals try to smear the rest of the work because they don't like the conclusions.

[bpesta22]

JJ: Point taken. I thought you might have forgoten about me when you claimed that no one on the other side of the debate here had any rational arguments / only resorted to name calling when challenged.

And, btw, yes, my user name includes my last name, Pesta.....although you said "pest" (haven't heard that one before!)

Malachi:

We've debated IQ at length in two or three threads. If interested, do a search.

I don't think you can separate education from IQ-- that's my point.

Iq correlates .50 with GPA and .55 with year's education. And, for example, the odds that a high school grad will have a higher IQ than a phd are 100:1.

College admissions exams like the SAT also correlate (.5 if memory serves) with IQ tests.

So, again: Ignoring cognitive ability when deciding who gets the higher education is a bad idea.

Plus, I'm not sure college is the appropriate place for preparing low IQ people-- black or white-- for careers. Some type of tecnical training would seem far more relevant to them than, say, calculus or Shakespeare.

JMO.

B

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by bpesta22
JJ: Point taken. I thought you might have forgoten about me when you claimed that no one on the other side of the debate here had any rational arguments / only resorted to name calling when challenged.

And, btw, yes, my user name includes my last name, Pesta.....although you said "pest" (haven't heard that one before!)

Malachi:

We've debated IQ at length in two or three threads. If interested, do a search.

I don't think you can separate education from IQ-- that's my point.

Iq correlates .50 with GPA and .55 with year's education. And, for example, the odds that a high school grad will have a higher IQ than a phd are 100:1.

College admissions exams like the SAT also correlate (.5 if memory serves) with IQ tests.

So, again: Ignoring cognitive ability when deciding who gets the higher education is a bad idea.

Plus, I'm not sure college is the appropriate place for preparing low IQ people-- black or white-- for careers. Some type of tecnical training would seem far more relevant to them than, say, calculus or Shakespeare.

JMO.

B

Dude, you just... don't... get... it.

In order for any argument abotu IQ to be worth anything in relation to AA this is what you would have to show:

#1 That everyone in every school is learning to the maximum capacity of their intellectual ability.

#2 That everyone of equal IQ has equal oppertunity in relation to race.

Prove those things.

It does to even matter if what you say is correct, that blacks as a population has an averge IQ lower than whites. Assuming that is correct it still does not make a case against AA.

In order to make a case against AA you have to show that blacks, or any other minority, are not disadvantaged in any way other than by their IQ. You are making IQ out to be the be all and end all of everything, which it is not.

George W. Bush is one of the lowest IQ, actually I think the lowest IQ, I've read conflicting reports on that though, presidents we have ever had. My IQ is around 40 points higher than his, based on the reports that I read. He went to Yale(shop lifted, got 2 DWIs and did cocaine), made Cs, was given positions in oil companies, and is now president. I went to a local University on scholarship, made Bs, and went on to a $45K a year job. Oppertunity is not based on IQ, success is not based on IQ, quality of life is not based on IQ, contribution to society is not based on IQ, in America it is based largely on money and social acceptance, which is related to money.

Ability to contribute to society is also linked to oppertunity. Poor people have less oppertunity to benefit society. Society can only benfit by helping people who are disadvantaged to become no longer disadvantaged so that they can be productive and helpful, instead of a burden.

You have still failed to show how AA has a negative impact on whites as well. You have also failed to show that AA quotas disproportionate favor minorities beyond theri natural ability. In order to have any argument based on IQ you would first have to show have many blacks have what you consider to be an acceptable IQ for whatever program and then show that the quotas are disproportinately higher than the number of qualified people based on IQ if that is your basis.

Helping disadvantaged minorities become more affluent, which is really what this is all about, only helps to eliminate the negative aspects of poor minority culture. How can you complain about blacks being poor and having a higher rate of crime if you don't help blacks get out of poverty, and also at the same time claim that blacks.. damn got to go.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by JAR



It defines the noun "intellect" as, "1.a. The ability to learn and reason; the capacity for knowledge and understanding. b. The ability to think abstractly or profoundly. 2. A person of great intellectual ability."

In view of these definitions and my personal experiences, I have found that white people are more likely to engage their ability to learn and reason and to think profoundly. Thus, white people generally are the intellectual superiors of black people.

Cool I like the Amepican Heritage Dictionary as well.

I just find that there are as many 'intellectuals' who will tell me the same thing about middle class rural americans as there are americans who say the same thing about blacks.
They have the same feelings about 'rednecks', 'peckers', 'gearheads' and 'grits' that you express about black people and I have found that rural americans are capapble of intellectual capacity and the same for black people. It tends to be a matter of where the energy is applied more than ability.
These are the same arguments that the Latini appleid to the Tadeschi and Gauls, that the Prussians applied to the Bavarians, the British applied to the Irish and Scots and that Americans have applied to the Irish, Italians and Polish.
I feel it is a mtter of cultural and class differences.

It cuts both ways as well, I certainly have met blacks who feel whites are stupid, for the same reasons.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn

IHave you read the BELL CURVE cover to cover? I have, twice. The raw number alone make the case, even if closed-minded liberals try to smear the rest of the work because they don't like the conclusions.

Sorry Ghengis I suggest you read on how to conduct meta analysis and testing theory before you take everything in that book as gospel truth.
If the schools and tests were devised by a non-white culture then there would be biasis towards non-whites.
Everyone talks about who smart Asians are as a whole, but rarely are there adjustments for socioeconomic factors. there are populations of asiand who are dropping out of school, joining gangs and doing all the things that lower class people do. but statisticaly they don't bump the curve.
There are class differences in america, there are life differences that effect testing and school as well. In a meta analysis those need to be contoled for and usually can't.
Something as simple as parents working two jobs, raising younger siblings and noisy enviroment can drasticaly effect test scores, and unless you match each case in one group to a similar case in another group, then you have not controled for all the variables in the meta analysis.
Then there are things like cultural investment in education, parental involvement and the money at the school, those also need to be taken into account in a controlled fashion in a meta analysis.

This is why even though every one in small twons likes to brags about thier schools, there kids consistantly test lower than the kids in larger towns. (At least in Illinois)

Peace

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by bpesta22


JJ.

You could throw out the Bell Curve-- pretend it never existed-- and still make the same claims as it did using other data sets.

I think the quarrel isn't with their stats, methods or results. It's the conclusion that the differences are genetic that's shaky.


The quarrel is that the conclusion leads the research, and not vice versa, which is not necessarily such a bad thing, except that H&M dropped instances from their stats sets, but didn't acknowledge the effect this could have on their results, and their results aren't replicable. Now, I've got nothing against cross-disciplinary research, but I'd be concerned that a behaviourist and a sociologist would publish without peer-review from the area. As a piece of research, it's a great political text, but has as much of a scientific basis as, well, the bible really.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by c0rbin


Okay...I agree. Why not?

Because it wouldn't make any difference to inequities across ethnic lines? Adding socio-economic/access factors to AA would make more sense than using those factors alone.

[Tmy]

AA was put in place in order to right prior wrongs. These schools DID disrciminate on the basis of color and sex.

As for the Bell Curve, thats been discussed in many threads. My big problem with it: How does one genetically indentify a black person vs a white. These lables tend to be social constructs. Plus, how many people have genetic background that is purely one race?

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by Tmy
AA was put in place in order to right prior wrongs. These schools DID disrciminate on the basis of color and sex.

As for the Bell Curve, thats been discussed in many threads. My big problem with it: How does one genetically indentify a black person vs a white. These lables tend to be social constructs. Plus, how many people have genetic background that is purely one race?

HAhahahaha! And here we have it. Tmy, you are supporting affirmative action on one hand, which requires detailed desciptions of "race" by the colleges and goverment in order to separate those who will benefit from AA and those will not, and then, in the same breath, you are saying races cannot be distinguished from one another in your attempt to badmouth the BELL CURVE. LMAO.

:rolleyes:

[c0rbin]

HAhahahaha! And here we have it. Tmy, you are supporting affirmative action on one hand, which requires detailed desciptions of "race" by the colleges and goverment in order to separate those who will benefit from AA and those will not, and then, in the same breath, you are saying races cannot be distinguished from one another in your attempt to badmouth the BELL CURVE. LMAO.


Actually, one is possibly fiction and the other is absolutely fact.

That people who were darker skinned merely 40 years ago were barred from universities, restaurants, busses, restrooms, voting booths, and life, liberty, and a persuit of happiness is fact.

That you can raise two children, one dark skinned and another light skinned in isolated bubbles and test their I.Q.s or intellect and extrapolate any differences across a population is questionable.

[Tmy]

Apples n Oranges.

AA is not about low IQ's. Name a college that accepts students based soley on IQ scores? Or even SAT scores? That'd be so simple. The applications would be 1/2 a page long. Instaed its a long process where they want all sorts of info. Why? because for
various reasons they want various people in their school. Not just a bunch of propeller heads with high SATS.

[Genghis Pwn]

Spin, corbin, spin. :rolleyes:

I think you guys are misunderstanding something: Nobody is questioning the numbers in the BELL CURVE that show whites and asians score higher on IQ and ASVAB tests. No one. Those numbers and test results are clear.

What people attack about the BELL CURVE are some of the ways M&H say IQ effects life, school, and work performance, and how that should or should not social policy. They also question M&H's methods for determining socionomic levels and other factors like that.

There is no doubt whatsoever that whites and asians score higher on IQ tests than blacks.

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by Tmy


Apples n Oranges.

AA is not about low IQ's. Name a college that accepts students based soley on IQ scores? Or even SAT scores? That'd be so simple. The applications would be 1/2 a page long. Instaed its a long process where they want all sorts of info. Why? because for
various reasons they want various people in their school. Not just a bunch of propeller heads with high SATS.

Dude, what the hell are you talking about. I called you out because you said there was no such thing as race, while at the same time supporting Affirmative Action for certain "races".

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
Spin, corbin, spin. :rolleyes:

I think you guys are misunderstanding something: Nobody is questioning the numbers in the BELL CURVE that show whites and asians score higher on IQ and ASVAB tests. No one. Those numbers and test results are clear.
Wrong, wrong wrong! See my post above.

What people attack about the BELL CURVE are some of the ways M&H say IQ effects life, school, and work performance, and how that should or should not social policy. They also question M&H's methods for determining socionomic levels and other factors like that.

There is no doubt whatsoever that whites and asians score higher on IQ tests than blacks.
Here's a precis of why people attack "The Bell Curve"; it's junk science.

[c0rbin]

Spin, corbin, spin.

When you say that, GP, I get an image of Darth Maul putting his fingers in his ears and shouting: "BLAH BLAH BLAH--African slavery in America is a conspiracy started by blacks so they can guilt white women into sexual relations!"

Come on, man. How would you feel if your dad had to step and shuffle everytime he crossed paths with a black man? What would it do to you to watch your father do something so degrading?

[Ed]

Malichi:

"This is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard, and immediately places you in the "not and intellectual" category."


Irony meter approaching overload.

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Here's a precis of why people attack "The Bell Curve"; it's junk science.

There is no god damn "junk science" required to add up IQ scores. All you need is a piece of paper and a calculator. Lol at this denial that you seem to be in.

c0rbin I would have felt horrible, been horrified. I condemn racism in all its forms. I applaud all efforts to end racism and promote friendship and cooperation amoung all people around the world. I do not think using race to award privelages to one race at the expense of others is the right way to bring blacks up and improve the United States of America, though.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Just to clarify--do you really think genetic inferiority is a viable explanation of Black socio-economic failure?

Only if you examine available psychometric data. Otherwise, of course not.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn


There is no god damn "junk science" required to add up IQ scores. All you need is a piece of paper and a calculator. Lol at this denial that you seem to be in.
LOL--a piece of paper and a calculator? So that's where Herrnstein and Murray went wrong!

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by hammegk


Only if you examine available psychometric data. Otherwise, of course not.

Of course, you mean "only if you examine available psychometric data which supports the contention that genetic inferiority is a viable explanation of Black socio-economic failure and ignore all the other factors which might explain such. Otherwise, of course not".
:p

[hammegk]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Of course, you mean "only if you examine available psychometric data which supports the contention that genetic inferiority is a viable explanation of Black socio-economic failure and ignore all the other factors which might explain such.

Actually, I do mean all available. You have a citation you'd care to share of ANY study that does not offer that as a reasonable conclusion? LOL. Mismeasure of Man, perhaps?

[c0rbin]

c0rbin I would have felt horrible, benn horrified. I condemn racism in all its forms. I applaud all efforts to end racism and promote friendship and cooperation amoung all people around the world. I do not think using race to award privelages to one race at the expense of others is the right way to bring blacks up and improve the United States of America, though.

Okay. How are whites in america disadvantaged through AA?

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by c0rbin


Okay. How are whites in america disadvantaged through AA?

Because if they are qualified to go to Harvard they can can be rejected because a slot needs to be open for a less-qualified black person.

[Malachi151]

Now to finish what I was saying. Of course the points I have made so far have still not been addressed, but I'll go on anyway.

Okay, from what I know the Bell Curve states that there is only a slight difference between blacks and whites anyway. Even if you want to assume that it is correct, which I have no problem with, the question becomes: is that slight difference representative of the socio-economic differences in America?

If the difference in IQ between blacks and whites as groups is about 2% yet the economic differences are 20% don't you see that that is still a problem? Of course it is.

Now, let's just still assume that there is a difference intelligence wise between the two groups. As I have already stated studies have shown that the lower a person's IQ the less economic mobility they have.

That means if you have a large population of uneducated poor unintelligent people they will remain poor and uneducated unless you do SOMETHING to try and help them.

Now, as for IQ you too have to understand that as long as someone has an IQ over 90 they should have no problems with becoming educated and being productive.

We aren't talking about sending morons to school here, we are generally talking about blacks with IQs over 100.

Again, in order to make your argument viable you have to show that IQ is the ONLY limiting factor for economic disparity between blacks and whites. If you can't show that IQ is the only factor then you have no argument.

In addition, as for observations about black intellectuals you have yet to show what you even consider an intellectual, and you have yet to show that your ignorance of black culture is not the reason why you are unaware of such people, you have yet to show that you are not more familiar with white intellectuals because you are a part of white culture, etc.

You want to know a major reason why you are unaware of many black intellectuals? Because many of them are anti-establishment. First of all a large number of intellectuals are anti-establishment, but especially black intellectuals, because they are discriminated against and they are not part of the establishment so they have no interest in the establishment, thus these people are got embraced by society. You don't see black intellectuals on TV for the same reason you don't see other real liberals on TV, the establishment is afraid of real liberals, which many black intellectuals are.

How much do you know about the history of the Black Panthers? Let me guess, nothing except a few stereotypes. The Black Panthers were a groups of well educated black intellectuals, of course demonized and dismissed because they were anti-establishment.

Your own ignorance and lack of understanding of sociology is why you can't understand the issues at hand here.

What I find so amazing is the total lack of knowledge of the degree to which blacks have been disadvantaged in America. 130 years ago 99% of blacks in the South, which is where the largest population of backs are, and were slaves with zero education and zero rights and zero property.

Whites never had that situation, even immigrants lived better than that where they were from and they had a culture they were coming from. These people's sense of culture was totally destroyed. Since that time, up until about 40 years ago they were still kept in poverty as a group and given no economic or social opportunity, so of course as a group they would suffer problems. Many blacks during the early 1900s were run out of business and run out of town when they did try to become successful. In fact a study of black business in America from the 1900s up shows that blacks have been very progressive and successful in business, BUT in most cases they were oppressed by whites run out of business by white businesses teaming up against them, stealing their ideas and then patenting them because the blacks were not savvy on legalities, running black business out of town, etc. A lot of this goes into the study of the role of blacks in prostitution because successful black businessmen had no opportunity in legal business because of the reasons I said so they had to resort to illegal business where whites could not effect them. Its actually a fascinating history.

It all goes back to the same old thing with all issues with "right-wingers", you use your own ignorance to support your ideas. You know nothing, so you just draw conclusions our of stupidity.

[Malachi151]

Also, do a comparison between blacks in Europe, where they are not the decendants of a massive slavery and have not be descriminated against as much, and American blacks.

[c0rbin]

Because if they are qualified to go to Harvard they can can be rejected because a slot needs to be open for a less-qualified black person.

Thousands of qualified people don't get admitted to Harvard. Usually those people have back-up plans with other presitigous universities.

How has the white man been disadvantaged here?

[bpesta22]

Originally posted by Malachi151

Okay, from what I know the Bell Curve states that there is only a slight difference between blacks and whites anyway. ...
If the difference in IQ between blacks and whites as groups is about 2% yet the economic differences are 20% don't you see that that is still a problem? Of course it is.


Malachi.

You should search for the threads where we previously debated all this.

The black white difference on IQ tests is 15 points-- about 1 SD, which puts the effect size at 1.0.

As posted earlier, here are some guidelines from the well-respected statistician (who doesn't publish in this area, and gives these estimates as guidelines for science in general), Cohen:

Effect sizes of .2 are considered small, .4 medium and .6 large.

1.0-- the black white difference-- is so large, Cohen has no name for it.

IIRC, only 14% of blacks score average on an IQ test, with only 3% scoring one SD above.

The differences are not trivial, and to the extent that IQ correlates with important life outcomes (which it does-- see previous threads) the group difference here is a likely (but not sole) explanation for why blacks do so poorly when it comes to things like education, ses, etc.

The data are the data.

No non-ignorant person can disupute the fact that: (1) IQ predicts important life outcomes, (2) IQ tests are neither culturally nor legally biased, (3) the 15 point race difference mentioned above is real (i.e., not due to test bias).

The only thing under debate is why.

B

[Dancing David]

I dispute the evidence that IQ tests are related to life outcomes is based upon the same things that bias the test in the first place.

That and a gross misunderstanding of what statistical coorelation means or what it represents.

I guess that makes me ignorant, some sceptics forum! IQ is BOGUS!

[c0rbin]

Here is a nice little history of AA.

Affirmative action, the set of public policies and initiatives designed to help eliminate past and present discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, is under attack.

Originally, civil rights programs were enacted to help African Americans become full citizens of the United States. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution made slavery illegal; the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law; the Fifteenth Amendment forbids racial discrimination in access to voting. The 1866 Civil Rights Act guarantees every citizen "the same right to make and enforce contracts ... as is enjoyed by white citizens ... "
In 1896, the Supreme Court's decision in Plessy v. Ferguson upheld a "separate, but equal" doctrine that proved to be anything but equal for African Americans. The decision marked the end of the post-Civil War reconstruction era as Jim Crow laws spread across the South.
In 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8802 which outlawed segregationist hiring policies by defense-related industries which held federal contracts. Roosevelt's signing of this order was a direct result of efforts by Black trade union leader, A. Philip Randolph.
During 1953 President Harry S. Truman's Committee on Government Contract Compliance urged the Bureau of Employment Security "to act positively and affirmatively to implement the policy of nondiscrimination . . . ."
The 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson.
The actual phrase "affirmative action" was first used in President Lyndon Johnson's 1965 Executive Order 11246 which requires federal contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."
In 1967, Johnson expanded the Executive Order to include affirmative action requirements to benefit women.
Other equal protection laws passed to make discrimination illegal were the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title II and VII of which forbid racial discrimination in "public accommodations" and race and sex discrimination in employment, respectively; and the 1965 Voting Rights Act adopted after Congress found "that racial discrimination in voting was an insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts of the country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution."

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn


Dude, what the hell are you talking about. I called you out because you said there was no such thing as race, while at the same time supporting Affirmative Action for certain "races".

I did not say there was no such thing as race. My point was how you go about genitcally designating race can be different than how society designates race.

Lets look at the Bell Curve data. If Joe is 1/2 black and 1/2 white. Joe will be labled as black by society nad probably by himslef. So he takes an IQ test and scores low. THe Bell Curve will say "see he's black so genetically he is less intelligent". BUT genetically he's 1/2 white. The study is flawed.

Thats like saying "oranges cure colon cancer, as proof here's my data from the tangerines I studied".

[jj]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tmy
AA was put in place in order to right prior wrongs. These schools DID disrciminate on the basis of color and sex.

As for the Bell Curve, thats been discussed in many threads. My big problem with it: How does one genetically indentify a black person vs a white. These lables tend to be social constructs. Plus, how many people have genetic background that is purely one race?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




HAhahahaha! And here we have it. Tmy, you are supporting affirmative action on one hand, which requires detailed desciptions of "race" by the colleges and goverment in order to separate those who will benefit from AA and those will not, and then, in the same breath, you are saying races cannot be distinguished from one another in your attempt to badmouth the BELL CURVE. LMAO.

:rolleyes:

You could at least be ethical enough to get his position right. He STATED what AA did in his opinion. You are simply so rabidly insane about the subject that you failed to realize that he didn't take a position beyond stating his OPINION of what the conclusion was.

From there, you launched, on this mistaken postulate, a character assassination intended to discredit the poor fellow.

Is there a reason for these ethical lapses on your part?

And, I do notice that you have not yet addressed any criticism of the Bell Curve. You have dodged, claimed that things that are obviously wrong are "obvious", but you have not addressed any of the basic flaws.

Why are you ducking and weaving? Have you nothing to defend your choice of citations with?

[jj]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
Spin, corbin, spin. :rolleyes:

I think you guys are misunderstanding something: Nobody is questioning the numbers in the BELL CURVE that show whites and asians score higher on IQ and ASVAB tests. No one. Those numbers and test results are clear.

Sir, do not even ATTEMPT to speak for me. You are, despite being told some small part of it, still entirely unaware of my entire position on the subject, and your summary above is quite misleading.

What people attack about the BELL CURVE are some of the ways M&H say IQ effects life, school, and work performance, and how that should or should not social policy. They also question M&H's methods for determining socionomic levels and other factors like that.


Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote.

But if you admit to actually having read it, then you'll have to address it, so you'll dodge wildly.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I dispute the evidence that IQ tests are related to life outcomes is based upon the same things that bias the test in the first place.

I guess that makes me ignorant, some sceptics forum! IQ is BOGUS!

If Einstein was raised by wolves he would be no less a genius. Yet if you gave ferral Einstein an IQ test I doubt he'd score well.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Said by JAR: [Plain and simple. I have noticed that intellectuals are much rarer among the black population than they are among the white population.]

You gotta be kidding me!

This is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard, and immediately places you in the "not and intellectual" category.

You have "noticed". Nice scientific study there.

Let's see, your observations can be influenced by:

#1 Personal bias
#2 Media bias
#3 Cultural bias (of your culture and their culture)
[snip]
You're wrong when you say my view of black people is influenced by personal bias, media bias, and cultural bias. By bias I believe you mean biased in a negative way. I was biased towards black people in a positive way.

My parents used to be ESL teachers and they are left-wing people who have very high opinions of people who are not white. My father will occasionally do that left-wing thing where he'll say something good about non-white people with much enthusiasm or jump at a chance to say how stupid white people are.

So biased was my view of black people that when I was in elementary school and my mother said there was a problem with gang violence among blacks, I thought she was lying, because the idea that there might be evil African-Americans sounded absurd to me. During my elementary school years, I even avoided at all costs using the word black in reference to a race.

Then I went to a middle school in West Side Long Beach and my view of African-Americans and Mexicans changed drastically.

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by bpesta22


The black white difference on IQ tests is 15 points-- about 1 SD, which puts the effect size at 1.0.

As posted earlier, here are some guidelines from the well-respected statistician (who doesn't publish in this area, and gives these estimates as guidelines for science in general), Cohen:

Effect sizes of .2 are considered small, .4 medium and .6 large.

1.0-- the black white difference-- is so large, Cohen has no name for it.

IIRC, only 14% of blacks score average on an IQ test, with only 3% scoring one SD above.

The differences are not trivial, and to the extent that IQ correlates with important life outcomes (which it does-- see previous threads) the group difference here is a likely (but not sole) explanation for why blacks do so poorly when it comes to things like education, ses, etc.

The data are the data.
B

What part of this is not clear?

M&H thought that genetics accounted for about 60% of IQ outcome. That leaves plenty of room for environmental factors. Of course environment plays a role. But for your guys to sit here and spin so much and make up all these totally lame diversions and excuses reflects very poorly on your critical thinking ability. You seem dead-set against accepting the facts and data because you don't like -- or are uncomfortable with -- the conclusion that whites and asians have higher IQs than blacks. Why can't you admit it? It's really absurd. IQ scores are beyond disupte. 15 points is not a small number.

You can make excuses about the tests being "culturally biased" but asians from such diverse places as Vietnam, Korea, Japan and China seem to have absolutely no problem at all adjusting to the "culture" of IQ tests.

Isn't the more obvious answer that maybe white people and asians are a little bit smarter than blacks on average?

Hey jj, I think this would be a better avatar for you...

http://www.sightandhearing.org/news/healthissue/old/images/plugging-ears.jpg

[c0rbin]

What part of this is not clear?

The part which is unclear is what it has to do with AA.

How is AA a disadvantage to white people?

[jj]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn

There is no god damn "junk science" required to add up IQ scores. All you need is a piece of paper and a calculator. Lol at this denial that you seem to be in.


And why does this sum you propose making have any meaning outside the existance of the numbers on the piece of paper.

Explain what experiments you have available that could falsify the implications from the sum, and what the outcome of those experiments are.

Be sure to mention not only experiments that support your hypothesis.

[Frank Newgent]

You're wrong when you say my view of Texans is influenced by personal bias, media bias, and cultural bias. By bias I believe you mean biased in a negative way. I was biased towards Texans in a positive way.

My parents used to be ESL teachers and they are left-wing people who have very high opinions of people who are Texans. My father will occasionally do that left-wing thing where he'll say something good about Texans and Wisconsinites with much enthusiasm or jump at a chance to say how stupid Hawaiians are.

So biased was my view of Texans that when I was in elementary school and my mother said there was a problem with gang violence among Texans, I thought she was lying, because the idea that there might be evil Texans seemed absurd to me. At the age, I even avoided at all costs using the word Texan in reference to a state.

Then I went to the Betty Ford Clinic and my view of Texans and Wisconsinites changed drastically.



edited for content.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn


.

You can make excuses about the tests being "culturally biased" but asians from such diverse places as Vietnam, Korea, Japan and China seem to have absolutely no problem at all adjusting to the "culture" of IQ tests.

Isn't the more obvious answer that maybe white people and asians are a little bit smarter than blacks on average?



Just how do you define "culture"? Just coming from a different place???

How about this Asian countries have this culture where grades are schooling are very important. So important that kids kill themselves if they fail. Soooooooo maybe that gets trasfered here where Asian kids have that pressure to get good grades. That doesnt mean they are born smarter.

In Canada their is a big culture pressure to be good in hockey, so some of the best players in the world are Canadian. An extremely high % of the worlds top players.

Do mean to tell me that Canadians are genetically superior hockey players??? The data says so.

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by Tmy


Just how do you define "culture"? Just coming from a different place???

How about this Asian countries have this culture where grades are schooling are very important. So important that kids kill themselves if they fail. Soooooooo maybe that gets trasfered here where Asian kids have that pressure to get good grades. That doesnt mean they are born smarter.

In Canada their is a big culture pressure to be good in hockey, so some of the best players in the world are Canadian. An extremely high % of the worlds top players.

Do mean to tell me that Canadians are genetically superior hockey players??? The data says so.

Hockey is more popular in Canada and Russia than in other places. Just like Bozkeshi (dragging a headless sheep around in a polo-style game) is poplular in Afghanistan. Thus, 99% of the world's best Bozkeshi players are Afghans. This is just common sense.

IQ is tested around the world. Why would IQ tests only be culturally biased against blacks? In America, blacks have been speaking English for hundreds of years and going to public schools for generations. Many of the Asians tested are from worse socioeconomic situations than American blacks. Yet blacks from around the world score low on IQ tests while asians from around the world score high. Why? Some grand conspiracy? Maybe it's because asians are a little smarter than blacks? Why do you refuse to accept this as a possibility? Just like blacks are a little faster in the 100-meter dash than asians. Do you deny that?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn


Just like blacks are a little faster in the 100-meter dash than asians. Do you deny that?

Oh thats right. Thats the reason the sub saharan African countries clean up at the Summer Olympics medal count.........o wait they dont.

[Malachi151]

http://www.skeptic.com/03.3.fm-sternberg-interview.html

Sternberg: What I mean is that there is absolutely no relation between how heritable something is and the existence of a difference in group means. The most common example is height. Height has a heritability of greater than .9, but heights have increased quite dramatically in some countries like Japan and have also increased in our own country over the course of several generations. So despite the much higher heritability of height than anyone believes of intelligence, we see that height can increase. To take a more extreme example: there is a disease known as Phenylketonuria (PKU), which is 100% heritable and yet through an environmental intervention, namely withholding Phenylalanine from the diets of infants from birth, you can either reduce or eliminate the mental retardation that normally results. In other words, even when heritability is 1.00, environmental interventions still matter. There are different ways to look at intelligence. One is to do heritability statistics, which I've never found to be that helpful. Another way is to look at studies on intervention. For example, Dennis did a large study in Iran where he found that kids that were placed in Iranian orphanages, almost without exception, were mentally retarded, whereas the children who were quickly adopted before the age of two scored at normal levels on intelligence tests, roughly a 50-point difference in obtained IQ.

Skeptic: Are such results repeatable?

Sternberg: Yes. Obviously the environment of the Iranian orphanage was pretty bad and that's why you got that level of retardation. But if you look at the kinds of environments some of our least fortunate get, even in the United States, in the inner cities, they are not so hot either. Diamond performed studies on brain mass in rats and found that if you give them an enriched environment, it affects the brain, which becomes heavier and more convoluted.

Skeptic: How is your more elaborate view of heritability and its limitations different from what Herrnstein and Murray say in The Bell Curve? Sternberg: The way that book is written is to, I think, say X on page 605 in sentence 8, with an appropriate caution, and then invite the reader to a somewhat more extreme conclusion elsewhere. So if you were to ask, "Is there anywhere in The Bell Curve that explains what heritability truly is?" there probably is. If you were to ask, "What inference do Herrnstein and Murray invite their readers to draw?" they go beyond what they know. For example, with regard to race differences, Herrnstein and Murray invite the reader to conclude that race differences are due to genetics, even though they have no evidence of that, and they know it.

Sternberg: Yes, but there is evidence that they do not review at all. There is nothing in the book that suggests that race differences are genetic. They even say that. But what they do say is that is what we would infer given the data, even though probably somewhere else, they would have one sentence to the effect that there is one study. And they don't cite a number of studies that suggest that race differences are not genetic.

Skeptic: Which then is your position on the question of race differences in IQ? We all see the 1 standard deviation difference in mean IQ if we give the tests to groups of Blacks and Whites. Is that mean difference the result of genetics, environment, both, or should we say at this point that we just don't know?

Sternberg: What we know is that almost any difference is some interaction between heredity and environment. But in terms of apportioning the difference, we have no idea. And I think that Herrnstein and Murray know that as well as do other psychologists. Like everyone else we don't like ambiguous situations, so some jump to conclusions even though I think at this point we don't have a very good idea of why we get that difference. Although we recognize that it has generally been decreasing over time.

Sternberg: One example is taking studies that show that within group heritabilities have nothing to do with between group heritabilities and then insinuating that they do. Another example is the issue of causation and correlation. They know, and anyone who takes statistics knows, you can't draw any real causal conclusions from correlational data. Lots of things correlate with lots of things, IQ being one of them. To draw causal inferences from correlational data, which is what all their data are, is statistically incorrect. Another thing that many may not realize is that virtually all their data are based on one study, the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY), which was not a study that was particularly representative of the United States population.

Sternberg: Some years back in the early 1980s the government of Venezuela initiated a country-wide drive to improve the intellectual abilities of the children. They invited a number of researchers from Venezuela and abroad to come in. One program was initiated by Harvard, and Herrnstein was the head of that program. It was successful. They published the results in American Psychologist, which is a leading psychological journal, showing that there had been significant and impressive gains in IQ.

Sternberg: I am not disagreeing that IQ is predictive of a lot of things. I'm not one of the extreme left-wingers who say that IQ tells you absolutely nothing. I don't agree with that. So to the extent that it predicts some level of success in pilot training, I don't have any argument with that. But I do argue with the idea that IQ is the end of the line. We have been working for about 10 years in the field of practical intelligence, predicting, for example, the success of managers and sales people, which are pretty practical occupations. We actually did a study at Brooks AFB and found that our measures of practical intelligence-that is, measures of how well you can go into an environment and figure out what you need to succeed in that environment and then actually do it-predict job success in managerial jobs and in sales jobs at least as well and arguably better than IQ tests. Moreover they do not correlate with IQ tests, which means that (a) IQ is not the only predictor, and (b) the kinds of predictors we have are relatively independent of IQ. That's not to say that one is important and the other is not. Rather, it says that both are important and that there's more to predicting success than just using IQs. If you want to predict success in jobs, I'm not saying that IQ is worthless, but I am saying that it's not the only thing you can use.

[bpesta22]

Malachi

I personally think Sternberg is a weenie (I had a prof in graduate school who published in this area, and he would always refer to him as "that scumbag sternberg".)

Nonethless, I agree with most of what he said in your quote, and I've made similar points in previous posts.

For example, I cited some of the studies that suggest the race difference is not genetic (in particular, Sandra Scarr's study on using blood groups to id % african heritage and then correlating that with IQ).

Still though, saying this study shows it's not genetic does not allow for the conclusion that it's therefore environmental (to me, it's the same fallacy as saying that disproving evolution would then also prove creationism).

I think Sternberg overestimates the contribution environment has on IQ-- he says he doesn't like hereditability estimates, but then he doesn't even mention why / or what he thinks is wrong with them.

He says he has data on his own, practical intelligence. In one of his studies, it may have predicted as well as, or better than, traditional IQ.

I think he's being selective here. His triarchic theory of IQ has been out for I think 20 years now. If he really had the data showing that his measures of his intelligences predict better than g, he would have marketed a test by now (maybe he has). At the very least, his measures would be getting lots more press in the academic literature than they are now.

I remember reading at least two of Sternberg's empirical pieces as a grad student. They were awfully bad-- I don't remember the specifics, but we spent a fair amount of time in class making fun of him.

I read one recently where he bashed the GRE as a predictor of success in grad school. The error in his argument was so blatently obvious that I used the article in undergraduate classes to illustrate how not to do science. Still, this paper was published in an A journal, which coincidentally was at one time edited by Sternberg.

JMO

If you're interested in what a top notch scientist thinks about this, post some quotes from Arthur Jensen.

B

[Malachi151]

Still though, saying this study shows it's not genetic does not allow for the conclusion that it's therefore environmental (to me, it's the same fallacy as saying that disproving evolution would then also prove creationism).

Yes, it is because there are only two things at work here, genetics and environment. There is nothing else, except of course scape goats.

I think he's being selective here. His triarchic theory of IQ has been out for I think 20 years now. If he really had the data showing that his measures of his intelligences predict better than g, he would have marketed a test by now (maybe he has). At the very least, his measures would be getting lots more press in the academic literature than they are now.

I doubt it. It has a lot to do with beuacracy. Once something becomes a standard things are very slow to change, especially when they are still considered relatively radical ideas.

I think Sternberg overestimates the contribution environment has on IQ-- he says he doesn't like hereditability estimates, but then he doesn't even mention why / or what he thinks is wrong with them.

I've already explained this. Genes are only part of the equation and only determine in which way someone developes according to an environment. Genes are like a computer program. If you run the same program 10 times and do different things each time you get different results each time. The possible results are constrained by the program, maybe even to very tight measures, but input + process determines output, ie environment + genes determines development.

[kerfer]

Originally posted by Malachi151
I never understood oposition to AA.



Um...how about because it's racism, and racism is always wrong?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by kerfer


Um...how about because it's racism, and racism is always wrong?

This is my last explanation of all this, so whoever doesn't get it, too bad I guess.

Let's use a race as an analogy for society.

Our system works on competition, just like a race.

Let's say that everyone starts on the same line and the race starts and everyone runs the exact same speed. In that case no one will pass anyone and it will be a tie.

Let's say that we have a race where one person gets a 10 foot headstart and everyone runs the same speed, we can expect then that the person with the headstart will be the first across the finishline and lead by 10 feet.

If somene starts behind another person in the race the only way they can catchup to the other is if they are actually faster, i.e. more competative. So if you start at a disadvantage the only way to imporve your position is if you are actually better than the competition and in that case you still may not catchup, depending on how far back you are.

Now, in our society everything is naturally based on comeptition.

The average person does not improve their economic status in their lifetime, the average person maintians whatver status they are born into.

About 50 years ago about 90% of blacks were in poverty or close to poverty, at least poor.

130 years ago most blacks were slaves, no education, their culture destroyed, they were just a large population of people who had nothing.

The only way that it can be expected for a population of people to improve their condition is if that population of people are actually BETTER than the other memebrs of the population. Everyone is competing so unless blacks were actually more successful than whites it would be expected that they will maintian whatever economic position they are started off in as a group. That starting postion for them was the lowest class in America.

It then can only be expecte dthat withouth assistance they would always remain the lowest class in America with about 90% of blacks staying close to poverty. In what way would it be good for America for that to happen?

There are only two things that can affect developement, genetics and environment. Even if you start from the assumption that blacks are genetically equal to whites in every way, with almost all blacks starting out as the lowest class they would forever remain the lowest class. If yo assume that blacks are genetically inferior to whites and you also acknowledge the obvioius fact that they all started out in the worst position in America, then it can only be assumed that they will forever remain the lowest class in America and never achieve much success.

When you add descrimination on top of that and denial of oppertunity even for blacks who did have potential for sucess, as was the case up until AA was enacted, and in fact is still the case even with it in place, then you can see that w/o AA all you can do is resign blacks to forever say the poorest of the poor as a group, while whites who are nto better or worse than blacks and who start off at a higher social and economic level, remian at a higher level forever even if they are no better then the blacks who are "below" them.

The only way to improve your social or economic position in a capitalist system is to be BETTER than the competition, and often if you are poor. Being equal does not improve your standing it just keeps you where you are.

[c0rbin]

Um...how about because it's racism, and racism is always wrong?

I move that inclusion of people of merit is not wrong and that it is actually a boon.

AA opens doors to people who were recently not even allowed on the porch and society benefits from it.

[JAR]

Originally posted by c0rbin
I move that inclusion of people of merit is not wrong and that it is actually a boon.

AA opens doors to people who were recently not even allowed on the porch and society benefits from it.
Affirmative Action is bad because it punishes people of one race for something that they or some other people of their race might have done.

[DavidJames]

I was a "victim" of AA. Many years ago I was denied a better job in a steel mill, a job given to a minority with less seniority. That's one of maybe 25 jobs I failed to get in my 34 years in the work force. That's the only one in which AA was a factor. I suspect that in many of the others I was at least as qualified as the final choice. I was the "victim" of subjective decision making. That first time remains the only job I ever "lost" that I haven't looked back on as a lost opportunity. I moved on and while I'll never know, I'd like to think we are both better off for that decision. I know I am.

[JAR]

Originally posted by DavidJames
I was a "victim" of AA. Many years ago I was denied a better job in a steel mill, a job given to a minority with less seniority. That's one of maybe 25 jobs I failed to get in my 34 years in the work force. That's the only one in which AA was a factor. I suspect that in many of the others I was at least as qualified as the final choice. I was the "victim" of subjective decision making. That first time remains the only job I ever "lost" that I haven't looked back on as a lost opportunity. I moved on and while I'll never know, I'd like to think we are both better off for that decision. I know I am.
When I was in middle school and my application for the CIC program(a business-oriented program for smart kids) at Poly High School was accepted, I was told by a Cambodian friend that I wouldn't have been accepted had it not been for affirmative action. He said that I had been chosen over more qualified Asian-American students because there were too many Asian-Americans who had been accepted into the program. I got horrible grades in high school and due to that I didn't get a scholarship and go to a local community college where I continue to get mediocre grades even though I take only two classes at a time.

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by DavidJames
I was a "victim" of AA. Many years ago I was denied a better job in a steel mill, a job given to a minority with less seniority. That's one of maybe 25 jobs I failed to get in my 34 years in the work force. That's the only one in which AA was a factor. I suspect that in many of the others I was at least as qualified as the final choice. I was the "victim" of subjective decision making. That first time remains the only job I ever "lost" that I haven't looked back on as a lost opportunity. I moved on and while I'll never know, I'd like to think we are both better off for that decision. I know I am.

Oh brother. :rolleyes: So you're glad you were discriminated against? Move to Zimbabwe. You'll be in heaven under Mugabe and his anti-white racist government.

Malachi151, the idea of America is for everyone to be even on the starting line. You are endorsing government and school policies that give favors and advantages to certain races. That is not what America is about, anymore than past disrimination was. It's time to drop race altogether.

As I pointed out, with this new skull find in Ethiopia, it is almost certain that all humans came from black Africa. Thus, we are all "African Americans" in the Unites States. These ill-conceived AA programs could be subject to exposure and humiliation if someone is smart and ballsy enough to test out the DNA argument in court using a white kid.

[The Fool]

Genghis
What would you do about a company with approx 500 employees in an area where the population is 30% black that has 0% black employees?

You don't like AA, I don't like AA, but what are the alternatives? Just do nothing? Allow racist employers to continue unchecked? What would you do about my fictitious company? It is this exact sort of situation that has seen AA come about.... What alternatives can you suggest?

[Genghis Pwn]

Well there are anti-discrimination laws on the books, which are used all the time.

For example, some asian and hispanic people are suing Abercrombie & Fitch right now on grounds similar to your fictitious company.

Abercrombie Faces Discrimination Lawsuit (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030618/ap_on_re_us/abercrombie_lawsuit_7)

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030617/capt.1055876065.abercrombie_lawsuit_calc101.jpg

Since you asked me personaly, I am a libertarian, and I think companies should be able hire anyone they want. If they are racists, this fact will be brought out by the media, MTV, activists, etc, and the company's sales will be hit in a major way, not only by the minorities being injured, but by the overwhelming majority of white people as well.

If Ambercrombie wants to promote an idealistic "white frat boy" image for whatever reason, that is their god-damn business, literally. I don't like the government telling me who I have to hire, anymore than I like them telling me who I have to marry, or who I have to be friends with.

[JAR]

Originally posted by The Fool
Genghis
What would you do about a company with approx 500 employees in an area where the population is 30% black that has 0% black employees?

You don't like AA, I don't like AA, but what are the alternatives? Just do nothing? Allow racist employers to continue unchecked? What would you do about my fictitious company? It is this exact sort of situation that has seen AA come about.... What alternatives can you suggest?
Dude, if I was in a place where the employers wouldn't hire white people, I'd move somewhere else.

[Genghis Pwn]

JAR, there are people who believe it's the government's job to run every aspect of human life. They don't really believe in freedom, in my opinion, since they are willing to sacrifice it so readily.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Of course, you mean "only if you examine available psychometric data which supports the contention that genetic inferiority is a viable explanation of Black socio-economic failure and ignore all the other factors which might explain such.

Originally posted by hammegk


Actually, I do mean all available. You have a citation you'd care to share of ANY study that does not offer that as a reasonable conclusion? LOL. Mismeasure of Man, perhaps?
:rotflmao: Sure! Could you cite any study that does? The Bell Curve, perhaps?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
Well there are anti-discrimination laws on the books, which are used all the time.

For example, some asian and hispanic people are suing Abercrombie & Fitch right now on grounds similar to your fictitious company.

Abercrombie Faces Discrimination Lawsuit (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030618/ap_on_re_us/abercrombie_lawsuit_7)

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030617/capt.1055876065.abercrombie_lawsuit_calc101.jpg

Since you asked me personaly, I am a libertarian, and I think companies should be able hire anyone they want. If they are racists, this fact will be brought out by the media, MTV, activists, etc, and the company's sales will be hit in a major way, not only by the minorities being injured, but by the overwhelming majority of white people as well.

If Ambercrombie wants to promote an idealistic "white frat boy" image for whatever reason, that is their god-damn business, literally. I don't like the government telling me who I have to hire, anymore than I like them telling me who I have to marry, or who I have to be friends with.

I take your point but I'm not so sure that a company would face any significant consumer backlash. I'm also not sure if it is realistic to put the onus back on people to take endless legal actions. Isn't this the whole point of governments enacting legislation? There are laws that retailers cannot rip people off, we don't say that it should be up to each person who is ripped off to take individual legal action.
I agree that employers should be able to employ whoever they like, within the laws applicable to employment practices. If your democratically elected governments institute AA laws then my philosophy would be that you either accept the laws or vote out the legislators...

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by bpesta22
If you're interested in what a top notch scientist thinks about this, post some quotes from Arthur Jensen.

B
I'm sure that Jensen is a really nice guy, is genuine in his beliefs and motivations and is kind to puppies, but "top notch scientist"? Really?

[DavidJames]

"So you're glad you were discriminated against? Move to Zimbabwe. You'll be in heaven under Mugabe and his anti-white racist government."

Regardless of how low I set my expectation regarding your responses, you seem to limbo under them with room to spare. The force is weak in you, it is.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by DavidJames
I was a "victim" of AA. Many years ago I was denied a better job in a steel mill, a job given to a minority with less seniority. That's one of maybe 25 jobs I failed to get in my 34 years in the work force. That's the only one in which AA was a factor. I suspect that in many of the others I was at least as qualified as the final choice. I was the "victim" of subjective decision making. That first time remains the only job I ever "lost" that I haven't looked back on as a lost opportunity. I moved on and while I'll never know, I'd like to think we are both better off for that decision. I know I am.

How'd you get your job in the first place?

[DavidJames]

"How'd you get your job in the first place?"

I applied :)

The steel mill was very busy at that time. My first job was a laborer, pretty much assigned to whatever crap work was needed. The job I bid on was machinist.

[bpesta22]

Originally posted by BillyTK

I'm sure that Jensen is a really nice guy, is genuine in his beliefs and motivations and is kind to puppies, but "top notch scientist"? Really?

Take a look at his vita.

How do you define top notch?

[Tmy]

Yaeh but did ya know someone or sumthin.

What Im getting at is this sort of.......unintential racism that may go on in hiring. Most people get jobs because of who they know or who they are related to. So you can see a cycle where the workforce is all connected. Minorities may not make it in cause they dont have that connection.

Then theres the whole "most qualified" thing. Many hiring situations its tough to objectivley say who is the most qualified. thats why theres the job interview, otherwise you would just hire just from reading the resume/application. The interview process can be another way that racism creeps into the process.

[DavidJames]

"you would just hire just from reading the resume/application"

That's exactly how I was hired, no real interview. This was a steel mill that was booming at the time. They were looking for warm bodies.

"a cycle where the workforce is all connected. Minorities may not make it in cause they dont have that connection."

I agree and that was the main point of my personal anecdote. I have not been selected for many jobs for many reasons, some of which had nothing to do with qualifications. The one a pointed out, because of AA, I didn't have a problem with because I agreed with the goals of the program. Now, at the time, I was not happy, but then I was young and full of myself. Since then I've matured and am able to look at things from a different (better) perspective.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by bpesta22


Take a look at his vita.

How do you define top notch?

Someone who can marry theory to the evidence.

Or has appeared on Star Trek ;)

[c0rbin]

JAR said:

Affirmative Action is bad because it punishes people of one race for something that they or some other people of their race might have done.


How are white people punished as a whole by Affirmative Action?


Ghengis Prawn said:

Well there are anti-discrimination laws on the books, which are used all the time.


You know, these anti-descrimination laws are Affirmative Action laws. Read that little history I posted in this very thread.

No one has yet to demonstrate their claim that AA somehow injures white people!?!

[hammegk]

Originally posted by bpesta22


How do you define top notch?

I can help here.

Billy(White men can too jump)TK defn. "If they agree with me, they are topnotch".

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by JAR

My father will occasionally do that left-wing thing where he'll say something good about non-white people with much enthusiasm or jump at a chance to say how stupid white people are.


Ooook , this sounds scary, you have my sympathy.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by c0rbin

No one has yet to demonstrate their claim that AA somehow injures white people!?!

Why worry about white people? The groups AA harms are the groups being "helped".

Remember AFDC? Who got "helped"? Unless you wanted to breed what is now 4th generation rioters.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by c0rbin


How are white people punished as a whole by Affirmative Action?


Didnt you here? According to the 10,000 people didnt get into Harvard last year the reason was because their slot was taken by an AA case.

Life is a breeze when you have brown skin. That's why tanning salons are so popular.

[Dancing David]

So I could bring up the idea of the Bushman IQ test, in any culture there are notions that are considered valuable , therefore the Bushman IQ test is going to be biased twoards Bushmen.


BUMP>

I agree Ghengis, it would be nice if the government did not have step in at times to redress a wrong, but what about when it is the government that is biogted. How do you level the playing field?

Is there a system that could promote freedom and level the playing field?

Not having the federal government intervene would mean that he informal Jim Crow system would till be in place. (Whay a great system, a decorated black war vetran can't get served dinner in Miame during WWII but a german POW can.)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by hammegk


I can help here.

Billy(White men can too jump)TK defn. "If they agree with me, they are topnotch".

:rotflmao: I'm glad you've got such an excellent sense of humour going for you...!

[kerfer]

Originally posted by c0rbin
JAR said:


How are white people punished as a whole by Affirmative Action?


Ghengis Prawn said:


You know, these anti-descrimination laws are Affirmative Action laws.



Anti-discrimination and Affirmative Action are not the same thing. Please don't pretend that they are. In fact, they are complete and total opposite policies, by definition.

Anti-discrimination says that we should not discriminate against people based on their race. That's what those words mean.

Affirmative Action says that we need quotas for people of certain races. In other words, we need to discriminate on the basis of race.

To confuse these two concepts, and treat them as though they are the same concept is an error. Please don't anyone make that mistake.

Anti-discrimination is correct, and as this world should be, IMO. Affirmative Action is by definition racist, and I find the concept offensive.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Tmy

Didnt you here? According to the 10,000 people didnt get into Harvard last year the reason was because their slot was taken by an AA case.

Life is a breeze when you have brown skin. That's why tanning salons are so popular.

Yup! Without affirmative action, a white kid's chance of getting into university increases from about 20% to... about 22% (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A41620-2002Apr12&notFound=true).

:rolleyes:

[Tmy]

Originally posted by kerfer



Affirmative Action says that we need quotas for people of certain races. In other words, we need to discriminate on the basis of race.

.

Find me an AA program that has quotas? If there are then its cuase they were found to have discriminated in the past and the AA is a remedy for that.

AA is not forced on any school/company. If it is then its cause they had previously did wrong.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Tmy


Find me an AA program that has quotas? If there are then its cuase they were found to have discriminated in the past and the AA is a remedy for that.

AA is not forced on any school/company. If it is then its cause they had previously did wrong.

Aren't quotas illegal in the US?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Aren't quotas illegal in the US?

I think so. I seem to remeber soem cases where police or fire departmenst were required to hit a certain %. But that was a result of lawsuits. Not really an AA program.

[kerfer]

Originally posted by Malachi151


This is my last explanation of all this, so whoever doesn't get it, too bad I guess.

Let's use a race as an analogy for society.


Okay, lets. It's a flawed and faulty analogy, but okay.

BTW: I'm ignoring your condescending attitude.

I also note that you didn't address my assertion that AA is racist...which is the only thing that I said in the post that you replied to.



Our system works on competition, just like a race.

Let's say that everyone starts on the same line and the race starts and everyone runs the exact same speed. In that case no one will pass anyone and it will be a tie.


But in a real, actual race, inthe real,actual world, don't you think that everyone would really start on the same line, and some contestants will run faster than others, and the fastest runner (the athlete most qualified for this event) will win the race?

That's how it's been in all my races lately.



Let's say that we have a race where one person gets a 10 foot headstart and everyone runs the same speed, we can expect then that the person with the headstart will be the first across the finishline and lead by 10 feet.

If somene starts behind another person in the race the only way they can catchup to the other is if they are actually faster, i.e. more competative. So if you start at a disadvantage the only way to imporve your position is if you are actually better than the competition and in that case you still may not catchup, depending on how far back you are.


Now back to the real world, where some people will run faster than others. If you give person A a head start and he crosses the finish line first, and person B finishes in second place, by 3 milliseconds, does that mean that person A is a more qualified athlete? No, person B is the more qualified athlete, but person A gets the gold. Hmm...that doesn't seem fair to me.

Now let's say that instead of actually having the race, everyone lines up, and based only on the color of the contestants shoes, a winner is selected. Does that seem right?

The problem with this is that the contestants can choose the color of their shoes, so perhaps we should change that to something they can't choose, like the color of their eyes, or hair, or skin. Is that right?

Note that the winner of the race is selected without the race even having occurred.

That's Affirmative Action.

Or, perhaps, there's one team that always seem to win, due to several reasons...they have better training facilities, a great coach, and a larger student population from which to choose a team, perhaps. Without trying to put words in your mouth, it seems as though you'd have that team carry a canoe, just to make it fair.

That's Affirmative Action.

I would suggest that the other teams need to train more, get a better coach, etc, so that they can compete fairly and competitively. Oh. And actually run the race.

"I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." -- M.L. King August 28, 1963

That's all I'm trying to say.

AA, as a concept, is counter to this.

[Tmy]

Think of AA as a controled burn. Techinically its a forest fire. And burning forests is not a good thing. But your fighting fire with fire, the point is to prevent a big out of control blaze. So the result is a good thing for the whole forest.

We tend to simplythe whore AA thing. Its not like "YOU HISPANIC ,YOU IN". As for the "best qualified". See my eairler posts about that notion.

[kerfer]

Originally posted by Tmy


Find me an AA program that has quotas? If there are then its cuase they were found to have discriminated in the past and the AA is a remedy for that.

AA is not forced on any school/company. If it is then its cause they had previously did wrong.

Okay, perhaps, quotas is a bad choice of words. But they just call it something else. A certain percentage of applicants to certain jobs/school slots/other opportunities are filled not on merit, but are ensured to be filled by perhaps not the most qualified and deserving applicants, but rather a set of applicants who fit a particular profile, based on their race.

They don't call them quotas. They can call them potatoes, if they want to, but a rose of a different color would still smell the same.

And I disagree that present racist discrimination policies are a remedy for past racist policies. To argue that is to argue that two wrongs make a right.

[Tmy]

How do you measure merit?? I think its false to say they did not get in based on merit. You make it seem like the shools just grab the first black guy that walks by the school.

How do you fix past (and present) racism? Do you have a better solution. Its not like the racism is this one time event that has no bearing on the future.

Do you really belive that people who are hired are the most qualified. That if you replaced the human services officer wh another person, they would hire the exact same applicants?

I dont think thats realistic. For example go down to the local police departemt. Im sure youll find people who are related or who come from a family of cops. There are all sorts of tests ect. top becoming a police officer but they dont just hire on the test. If your dad was a cop, theyll get you in. Fair?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk


Why worry about white people? The groups AA harms are the groups being "helped".

Remember AFDC? Who got "helped"? Unless you wanted to breed what is now 4th generation rioters.

Uh gee hamme I thought you knew your history better than that, the school lunch program and eventually the AFDC was started becuase there were too many recruits who were four F during WWII due to malnutrition.

I suppose a fed rioter is better than the starving rioter.

And AFDC dies under Clinton, there is now a five year limit on TANF, so all those poor people will become the responsibilty of the states soon.

Shame on you. Promoting starving and homeless children. I suppose you think the postal service is a joke too. Oh well , I also worry about the old people who don't apply for foodstamps and are malnourished.

I always find it amazing that it was the arch conservative LBJ who started the Great Society!

[JAR]

Originally posted by Tmy
Didnt you here? According to the 10,000 people didnt get into Harvard last year the reason was because their slot was taken by an AA case.

Life is a breeze when you have brown skin. That's why tanning salons are so popular.
My dad told me that the guy in the news called Geraldo(I think that's how you spell his name) has said that he isn't really Hispanic. According to my father, Geraldo said he changed his name to an Hispanic one because he felt that in this modern world of politically correctness, having an Hispanic name would help get him jobs.

[Edited to Add: A person on this page:http://jumptheshark.com/g/geraldo.htm says that Geraldo's birth name is Gerald Miguel Riviera, so the claim that he's not Hispanic might be a myth, assuming his birth name is Gerald Miguel Riviera.]

[Malachi151]

kerfer

You confirmed my suspicions.

Well, first of all you totally did not understand the analogy at all, which was a very simple analogy in the first place, so I guess that now I have to explain that to you as well. I'll try to dumb it down more for you as much as possible :o

The startign positions refer to realtive socieoeconomic status of groups in America, in this case races, but it can apply to any group. The speed of the racers refers to the level of success of the groups in our economic and social system. If a group starts out well behind everyone else, as blacks did then even with no descrimination at all we would expect that group to stay behind forever, unless that groups was actually more successful the the rest of society. If that group is equally as sucessful as the rest of society then they will simply maintian their position wherever they are at. The average performance of any individual in society will result in no change in ther socieoeconomic status. If are are born poor and do average you will die poor. If you are born rich and do average you will die rich. If you are born poor the only way to become rich is to perform significantly better than those people who are already rich. The only way to ever move up in society is to perform better then those above you in society.

So for a group of people who were about 90% in poverty about 5 years to move up into the ranks of equality with whites, they as a group would have to actually outperform whites, i.e. come from behind.

Now back to the real world, where some people will run faster than others. If you give person A a head start and he crosses the finish line first, and person B finishes in second place, by 3 milliseconds, does that mean that person A is a more qualified athlete? No, person B is the more qualified athlete, but person A gets the gold. Hmm...that doesn't seem fair to me.

Exactly the point. Duh.

The point is that blacks as a group have been started out way behind the rest of society. They started out as the lowest class of people in America by a long shot.

From that position, way for behind, the only way for them to catch up to the rest of society is if they are better than everyone else, OR if they are given assistance.

The fact is that we have not all started on the same starting line. Whites started off with a huge head start. From that position we can expect that even when people are given equality under the law everyone's relative positions will stay the same in society unless A) the people who started behind are actually better then the rest of society and can catch up on their won due to being better then the others, or (B) the race is restarted with everyone on the same starting line, or (C) the people who started behind are given some kind of boost to help them catch-up.

You're so off base in understanding what I'm saying that I'm not going to waste more time on the issue. I've already explained it in previous posts, if you don't understand sociology, that if the fault of your teachers and yourself, not my fault.

[c0rbin]

A certain percentage of applicants to certain jobs/school slots/other opportunities are filled not on merit, but are ensured to be filled by perhaps not the most qualified and deserving applicants, but rather a set of applicants who fit a particular profile, based on their race.

That's something that people like to mythologize about AA--that somehow the bar is lowered.

Universities get thousands and thousands of applicants who meet the criteria for acceptance. It is only good for a society to spread the opportunity around--to give a minority a chance.

White people aren't going to suffer unless they shirk the investment that is inclusion--and that's in the long run.

JAR, are you worried that you won't be able to attend a university because of AA?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Uh gee hamme I thought you knew your history better than that, the school lunch program and eventually the AFDC was started becuase there were too many recruits who were four F during WWII due to malnutrition.
Can you cite a source for that assertion?

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/fam11.htm
Between 1960 and 1988, the number of births
to unwed mothers doubled.

......In 1974, Senator Russell Long perceived a connection
between "fathers who abandon their children" and a growth in AFDC spending. This led to the original federal child support and paternity legislation enacted in January 1975, as Title IV, Part D of the Social Security Act.


What group do suppose had a doubling of unwed mothers? The easy fix was "1 bastard, zap you're sterilized". Too bad the chance was missed. You think AFDC did anyone any favors? I don't.


I suppose a fed rioter is better than the starving rioter.
DEAD rioters at least stop recidivism.


And AFDC dies under Clinton, there is now a five year limit on TANF, so all those poor people will become the responsibilty of the states soon.

Shame on you. Promoting starving and homeless children.
The "plight" of a black in the USA today is so incredibly much better than the fight for day to day survival faced by much of the worlds population, that it makes their compalints -- and continuing inability to join the first world -- an absolute farce.


I suppose you think the postal service is a joke too.
Actually yes, basically because the people hired seem incapable of doing useful work.


I always find it amazing that it was the arch conservative LBJ who started the Great Society!

Yeah, his descent into insanity was tough to watch.

[c0rbin]

The "plight" of a black in the USA today is so incredibly much better than the fight for day to day survival faced by much of the worlds population, that it makes their compalints -- and continuing inability to join the first world -- an absolute farce.

AA wouldn't apply to someone in th "world's population" outside of the US.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk

Can you cite a source for that assertion?

You think AFDC did anyone any favors? I don't.

The "plight" of a black in the USA today is so incredibly much better than the fight for day to day survival faced by much of the worlds population, that it makes their compalints -- and continuing inability to join the first world -- an absolute farce.




I will have to research the start of the food assistance programs, I heard a military historian talking about how there was a twenty percent 4-F because of malnutrition during WWII

AFDC does favor to the children, the way the system was set up was a mistake but the children still need the help. The parents shouldn't get cash, but there should be ways to help the kids.

AFDC /TANF mainly benefits people with children, I am not sure what it has to do with race, it is socio economic.

[JAR]

Originally posted by c0rbin
[snip]
JAR, are you worried that you won't be able to attend a university because of AA?
I'm a lazy worthless kind of person which is exactly the type of person that affirmative action is designed to help.

I wouldn't go to a university because I would flunk my classes and it would be a big waste of money. I also don't want to get a job, because then I would have to work, which is something I don't like to do. But don't tell my parents that because they pay the bills and still think I'm actually attempting to go somewhere with my life.

[JAR]

There's two types of people who like affirmative action. They are con-artists and shmucks.

[c0rbin]

I'm a lazy worthless kind of person which is exactly the type of person that affirmative action is designed to help.


Sheesh.


There's two types of people who like affirmative action. They are con-artists and shmucks.


Sheesh, troll.
:(

[Malachi151]

The "plight" of a black in the USA today is so incredibly much better than the fight for day to day survival faced by much of the worlds population, that it makes their compalints -- and continuing inability to join the first world -- an absolute farce.

Again. Do you say then that this is a genetic situation that cannot be fixed by social engineering? Are you saying that blacks are simply racially inferior for modern society and cannot be helped and are simply doomed to be the lowest class of American society no matter what?

There are only two things that determine development, genetics and environment.

Genetics cannot be changed (well , sort of), but environment can be. Are you against changing the black environment in ways that are thought to improve their social situation?

What is your recommendation then, knowing that people are a product of their environment, to help blacks improce their socioeconmic status in America, which was, aferall created through the process of slavery and oppression after slavery, which didn't really begin to stop until the 1960s.

[Malachi151]

I'm a lazy worthless kind of person which is exactly the type of person that affirmative action is designed to help.

Ahh, yes, AA is designed ot help lazy worthless people. You don't even have any idea what you are talking about.

Of course I assume then that you think that Colin Powell is a lazy worthless person, I think he'sa liar, but not lazy, after he is worth around $30 million. He did get where he is today becaue of AA, which he acknowledged. Would society be better had he perhaps not been helped nd instead been a low wage ditch digger?

[JAR]

Originally posted by Malachi151
I'm a lazy worthless kind of person which is exactly the type of person that affirmative action is designed to help.

Ahh, yes, AA is designed ot help lazy worthless people. You don't even have any idea what you are talking about.

Of course I assume then that you think that Colin Powell is a lazy worthless person, I think he'sa liar, but not lazy, after he is worth around $30 million. He did get where he is today becaue of AA, which he acknowledged. Would society be better had he perhaps not been helped nd instead been a low wage ditch digger?
I don't think Colin Powell is a lazy worthless person. I'm wrong that affirmative action is supposed to help lazy worthless people, although it does a portion of the time. I do know that I'm a lazy worthless person and that affirmative action and welfare are my only hope to get anywhere in life. But I don't intend to go anywhere, because I don't like work. I could live under a communist government and I'd take good advantage of it by being lazy, skipping work and getting paid just as much wages as my hard-working comrades.

[JAR]

Originally posted by The Fool
Genghis
What would you do about a company with approx 500 employees in an area where the population is 30% black that has 0% black employees?

You don't like AA, I don't like AA, but what are the alternatives? Just do nothing? Allow racist employers to continue unchecked? What would you do about my fictitious company? It is this exact sort of situation that has seen AA come about.... What alternatives can you suggest?
Fool, when employers of a place can afford to hire workers on a racial basis, that means that the place is over-populated and its time for those who aren't employed to move elsewhere.

[JAR]

One problem with you affirmative action lovers is you think that ethnic groups should be evenly proportioned among different jobs in relation to their percentage of the population. Haven't you ever noticed that different ethnic groups gravitate towards certain jobs depending on the environment they were raised in and their genes(example: being beautiful helps one be a supermodel). You remind me of those people who think something should be done about the large number of Jewish people working in show business.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Again. Do you say then that this is a genetic situation that cannot be fixed by social engineering? Are you saying that blacks are simply racially inferior for modern society and cannot be helped and are simply doomed to be the lowest class of American society no matter what?
After nearly 5 decades of social engineering, the result still stands: the IQ you are born with IS your adult IQ. What do you suggest? My solution again, "1 bastard, automatic sterilization". If daddy can be identified ditto for him.


There are only two things that determine development, genetics and environment.
So true. Damn, I wish stats existed for mixed-race kids. The mongoloid/caucasoid higher-IQ-propensity -- strictly anecdotally -- seems to be the dominant gene-set in negroid-mix offspring.


Genetics cannot be changed (well , sort of), but environment can be. Are you against changing the black environment in ways that are thought to improve their social situation?
Yes, but my solution is admittedly racist, since blacks would be unfairly represented.


What is your recommendation then, knowing that people are a product of their environment, to help blacks improce their socioeconmic status in America, which was, aferall created through the process of slavery and oppression after slavery, which didn't really begin to stop until the 1960s.

As long as well-meaning people continue to parrot this bs, the road to salvation seems to depend on intermarriage.

For jj & his ilk: How do you classify pre-natal care based on crack intake? Genetics, or Environment?

[kerfer]

Originally posted by Malachi151
kerfer

You confirmed my suspicions.

Likewise. I try to do you a favor, and show you how absurd your argument is, and instead of rethinking it and proposing the ability to converse, you resort to name calling.

How mature of you. :rolleyes:

Your argument is fallacious, and I'm not interested in pursuing that line of "reasoning" any longer. I'm not going to argue with a fool. :p

I notice that you are trying very hard to avoid my main point: that AA is racist, and racism is always wrong.

If you disagree with that statement, please tell me when, besides AA, of course, that racism is not wrong.

Here:

Malachi151 thinks that racism is not wrong in the following situations:

1)

2)

3)

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk
For jj & his ilk: How do you classify pre-natal care based on crack intake? Genetics, or Environment?

At least environment, and possibly genetics for people who are very sensitive to any particular substance.

Also, massive parental effective stupidity. Note, this does not mean "low IQ" it means a lack of what we usually call "wisdom" in this case. I've known people with a measured, low IQ who can be fairly wise, although nothing like speedy.

I've known people who were tactical wizards, but hadn't a touch of wisdom.

A question for Hammegk and his ilk: Is IQ one thing? If yes, prove.

[bpesta22]

Originally posted by jj


A question for Hammegk and his ilk: Is IQ one thing? If yes, prove.

JJ

I'm honored to be an ilk of Hammegk's. :)

Actually, the burden of proof is on anyone claiming intelligence is more than one thing.

The positive manifold is a near law (give a battery of vastly different cognitive abilities test to a bunch of people, and a significant positive correlation will emerge among the tests).

To my knowledge, no one has ever done a factor analysis on a battery of tests where the single factor, g, has NOT emerged and sucked up most of the variance in test scores.

Add to that the fact that if the "IQ" test doesn't measure g then its validity crashes-- the test no longer correlates with SES, education, job performance, etc.

It's fine and dandy to claim there are 7, 10 or 12 types of intelligence, but no one's ever designed a test that taps a specific other type of intelligence, but that does not also measure g.

Plus, there's even physiological evidence for IQ being one thing, as g correlates with neural speed and very basic RT measures like the light bulb task (mentioned in a prior thread).

I think you could categorize cognition into various branches (math, verbal, spatial, etc) but you always have g on the top explaining the biggest chunk of the variance in individual differences on these branches.

[JAR]

Originally posted by hammegk
After nearly 5 decades of social engineering, the result still stands: the IQ you are born with IS your adult IQ. What do you suggest? My solution again, "1 bastard, automatic sterilization". If daddy can be identified ditto for him.
[snip]
Are you talking about eugenics?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by JAR
One problem with you affirmative action lovers is you think that ethnic groups should be evenly proportioned among different jobs in relation to their percentage of the population.
Strawman to the point of sileage.
Haven't you ever noticed that different ethnic groups gravitate towards certain jobs depending on the environment they were raised in and their genes(example: being beautiful helps one be a supermodel).
Are you claiming that beauty is an ethnicity?
You remind me of those people who think something should be done about the large number of Jewish people working in show business. :rolleyes:

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by bpesta22


JJ

I'm honored to be an ilk of Hammegk's. :)
You might be doing yourself a disservice here...

Actually, the burden of proof is on anyone claiming intelligence is more than one thing.
How would you adapt Ravens (for instance,) for blind people? Could you adapt the verbal element of other tests for people with dyslexia?

The positive manifold is a near law (give a battery of vastly different cognitive abilities test to a bunch of people, and a significant positive correlation will emerge among the tests).
But only latitudinally, not longitudinally...

To my knowledge, no one has ever done a factor analysis on a battery of tests where the single factor, g, has NOT emerged and sucked up most of the variance in test scores.
Apart from the generational factor...

Add to that the fact that if the "IQ" test doesn't measure g then its validity crashes-- the test no longer correlates with SES, education, job performance, etc.
But that's circular logic--IQ tests measure g; g exists because IQ tests measure it.

It's fine and dandy to claim there are 7, 10 or 12 types of intelligence, but no one's ever designed a test that taps a specific other type of intelligence, but that does not also measure g.
How about, there's only one kind of intelligence--g--but it's the sum of a range of sensory and cognitive abilities?

Plus, there's even physiological evidence for IQ being one thing, as g correlates with neural speed and very basic RT measures like the light bulb task (mentioned in a prior thread).
But of course g correlates with neural speed! Just as fast-twitch muscle correlates with sprinting and jumping ability; we could term this ability "a", and be pretty certain that individuals with high "a" will do well at jumping and sprinting events; but could we actually say that "a" exists, other than as the collective term for a specific set of skills it measures?
I think you could categorize cognition into various branches (math, verbal, spatial, etc) but you always have g on the top explaining the biggest chunk of the variance in individual differences on these branches.
How would that work? Would g predict maths ability or vice versa?

[JAR]

Originally posted by BillyTK
[snip]
Are you claiming that beauty is an ethnicity?
[snip]
No, but DNA does play a role in how beautiful a person is and DNA is one way for classifying ethnic groups although it doesn't make up the majority of a person's ethnic characteristics according to what I learned in my Introduction to Anthropology college class.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by JAR

No, but DNA does play a role in how beautiful a person is and DNA is one way for classifying ethnic groups although it doesn't make up the majority of a person's ethnic characteristics according to what I learned in my Introduction to Anthropology college class.

Okay... *deep breath* ethnicity is cultural; it's made up of lots of different things like language, religion, customs, and these are nothing to do with dna. You can't tell the difference between, say, a member of the Amish community and an Irish roman catholic at the genetic level, although there's very distinctive cultural differences.

DNA does play a role in beauty, in terms of the grand lottery of physical features you inherit, but so does the environment; look at how ideals of beauty have changed over the last five decades--from the "curvaceousness" of Marilyn Munroe to the skinny look of catwalk models from the sixties onwards; look at the ways people can enhance their looks with everything from dentistry through to cosmetic surgery.

There's beautiful people from all ethnicities, and every ethinicity has a different idea of beauty anyway. Just compare the "look" of women in Bollywood movies (http://www.planetbollywood.com/) with women in Hollywood movies.

Bottom line: beauty is cultural, not genetic, because it's a case of characteristics you've inherited fitting in with current ideals of beauty, and those ideals are constantly changing.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by kerfer


Likewise. I try to do you a favor, and show you how absurd your argument is, and instead of rethinking it and proposing the ability to converse, you resort to name calling.

How mature of you. :rolleyes:

Your argument is fallacious, and I'm not interested in pursuing that line of "reasoning" any longer. I'm not going to argue with a fool. :p

I notice that you are trying very hard to avoid my main point: that AA is racist, and racism is always wrong.

If you disagree with that statement, please tell me when, besides AA, of course, that racism is not wrong.

Here:

Malachi151 thinks that racism is not wrong in the following situations:

1)

2)

3)

You can't explain how absurd something is unless you understand it. Your arguments showed that you didn't even understand the analogy.

AA is not racist. That's just a lame excuse by people who are racist to try and oppose AA.

The fact is that if you have a large group in poverty, it does not matter who that group is, then in a capitalst economic system the only way for that group to ever get out of poverty is through the use of assistance.

Given that blacks were all forced into poverty against their will, and that they have descriminated against significantly since their freedom from slavery, and that when AA ws put into effect the vast majority of blacks were still in poverty, the one and ony way to gt them out of that situtation as a group is through help, assistance, giving them advantages.

I am quite sure that if Japan were to enslave 10 million white people for about 200 years in Japan and totally remove all traces of their culture from the population and prevent them from even learning to read, and then release them from slavery as free, but the poorest group in society and then continue to descriminate against them, not hire them for jobs, and run them out of business and force them to use separate facilities, etc, that whites would do no better in that situation as a group that blacks are doing here.

Its not a matter of race, its a matter of culture, but in this case race and culture are tied together. It is simply easier to make laws based on race since virtually everyone from a given race was thrust into the same culture.

People naturally descriminate based on race. Our society is, and had been, dominated by white males who also descriminate based on race and gender to give preference to other white males. Without passing some laws countrer act this natural tendancy it would be expected that white males would forever domnate the US social and economic system, not based on merit, but based on social practise and the self reinforcing mechanisms that cause disadvantaged populations to become weakers and weaker as people respond to their environment.

Generally, a bad environment will produce "bad people", and a good environment will produce "good people". So, if whites, who have traditionally dominated the good environments of America, do not help people out of their bad environments it is not reasonsable to expect that they will help themselves because the peoplare a product of their environment. Its not reasonable to expect that 1 or 2 generatios of help will do it either, it will take many generations of assistance. It is also not reasonable to expect the blacks to do all the catching up on their own.

Blacks have been slaves in America for about 400 years, it is not reasonable to expect to reverse the social damage done to that population in 40 years of assistance.

[Dancing David]

I think that the problem I have is that IQ is an a priori test, it would be more scientific to do a longitudinal study. Administer a battery of tests over time and find out which tests have the highest correlates to various skills, then you could begin to develop a scientificaly based test.

The five teen point difference, typical faulty meta-analysis:
- to have an accurate scientific doeuble blind you must match the factors that could lead to the test having an error in it.
-match factors like nutrition
-match enviromental factors like lead
-match enviromental factors like parental involvement
-match all factors that might possible be something other than genetics.
Then if you still have the fivetenn point difference I will concede the genetic basis of the fiveteen point difference.
(Sorry but that is good social scince, and by the way you need test groups in the 100,00 range to even pretend that you have a good sample)

The crach baby thing: cocaine is very addictive, socio-bio-psycho factors lead to addiction. Match the socio economics and viola the rates are the same, of course higher socio economic class allows you to hide your addiction better.

Hey what was this thread about?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by jj


.....massive parental effective stupidity. Note, this does not mean "low IQ" it means a lack of what we usually call "wisdom" in this case. I've known people with a measured, low IQ who can be fairly wise, although nothing like speedy.

I've known people who were tactical wizards, but hadn't a touch of wisdom.

Nothing like a good anecdote when you have no facts. Unless you would care to deny any correlation of iq to parental stupidity (ie. Genetics).



A question for Hammegk and his ilk: Is IQ one thing? If yes, prove.
When will you publish your rebuttal to Spearman's work? Many have tried, none I've seen succeded except in their own minds, and in the minds of equally deluded soft-headed pb'lib fellow travelers. jj, meet TK & 151. Maybe a circle jerk while you tell each other how smart you are, and how dumb I am?

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Malachi151
AA is not racist.

http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/happy/roflmao.gif


That's just a lame excuse by people who are racist to try and oppose AA.

If anything, claiming AA is not racist is just a lame excuse for its proponents to rationalize their support for a racist policy.

[kerfer]

Originally posted by Malachi151


You can't explain how absurd something is unless you understand it. Your arguments showed that you didn't even understand the analogy.


ROTFLMAO!

I understood it, I just thought it was stupid.


AA is not racist.


You have got to be kidding.:rolleyes:

from dictionary.com

rac·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
n.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.



Please explain how a policy that is defined as discrimination based solely upon race is not a racist policy.



That's just a lame excuse by people who are racist to try and oppose AA.


ROTFLMAO!

So let me get this straight...I oppose discrimination based on race, and you support dicrimination based solely on race, and I'm the racist?

Hehehehehehehehehehe

Hohohohohohhohohohoohhoho

Hawhawhawhawhawhawhawhawhawhaw

heheheheheheheehhehehhehehehehehehe

hehehhhehehehehhhehehhhehhhhhhhhehh

hehehehehehehehehhhehehehehehehehe

That's a good one. That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time.


The fact is that if you have a large group in poverty, it does not matter who that group is, then in a capitalst economic system the only way for that group to ever get out of poverty is through the use of assistance.

Given that blacks were all forced into poverty against their will, and that they have descriminated against significantly since their freedom from slavery, and that when AA ws put into effect the vast majority of blacks were still in poverty, the one and ony way to gt them out of that situtation as a group is through help, assistance, giving them advantages.

I am quite sure that if Japan were to enslave 10 million white people for about 200 years in Japan and totally remove all traces of their culture from the population and prevent them from even learning to read, and then release them from slavery as free, but the poorest group in society and then continue to descriminate against them, not hire them for jobs, and run them out of business and force them to use separate facilities, etc, that whites would do no better in that situation as a group that blacks are doing here.

Its not a matter of race, its a matter of culture,



Bovine biscuits.

I have never once seen on a form in the race portion, an entry for White Hillbilly. It's about race. You know it is.


but in this case race and culture are tied together. It is simply easier to make laws based on race since virtually everyone from a given race was thrust into the same culture.



You can admit that you are wrong any time you'd like.

Or you can keep spewing this sillyness.

AA is racist, and racism is wrong.

[c0rbin]

If anything, claiming AA is not racist is just a lame excuse for its proponents to rationalize their support for a racist policy.

AA pertains to race. That is obvious.

That it harms white males in general is not.

[Malachi151]

Check it out:

http://betboards.bet.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB67&Number=833552&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1


Going to Harvard Law - How do I face the criticism

I'm a black man from New York who was recently accepted at Harvard Law School, one of the top in the country. While my GPA and LSAT scores were not as high as the rest of the class, I did very well and have had a lot of hard experiences to overcome. I keep hearing about the stigma of being black and having not "earned" my place in the field of law, having been accepted to Harvard!!! I didn't feel this at Georgetown, but I'm worried there might be more resentment now that I'm going to Harvard. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to confront this issue.

I'm guessing that this might actually be a troll, btu the replies are interesting.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Malachi151
AA is not racist. That's just a lame excuse by people who are racist to try and oppose AA.

Originally posted by WMT1
If anything, claiming AA is not racist is just a lame excuse for its proponents to rationalize their support for a racist policy.

Originally posted by c0rbin
AA pertains to race. That is obvious.

Then you agree that it is racist?


That it harms white males in general is not.

:confused: How is this relevant to anything I posted?

[Tmy]

Going to Harvard Law - How do I face the criticism

I'm a black man from New York who was recently accepted at Harvard Law School, one of the top in the country. While my GPA and LSAT scores were not as high as the rest of the class, I did very well and have had a lot of hard experiences to overcome. I keep hearing about the stigma of being black and having not "earned" my place in the field of law, having been accepted to Harvard!!! I didn't feel this at Georgetown, but I'm worried there might be more resentment now that I'm going to Harvard. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to confront this issue.


Heres what Id tell this guy "who gives an f- what people think". Ive heard Harvard Law is a terrible place. Everyones out to get each other and the competition gets silly.

AA just helps you with getting in. It doesnt make your tests any easier. If all these people truely dont belong, then wouldnt they all fail out?

[c0rbin]

AA is not racist because if you look at the wording of the anit-descrimination laws that surround it, they say you may not use race et al as a consideration. Hence it pertains to race. To call that racism is like calling anti-child porn laws kiddie porn because it contains the words "minors" and "genitalia."

How is this relevant to anything I posted?

I think it's very relevant. AA is a policy designed to give everyone a fair shot. White males have the most opportunity stocked up and are not damaged, IMO, by AA.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by c0rbin
AA is not racist because if you look at the wording of the anit-descrimination laws that surround it, they say you may not use race et al as a consideration. Hence it pertains to race.

Feel free to provide a quote if you like, but I didn't ask about the "laws that surround it" anyway. Does AA discriminate on the basis of race?



To call that racism is like calling anti-child porn laws kiddie porn because it contains the words "minors" and "genitalia."

If you think that's true, then you should have no trouble providing an unconditional, unambiguous answer to the question I just asked.



That it harms white males in general is not.

:confused: How is this relevant to anything I posted?

I think it's very relevant. AA is a policy designed to give everyone a fair shot. White males have the most opportunity stocked up and are not damaged, IMO, by AA.

But I made no particular statements about that. So once again (and please answer the question I'm actually asking this time), how is it relevant to anything I posted?

[JAR]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Okay... *deep breath* ethnicity is cultural; it's made up of lots of different things like language, religion, customs, and these are nothing to do with dna.
That's what I was taught in school, but my American Heritage College Dictionary definition is different. It defines "ethnicity" as:
n. Ethnic character, background, or affiliation.

It defines "ethnic" as:
adj. 1.a. Of or relating to sizable groups of people with a common, distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage. b. Being a member of a particular ethnic group. c. Of, relating to, or distinctive members of such a group. 2. Relating to a people not Christian or Jewish. -n. A member of a particular ethnic group, esp. one with the language or customs of the group.

Note the word "racial" in the definition which I put in bold text.

You can't tell the difference between, say, a member of the Amish community and an Irish roman catholic at the genetic level, although there's very distinctive cultural differences.
That's because Amish and Irish are not races. Its been shown repeatedly by studies that just because two people trace their ancestry to the same ethnic group(example: Two people are both German in ancestry) doesn't necessarily mean they have a common ancestor that belonged to that ethnic group. A red haired person with freckles with German ancestry is probably more closely related to a red haired person with freckles with English ancestry than he/she is related to a blond haired person without freckles with German ancestry.


DNA does play a role in beauty, in terms of the grand lottery of physical features you inherit, but so does the environment; look at how ideals of beauty have changed over the last five decades--from the "curvaceousness" of Marilyn Munroe to the skinny look of catwalk models from the sixties onwards; look at the ways people can enhance their looks with everything from dentistry through to cosmetic surgery.
I personally don't find the skinny look attractive but I know lots of guys who do. In my opinion, that cultural influence is a harmful rejection of the way women were intended to be by nature.

There's beautiful people from all ethnicities, and every ethinicity has a different idea of beauty anyway. Just compare the "look" of women in Bollywood movies (http://www.planetbollywood.com/) with women in Hollywood movies.

Bottom line: beauty is cultural, not genetic, because it's a case of characteristics you've inherited fitting in with current ideals of beauty, and those ideals are constantly changing.
What is considered beautiful is influenced by culture. I agree with you there. I also don't think white women are the most attractive women in the world. I like dark skin caucasoidal women best. But that's just my opinion and beauty is just a matter of taste.

[Tmy]

Oh no not another semantics fight.

Sure AA is technically "racist". Just like George Bush is technically a "murderer" cause he ordered the bombing of Iraq knowing it would cause death.

[Dancing David]

JAR thou art most eloquent, and you called yourself lazy!

I think my point would be that up until WWII most people did think of nationality as equivalent to race.

So alot of the race based feelings were equaly applied to nationalities.

Side comment,

as I have stated in other thread I am disturbed by the fact that if you support AA then there is a support of race,
which is why i feel the socio economic AA is a better model.

The idea to AA is that it will fught institutional bigotry, so maybe some white kids should apply to all black school, eh?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Dancing David
JAR thou art most eloquent, and you called yourself lazy!

I think my point would be that up until WWII most people did think of nationality as equivalent to race.

So alot of the race based feelings were equaly applied to nationalities.

Side comment,

as I have stated in other thread I am disturbed by the fact that if you support AA then there is a support of race,
which is why i feel the socio economic AA is a better model.

The idea to AA is that it will fught institutional bigotry, so maybe some white kids should apply to all black school, eh?

Theres a big myth out there that "black colleges" are just for blacks. In fact many of them are state schools that are "tradtionally black" because they were the only instititions where blacks were allowed. They do have white students too, just as any school.


AS for the socio econmic AA. I dont know. The thought is that if your a hispanic but your from a wealthy rich mostly white town and got to a nice school you are then above instititional bigotry. But wouldnt that one hispanic in a whole school of whites actually face more bigotry than the hispanic kid in the urban hispanic school? Being the only one whatever in a school is going to make the education process difficult.

[jj]

Originally posted by bpesta22


JJ

I'm honored to be an ilk of Hammegk's. :)

Actually, the burden of proof is on anyone claiming intelligence is more than one thing.

Really?

I am quite seriously not aware that IQ or some one other measure has been shown to be all-inclusive. I know you argue for 'g', yes, I do recall this, (see? even the stupid, according to some IQ tests, can remember something, and according to some of the tests, I'm a drooling idiot, so pardon my lack of faith in any given test...) I am still,however, unaware that the proposition that intellegence is ONE thing has been proven.

Until then, the burden is not mine.

To my knowledge, no one has ever done a factor analysis on a battery of tests where the single factor, g, has NOT emerged and sucked up most of the variance in test scores.

Indeed. This is, however, inferring causation from correlation in a very real way.

Now, are there different paths to getting the same 'g'? I don't think you've shown otherwise.

Add to that the fact that if the "IQ" test doesn't measure g then its validity crashes-- the test no longer correlates with SES, education, job performance, etc.

Well, then, would you like to tell us what are good tests? I do agree that tests SHOULD predict, but my experience with many tests (and I've taken many, I was for whatever reason a favorite subject of some of the cognative people back at the Labs) suggests that their results don't always exactly correlate, no matter what they are measuring, and no, I wasn't deliberately confounding the data.

It's fine and dandy to claim there are 7, 10 or 12 types of intelligence, but no one's ever designed a test that taps a specific other type of intelligence, but that does not also measure g.

So, a skill in basic math is equal to a skill in, say, convincing rhetoric? Or are people good in one good at the other? That hasn't always been my experience, for sure.

I think you could categorize cognition into various branches (math, verbal, spatial, etc) but you always have g on the top explaining the biggest chunk of the variance in individual differences on these branches.
So you're saying that 'g' has predictive value to all branches of reasoning? (note, that's a question) Interesting.

What does this say about outlier types, the kind that get a 2%ile in Iowa "Clerical Skills" and who are off the top in Math, but who wind up with a 95%ile in language on GRE's?

I've met far too many people who were successful and smart who had obvious lacks of one sort or other, and who compensated or didn't in some fairly obvious manner.

I don't think I'm oversimplfying, maybe what I am suggesting is that outliers don't fit the model you're putting up. What do you think of that proposition?

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk

Nothing like a good anecdote when you have no facts. Unless you would care to deny any correlation of iq to parental stupidity (ie. Genetics).

It would be good of you not to make statements like this. First, what I cite isn't even an anecdote. You didn't ask for proof, you didn't ask for evidence, you asked MY OPINION. That's what you got. Now you're shifting the bar, just like a creationist.

"Oh, that's not what I meant, you didn't prove this other thing I didn't ask for".

That's cheating.

Why?

Many have tried, none I've seen succeded except in their own minds, and in the minds of equally deluded soft-headed pb'lib fellow travelers. jj, meet TK & 151. Maybe a circle jerk while you tell each other how smart you are, and how dumb I am?

Ah, yes, when upset with the argument, call them names. I'm overwhelmed with amazement. I'm stunned. I'm overcome.

Until you stop that kind of behavior, you're not worth the bits you spend on language.

[Tmy]

I think people can have "talents" in certain arers. Talent in math, music, painting, hand eye coordination. So yes its part of their genetics. But I dont feel its concentrated in a persons race. There are great artists from all races. Great musicians.

But its not all in the genes. Have you heard John Lenons kid? His music sucks! How come we don't hear of the genius of Einstiens kids??

[jj]

Originally posted by c0rbin
I think it's very relevant. AA is a policy designed to give everyone a fair shot. White males have the most opportunity stocked up and are not damaged, IMO, by AA.

Actually, Corbin, speaking as a white male from a lower socio-economic background, you know, one of those backgrounds that's due to low IQ according to our friends here, I was in fact harmed by AA. I could have used the same financial aid, the same remedial aid in some areas, etc, but I wasn't black, so I didn't deserve it. I got to compete with all of those people. Now, in fact I do agree that intellegence (whatever it is) will out, some of those people did fine, some did not, I did fine in fact, but had to leap some stupid, deliberately placed barries because I wasn't black. (details are more involved and more annoying than I really care to go into 30 years later, thank you)

So, yes, I can make a case that I was harmed financially by AA, in fact, in a fashion that continues to have effects (both financial and medical) to this day.

The fact that I have overcome most of this does not justify placing the barriers in the first place.

Having said all that, I'm for AA in modified form, there is need to ensure that we don't lose smart people, because they are so (*&( hard to come by from any background.

That's my definition of smart, so don't ask. It's subjective. It does seem to have good predictive power, but I do seem to pick people who succeed later in life rather than sooner, but who keep what they make, so to speak.

I'm sure Hammy will have something negative to say. I'm probably going to put him on ignore after his last combination of shifting the bar and then ad-hominem, though. I don't think he's a reasonable person, nor does he argue on the level.

[Malachi151]

So you are saying that you think that you started with all the same exact barriers that average blacks start with, and then you had more lumped on top, is that correct?

[Tmy]

So jj are you saying that if AA did not exist you wouldve gotten all that aid???? How do you figure?

I thought financial aid was need based. Not color based.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by jj
Actually, Corbin, speaking as a white male from a lower socio-economic background, you know, one of those backgrounds that's due to low IQ according to our friends here, I was in fact harmed by AA.
No one has suggested anything at an individual level. Other attributes can enhance, or degrade the effectiveness of measured IQ.

And I am sooooo sorry you suffered such maltreatment. Wahhh.


Having said all that, I'm for AA in modified form, there is need to ensure that we don't lose smart people, because they are so (*&( hard to come by from any background.

That's my definition of smart, so don't ask. It's subjective. It does seem to have good predictive power, but I do seem to pick people who succeed later in life rather than sooner, but who keep what they make, so to speak.
Iff AA selection was based on measured IQ, it would have some chance of doing so. As it is now race-based, all we are doing is squandering our tax dollars & teachers time on a no-return effort. Yes, that is my opinion; I still await citation of any studies that demonstrate the obverse.

And more anecdotes demonstrating the fabled jj acumen.


I'm sure Hammy will have something negative to say. I'm probably going to put him on ignore after his last combination of shifting the bar and then ad-hominem, though. I don't think he's a reasonable person, nor does he argue on the level.
I'd be more than happy with that. You are certainly a waste of bandwidth who does not argue, only babble ... plonk, bubby.

[jj]

Originally posted by Malachi151
So you are saying that you think that you started with all the same exact barriers that average blacks start with, and then you had more lumped on top, is that correct?

No.

Why the nasty mis-sumation?

[jj]

Originally posted by Tmy
So jj are you saying that if AA did not exist you wouldve gotten all that aid???? How do you figure?

I didn't say that.

I thought financial aid was need based. Not color based.

Read more carefully.

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk

Iff AA selection was based on measured IQ, it would have some chance of doing so. As it is now race-based, all we are doing is squandering our tax dollars & teachers time on a no-return effort. Yes, that is my opinion; I still await citation of any studies that demonstrate the obverse.

With a proper test, I'd not disagree. I simply don't agree that any test I've seen will be very successful, ESPECIALLY with the outliers, who are, in my opinion, the important ones to catch.

And more anecdotes demonstrating the fabled jj acumen.

More malicious manipulation of the bar. Where did I claim anything for the above other than personal experience?

Hint: I didn't.

I see once again that you can't deal with what people really say, so instead you show infantile, regressive behavior like:


I'd be more than happy with that. You are certainly a waste of bandwidth who does not argue, only babble ... plonk, bubby.

And you complain that I offer no substance.

Hypocrite.

[Malachi151]

Why the nasty mis-sumation?

Well, what can we do then to compensate for the obsticals that blacks face?

Also by obsticals I assume that you mean that w/o AA there would be more spots open for whites in whatever program.

If we don't get blacks into established institutions then how do we expext them to just jump up from widespear poverty when they can't make it into the important instutions either my merit or descrimination?

The argument essentially is that , well, maney not many blacks can make it into this school today based on test scores, but if we let them in with lower scores then maybe 2 or 3 generations from now they will be able to make it on their own. And in fact there is evidence that this type of thing does work.

Why don't we just increase spending on education and open more spots? Oh I forgot, we need to spend that on bombs instead.

Well even if we opend more spots people would still complain, in fact this has also happened.

More whites go to college today then 50 years ago too, so how can whites say they are being counted out.

Let's just say that 50 years ago 30% of whites went to college and 2% of blacks went to college.

Now today, schools have grown and today 50% of whites go to college and 30% of blacks.

The whites are still complaining because according to capacity we could have only 2% of black still going to school and about 60% of whites. Well.. I mean WTF?

Also over the past 50 years standards have come down across the boards partly because of AA, so we can also say that without AA standards would be higher across the board so again fewer whites would also get into college even still.

So, lets say a school has to meet AA standards. They currently enroll 10,000 students, 95% white. To meet the new standards they then admit 13,000 students, all 3,000 being black. Then white people say, hey wait, those 3,000 people could have been white!!

I mean come on, its a never ending battle.

Let's go back to the foot race example.

You start out 10 feet ahead of your opponent. The opponent asks to be moved up 10 feet, but then you complain and say that's not fair, if he gets to move up 10 feet then so should you.

Something has to give here if we have the objective of eventual racial equality.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Tmy
[snip]
AS for the socio econmic AA. I dont know. The thought is that if your a hispanic but your from a wealthy rich mostly white town and got to a nice school you are then above instititional bigotry. But wouldnt that one hispanic in a whole school of whites actually face more bigotry than the hispanic kid in the urban hispanic school? Being the only one whatever in a school is going to make the education process difficult.
It probably depends on the area the school is in. I knew an Hispanic dude in high school who once said that he would prefer to go to the Los Alamitos High School(a high school with mostly upper middle class white students) rather than Long Beach Poly High School(the high school we were going to. It mostly has lower class non-white students).

Where I live it is recommendable that you go to a school with mostly white students regardless of your race. Where I live white people are much less likely to get into a fight, to commit a crime, we basically tend not to look for trouble as much as blacks and Mexicans do. We are often nicer to non-white people than we are to fellow white people because we want to avoid giving the impression that were racists at all costs.

To tell you more, its much more common where I live for an African-American or Mexican-American to move to a neighborhood mainly inhabited by white people than it is for a white person to move to a neighborhood mainly inhabited by African-Americans and/or Mexican-Americans. African-Americans and Mexican-Americans are just completely unafraid of white people. The reason why of course is because it is extremely rare that we commit crimes against our fellow human beings.

In areas mainly inhabited by African-Americans and Mexican-Americans, a common feature you see is bars over the windows of houses and businesses. You rarely see this in white neighborhoods. The hostile nature of non-white neighborhoods encourages people to move out of them.

Now, if your a non-white person in the south, maybe I'm wrong, but from what I've heard of the south, you probably should avoid white people.

[jj]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Why the nasty mis-sumation?

Well, what can we do then to compensate for the obsticals that blacks face?

Why the nasty mis-summation? Why focus on Blacks? What about Hispanics?

Answer the question

Also by obsticals I assume that you mean that w/o AA there would be more spots open for whites in whatever program.

You "assume". Don't assume.

If we don't get blacks into established institutions then how do we expext them to just jump up from widespear poverty when they can't make it into the important instutions either my merit or descrimination?

Please explain your insinuation that my last paragraph was insincere?

Your debating tactics at this time are proundly dishonest, and I expect better from you.

The argument essentially is that , well, maney not many blacks can make it into this school today based on test scores, but if we let them in with lower scores then maybe 2 or 3 generations from now they will be able to make it on their own. And in fact there is evidence that this type of thing does work.

What is your evidence that I disagree with most of what you say? Not nits, mind you, but that I disagree with the substance?

Why don't we just increase spending on education and open more spots? Oh I forgot, we need to spend that on bombs instead.

And you are asking me this fallacy of the zero-sum game to what purpose?

Well even if we opend more spots people would still complain, in fact this has also happened.

This is relevant, how?

More whites go to college today then 50 years ago too, so how can whites say they are being counted out.

Again, you fail to respond with substance. Why do you introduce straw men in the absense of information?

Also over the past 50 years standards have come down across the boards partly because of AA, so we can also say that without AA standards would be higher across the board so again fewer whites would also get into college even still.

And the main implication of that is, then?

I mean come on, its a never ending battle.

For you it will be.
Let's go back to the foot race example.

Yes, let's.

You start out 10 feet ahead of your opponent.

Not granted. Illicit assumption. Start over.

The opponent asks to be moved up 10 feet, but then you complain and say that's not fair, if he gets to move up 10 feet then so should you.

Illicitly suborned from an orignal premise that is false. Your question is meaningless. Why is it offered?

Something has to give here if we have the objective of eventual racial equality.
You again insist on the fallacy of the zero-sum game.

Your rabid, disingenous attacks are very annoying, and constitute obvious prejudice on your part.

You owe me an explaination of why:

1) You have the right to ASSUME that you can read my mind and know what I think.
2) You think that based on your illicit ASSUMPTIONS you can lay a whole pile of baggage at my feet.
3) You insinuate that my own words regarding my position on AA are false by laying an anti-AA position at my feet.

Until you can answer those three questions, or apologize for illegitimately raising them, we must needs be at odds.

I remind you of one of the paragraphs in my article: Having said all that, I'm for AA in modified form, there is need to ensure that we don't lose smart people, because they are so (*&( hard to come by from any background.


Now, please explain your rebuttal of: If we don't get blacks into established institutions then how do we expext them to just jump up from widespear poverty when they can't make it into the important instutions either my merit or descrimination?


Please reconcile your implied position with the one I've stated.

[Malachi151]

Well, you have failed to support your vague assertions so all I can do is assume, or repeadly ask you to clarify, then reply, taking twice as long to have a discussion.

I'm for AA in modified form, there is need to ensure that we don't lose smart people, because they are so (*&( hard to come by from any background.

In what way are we currently losing intelligent people due to AA?

Why the nasty mis-summation? Why focus on Blacks? What about Hispanics?

AA was initially instituted mainly to help blacks due to the historic conditions which are unique to them in America, it was extended to other "races" becuase it was viewed that they also faced prejudice.

You "assume". Don't assume.

okay, so explain what you mean then. Thats the only logical explanation for your statement that I could think of.

What is your evidence that I disagree with most of what you say? Not nits, mind you, but that I disagree with the substance?

eh?

Again, you fail to respond with substance. Why do you introduce straw men in the absense of information?

No, the claims here, by you and others, are that because of AA white people are not getting into institutions that they should be getting into based on merit. I'm saying that since AA was started most institutions have accepted more whites as well as minorities. If colleges went from accepting 10,000 whites before AA to now only 6,000 because they had to let in minorities which are all below the skill level of the lowest whites then I would see a problem. However, its not that way.

And the main implication of that is, then?

Whatever the implicatiosn are they are nothing to d with whites not getting access to oppertunity.

Not granted. Illicit assumption. Start over.

No, it is granted. The race is not supposed to symbolize you vs a black person, its supposed to symbolize the white race vs the black race.


I think the issue in all this is the classic macro vs micro views, just like in economics. People focus on the mirco view and fail to see the macro view. Yes on an issue of you and black guy X apply to a college, you have a GPA of 2.7 he has a GPA of 2.0 and he get's admited and you don't, that is an unfair situation. Looking at that we see that the more qualified person got screwed.

However, looking at the macro view we see that without that type of activity, and knowing that people are a product of their environment, that the black population will not be able to progress towards a position of eqaulity with whites.

[jj]

QUOTE]Originally posted by Malachi151
Well, you have failed to support your vague assertions so all I can do is assume, or repeadly ask you to clarify, then reply, taking twice as long to have a discussion.

"You have failed to support your vague assertions"...

That, sir, is a lie. You, sir, are a liar. I haven't TRIED to suport them. I said, clearly and obviously, that they were long ago, far away, and very VERY annoying.

I DO NOT CARE TO DISCUSS THEM. I am WELL ACCUSTOMED TO POLITICAL EXTREMISTS ON BOTH SIDES DEMANDING "DETAILS" AND THEN USING THEM AGAINST A PERSON IN ORDER TO DISMISS THEM LATER.

I DO NOT CARE TO DISCUSS THEM. IS THAT CLEAR?


In what way are we currently losing intelligent people due to AA?


Why EVER do you assert I said that?

Is there a reason for your continued mis-summations, drawing of illicit, dishonest, and unethical conclusions, and your general ill-behavior?

okay, so explain what you mean then. Thats the only logical explanation for your statement that I could think of.

Then your imagination is quite lacking.

No, the claims here, by you and others, are that because of AA white people are not getting into institutions that they should be getting into based on merit.

I did not claim that. Only your own reactionary prejudice has invented that. I DID NOT CLAIM THAT. DO NOT ACCUSE ME OF SAYING THINGS THAT I HAVE SPECIFICALLY NOT SAID!

Whatever the implicatiosn are they are nothing to d with whites not getting access to oppertunity.

And this is relevant to my position in what sense, sir?

Not granted. Illicit assumption. Start over.

No, it is granted. The race is not supposed to symbolize you vs a black person, its supposed to symbolize the white race vs the black race.

You, sir, can not tell me that you have the authority to tell me what to think, and you, sir, have just done so. I refuse to grant your absurd claim, and that's that.

Yes on an issue of you and black guy X apply to a college, you have a GPA of 2.7 he has a GPA of 2.0 and he get's admited and you don't, that is an unfair situation.

Exactly when did I ever have a GPA of 2.7. Do tell?

Looking at that we see that the more qualified person got screwed.

And the individual does, or does not, have value?

Answer the question.

However, looking at the macro view we see that without that type of activity, and knowing that people are a product of their environment, that the black population will not be able to progress towards a position of eqaulity with whites. [/QUOTE]
Once again, you fail to make any case for your hidden zero-sum assumptions.

Your behavior is quite appalling sir. First, I am in favor of equal opportunity, and in a sense fairly similar to yours to affirmative action. You are SO prejudiced and blind as to be unable to realize that because I have stated the FACT that I was injured by affirmative action, and that I have had financial problems (they are gone now, but I COULD be retired and I'm not) and health problems because of it.

You demand details. You, sir, are not in any position to demand medical information OR finanacial information. You are not owed validation. Furthermore, you are not allowed illicit straw-man positions that are directly opposite my stated positions and opinions, straw-man positions that show clearly your own prejudices and inability to accept the direct statements of other human beings.

In short, you have implied directly that I am not a human being. You have not treated me like a human being, you do not listen to what I've said, and you react to what you imagine.

Exactly how are you different from an appalling "neo-conservative" except in who you discriminate against?

[kerfer]

Originally posted by c0rbin


AA pertains to race. That is obvious.



Geez, I thought it was. There are some people who are actually arguing that it isn't about race, when it's obvious to even the most casual observer that it is.

Geez.

[kerfer]

Originally posted by c0rbin
AA is not racist because if you look at the wording of the anit-descrimination laws that surround it, they say you may not use race et al as a consideration.


Whoooop! Whooooop! Whooooop!

******** alert!

******** alert!

Please remain where you are!

The Department of ******** detection has just raised the alert level to high!

I don't believe that for a second. What is it that AA uses for consideration, if not race? :rolleyes:

You got any evidence to back this?


Hence it pertains to race. To call that racism is like calling anti-child porn laws kiddie porn because it contains the words "minors" and "genitalia."


No. When I say that it's racist, I mean that it discriminates on the basis of race.

It's really very simple.

Don't make it any harder than that. That's really all there is.

AA discriminates on the basis of race. Therefore, it's a racist policy.

Simple, really.

If the policy that we were discussing discriminated on the basis of sex, it'd be a sexist policy.

If it discriminated on the basis of facial hair, it'd be a hirsutist policy.

But it doesn't. It dicriminates on the basis of race.

AA is a racist policy, and racism is wrong.

[Lemastre]

A kid who fails to get into what he considers a top school because of skin color surely will qualify for another more than adequate school. Rather than spending his valuable youth and his money in court, he should get on with his education. How we do in life depends more on job performance than on where we went to college. For most of us, a college diploma is a foot in the door to our first job. After that, the education that impresses employers and clients is what we've learned on the job and our accomplishments in the real world. A large engineering firm I worked for had some highly regarded employees who had no college education at all. They were exceptional in that they were unusually smart and realized it early enough to avoid wasting time in college learning stuff they could pick up on their own. Most of us aren't that gifted, but this shows that at least one employer was not just looking for diplomas, but ability.

[Malachi151]

jj

What the hell man?

You won't discuss your position or clarify your statements, yet you get mad at me? I don't think so. If you aren't going to clarify your position then just get the hell out fo the thread.

Why EVER do you assert I said that?

I'm for AA in modified form, there is need to ensure that we don't lose smart people, because they are so (*&( hard to come by from any background.

I was simply asking if you felt that we were currently losing intelligent whites due to AA based on this statement, and the fact that you say it needs to be revised.

Here's a copy of my post on this matter in the BET forums:

Yes, many people would disagree, which is sad, because this is something that has been understood for over 100 years, yet our education system does not really like to say these things. My degree is in Biology, so my views come from that perspective.

Think about this though.

All of development can only be affected by two things. #1 biology, i.e. genetics; the DNA that says what to do. #2 is environment, which is really just action - reaction. There is nothing else, unless you want to consider supernatural issues, but lets just avoid that issue for now.

Your DNA is like a computer program. If you start a program, like Turbo Tax for example, the way the program works is defined by the computer code, but the input changes how the program responds. A human is the same way. The DNA forms a set of rules that will be followed, but the input (environment) determines how the program develops. Everything is reactionary.

So take Turbo Tax for example again. If you run it many times and put in the same numbers every time then you will get the same results every time. But if you do anything different then the results will be different.

This is to say that a person will develop uniquely depending on his environment, so like if you took someone and made 10 clones, raised one in poverty, one poor, one low middle class, one middle class, one in America, China, Africa, etc, each clone will develop differently. The DNA determines how the environment (input) affects development, so it is true that race does matter to some degree, but the difference between people of different races is often less than people within races, which is surprising, but true. A "black" man and a "white" may have more DNA in common than two black men.

So, what I'm getting at here is that RACE is not the issue, CULTURE is. When you break down the facts there is no way to deny this. Its really common sense though if we think about it. Black children adopted at a young age by middle class whites are more successful than blacks raised in poverty by black families. Obviously race is not the issue, the environment is.

The whole black/white issue is not even an issue, its a matter of culture and social situations.

Another great example of all this, and one that blacks need to get more educated on so they can use it as an argument, is the issue of "white races".

In Europe there was no idea of "whites". "Whites" is a new American idea. In the old world, Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and Africa people all recognize many smaller ethnic groups. A good example is the Irish in Great Britain. The Irish have been discriminated against by the Anglos for hundreds of years. The same attitudes that many whites have towards blacks in America the Anglos had to the Irish. They aid that the Irish were an inferior ethic group, stupid, lazy, unlawful, worthless, etc, that "by blood" they were inferior. The Irish have been discriminated against and poor for centuries there.

Now, in America, once all whites grouped together and saw themselves and WHITES, not separate ethnic groups, the Irish were no longer discriminated against, and now today in America the Irish are just as successful as any other Europeans.

So this is an example of how the perception of race creates the problem, not genetics. You have to really understand how oppressed the Irish were to really get this example, the Irish were close to where blacks in America were about 80 years ago in America. All that was needed for Irish people to be successful is for them to get out of their oppressed environment AND also for them to get out of their own culture and into a new culture with a fresh start.

I am positive that the issue in America with any oppressed minority is the exact same. The issue is not race at all, its environment, which is not to say just how whites treat blacks, but the black community itself too. Look at poor white people. Poor white people have poor white kids often, not because of genetics, but because kids growing up in a poor environment develop into the type of people who become poor.

Same with blacks, and on top of that they also have discrimination to deal with too.

So how does white trailer-park trash get out of poverty as a group? They can't, and neither can blacks in poverty. It gets even more complicated though.

Our economic system requires that a certain amount of people be in poverty. We can't get everyone out of poverty unless we change our economy. For example a janitor or garbage man, etc may work full time, and still be in poverty. Those jobs have to be done, so someone has to do it, yet if they don't pay well that means whoever is doing those jobs will always be in poverty. Every single full time job should have to pay a wage above the poverty level, but they don't. It does not matter if people work harder in those jobs, and those jobs HAVE to be filled so people can't just not do those jobs and get better jobs instead. Someone will have to take the jobs, and whoever that is, will be in poverty.

Our system also requires that a certain amount of people be unemployed. The Federal Reserve tries to keep unemployment above 4%. When unemployment gets too low wages goes up, which employers don't like, and which also contributes to inflation. So, the Fed manipulates interest rates in efforts to indirectly influence unemployment, driving it up when it goes under 5%. This means that there will always be people without a job no matter what and that in fact we could have 0% unemployment if our government wanted to allow that to happen, but that that would drive wages up dramatically and increase inflation, which is bad for the wealthy. Overall though what it means is that the system is designed to have people out of work, so blaming people who are out of work makes no sense. No matter what there will always be people out of work, the system will not allow for there not to be people out of work.

Right now, blacks makeup a disproportionate number of the unemployed and working poor. So, if we try to make the situation proportionate, yet we maintain a system were there will always be people in poverty and always be unemployed people then that must mean that we would have to force more whites into poverty for blacks to get out.

So this is getting to the real issues here. The problem is not race, and its not just culture or environment, it's also the entire system. AA starts having problems when people see that AA may be disadvantaging whites, which if AA were to really work like proposed it would disadvantage whites, because if unemployment is always going to be at least 5% then if fewer blacks make up that statistic then it means that other races must be making up that statistic. So, the fight to get out of poverty can never really be won unless the system changes, and it is impossible to expect the poor to do it, they can't, the wealthy have to do it by paying higher wages eliminating unemployment, but of course the wealthy don’t want to do that because the only way to do that w/o just causing useless inflation is to lower profits of the wealthy.

Here is a good interview on the Bell Curve, the book that claims that Blacks are "inferior" to whites:

http://www.skeptic.com/03.3.fm-sternberg-interview.html

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sternberg: What I mean is that there is absolutely no relation between how heritable something is and the existence of a difference in group means. The most common example is height. Height has a heritability of greater than .9, but heights have increased quite dramatically in some countries like Japan and have also increased in our own country over the course of several generations. So despite the much higher heritability of height than anyone believes of intelligence, we see that height can increase. To take a more extreme example: there is a disease known as Phenylketonuria (PKU), which is 100% heritable and yet through an environmental intervention, namely withholding Phenylalanine from the diets of infants from birth, you can either reduce or eliminate the mental retardation that normally results. In other words, even when heritability is 1.00, environmental interventions still matter. There are different ways to look at intelligence. One is to do heritability statistics, which I've never found to be that helpful. Another way is to look at studies on intervention. For example, Dennis did a large study in Iran where he found that kids that were placed in Iranian orphanages, almost without exception, were mentally retarded, whereas the children who were quickly adopted before the age of two scored at normal levels on intelligence tests, roughly a 50-point difference in obtained IQ.

Skeptic: Are such results repeatable?

Sternberg: Yes. Obviously the environment of the Iranian orphanage was pretty bad and that's why you got that level of retardation. But if you look at the kinds of environments some of our least fortunate get, even in the United States, in the inner cities, they are not so hot either. Diamond performed studies on brain mass in rats and found that if you give them an enriched environment, it affects the brain, which becomes heavier and more convoluted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skeptic: How is your more elaborate view of heritability and its limitations different from what Herrnstein and Murray say in The Bell Curve?

Sternberg: The way that book is written is to, I think, say X on page 605 in sentence 8, with an appropriate caution, and then invite the reader to a somewhat more extreme conclusion elsewhere. So if you were to ask, "Is there anywhere in The Bell Curve that explains what heritability truly is?" there probably is. If you were to ask, "What inference do Herrnstein and Murray invite their readers to draw?" they go beyond what they know. For example, with regard to race differences, Herrnstein and Murray invite the reader to conclude that race differences are due to genetics, even though they have no evidence of that, and they know it.

Sternberg: Yes, but there is evidence that they do not review at all. There is nothing in the book that suggests that race differences are genetic. They even say that. But what they do say is that is what we would infer given the data, even though probably somewhere else, they would have one sentence to the effect that there is one study. And they don't cite a number of studies that suggest that race differences are not genetic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skeptic: Which then is your position on the question of race differences in IQ? We all see the 1 standard deviation difference in mean IQ if we give the tests to groups of Blacks and Whites. Is that mean difference the result of genetics, environment, both, or should we say at this point that we just don't know?

Sternberg: What we know is that almost any difference is some interaction between heredity and environment. But in terms of apportioning the difference, we have no idea. And I think that Herrnstein and Murray know that as well as do other psychologists. Like everyone else we don't like ambiguous situations, so some jump to conclusions even though I think at this point we don't have a very good idea of why we get that difference. Although we recognize that it has generally been decreasing over time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sternberg: One example is taking studies that show that within group heritabilities have nothing to do with between group heritabilities and then insinuating that they do. Another example is the issue of causation and correlation. They know, and anyone who takes statistics knows, you can't draw any real causal conclusions from correlational data. Lots of things correlate with lots of things, IQ being one of them. To draw causal inferences from correlational data, which is what all their data are, is statistically incorrect. Another thing that many may not realize is that virtually all their data are based on one study, the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY), which was not a study that was particularly representative of the United States population.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sternberg: Some years back in the early 1980s the government of Venezuela initiated a country-wide drive to improve the intellectual abilities of the children. They invited a number of researchers from Venezuela and abroad to come in. One program was initiated by Harvard, and Herrnstein was the head of that program. It was successful. They published the results in American Psychologist, which is a leading psychological journal, showing that there had been significant and impressive gains in IQ.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sternberg: I am not disagreeing that IQ is predictive of a lot of things. I'm not one of the extreme left-wingers who say that IQ tells you absolutely nothing. I don't agree with that. So to the extent that it predicts some level of success in pilot training, I don't have any argument with that. But I do argue with the idea that IQ is the end of the line. We have been working for about 10 years in the field of practical intelligence, predicting, for example, the success of managers and sales people, which are pretty practical occupations. We actually did a study at Brooks AFB and found that our measures of practical intelligence-that is, measures of how well you can go into an environment and figure out what you need to succeed in that environment and then actually do it-predict job success in managerial jobs and in sales jobs at least as well and arguably better than IQ tests. Moreover they do not correlate with IQ tests, which means that (a) IQ is not the only predictor, and (b) the kinds of predictors we have are relatively independent of IQ. That's not to say that one is important and the other is not. Rather, it says that both are important and that there's more to predicting success than just using IQs. If you want to predict success in jobs, I'm not saying that IQ is worthless, but I am saying that it's not the only thing you can use.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basically what this is all saying is that there may be a statistical difference between whites and blacks in America, but that environment is very much a part of that difference. Its more proof that observed differences in intelligence and achievement are not race based, but environment based, and that success is dependant on more than just intelligence, which again should be obvious. Success is dependant on opportunity, a variety of personal skills, education, luck, circumstances, etc.

Again, the average person never moves up in class. The average person born into poverty will die in poverty, the same person born into the middle class will die in the middle class, the same person born rich will die rich, its not a genetic issue. So, since we started out with virtually all blacks in poverty its not reasonable to expect that blacks as a group will be able to move themselves out of that position.

All of this goes back to old European misconceptions about "blood". The Europeans have always put a lot of stock in "bloodlines", with the idea that people are born better than others. That same attitude is still pervasive in America today. People may not think that DNA directly makes you successful, or well behaved, or whatever, but they probably don't really think about what exactly does. It's just a vague idea, like "bloodline". When you really analyze it though you see that there is nothing to the idea at all. Middle Class people don't give birth to "better" kids than poor people, the middle class environment creates better kids. Most people today still don't put near enough emphasis on environment and draw out the full conclusions that almost everything that we call "race" in America is really just a product of the environment, along with all the things that people complain about "blacks", including test scores, language, work ethic, and even intelligence.

[hammegk]

I understand that Sternberg's next treatise will demonstrate why the tooth fairy is real.

[jj]

Originally posted by Malachi151
jj

What the hell man?

You won't discuss your position or clarify your statements, yet you get mad at me? I don't think so. If you aren't going to clarify your position then just get the hell out fo the thread.

Why EVER do you assert I said that?



I was simply asking if you felt that we were currently losing intelligent whites due to AA based on this statement, and the fact that you say it needs to be revised.

Here's a copy of my post on this matter in the BET forums:



So, you don't understand what's clearly written, you interpret it with an assumed agenda for no reason I can see, and then you make insulting assumptions and conclusions based on your assumed agenda.

Then you wonder why I'm peeved at you?

Do you know Jedi Knight? Did you go to the same school of debate?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by jj


So, you don't understand what's clearly written, you interpret it with an assumed agenda for no reason I can see, and then you make insulting assumptions and conclusions based on your assumed agenda.

Then you wonder why I'm peeved at you?

Do you know Jedi Knight? Did you go to the same school of debate?

And you still haven't said a damn thing.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Dancing David
JAR thou art most eloquent, [snip]
Thanks for the compliment.:cool:

[jj]

Originally posted by Malachi151


And you still haven't said a damn thing.

Go back to my original article, and read it again. I said everything I had to say, directly and simply, with no hidden meanings.

When you stop trying to find hidden meanings in a direct, simple statement made clearly in american english, you'll understand.

Until then, you'll continue to tell untruth about what I "said" or didn't.

[Dancing David]

So lets see, this thread is about AA, and now all the intelligent people are acting like little kids.

Dead thread!

[Genghis Pwn]

Yep, this thread has run its course. No one is even discussing my clever idea to challenge AA on the new DNA "Out of Africa" evidence. You know something is wrong when such a gem of an idea has been completely lost amid the eye-poking and screaming matches.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by JAR
Note the word "racial" in the definition which I put in bold text.
Word noted. Ethnicity is still cultural. Hell, race (in terms of skin colour) is pretty much cultural as there's no genetic evidence to support it.
That's because Amish and Irish are not races.
And I never claimed they were; but you'd agree they are distinct and different ethncities?

I personally don't find the skinny look attractive but I know lots of guys who do. In my opinion, that cultural influence is a harmful rejection of the way women were intended to be by nature.
As nature intended? Okay...

What is considered beautiful is influenced by culture. I agree with you there. I also don't think white women are the most attractive women in the world. I like dark skin caucasoidal women best. But that's just my opinion and beauty is just a matter of taste.
Not genetic? Good. :)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
Yep, this thread has run its course. No one is even discussing my clever idea to challenge AA on the new DNA "Out of Africa" evidence.
Because it's completely irrelevant? Btw, how do you equivocate the "Out of Africa" theory with the stuff in that comic book "The Bell Curve"?

[JAR]

Originally posted by BillyTK
[snip]
Hell, race (in terms of skin colour) is pretty much cultural as there's no genetic evidence to support it.
[snip]
You can't possibly mean to say that a person's skin colour is never caused by DNA. I'd love to have a dark complexion like a portion of the Mexicans do and never have to go around with a farmer's tan, but I can't because my DNA doesn't allow it.

[jj]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
Yep, this thread has run its course. No one is even discussing my clever idea to challenge AA on the new DNA "Out of Africa" evidence. You know something is wrong when such a gem of an idea has been completely lost amid the eye-poking and screaming matches.

Well, allow me to point out that there ARE definitions for race, even if they mostly don't make sense, and so what you ARE doing is suggesting that people lie.

I have a problem with that. Now, I most often don't reply to such declarations, or put "other" and "scottish-welsh-irish-german-czeck" in it, but that IS the truth, and you can tell my the strength of my (utterly nonexistant) suntan that I'm not genetically identical to those white people with the mahvolous tans. :)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by JAR

You can't possibly mean to say that a person's skin colour is never caused by DNA.
Correct! I'm not saying that. I'm saying that race (in terms of skin colour) is pretty much cultural as there's no genetic evidence to support [race (in terms of skin colour)]; the idea that people can be categorised into different subspecies on the basis of skin colour is a cultural product.

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by BillyTK

I'm saying that race (in terms of skin colour) is pretty much cultural as there's no genetic evidence to support [race (in terms of skin colour)]; the idea that people can be categorised into different subspecies on the basis of skin colour is a cultural product.

WTF? This makes no sense at all. There is no genetic basis for skin color? I guess when African babies come out of the womb, they look around, see a bunch of black people, and suddenly their skin starts becoming black as they absorb their African culture?

hahaha.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn


WTF? This makes no sense at all. There is no genetic basis for skin color? I guess when African babies come out of the womb, they look around, see a bunch of black people, and suddenly their skin starts becoming black as they absorb their African culture?

hahaha.

methinks he's talking about the scientific definition of "race" vs its common usage.

You can have light skinned African american who has whiter skin then some white guy (for example an olive skinned Italian). That doesn't make the African American guy "white".

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn


WTF? This makes no sense at all. There is no genetic basis for skin color? I guess when African babies come out of the womb, they look around, see a bunch of black people, and suddenly their skin starts becoming black as they absorb their African culture?

hahaha.

*rotflmao* Strawman! Except strawmen are supposed to be intended aren't they?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn

WTF? This makes no sense at all. There is no genetic basis for skin color? I guess when African babies come out of the womb, they look around, see a bunch of black people, and suddenly their skin starts becoming black as they absorb their African culture?

Let's see if I can explain it to you, Genghy.

In some parts of the US, a child born to one black and one white parent is called "mulatto". In other areas of the US, that child is simply "black". It is the same child, but it's racial classification is determined by the local culture.

This is sort of moot, since there is practically no one who is "pure black" or "pure white" anymore.

Such terms as "high yellow", "cajun", have meaning in some places but not in others.

Here's another (http://alamo-de-parras.welkin.org/archives/documents/racialclass.html) list of some racial classifications you probably never heard of.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Tmy


methinks he's talking about the scientific definition of "race" vs its common usage.

You can have light skinned African american who has whiter skin then some white guy (for example an olive skinned Italian). That doesn't make the African American guy "white".

Okay, it goes like this; some point in the 16th or 17th century whilst everyone's out there busily cataloging the natural world, someone has the great idea of doing the same with people. So they choose skin colour 'cos it's kind of an obvious thing, and decide that people with a different skin colour must be a separate subspecies. Some people figured there was as many as 300 different sub-species, but most commonly it was three to five, with white people at the top, because they had intelligence and technology going for them which was obviously linked to their whiteness:rolleyes:, and black people at the bottom, because with their black skins and living in the jungle they were obviously barely above animals. Orientals floated somewhere inbetween; not quite as good as whites, but obviously tons cleverer than blacks.

A couple of people named deGobineau and Chamberlain are worth mentioning here, as their "research" into race had a profound influence on a certain Mr Hitler. Anyway, these days, race and ethnicity are used kind of interchangeably, but some people are still clinging on to the old racial classification even though research shows there's no evidence for it at the genetic level. people have different colour skin--so what? If someone could figure out a way to safely boost your melanin levels, you could be as dark as you want to be; basically, using skin colour to classify people is as useful as using eyecolour or height. So skin colour is biological, but race is cultural; you're born into a culture, but you aint born with culture, unless anyone wants to throw out a claim for culture and language being encoded at the genetic level?

[hammegk]

Interesting comment in today's Rocky Mtn News that SAT scores for blacks -- parents making over $100,000 / yr -- are 142 points lower than whites whose parents make over $100,000 /yr.

How do you pc'libs reconcile this? Same reason whites got the same amount of rhythm?

We need AA so whites can learn to dance maybe? (And be competitive in the 100yd dash? -- 10 yd headstart -- ) :D


BTW, is it ok to discuss whiggers (who often appear to live in lowest-class trailer parks)? Why are some people so hung-up on skin color as the only racial characteristic?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by hammegk


BTW, is it ok to discuss whiggers (who often appear to live in lowest-class trailer parks)?

How about Eminem? Ever notice he gets tons of airplay on Alternative stations. Whats up with that? Since when do they play rap music? ONLY WHEN ITS DONE BY A WHITE MAN!!! Hows that for affirmative action.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Tmy


Hows that for affirmative action.

Yeah, real-life Beverly Hilly-billys count too. :D

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by hammegk
Interesting comment in today's Rocky Mtn News that SAT scores for blacks -- parents making over $100,000 / yr -- are 142 points lower than whites whose parents make over $100,000 /yr.

How do you pc'libs reconcile this? Same reason whites got the same amount of rhythm?

We need AA so whites can learn to dance maybe? (And be competitive in the 100yd dash? -- 10 yd headstart -- ) :D


Don't expect this relevant fact to be addressed directly in a logical and rational way. It will be ignored, or spun, because it does not fit into their PC agenda.

[DavidJames]

"Don't expect this relevant fact to be addressed directly in a logical and rational way. It will be ignored, or spun, because it does not fit into their PC agenda."

Yawn, you, like JK and ilk, are wrong yet again. I suggest you move back to Banter and start another thread on breasts or sex or how you are turning over a new leaf.

Here is a link which discusses this and much more. Specific to SATs it mentions some possible explanations. I don't know the answer, and I won't pretend I do (hint).

http://www.jbhe.com/latest/37_b&w_sat.html

"Data from The College Board shows that 52 percent of white students who take the SAT are ranked in the top 20 percent of their high school class. This compares to 32 percent of black test takers. Some 46 percent of white students who take the SAT report that their high school grade point average is in the A range. This compares to only 22 percent of black test takers. These figures alone can explain the large racial scoring gap on the SAT. "

[hammegk]

Originally posted by DavidJames
[B
"Data from The College Board shows that 52 percent of white students who take the SAT are ranked in the top 20 percent of their high school class. This compares to 32 percent of black test takers. Some 46 percent of white students who take the SAT report that their high school grade point average is in the A range. This compares to only 22 percent of black test takers. These figures alone can explain the large racial scoring gap on the SAT. " [/B]

Yeah, i.e. 15 points on the IQ scale. Got something worthwhile to say?

[JAR]

Where I live there are so many Mexican-Americans working at fast-food restaurants that affirmative action would do nothing but aid me in getting a job, assuming I wanted to work at a fast-food restaurant. But I don't want to work at all. I don't support affirmative action and my reasons are that it doesn't solve overpopulation and its morally wrong.

If a non-white employer doesn't want to hire white people, that's none of my business. Not only that, the type of person who doesn't want to hire white people just for being white is the type of person I want to go out of my way to steer clear of.

[JAR]

Anyone hear about that case just won in court that said a university can use affirmative action or something?

Looks like the "Michael Moore" crowd wins this one.