Debate thread

[Melekor]

But if you ever want to come out of your ideological hole, then look at at any of these:

http://www.diversityweb.org/digest/w97/ ... earch.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... s-smarter/
https://tcf.org/content/report/how-raci ... -students/
http://web.stanford.edu/~hakuta/www/pol ... apter5.pdf

I took a quick read of your first link. To be honest, it's literally hilarious. Most of the supposed benefits are purely circular nonsense such as

the results show that racial diversity has a direct positive impact on the individual white student: The more diverse the student body, the greater the likelihood that the white student will socialize with someone of a different racial group or discuss racial issues.

(LOL)

socializing with someone of a different racial group or discussing racial issues contributes to the student's academic development, satisfaction with college, level of cultural awareness, and commitment to promoting racial understanding

(LOLOL)

Chang also found that having a diverse student body is associated with six other attributes of the institutional climate: stronger commitment to multiculturalism, a greater faculty emphasis on racial and gender issues in their research and in the classroom, and more frequent student involvement in cultural awareness workshops and ethnic studies courses.

(wow)

This study found that interacting with students of color during and after college has a positive effect on white males' post-college sense of social responsibility and participation in community service activities

(groan)



There were some that did sound like legit benefits, and I would be curious how any of these can be justified as being linked to diversity:

What is of special interest here is that these same environmental characteristics have also been shown to have positive impacts on student retention, overall college satisfaction, college GPA, intellectual self-confidence, and social self-confidence

Once I skimmed the actual paper that this came from, it made sense. What they are talking about is the fact that minority students themselves benefit from having more support and more courses tailored to them, and more peers of their own kind! I literally could not make this shit up if I tried.

[Melekor]

I'm curious if you read any of that stuff before posting it or what. Are you just spamming me with a bunch of TLDR stuff? I don't want to be accused of being in an ideological hole, but I don't have time to read all your links (and the first one really sucked, sorry).

What I did in my posts was to give you common sense arguments about why multiculturalism is bad, as well as one well known, highly cited paper with high quality data-driven research. Will you do do the same - pick one paper that proves your point for me to read and/or give examples of actual tangible benefits to regular people that you can explain in a straightforward manner?

[switch]

Melekor, the paper that you cited that I thoroughly analyzed- and you subsequently totally ignored, exactly like you did my discussion of your ahistorical interpretation of the naturalization act- stated (based on the "cold hard numbers") that ethnic diversity directly correlates to an increase in a nation's GDP. How do you respond to that?

[Melekor]

So given the myriad different ways we can stereotype people and judge them, why would you only look at race? It seems like an odd obsession with just one factor, when there are tons of factors that influence a person's behavior, culture, etc. other than just race.

I'm talking about ethnocentric behavior that I have a serious problem with. Like only hiring their own people, only voting for their own people, speaking their own language instead of english, building buildings in their style, and generally taking the place over. In my riding, every major party runs an Indian candidate for MLA. Probably because they won't have a chance otherwise.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain how this situation benefits me.

And you claim to know what entire ethnicities are thinking. Oh I can't find a single minority that would agree on my point? Really? Keep dreaming yourself. You think in such absolutist terms of the world.

What's this about a single minority? We're talking about averages here. I don't think it's that controvercial that whites are by far the least ethnocentric on average, this is well known from every day observation, stereotypes, country immigration polcies, surveys, racial voting patterns, etc.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... countries/

No surprise that India is #1 on here, followed by middle east, south asia and then asia, whereas the most tolerant countries are generally the ones with the most whites.

Here is a more recent article, using your same source

Still shows a majority do not want to increase immigration. If immigration is awesome, why do most people not want to increase it?

If you look at the trend in "% increased" between 1965 and present, it looks like it is mostly just tracking the total size of the recent immigrant population and their children (disregarding a drop after 9/11), a correlation that should surprise precisely no one.

Second of all, supporting the current immigration levels is hardly being against mass-immigration.

Most natives that support immigration do so because they know that high skilled labour benefits the economy. They want immigration but they want it properly restricted.
http://www.people-press.org/values-ques ... ntry/#race
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... rvey-finds

Some natives favor mass immigration on humanitarian grounds but they are badly misinformed about the efficacy of such policy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

I just showed you an article about the science. So you are just going to cling to your own made-up point and completely ignore addressing why the science would contradict you? Are you then suggesting you are ignoring the science on this one? So you are anti-science then? If so, there is no point in us in debating anymore. I might as well be debating a religious fundamentalist. There has to be some shred of intellectual honesty in the face of scientific evidence.

The vast majority of studies that I've seen (mostly about IQ since it's something I'm interest in) show that genetic mixing effects are predominantly linear, i.e. children tend to have the average of their parents' traits. The exception would be when individuals are severely inbred. For example it is well known that children resulting from cousin marriage have significantly reduced IQ. Maybe that is the effect your paper is picking up on? Otherwise it seems to be contradicting the science I'm familiar with. (Why are you ignoring the science GKG, are you anti-science then?? - Just kidding.) The thing is once you've got a lot of experience with how science works you learn to take a lot of it with a huge grain of salt, as vast majority of papers are crap (even in hard sciences, sad to say). So please excuse me if I don't immediately flip flop my opinion based on one study that contradicts others.

You also conveniently dodged several of my questions: Giant Killer General wrote:I bet the overwhelming majority of people were uncomfortable with desegregation in the pre-civil rights era. Does that mean we should have never attempted to to desegregate given your logic?

I didn't comment because I don't have anything interesting to say on this. I haven't really though much or read much about segregation. Most obvious answer is they shouldn't have imported slaves in the first place. Just like we should not be importing 3rd worlders today.

Furthermore, should we never attempt to do anything that we find difficult to do in life because we are incapable of learning and growing from it? Is it just better to give up because something that is difficult will always remain difficult indefinitely.

I don't think we should attempt things that have incredibly high cost and little to no benefit (or negative benefit).

Are you against mixed-race marriages? That would be awfully anti-individual liberty of you if you were.

It's kind of like saying "are you against allowing people to marry alcoholics? that would be awfully anti-individual liberty". No I'm not for goverment regulation of this, but I wouldn't recommend anyone do it. Mixed race marriages carry significantly greater divorce risk and mixed race children are at great risk of psychological problems related to identity confusion. I believe people should know the risks when they get into stuff.

[Melekor]

Melekor, the paper that you cited that I thoroughly analyzed- and you subsequently totally ignored, exactly like you did my discussion of your ahistorical interpretation of the naturalization act- stated (based on the "cold hard numbers") that ethnic diversity directly correlates to an increase in a nation's GDP. How do you respond to that?

My response is that it actually doesn't say that as far as I can tell. It cites another study that says that immigration increases national income, which is entirely expected (native population growth would have the same effect). Immigration of high-IQ or high-skill workers that shift the skill distribution in the country upwards would also be expected to increase GDP per capita, while immigration of low-skill workers would be expected to reduce GDP per capita.

[switch]

Applications of the spatial correlation approach continued through the 1990s. Important studies during this period include Butcher and Card (1991), Borjas, Freeman, and Katz (1997), Schoeni (1997), De New and Zimmerman (1994) and Pischke and Velling (1997), to name just a few. These studies all found little effect of immigration on native-born labor market outcomes. Some of the more recent spatial correlation studies used both time-series and cross-section data, or what is often referred to as panel data. Butcher and Card (1991) tracked relative growth rates of wages for low- and high-paid workers in 24 US cities using Current Population Survey data from 1979 to 1989. They found no evidence of a negative wage effect of immigration, either across cities or within cities over time. Growth in wage inequality was positively correlated with growth rates in immigration, but higher inequality came in the form of more rapid increases in the 90th percentile of wages, but not with a relative decline in the 10th percentile.
Borjas et al. (1997) estimated a version of (6.2) for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990 across US states and occupations, and they found that the β coefficient changed significantly across decades. For example, they found a negative coefficient for the 1960s, but a positive one (and larger in absolute value) for the 1970s, followed by a negative coefficient during the 1980s. Schoeni (1997) observed a similar pattern. He found that a three-point increase in the foreign-born share of the population, e.g. from 6 to 9 %, cut the earnings of male high school graduates by 1 % in the 1970s, but would have increased the same group’s wages by 0.8 % during the 1980s.

Card’s data set is a cross-section drawn from the 1990 US Census, and includes labor market outcomes of men and women aged 16–68 in 1989 who had at least 1 year of potential labor market experience. He used 100 % of all foreign-born persons in what is described as a 5 % public use micro sample from the full Census sample (approximately 840,000 observations) and a 25 % random sample of all native-born persons (approximately 1,900,000 persons) in the 5 % public use sample. The dependent variable is hourly earnings, computed from total annual earnings (including self-employment and wage and salary earnings), information about weeks worked, and hours per week over the year. The data set includes the 175 largest US cities.
Card corrects for some potential sources of bias. For example, the problem with stratifying by occupation is that occupational choice is often endogenous. People are likely to switch out of an occupation if there is excess supply (due to the arrival of immigrants, for example) in a particular occupation. Second, there is the problem of selection bias in the measurement of occupation-specific labor supply. Census data only include information about occupation for those that are employed, however the proper way to measure labor supply to occupation A is the population of individuals who could potentially work in A.
Card’s most important finding here is that inflows of new immigrants put more supply pressure on less-educated natives than on other native groups. In general, Card’s results suggest that immigration exerts only modest effects on local employment rates. The estimated coefficients on the occupational density ranged from −0.1 to −0.2. There are several ways to interpret these coefficients. First, a 1 percentage point increase in the occupation’s population share will, all other things equal, lower the employment rate by 0.1–0.2 percentage points. For example, if the share of the lowest occupation group were to rise from 10 to 14 %, the employment-population rate is predicted to fall by 0.02–0.04.

Card’s estimates from the wage regressions confirm the general finding of earlier studies that immigration appears to induce very mildly adverse to zero effects on native-born wages. Corrected for selectivity bias, the estimated coefficients on the immigrant density for the full sample are −0.15 for native-born men, 0.063 for native-born women, zero for pre-1985 immigrant men and −0.251 for pre-1985 immigrant women. The first two coefficients predict that an immigrant inflow rate of 10 % reduces native male wages by just 1.5 % and raises native female wages by 0.63 %. The coefficient estimates across various demographic, occupation, and city groups range from −0.15 to 0. All these results generally match the kinds of results found in earlier studies.
Dustmann, Fabbri, and Preston (2005) performed a cross section spatial correlation analysis on British data to test for the effects of immigrant population shares on both wages and employment rates of native-born persons. Their regression specification incorporates two important implications of their theoretical model: (1) wages depend not only on relative immigrant supply, but also on the diversity of skills in the native population; and (2) the native skill mix and the immigrant labor force share should be separate variables in a regression. The data set is the British Labour Force Survey, an annual household survey providing a wide range of data on labor market variables.
Dustmann, Fabbri, and Preston estimated their regressions equations using OLS, first differences, and instrumental variables. Coefficient estimates vary widely across estimation procedures. The OLS results show a negative and significant relationship between the native unemployment rate and the regional immigrant share, but there is no significant relationship generated by the instrumental variables estimates, however. For native wages, OLS shows a strong positive relationship, no relationship in the first differences equation, and a positive relationship (only significant at 10 %) in the instrumental variables equation. Overall, these results indicate no strong evidence of immigration’s impact on native unemployment rates and very mixed results for wages.

Two prominent applications of the UESS include the classic study by Card (1990) of the 1980 “Mariel Boatlift” of Cuban refugees to Miami and Friedberg’s (2001) often-cited study of mass migration of Russian Jews from the former USSR to Israel during the early 1990s. Other important studies include Carrington and De Lima’s (1996) analysis of the repatriation of roughly 600,000 Portuguese from Angola and Mozambique following independence of those two former colonies in the mid 1970s, Hunt’s (1992) study of the impact of the arrival in France of approximately 900,000 people of mostly French origin from Algeria in 1962 after that country gained its independence from France, and Angrist and Kugler’s (2003) analysis of the effects of the Balkan Wars on migration to European countries. What all these studies have in common are (1) an unexpected case of extraordinary immigration triggered by a shock (in each of these cases, political) in the sending country, and (2) an application of the difference-in-differences test to assessing the effects of the shock on native-born labor market outcomes in the destination country.
The UESS studies generally find very little impact of immigrants on native labor market outcomes. In Hunt’s (1992) study, the repatriation to France of skilled Algerians resulted in the French labor force rising by 1.6 %. Hunt found that a 1 % increase in the immigrant share of the labor force induced a drop in the regional wage by at most 0.8 % and raised the unemployment rate of natives by 0.2 %.
Carrington and De Lima’s (1996) study of the massive repatriation of overseas Portuguese after the independence of Mozambique and Angola, which suddenly increased Portugal’s labor force by nearly 10 %, has two noteworthy features. First, they used Spain and France as the counterfactuals. Second, Carrington and De Lima used a series of specifications to apply the UESS method. Overall, they found that Portuguese repatriation did induce some short-run unemployment among natives, but the primary reason for rising unemployment in Portugal was that unemployment rates rose all across Europe during the 1970s due to oil price shocks. In the long run, once other outside influences were controlled for, immigration seemed to have had little effect on wages or employment.

The Mariel Boatlift in 1980 provides a powerful case study on the impact of immigration on a local labor market. Between May and September of 1980, about 125,000 Cuban immigrants arrived in the United States after the Cuban dictator Fidel Castro suddenly reversed his policy of prohibiting Cubans from emigrating. Castro allowed them to leave, but required departure to take place through the small port of Mariel, which explains why the mass migration came to be known as the Mariel Boatlift. A flotilla of chartered boats paid for mostly by Cuban-Americans carried the immigrants from Mariel to the United States. About half of the 125,000 immigrants settled in Miami, suddenly and unexpectedly expanding the city’s labor force by about 7 %. “There is no way this community can absorb so many people without serious socioeconomic problems,” lamented a local school board member.3
Card (1990), in what has become a classic study of the consequences of immigration on a destination country, reached a surprising conclusion about the Mariel Boatlift: the sudden large inflow of Cuban immigrants had almost no effect on wages in Miami. This clearly is not what the traditional labor supply model of immigration predicts. Card’s analysis shows that there was no effect of the immigration surge on average wages in Miami for the population as a whole or among specific groups such as low-wage workers, Cuban-Americans, or other minorities, but there was some shift in migration patterns into and out of Miami. Specifically, the Mariel Boatlift seems to have reduced in-migration and encouraged competing workers, most notably lower-skilled minorities other than Cuban-Americans, to move elsewhere in Florida.
Card used individual micro-data for 1979–1985 from the Merged Outgoing Rotation Group (MORG) samples of the Current Population Survey (CPS) to test for the effects of the Mariel influx on the wages and unemployment rates for five different groups of workers—white, black, non-Cuban Hispanic, earlier Cuban immigrant, and all low-skilled workers for the first 5 years following the influx. Card’s counterfactual group included four cities—Tampa, Atlanta, Houston, and Los Angeles. Card selected these cities because they experienced patterns of economic growth similar to Miami during the period.
Card observed that during 1979–1981, only the Cuban wage fell in Miami, whereas the wage for whites, blacks, and Hispanics in the comparison cities all fell. The white unemployment rate even fell from 5.1 to 3.9 % in Miami while it fell only slightly in the comparison cities from 4.4 to 4.3 %. While the black unemployment rate rose from 8.3 to 9.6 % in Miami, it rose even more in the counterfactual group from 10.3 to 12.6 %. This is unusual because blacks are likely to be the non-Cuban group most substitutable for the Mariel immigrants. Card’s difference-in-differences calculation on black unemployment rates reveals that the unemployment rate fell in Miami by 1 % relative to the rate in the counterfactual group during 1979–1981.
For the most part, the Miami labor market seems to have absorbed the new workers relatively easily by expanding employment opportunities.

Perhaps the most important question posed by Card’s study is the following: Did the Boatlift reduce the relative earnings of less-skilled natives in Miami? If the Boatlift reduced the wage of less-skilled natives, then one would see a decline in the wage of workers occupying the lowest skill quartile relative to workers occupying the upper quartiles. By calculating predicted wages using the coefficients obtained from the counterfactual regressions, Card adjusted Miami wages for economic conditions in the comparison cities. He found no evidence that those in the lowest quartile were made worse off relative to the other quartiles, even during 1979–1981. Card concluded that there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that the Boatlift had an adverse impact on native-born workers in the Miami labor market.

Grossman focused on estimating the elasticities of first and second generation natives with respect to the supply of immigrant labor. She found that the elasticity of the first generation native wage with respect to the supply of immigrant labor was −0.02, meaning that the wage of first generation natives falls only 0.02 % when the supply of immigrants increases by 1 %. The elasticity of the second generation native wage was just −0.03. Therefore, immigration’s effects on native wages overall appear to be very mildly negative. However, the immigrant group’s own factor price elasticity was estimated to be more negative (−0.23), indicating that immigrants’ primary competitors in the labor market are other immigrants.
Grossman’s results point to two likely causes of immigration’s mild labor market effects on natives. First, immigrants’ labor market share was less than 10 % for the USA at the time of Grossman’s study, and as (6.4) indicates, if immigrants comprise only a minor portion of the labor force, then even a very strong degree of substitutability still yields an elasticity close to zero. Second, estimates show that immigrants are least substitutable for first generation natives (C n,f = −0.32), more substitutable for second generation natives (C s,f = −0.61) and most substitutable for immigrants (C f,f = −4.65). Thus, immigrants compete much more with other immigrants than with natives.

A principal finding from Gang and Rivera-Batiz’ estimation is that education contributes roughly the same to income in both the USA and Europe (44 % for the USA and 43 % for Europe). In the second stage, estimating the human capital factor price elasticities, Gang and Rivera-Batiz found that in both the USA and Europe, unskilled labor, education, and experience are all complementary. They also found that the elasticities are quite small in absolute value for both the USA and Europe, with the relatively larger elasticities observed for those pairs of groups with the biggest differences in skill endowments. This confirms Borjas (1995, 1999) point that the distributional effects of immigration are most important when there are big differences in skills between immigrants and natives.
The more detailed US data allowed Gang and Rivera-Batiz to disaggregate their sample into 11 native groups and 13 immigrant groups classified by ethnicity or national backgrounds. Overall, the factor price elasticities were found to be close to zero, with positive and negative elasticities scattered widely across all the native/immigrant pairs of groups. Elasticities with respect to the European-born group were found to vary from −0.037 for Mexican Americans to 0.0293 for Americans of East Indian ethnicity. Elasticities with respect to the Mexican-born group varied from −0.158 for Mexican Americans to 0.142 for Indian Americans. Assessing their results for Europe and the USA, Gang and Rivera-Batiz conclude that “… it appears that employed United States and European workers have very little to fear from immigration” (Gang & Rivera-Batiz, 1994, p. 159).

We should also mention a study by Suen (2000), who applied the production function approach to simulating the effects of the continual immigration from mainland China to Hong Kong over the past several decades on the wages of persons born in Hong Kong. He found the effects of mainland immigrants to be extremely modest. Suen’s simulations show that a 40 % increase in the stock of new Chinese immigrants lowered wages by only 1 % or less.
Across these studies, there appears to be a very consistent pattern: Immigration appears to exert relatively modest effects on native labor market outcomes. While all the factor price elasticities in Grossman’s study are negative, only about 60 % in Borjas’ study are negative, and less than half in Gang and Rivera-Batiz’s study are negative. There is even some weak evidence that immigration raises natives’ wages. The very mild effects of immigration appear to be due to low degrees of substitutability stemming from large differences in skills. The generally small immigrant labor shares also serve to keep estimates of substitutability low.

Örn B. Bodvarsson, Hendrik Van den Berg
The Economics of Immigration
pp 135-159

[Giant Killer General]

(LOLOL)
(wow)
(groan)

All I hear here is someone who does not have the capacity of language to articulate a rational response to argue against the information that contradicts their own worldview.

The point is, there are many more academic research papers concluding the benefits of diversity than anything else against it, which was the only thing I wanted to make you aware of since you seemed so satisfied to cling onto just one research paper (that you also conveniently had a selective reading of, just ignoring anything that would disagree with your perspective). So a rational person in your position, instead of just LOLing at new information, would then take the next step of asking themselves the question: why did all these other people come to a different conclusion? What am I missing? And if they are wrong, then how and why are they wrong? You clearly do not possess the answers to these questions due to a severe lack of introspection and open-mindedness on your part.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain how this situation benefits me.

I never said it would benefit you, or anyone else that holds your close-minded worldview. How do you convince a slave-owner that they would benefit from giving up their slaves? I just said that it would benefit everyone else who is more open-minded than you.

Still shows a majority do not want to increase immigration. If immigration is awesome, why do most people not want to increase it?

If you look at the trend in "% increased" between 1965 and present, it looks like it is mostly just tracking the total size of the recent immigrant population and their children (disregarding a drop after 9/11), a correlation that should surprise precisely no one.

Not wanting to increase immigration is not the same thing as being anti-immigration. Everyone understands there has to be some limit on it. Again, you are still stuck in this black-and-white, binary, either-or / absolutist mindset.

And it is irrelevant where that trend of increased support for immigration is coming from, their votes are the only thing that matters. Your side is losing the battle. And the majority of the population are very clearly not on your side, unless you are trying to suggest that you are fine with the immigration levels the way they are currently. That is the only way you could interpret this to suggest that the majority of the country could agree with you.

http://www.people-press.org/values-ques ... ntry/#race
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... rvey-finds

These are much better citations than your first one. Good job. But of course, it is easy to keep searching for different polls and differently worded questions that better support your statement. See I can do the same thing:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... l-divides/

-59% say immigration strengthens the country
-33% say immigration burdens the country

Ooops.

At the very least, your claim that the majority of the country is against immigration is very contestable. And the consistent trend in each of the polls we linked is that the country has been moving towards immigration over the years, not away from it.

Some natives favor mass immigration on humanitarian grounds but they are badly misinformed about the efficacy of such policy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

You'll forgive me if I don't fully trust the presentation on immigration done by an organization whose only focus is to reduce the amount of immigration. Still a pretty irrelevant video though anyway since I don't see anyone arguing to take in all the world's poor as if there is no amount of immigrants that couldn't break the system.

The vast majority of studies that I've seen (mostly about IQ since it's something I'm interest in) show that genetic mixing effects are predominantly linear, i.e. children tend to have the average of their parents' traits.

If you are so interested in the science about IQ, you'd think you would be interested in this science as well. But of course that isn't the case when it doesn't support your worldview. Also, did you ever stop and consider that both things could be true? Of course there is correlation between a person's IQ and the average IQ of both their parents. That doesn't mean that there cannot also be a correlation between cognitive ability and having mixed-race parents as well. One doesn't disprove the other. Again, you keep thinking in either-or terms. The world does not work like this. As someone who is supposedly interested in science, you'd think that you would understand the nuance of many different kinds of factors and correlations.

So please excuse me if I don't immediately flip flop my opinion based on one study that contradicts others.

Haha, but you are so steadfast to cling to your Putnam study when it contradicts the other studies (or at least your interpretation of it). Quite the irony here.

I didn't comment because I don't have anything interesting to say on this. I haven't really though much or read much about segregation. Most obvious answer is they shouldn't have imported slaves in the first place. Just like we should not be importing 3rd worlders today.

But you previously stated that we are running into greater racial tensions as a country, and seemed to predict that this trend would continue into the future. But clearly we still have less racial tensions today than the pre-civil rights era with segregation. And clearly that had less racial tensions than before the Emancipation Proclamation with slavery. So the larger trend here is clearly that we have become more tolerant and accepting of diversity, you just choose to be blind to the much bigger history of this issue. You've given all this thought about immigration and diversity, but nothing about segregation and what that means for your worldview. Very peculiar.

I don't think we should attempt things that have incredibly high cost and little to no benefit (or negative benefit).

This was likely the very same argument made by those defending segregation, or those defending slavery before that. It is the conservative mindset that opposes any kind of change.

It's kind of like saying "are you against allowing people to marry alcoholics? that would be awfully anti-individual liberty". No I'm not for goverment regulation of this, but I wouldn't recommend anyone do it. Mixed race marriages carry significantly greater divorce risk and mixed race children are at great risk of psychological problems related to identity confusion. I believe people should know the risks when they get into stuff.

Hahaha...

I assume you believe that non-white races have a lower IQ since you have some white supremecist leanings. So speaking in your terms, this is like saying that we should not recommend any black people to become doctors / scientists / engineers / etc. because they tend to have a lower IQ's. This type of faulty logic could be applied in the real world in any number of different ways and it would be complete nonsense each time. Again, you take any correlation you can find, and just turn it into an absolutist rule.

Also, did you ever stop to think that the problems with mixed-race couples had to do with people's attitudes in society (people like you, for example)? If there is racism in a society, then yea I am guessing those races that are being discriminated are going to have some problems not found in the other races.

Ahhh the lack of nuance in understanding how correlation is not causation is incredible.

[Melekor]

(LOLOL)
(wow)
(groan)

All I hear here is someone who does not have the capacity of language to articulate a rational response to argue against the information that contradicts their own worldview.

I think you missed the part where everything about the benefits they were defining were completely circular. They are only benefits if you already presuppose that a diverse multicultural society is the ideal, or if you make your living teaching ethnic studies courses.

The point is, there are many more academic research papers concluding the benefits of diversity than anything else against it, which was the only thing I wanted to make you aware of since you seemed so satisfied to cling onto just one research paper (that you also conveniently had a selective reading of, just ignoring anything that would disagree with your perspective). So a rational person in your position, instead of just LOLing at new information, would then take the next step of asking themselves the question: why did all these other people come to a different conclusion? What am I missing? And if they are wrong, then how and why are they wrong? You clearly do not possess the answers to these questions due to a severe lack of introspection and open-mindedness on your part.

I'm well aware that social science academic industrial complex aka the church of anti-racism generates a fuckton of writings to push their agenda, however in my experience very little of it is high-quality data-driven research. The first link is a perfect example of the kind of junk they churn out mountains of every year.

If you were to point me towards one that you believe represents the best arguments from your side (and I won't deny that likely some good arguments do exist) I think I might find that pretty interesting, and I'm willing to put in the effort to give it a thorough read. On the other hand if you are just googling "diversity good" and pasting the first few links, which appears to be the case and which you have not denied, I'm not going to waste my reading the other links.

The rest of your replies are really weak arguments imo so I'm leaning towards simply resting my case at this point - others can judge

[Melekor]

switch, I never denied that immigration could grow the economy. I have no idea what you are trying to prove by posting all those paper abstracts.

[switch]

The arguments presented clearly demonstrate that you are factually in error when you stated that immigration causes wage depression for low skilled native workers. Perhaps you should take the time to actually read the relevant extracts. I can tell reading is difficult for you.


What most amuses me about this thread is how you persit in your core racist bigotry regardless of the systematic decimation of your arguments.

So far, diversity is one of the many causal factors in the decline of US social capital in the short term. Both immigration and diversity have very real medium and long term benefits. So this basically demonstrates that your economic and social opposition is based on sand.

Of course, this is because your socio-economic argument is just a smoke screen for your core ideological (probably eugenic) white supremacey. Just admit it.

[Zak]

don't let these bluepill libtards scare you away with their ad hominem attacks melekor

[wwo]

I'm disappointed with all the typos.

tl;dr

[dac]

the left lost the debate after the fall of communism around the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black ... _Communism


instead of making a valid argument, its turned into a series of ad hom attacks and stuffing the ballot box by importing sympathetic future voters.

unfortunately the modern left has embraced nihilism, rejected economics as a science and has lost the ability to see scrutiny as more than hate speech.

but that's okay, they can still buy votes by redistributing what others have earned and stoking racial tensions while arguing for diversity. what a time to be alive.

[Melekor]

The arguments presented clearly demonstrate that you are factually in error when you stated that immigration causes wage depression for low skilled native workers.

So your papers proved that supply and demand doesn't exist? How interesting :D

What most amuses me about this thread is how you persit in your core racist bigotry regardless of the systematic decimation of your arguments.

So far, diversity is one of the many causal factors in the decline of US social capital in the short term. Both immigration and diversity have very real medium and long term benefits. So this basically demonstrates that your economic and social opposition is based on sand.

Glad you were able to convince yourself and had fun doing it. You even got to brush up on on your ad-hominem skills.

Of course, this is because your socio-economic argument is just a smoke screen for your core ideological (probably eugenic) white supremacey. Just admit it.

Just admit it, you are a barking moonbat and a terrible, terrible armchair psychologist.

[Giant Killer General]

The rest of your replies are really weak arguments imo so I'm leaning towards simply resting my case at this point - others can judge

I guess that's one way of getting out of an argument that you are cornered in. I'll take that as a concession .

the left lost the debate after the fall of communism around the world.

Ahh the common tactic of forcing your ideological opponents to own some bad thing that they never really supported to begin with. Here I can do the same thing: the right lost the debate after the abolishment of slavery, the passing of women's suffrage, and the fall of segregation with the civil rights movements.

And if we lost the debate, then why are they still around? I think even you dac have conceded previously that the left has been winning, at least culturally.

instead of making a valid argument, its turned into a series of ad hom attacks and stuffing the ballot box by importing sympathetic future voters.

While the right is busy gerrymandering and passing anti-voter registration laws against the voters that oppose them. At best, both sides are guilty of manipulating the vote.

unfortunately the modern left has embraced nihilism, rejected economics as a science and has lost the ability to see scrutiny as more than hate speech.

Not sure what economics you have been looking at. Trickle down theory has been losing favor for decades. Demand-side has been gaining favor over supply-side more recently.

and stoking racial tensions while arguing for diversity.

Nobody who is anti-immigration / anti-diversity can yet explain to me that if we are so headed for a new race war, why on earth didn't the race wars continue after the much more serious wars of the civil war with the abolishment of slavery, or the race riots of the civil rights movement. Surely racial tensions are much better off now than they were then, and so the historical trend has been a steady improvement of racial tensions, not a worsening. If diversity was going to fail, it would have failed already. Instead, it continues to succeed, even if it does certainly have some difficulties. Any challenges of diversity are merely growing pains in a society.

[switch]

So your papers proved that supply and demand doesn't exist? How interesting

Could you possibly be more dense? Do you really believe supply and demand is a, gosh, zero sum game? Did you even read the study? This thread has reached the point of no return.

Dac has crawled out of the woodwork to expose his ideological bias (which I called him on many months ago), and Melekor has melted down to the point where he is no longer even capable of articulating an argument.

[par73]

the left lost the debate after the fall of communism around the world.

unfortunately the modern left has embraced nihilism, rejected economics as a science and has lost the ability to see scrutiny as more than hate speech.

where's your sources on this? i think there is a difference between the modern left and the far left, but perhaps you don't view the lefties that way. its just a big blob of shit to you huh

you claim the left embraces nihilism, yet the idea that life has no intrinsic meaning or value seems to go against liberal appeals for equality across all human beings. if there's no objective value in life then why make a fuss to promote change and mutual respect, if it "doesn't really matter"?

are you stating the left has rejected economics as a science, or that the left supports the view of respecting rejected economics as a science?

regardless, it seems like you're saying 'shame on you for rejecting reaganomics' (while the polarized opposite is communism). the same system lead to the panic of 1896. "If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows." the left recognizes the system in place as the rich pissing on the poor, rightist ideology is "that's just the way it is". well, let's thank God, for all the distractions in modern society, to help stabilize and control population. the irony.

"the modern left" "has lost the ability to see scrutiny as more than hate speech"

if that statement is true, then it looks like our scrutiny over the current economic system in place is just hate speech. we just hate the wealthy modern capitalists and those who put it in place. that's why clinton is our party leader in america.

are you talking about racial / social scrutiny ? sounds like our rejection of eugenic theory is just hate speech

the hate speech rationalization is only the left saying 'hey, you might be overlooking some prejudiced biases you're unaware of in your subjective thinking which does not objectively represent collective human thought.' i've seen it used appropriately and inappropriately across populations of the left, the right, as well as those 'independents'. again, anyone could be the one to make this mistake.

Just admit it, you are a barking moonbat and a terrible, terrible armchair psychologist.

it's adhom for adhom in this world, the term you were looking for is sociologist.
psychologists and psychiatrists do not diagnose people as racists, there is no diagnosis for that in the big book of mental disorders. it's acknowledged as ignorance and nothing more.

multiculturalism is bad, when idiots don't appreciate their opportunity to socially evolve.
lets continue years of race wars
even when all of the whites are together, its irish vs polish vs italian, skin color media blown shit is the tip of the iceberg. when we are born and indoctrinated into the western societal thinking, we are absolving our conscious ability to see us all as part of one human race, nothing more, nothing less.

[par73]

So your papers proved that supply and demand doesn't exist? How interesting

Do you really believe supply and demand is a, gosh, zero sum game? Did you even read the study? This thread has reached the point of no return.

its rigged brah

[Boxer]

Capitalism spent communism out of business, that is all. But the capital bill was never paid, thus a new debt ceiling and what should have been a collapse, but it wasn't. Devaluing prior labor to inflate the fiat base is nothing short of a tax on the people who actually added value to the fiat currency. The financial sector does not create money, it merely concentrates wealth based on the value of labor and resources and skims off the top. Fiat currency is not capitalism. Supply side economic, monotheism, reaganomics, or what ever you want to refer to it as, will only work if there is a working class to maintain it. Kenayes,or whatever, is a ground up pyramid, the rich actually earned their wealth. Trickle down is nothing short of free money to the top that runs down their leg to the people whom the loans have been taken out on. $145000 per person I think it is at, and still borrowing, so ongoing debt, or devaluing. On a side note, it's a real pisser to know that I'm making less money at the end of the day than when I arrived in the morning to create the tangible item that gives reserves notes value.
I do not blame the elite, the top 3%, or the central banks. I blame the people with power for all the woes, the people who cast ballots, both at the polls and at the cash registers. Which leads us to the next..
I grew up in the middle of a wide diversity of groups. Italians, Africans, Irish, Polish, ect. Yeah we even had a Chinese family a neighborhood away. idiot, pollock, whop, chink, spic, yeah it was fun ethnic banter. But some how we all mostly got along. United we stand, divided we fall. People back then were less tooly sheep I guess. It's natural for living things to group together with their likeness in times of crises. For example; silver minnows and silver minnows with black strips all swim together in unison until there is danger, then they quickly ball into two separate groups of their own likeness. Minnows of course don't have a big frontal cortex... By the way, the population in Africa has the largest diversity, genetically speaking, than any other continent on the planet. I had great fun talking to a card carry member of the Kkk one day, a very good friend of mine. Let's do the math on what it means to be white and I gaurantee that half the negros in this museum are whiter than you! United we stand, WTF..
There was a time when woman made less than a man. The man was the primary earner to provide for the family unit and the woman's wage was added living. This came from a time of actual capitalism, a limited money supply, and of course dark aged typical idealism. Blacks, negros, or darky's faced the same problem. Is that even a case now? Probably still in Saudi but equality has a firm hold in the modern world.
In communism your a slave to the community. Capitalism, if your managing your debt instead of your money, your a slave to whom ever owns the money. I have no debt and thus manage my money. I invest on Main Street not Wall Street, you welcome. But I do not delusion myself into thinking I'm a free man because of the indebted position from where the reserve/currency originated from.
My ex wife, in the midst of the great collapse, complained not only because see wasn't getting her 4% annual raise but also because she wasn't getting her, accustomed to, 4% bonus. The very nature that she still had a job because of the devaluing of the people way below her pay grade still eludes her today. This idealogy is the problem and has always been the problem.. Through the course of time. In a nut shell stupid fucking monkeys.

[Melekor]

Melekor has melted down to the point where he is no longer even capable of articulating an argument.

NAZI! NAZI! RACIST!! BIGOT!

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY2fEPSh9Y8[/youtube]

[Giant Killer General]

wait, I really didn't think melekor got offended from being called a racist or white supremicist. I didn't use those terms as insults, I thought he happily accepted them. When you are emphasizing that white races have higher IQ's than other races (and furthermore arguing that it is caused by their genetics), then what else are you supposed to call that?

Conservatives always reject being PC and want things to be bluntly described the way they are. For example, conservatives always get mad at liberals if they don't call terrorism as being caused by radical islam, as if liberals are trying to cover up for Islam's flaws. But not in this case I guess.

[Melekor]

I cant believe I'm getting dragged back into this thread again after several failed attempts to extracate myself.. guess I have a real weakness for needing to set the record straight, even if I'm being baited

look GKG, if you need a label I guess you could call me a nationalist. Mainly I am just pro western civlization, as I've said.

Supremecist generally implies a desire to genocide other races. You seriously don't think I would find this accusation insanely offensive? Actual white supremacists (KKK, skinheads, etc) are ironically some of the most despicable members of the white race and they accomplish nothing but providing leftists with another propaganda tool to use for shaming whites and delegitimizing white identity.

And for your information, european jews and east asians actually have the highest IQs, not whites. If merely being aware of the genetic basis of IQ makes someone racist according to your definitions then racist has truly become a meaningless term, only useful as a slur for your political opposition.

[switch]

"I am pro-western civilization"

Melekor ~ I read Evola once and now I'm a fascist! Gas the commie gender studies profs are destroying the west also immigrants!

providing leftists with another propaganda tool to use for shaming whites and delegitimizing white identity.

merely being aware of the genetic basis of IQ

Melekor ~ the left hates white people, IQ tests PROVE Jews and Asians are smartest also white people, but not blacks or Italians. RACE WAR NOW


Man you are a DISGRACE to western civilization. You barely understand it, you actually completely disagree with its values, and you build some retard level confirmation bias conspiracy theory out of air to justify your eugenic drivel.

[wwo]

Switch needs a safe space.

[Giant Killer General]

I didn't say supremecist implied anything other than believing the white race was superior to other races, which is the very definition of it. I didn't realize you actually somehow compartmentalized and rationalized your beliefs into thinking they are completely different than other white supremecists / racists. quite interesting.

right..."nationalist".

So PC.

At the very least you should recognize that your anti-immigration policy beliefs align with theirs. So you are all on the same side on that issue. Beware what allies you make, it might say something about you or your beliefs.

[BIG KROK V8 SS]

[dac]

wait, I really didn't think melekor got offended from being called a racist or white supremicist. I didn't use those terms as insults, I thought he happily accepted them. When you are emphasizing that white races have higher IQ's than other races (and furthermore arguing that it is caused by their genetics), then what else are you supposed to call that?

statistically accurate? black americans are overrepresented as athletes too, incoming black supremacist allegations. jews are overrepresented in finance and media, incoming jewish supremacy allegations. hispanics are overrepresented in commercials destined to become bilingual in southern states, incoming hispanic supremacist allegations.

you know who has higher average IQs than white people? east asians. fuck. now he's an east asian supremacist. FUCK. those fuckers are just better. gonna kill myself, hope their ancient mysticism religions are correct and maybe I can reroll my life as a chinese man. that way I have a better shot at this hard life.

oh FUCK! you know who has the highest average IQ (as a group) in the wrold? Ashkenazi jews. Thats right. jews. I guess he's a jewish supremacist too, and being a raging right winger neonazi fascist (thats mostlya ccording to switch who cant resist putting words in peoples mouths, ridiculous) but now this neonazi right winger is also a jewish supremacist (zionist?) who wants to see all of his people under the boot of a rabbi, perhaps the whites could pick cotton or wash the streets, or any of the other jobs that are beneath the intellect of our superiors.

this is just ridiculous, this is how it sounds.

gkg ~ "due to my current diet, rather than eating a pizza tonight, I'm gonna go with a healthy salad"
"debate thread" gkg ~ "WTF are you saying that pizza is inferior? are you a salad supremacist?"
switch ~ "yeah gkg wants to gas the pizzas and anybody associated with them, build a pit, throw the pizza in there and execute anybody who eats it. cuz pizza is evil is what he decided after reading ayn rand and voting for bush twice, then we can have our nutritionally pure society"
gkg ~ "uh no, this is just the truth of the situation at the moment, there is no value judgement on pizza as a whole, maybe pizza works for you, maybe it doesnt, but it's just not working for me at this moment in time"
"debate thread" gkg ~ "oh sure, yeah, sure, just get rid of the pizza for everybody, execute papa john, you know I called you a salad supremacist but now you're acting like its fine, yet you point out its inferiorities. why not just embrace your pizza supremacy?"

and for FUCKS sake, stop making me defend melekor.

[wwo]

Dac, will you marry me?

[dac]

Dac, will you marry me?

never. youre way too old to get wet enough for me.

[Giant Killer General]

again, there is a huge difference between seeing a correlation between race and IQ (or anything else), and implying that genetic ethnicity actually caused it (instead of any other number of correlations that could also be found such as wealth and education in the case of IQ). Correlation does not equal causation. Any scientist or logical person understands this nuance, and this is the difference between just being "statistically accurate" and being a racist / supremicist.

If you understood it as merely a correlation, then it should be largely irrelevant because you would know that you can't make recommendations or judgments of people just based on one cherry picked correlation, and so you wouldn't even bring it up as such an obviously overly generalized, blanket statement. But when you focus on that statistic as part of your argument, then you are implying causation (which you certainly do not seem to deny). This is the same argument that was made by slave masters for centuries as justification for maintaining slavery. Hence it falls under the very definition of racism.

But if you want to be PC about it, go with nationalism. The public optics on that sounds much better, lol.

[dac]

there is causation, the races separated and evolved apart from each other. why are the ashkenazi jews so smart? cuz they had to be nomadic and had no "homeland" and when you bounce between regions with no home you get really good at trading and politics. it's why they're so overly represented in finance and politics and media today. it's why you dont see a lot of jewish farmers, and as somebody in the field, you dont see a ton of jewish engineers either. I've never seen such a concentration of jewish people before at any industry until I worked for a bank (corporate, not the teller nonsense).

africa, particularly sub-saharan africa had an environment that selected different attributes than northwestern europe. and different from east asia, or siberia.

Evolution is the path of the single celled organism all the way to human beings and everything in between (yes I put us on top, fuck anyone who says otherwise) and you think that the only evolutionary difference between the races is simply skin tone? anthropologists can determine the race of bones they dig up due to dimensions and other biological characteristics, and that's due to the environment we lived in. now do you think that with the evolutionary pressures that would alter bone density, skin color, oils, other organ size, that evolution is just going to complete ignore the most complex organ in our entire body?

That is the case for causation. It doesnt mean that people are inferior or superior, it just means they are different. And when you look at it through that lens, when you sample huge communities, it explains a lot of what goes on. The idea isnt to write them off or minify them as inferiors, but rather to understand that there may actually be some biological basis that explains the greater issues in their communities - and if there's anything that everybody agrees on, it's that they have problems in their communities. I'm sure I'll get plenty of heat for that, but whatever.

So what steps can be taken to improve that average and bring them, as a collective, up higher on the chart where the correlation would say they would be more successful in our society? Dumping welfare money in hasn't done a whole lot, in fact I'd argue that the communities are worse off now than they were in the 50s, but that's a totally different debate. How can you hope to find a solution if you're not willing to look at potential issues?

I have the exact same questions about muslims we are importing. And hispanics that we are importing. The average IQ of a syrian is 83. That's really low, and it makes me hope that its simply due to education (and indoctrination) and that they can assimilate when they come to the west. It seems like there's a gap other than the income gap, and nobody's willing to talk about because the pc crowd will shout it down as hate speech.

Ah the typical name calling ad-homs of the left are what make it so hard to have a discussion about this stuff. I guess it's haram in that religion to consider that viewpoint, since the presenter can be called names like racist, it invalidates the facts presented. But you know me, do you really think I'd discount an individual based on race? But as a group, if we're going to collectivize, there are issues going on there, and this is one possible explanation that explains why throwing money a the situation hasn't helped.

Got any other theories? The fact that asians and jews make more on average than whites kinda disproves white racism being the cause. Believe me, I'm all ears - I got blocked in my apartment by a BLM rally last weekend and I'm all for not having to be inconvenienced by that crap ever again.

[switch]

Dac ~ straight up social darwinism.

So what steps can be taken to improve that average and bring them, as a collective, up higher on the chart where the correlation would say they would be more successful in our society?

The only solution is to improve the education system, which is unfortunately a mess in the US, due to a whole range of factors from poverty, religion, state involvement, income disparity, private vs public schools, ghettoization, language barriers, crime, drugs, no student left behind, common core, and so on. The federal government also shares only a narrow interest in educating its citizens so as to keep them competitive with foreign powers, and to keep large concentrations of wealth (and the financial instruments to concentrate wealth) at the disposal of the state.

A good place to start would be to abolish student debt, terminate the endless wars, implement a basic income as suggested by Milton Friedman, and accelerate the transition to an energy accounting economy as recommended by technocracy.

It really depends on the people of the United States: to paraphrase Donald Rumsfield, a free people are free to do horrible things, but they're also free to do wonderful things. I would enjoy going into greater detail about the kinds of public policy that could improve living conditions in the US, although it's immensely complicated and biological theories about race or conspiracies about the left marxists importing muslims really have nothing to do with it at all.

Fundamentally, the ethos of the US is, we all know, the horatio algier story of the rags to riches, little guy who makes it, and so on. This ideal is based on the notion of classical liberalism, that a citizen of a free society who obeys the laws can achieve self-actualization through their reasonable efforts. However, this is not the reality of life for the vast majority of American citizens, who instead experience a deadening effect of mass media brainwashing, hyper capitalism, environmental degradation, hierarchical bureaucracies, stupidity, conflicting messages from a wide range of corrupt officials, warfare, police tyranny, concentration of wealth amongst a tiny elite, government invasion of privacy, exploitation by ideological grifters and a number of other unappealing aspects of daily life in America. Many Americans dream only of playing the lottery, or gambling so as to acquire enough capital to retire. Conditions have not dramatically changed, despite massive increases in consumer materialism, energy production, and infrastructure, since the 1900s. The book Metropolis by Upton Sinclair is as revelatory then as it is now.

[dac]

Dac ~ straight up social darwinism.

oh look, switch with the assumed implications again. classic.

The only solution is to improve the education system, which is unfortunately a mess in the US, due to a whole range of factors from poverty, religion, state involvement, income disparity, private vs public schools, ghettoization, language barriers, crime, drugs, no student left behind, common core, and so on. The federal government also shares only a narrow interest in educating its citizens so as to keep them competitive with foreign powers, and to keep large concentrations of wealth (and the financial instruments to concentrate wealth) at the disposal of the state.

You could be a Trump writer. You say "the only solution to improve" and never finish, instead calling it a bunch of names. I think the pattern should be getting obvious to everyone else by now. feel free to share a solution, instead of tl;dr the problems.

for the record, ghettoization happens naturally. People just feel more comfortable around the group they identify with. It's a phenomenon surprisingly popular and pointed out frequently by the SJWs out there.

Example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge9pHid ... e=youtu.be

everybody self segregates. There's nothing hateful about it, it's just comfort and 100% biologically reasonable. It's the same reason you'd die to save your own kid but wouldnt necessarily take the same risk for another person's kid. The instincts are different, we're all in this darwinian competition to pass our genes on to the next generation. same with male disposability that the MRA types are talking about, from a biological standpoint, it makes total sense that men would be more disposable since the limiting factor in reproduction is the woman who has to take 9 months to make a kid. this is why its this way in all of the animal kingdom. ps: I'm not a female supremacist (go figure).

A good place to start would be to abolish student debt, terminate the endless wars, implement a basic income as suggested by Milton Friedman, and accelerate the transition to an energy accounting economy as recommended by technocracy.

OOOOH so you didnt finish it in the sentence, but instead in the next thought. okay. fair enough.

let's see, so more free money by abolishing student debt (taxes on people), terminating the endless wars (not sure what that has to do with education unless you're funding it with the defense budget, I agree with the terminating the wars but for differnet reasons), a UBI (paid for by tax dollars, I'm noticing a pattern here), and energy accounting economy? feel free to elaborate on that.

It seems like pumping money into welfare for communities has provided incentives for bad behaviors and led to communities falling apart. It's led to the destruction of the black nuclear family, it's led to significant portions of our generation being raised by single parents, and it hasnt solved any of the poverty it claimed to be targetting. in fact its resulted in an even bigger income inequality now than existed before. How long do you try something before realizing it's not working?

It really depends on the people of the United States: to paraphrase Donald Rumsfield, a free people are free to do horrible things,

like punish the producers with incessant taxes to redistribute it to the leechers to buy votes. it's crazy to me that the population can vote the coffers of the state into their own wallets, yet here we are.

but they're also free to do wonderful things.

yep, so lets go ahead and get rid of those incentives cuz everything worked so well when the government was in charge! just see: mussolini's italy, hitler's germany, stalin's russia, castro's cuba, modern day venezuela.... oh, wait. yeah.

I would enjoy going into greater detail about the kinds of public policy that could improve living conditions in the US, although it's immensely complicated and biological theories about race or conspiracies about the left marxists importing muslims really have nothing to do with it at all.

what conspiracies might those be? the fact that the left has a ton of social marxists in the form of SJWs on its side, the fact that a socialist/communist candidate riled up so much of the base that hillary's been left out to dry, and the fact thta the policies you mentioned above all involve centralizing power in government officials by taking money from people who generate actual wealth in the country?

and how could you say biology has nothing to do with it? biology has everything to do with it. People are biologically driven to behave in certain ways. dont believe me? try not sleeping for a few weeks. try not breathing for a few minutes. try not eating for a few months.

it may not be 100% but if you look at humans as we existed in caves not so long ago, the biological drivers become super fucking obvious in modern society. we may have planes trains and automobiles, but our motivations and biological drivers remain the same.

Fundamentally, the ethos of the US is, we all know, the horatio algier story of the rags to riches, little guy who makes it, and so on. This ideal is based on the notion of classical liberalism, that a citizen of a free society who obeys the laws can achieve self-actualization through their reasonable efforts. However, this is not the reality of life for the vast majority of American citizens,

oooh this should be fun.

who instead experience a deadening effect of mass media brainwashing,

which is mostly owned by the left

hyper capitalism,

i think you mean cronyism, with so much legislation due to regulatory capture that competition is impossible, or a series of government granted local monopolies (see: utilities, cable, currency)

environmental degradation,

agreed on a certain sense, i'm sure not the degree that bernie does but if we can do more, then why not?

hierarchical bureaucracies,

which oddly enough you want to create more of with your previous suggestions for fixing education

stupidity,

with an education system owned by the left at every level.

conflicting messages from a wide range of corrupt officials,

and you want to give them yet more power and authority over our lives by putting them in charge of the redistribution

warfare,

again, agreed, and not just militarism - cultural warfare in the streets, suppressing of varying points of view by authoritarians on both sides and endless name calling to attempt to dodge a meaningful conversation

police tyranny,

Libertarians have been on this one for years. It's a shame that BLM coopted the movement, cuz they have legit gripes, but are going about it in such a wrong way. I really agree iwth a lot of what they complain about though, much like al qaeda, they might be fucked up in their methods but they arent 100% wrong on every single point. They're still assholes.

concentration of wealth amongst a tiny elite

This would be fine if it wasnt dictated by the government. The best at any profession rise to the top, it's the way humanity advances. Unfortunately, now the system is so corrupt and so much power is centralized in the government that they can pick and choose winners and losers with corporate welfare, insane subsidies, regulations to oust competition and granting of local monopolies that this has gone from the most efficient getting the resources to the ones who best bribed their local government official.

government invasion of privacy,

I agree, fuck bush the 2nd for the patriot act. fuck stop and frisk. fuck checkpoints. fuck the stomping of the constitution. fuck the government looking at my taxes too for that matter.

exploitation by ideological grifters

like the true believer environmentalists, other religious zealots (special shoutout to the westboro assholes), race baiters, gun nuts, every single lobby on both sides, social justice warriors, statetheists, social marxists, the media, extremist teachers, the KKK, BLM, and so many separatists (although I really feel for many of these people), the islam apologists, the islamophobes, and the actual hateful racists.

and a number of other unappealing aspects of daily life in America.

not sure what that means, you just rattled off a ton.

Many Americans dream only of playing the lottery, or gambling so as to acquire enough capital to retire. Conditions have not dramatically changed, despite massive increases in consumer materialism, energy production, and infrastructure, since the 1900s. The book Metropolis by Upton Sinclair is as revelatory then as it is now.

instead they vote for the government to put the next generation in debt in an infinite pyramid scheme of keynesian economics so that you could give free benefits to people.

I still dont see any great solutions, I see a lot of complaints that you should be able to point to your own side of the aisle on.

you didnt address the black community specifically here, only again generalizing what every citizen goes through. please, let's hear what you have to say about that community specifically.

[Melekor]

GKG ~ If you understand being male as actually CAUSING men to be taller and stronger than women on average then you are a SEXIST BIGGOT / MALE SUPREMACIST. Correlation does not imply causation, and everyone who isn't a SHITLORD understands this nuance.

Switch ~ Education and wealth causes IQ, not the other way around. Mass import the 3rd world (or else you're a RACIST NAZI SUPREMACIST) and give them all endless free money as suggested by Milton Friedman.

[switch]

Milton Friedman's negative income tax should have been implemented decades ago. I certainly do not support increasing the size of the IRS, nor any other government department. I reccomend abolishing several, starting with Homeland Security. Dac and Melekor have no solutions to offer at all. They do not even understand the problem let alone how to begin resolving it, due to their enormous ideological bias programmed from decades of right-wing brainwashing.

They're actually products of the failed education system I've mentioned.

[sasper]

the left lost the debate after the fall of communism around the world.
rejected economics as a science and has lost the ability to see scrutiny as more than hate speech.

indeed, economics is a science. it's called the 'dismal science' quite rightly so. as much as i despise the left, the 1st rule of economics is for every economist there's and equal and opposite economist. the 2nd rule of economics is: they're both wrong.

[sasper]

the left lost the debate after the fall of communism around the world.
rejected economics as a science and has lost the ability to see scrutiny as more than hate speech.

even geologists have a few standard deviations of iq on intelligence compared to economists.

[sasper]

I cant believe I'm getting dragged back into this thread again after several failed attempts to extracate myself.. guess I have a real weakness for needing to set the record straight, even if I'm being baited

look GKG, if you need a label I guess you could call me a nationalist. Mainly I am just pro western civlization, as I've said.

Supremecist generally implies a desire to genocide other races. You seriously don't think I would find this accusation insanely offensive? Actual white supremacists (KKK, skinheads, etc) are ironically some of the most despicable members of the white race and they accomplish nothing but providing leftists with another propaganda tool to use for shaming whites and delegitimizing white identity.

And for your information, european jews and east asians actually have the highest IQs, not whites. If merely being aware of the genetic basis of IQ makes someone racist according to your definitions then racist has truly become a meaningless term, only useful as a slur for your political opposition.

its true that Ashkenazi Jews statistically have the highest iq in the world, but not true that east asians do. they do well in terms of schooling (knowledge), because culturally they are forced to study ~23 hours a day, but iq and knowledge 2 completely different things. iq is innate intelligence. knowledge is just shit you learn. you can be dumb as a bag of hammers but have a high iq and vice versa.

[Giant Killer General]

Dac, where did you learn this story of how the races migrated and evolved, and how it impact their IQ? I sure hope there is some study out there that talks about this and you didn't just get fed it by some media outlet, or worse, just make it up.

Nobody is saying there are not any differences. Again, you are looking at things in absolutist terms. It's just that it is a very small difference compared to other factors. How else can you explain how there are many people from every racial background that have higher IQs than all of us here? You can find top doctors, engineers, etc. of every ethnicity. And that's despite perhaps having many disadvantages growing up. You can easily find plenty of stupid white / asian people too. So your theory falls apart in trying to explain any of these things.

And this is the racial component. You focus on this one tiny factor of race, instead of the much larger factors of wealth, education, and so on. Why don't you talk about education and poverty at least as much about race? You should actually be talking about them even more since they are clearly much larger factors. So when you only want to talk about race and nothing else, that's when it becomes racist.

A lot of jews are in finance? Well a lot of south koreans are into gaming, so they produce a lot of pro-gamers. Did their genetics somehow know about finance and computer gaming when we evolved tens/hundreds of thousands of years ago? Or did they just develop strong cultures that happens to generally fit into certain areas better than others?

We have something like 90% of the same dna as a cat, and you want to act like there is some massive rift in genetics between just different races within the same species that causes these significant differences in intelligence. It makes no sense. We have a hell of a lot more in common than we are different. Yet you want to only focus on the differences, rather than the commonalities.

I just looked up some of the science on race and IQ, and it largely appears to be INCONCLUSIVE. For every study you have to support your theory that it is genetics causing it, another study debunks it, or instead shows how much more is being influenced by the environment. So when the dust does settle on this, it's likely to be a small statistical difference, with the environmental factors being the much larger overall, because if it really was as clean, cut, and dry as just saying its genetics, then the science would have been settled on this long ago. At the very least, your level of confidence / certainty on this far exceeds science's level of confidence / certainty. And that is why you are wrong.

GKG ~ If you understand being male as actually CAUSING men to be taller and stronger than women on average then you are a SEXIST BIGGOT / MALE SUPREMACIST. Correlation does not imply causation, and everyone who isn't a SHITLORD understands this nuance.

Melkor ~ I have the perfect counter point, I will talk about how being male causes people to be bigger, and how being black causes people to be blacker, and how being a woman causes people to have large breasts. BAM.

Yea, physical differences are very different than mental ones. Even physical differences in the brain are not necessarily indicative of intelligence. For example, a bigger brain does not necessarily mean you are smarter, whereas being bigger physically almost certainly means you are stronger. The brain is a hell of a lot more complicated than that, in case you didn't know.

[Melekor]

there is a huge difference between seeing a correlation, and implying that [genetics] actually caused it [...] this is the difference between just being "statistically accurate" and being a racist / supremicist.

Beliefs about causation vs correlation have no bearing on being racist / supremecist. You've simply goofed on your logic here. By your definition, everyone is either racist / supremecist, or they hold blatantly untrue beliefs about the physical world. My example using male genetics being causative of height and strength that is on average superior to females is a perfectly valid counter point.

[Melekor]

its true that Ashkenazi Jews statistically have the highest iq in the world, but not true that east asians do. they do well in terms of schooling (knowledge), because culturally they are forced to study ~23 hours a day, but iq and knowledge 2 completely different things. iq is innate intelligence. knowledge is just shit you learn. you can be dumb as a bag of hammers but have a high iq and vice versa.

This is untrue, east asians consistently score higher than whites on actual IQ tests, including knowledge free tests like raven's progressive matrices.

You are probably thinking of the stereotype of asians being less creative than whites. My understanding is that this is due to a combination of culture that encourages conformity, and the fact that east asians tend to have lower verbal IQ than whites, with verbal IQ being more correlated with creativity than general IQ.

[dac]

Dac, where did you learn this story of how the races migrated and evolved, and how it impact their IQ? I sure hope there is some study out there that talks about this and you didn't just get fed it by some media outlet, or worse, just make it up.

Nobody is saying there are not any differences. Again, you are looking at things in absolutist terms. It's just that it is a very small difference compared to other factors. How else can you explain how there are many people from every racial background that have higher IQs than all of us here? You can find top doctors, engineers, etc. of every ethnicity. And that's despite perhaps having many disadvantages growing up. You can easily find plenty of stupid white / asian people too. So your theory falls apart in trying to explain any of these things.

this is a statistical issue, covering entire groups of people. of course there are exceptions. this is the mandatory #notall that everybody seems to forget exists. it's like if you say "hmm the pizza was good" you have to say "wait, but #notall pizza is good".

can we escape that for a minute and understand that we're talking about statistics? this feels like rat arguing that adren beat you on flanks in a few games in the other thread, this means that in #notall games was gkg better. ergo the idea that you rate yourself above him is ridiculous. cuz we cant talk in absolutist terms here, cuz there are counterexamples.

see what's wrong with that?

also, many minority doctors were propped up by affirmative action. I had a black doctor when I had pneumonia a few years ago, and he was fantastic. I had another one who was discussing a surgery with me back in 2009 who showed a few warning signs of being bad. I didn't second chance the latter guy, the fact that he was 2nd generation doctor, was that unprofessional AND a minority was enough to make me fear that he was the product of affirmative action more than merit. and that's sad that we live in a country where I have to take that into consideration, cuz I sure as fuck am not going to risk having a surgeon be incompetent and propped up due to racist quota systems.

And this is the racial component. You focus on this one tiny factor of race, instead of the much larger factors of wealth, education, and so on. Why don't you talk about education and poverty at least as much about race? You should actually be talking about them even more since they are clearly much larger factors. So when you only want to talk about race and nothing else, that's when it becomes racist.

Discussing a biological factor to explain behavior makes sense. I discuss it because these other factors are beaten to death, and seem to be very much the outcome of bad behaviors. BLM is out there arguing for the same thing the KKK wants - racial segregation. For years the smarter black activist types have said that a huge issue is w hite flight and self segregation because schools are funded by property taxes and having a bunch of low income types in these neighborhoods make the schools awful. Then you see the riots in Milwaukee and you wonder why people get nervous and want to leave. It's nuts. Why the fuck are they doing this to themselves? It's not helping ANYBODY.

A lot of jews are in finance? Well a lot of south koreans are into gaming, so they produce a lot of pro-gamers. Did their genetics somehow know about finance and computer gaming when we evolved tens/hundreds of thousands of years ago? Or did they just develop strong cultures that happens to generally fit into certain areas better than others?

Oh this is certainly a cultural thing. They're smart enough to get it and the money in pro gaming is enough to outweigh whatever third world shithole job they might land in (#notall). When you're that destitute then spending 18 hours a day practicing starcraft actually pays off. It's very similar to destitute blacks who see sports as their way out, and the same thing happens throughout the hispanic world with baseball. In brazil, it's soccer with a splash of mma. This is a worldwide phenomenon. East asians as a group (again, #notall, can I stop saying this shit yet?) dont see sports as an out but see pro gaming as an out.

We have something like 90% of the same dna as a cat, and you want to act like there is some massive rift in genetics between just different races within the same species that causes these significant differences in intelligence. It makes no sense. We have a hell of a lot more in common than we are different. Yet you want to only focus on the differences, rather than the commonalities.

false on wanting to focus on the differences. I want the race baiting to stop. I want to see actual explanations for behavior of various groups. I want steps taken to counteract what's going on today so I can stop watching videos of people burning down their community's houses and businesses and assaulting innocent people driving by in cars, while huge portions of apologists say it's not racist. I'm tired of people treating the black community like they're children. It's not helping. Everything we've done for the last 50 years has not helped. It's time to re-evaluate tee strategy. cuz I want to help.
I believe that black people in this country are owed something as a legacy of slavery. I don't know what that is or how to pay it off, but I think they have legitimate gripes about being in this situation they are in. The American model was to import the best and brightest from other countries because it was voluntary. This is not the case with blacks and it's a huge reason we have these issues today. I really wish there was a way to fix it, but there's no time machine, and the issue seems to be getting worse. If there was a lump sum one time payment and then that would be the end of it, fine, but this slow drip of pushing the white guilt button to get money out of the society at large has to stop eventually. It's counterproductive.

I just looked up some of the science on race and IQ, and it largely appears to be INCONCLUSIVE. For every study you have to support your theory that it is genetics causing it, another study debunks it, or instead shows how much more is being influenced by the environment. So when the dust does settle on this, it's likely to be a small statistical difference, with the environmental factors being the much larger overall, because if it really was as clean, cut, and dry as just saying its genetics, then the science would have been settled on this long ago. At the very least, your level of confidence / certainty on this far exceeds science's level of confidence / certainty. And that is why you are wrong.

With all the ideologues in academia on both sides, it's not shocking at all that this is the case. Do you think in today's PC culture that a study of race and iq could ever happen, ever ever ever? That's haram today, and anybody who wants it would get the same treatment as galileo did when he claimed the sun was the center of the galaxy, and not earth was the center of the universe. Of course it could also be a heaven's day cultist treatment, but the fact is we won't know as long as it's "not allowed" to be discussed by an oppressive politlcal ideology.

it used to be the christian right talking about violence in video games. now its the left treating minorities like children and not allowing anybody to look into anything that doesnt cast a 100% positive light on them. it's nauseating.

GKG ~ If you understand being male as actually CAUSING men to be taller and stronger than women on average then you are a SEXIST BIGGOT / MALE SUPREMACIST. Correlation does not imply causation, and everyone who isn't a SHITLORD understands this nuance.

Melkor ~ I have the perfect counter point, I will talk about how being male causes people to be bigger, and how being black causes people to be blacker, and how being a woman causes people to have large breasts. BAM.

Yea, physical differences are very different than mental ones. Even physical differences in the brain are not necessarily indicative of intelligence. For example, a bigger brain does not necessarily mean you are smarter, whereas being bigger physically almost certainly means you are stronger. The brain is a hell of a lot more complicated than that, in case you didn't know.

Compare an asian woman with overgrown mosquito bite boobs to a fat dude with saggy tits. therefore #notall women have larger breasts, so you cant say that. BAM. also there are women who do warm-up squats higher than most dudes can max. BAM! therefore you cant say anything cuz one counterexample exists. Same with blackness, there are light skinned black people whose skin is so light that tanned eastern europeans look darker. BAM no more discussing skin color ever, that's being absolutist when a single counterexample exists.

you cant have a conversation with this mentality bro.

[Giant Killer General]

this is a statistical issue, covering entire groups of people. of course there are exceptions. this is the mandatory #notall that everybody seems to forget exists. it's like if you say "hmm the pizza was good" you have to say "wait, but #notall pizza is good".

Okay then we are in agreement, but you still dodged my question about where you got that story from of evolution and migration and how it impacts IQ, because I hardly think there is any definitive science to support that. So you should probably stop pushing a story that is made up.

can we escape that for a minute and understand that we're talking about statistics?

Again statistics can show correlation, not necessarily causation.

also, many minority doctors were propped up by affirmative action. I had a black doctor when I had pneumonia a few years ago, and he was fantastic. I had another one who was discussing a surgery with me back in 2009 who showed a few warning signs of being bad. I didn't second chance the latter guy, the fact that he was 2nd generation doctor, was that unprofessional AND a minority was enough to make me fear that he was the product of affirmative action more than merit. and that's sad that we live in a country where I have to take that into consideration, cuz I sure as fuck am not going to risk having a surgeon be incompetent and propped up due to racist quota systems.

Anecdotal evidence should be completely banned from discussions such as these. You are going to just find anything that confirms your biases, and ignore anything that disproves them.

Discussing a biological factor to explain behavior makes sense. I discuss it because these other factors are beaten to death, and seem to be very much the outcome of bad behaviors.

But there is nothing you can do about biological factors (barring future genetic manipulation technology). So again, this is where it becomes racist. You are essentially trying to highlight some causation between ethnicity and some negative attributes in people. So even if it was a tiny bit true, there is nothing that can be done about it. They are who they are. You can't tell someone to stop being whatever race they are, and change their genes or whatever. This is why people focus on the other environmental factors (the things you can actually change) rather than this.

BLM is out there arguing for the same thing the KKK wants - racial segregation. For years the smarter black activist types have said that a huge issue is w hite flight and self segregation because schools are funded by property taxes and having a bunch of low income types in these neighborhoods make the schools awful. Then you see the riots in Milwaukee and you wonder why people get nervous and want to leave. It's nuts. Why the fuck are they doing this to themselves? It's not helping ANYBODY.

Yea you clearly misunderstand BLM. Do you get just as upset as the unjustified police shootings on unarmed people, as you do over the rioting? If so then be honest and balanced with that context and in framing the discussion. Otherwise you are just picking sides. As far as why they riot, I'm not condoning it, but do you know what happens when you trap someone into a corner with no way out? And there were even more race riots in the civil rights era, that doesn't mean it taints the entire movement. You are just cherry picking the worst parts of it. It's not as if they decided to riot without any reasoning at all. There is wide-spread anger, and so some segment of the population is going to feel no other recourse but resorting to violence, or otherwise do not have the capacity for language to express their anger by non-violent means.

Oh this is certainly a cultural thing.

Great, so there are a lot of other cultural things too. Pretty much everything you want to highlight is cultural, not genetic.

false on wanting to focus on the differences. I want the race baiting to stop.

Race baiting goes both ways, you are not innocent it either.

I want to see actual explanations for behavior of various groups.

Culture, education, and poverty.

I want steps taken to counteract what's going on today so I can stop watching videos of people burning down their community's houses and businesses and assaulting innocent people driving by in cars, while huge portions of apologists say it's not racist.

Better, and equal education.

Everything we've done for the last 50 years has not helped.

Well 50 years ago we were just having the civil rights movement for desegregation, so obviously we are a lot better off where we were 50 years ago. That is just being blind to history, and over-dramatizing the current situation.

I believe that black people in this country are owed something as a legacy of slavery. I don't know what that is or how to pay it off, but I think they have legitimate gripes about being in this situation they are in. The American model was to import the best and brightest from other countries because it was voluntary. This is not the case with blacks and it's a huge reason we have these issues today. I really wish there was a way to fix it, but there's no time machine, and the issue seems to be getting worse. If there was a lump sum one time payment and then that would be the end of it, fine, but this slow drip of pushing the white guilt button to get money out of the society at large has to stop eventually. It's counterproductive.

Reparations is a duct-tape solution that won't actually work long-term. After the money is spent, they will be pretty much right back where they started. Better and equal education is the only answer. It follows the old adage: give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.

With all the ideologues in academia on both sides, it's not shocking at all that this is the case. Do you think in today's PC culture that a study of race and iq could ever happen, ever ever ever? That's haram today, and anybody who wants it would get the same treatment as galileo did when he claimed the sun was the center of the galaxy, and not earth was the center of the universe. Of course it could also be a heaven's day cultist treatment, but the fact is we won't know as long as it's "not allowed" to be discussed by an oppressive politlcal ideology.

There was a lot of racial science decades / centuries ago before it became too PC to conduct such studies. And regardless of that situation, you are just conceding that there are no studies to support your viewpoint, so why would you continue to be so certain and confident in it having causation (instead of just correlation) when there is no science to support it? Without the science you are just a slave to your own biases, swimming in a sea of anecdotes and your own upbringing.

Compare an asian woman with overgrown mosquito bite boobs to a fat dude with saggy tits. therefore #notall women have larger breasts, so you cant say that. BAM. also there are women who do warm-up squats higher than most dudes can max. BAM! therefore you cant say anything cuz one counterexample exists. Same with blackness, there are light skinned black people whose skin is so light that tanned eastern europeans look darker. BAM no more discussing skin color ever, that's being absolutist when a single counterexample exists.

you cant have a conversation with this mentality bro.

Umm, yea, so we are in agreement. You did see the tilde in front right? It was sarcasm. You are agreeing with me and you don't even realize it.

[wwo]

If you meet a master swordsman, show him your sword; but do not show your poem to one who is not a poet.

Buddhist proverb

[Melekor]

I just looked up some of the science on race and IQ, and it largely appears to be INCONCLUSIVE. For every study you have to support your theory that it is genetics causing it, another study debunks it

you are just conceding that there are no studies to support your viewpoint, so why would you continue to be so certain and confident in it having causation (instead of just correlation) when there is no science to support it? Without the science you are just a slave to your own biases, swimming in a sea of anecdotes and your own upbringing.

Funny how he goes from the studies being inconclusive to them being nonexistent in the span of 2 posts. This from a guy that likes to criticise people for confirmation bias.

There is in fact a decent amount of research on this topic, and a lot of the supposed "debunking" amounts to nothing more than "THATS RAYCISS!" pearl clutching.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritabil ... elatedness

Correlation of IQ score:
Same person (tested twice) .95
Identical twins—Reared together .86
Identical twins—Reared apart .76
Fraternal twins—Reared together .55
Fraternal twins—Reared apart .35
Biological siblings—Reared together .47
Biological siblings—Reared apart .24
Unrelated children—Reared together—Children .28
Unrelated children—Reared together—Adults .04
Cousins .15
Parent-child—Living together .42
Parent-child—Living apart .22
Adoptive parent–child—Living together .19

Looking forward to the explanation of how being more closely genetically related is only correlated with having similar IQ rather than having a causal relationship.

[Giant Killer General]

Funny how he goes from the studies being inconclusive to them being nonexistent in the span of 2 posts. This from a guy that likes to criticise people for confirmation bias.

There is in fact a decent amount of research on this topic, and a lot of the supposed "debunking" amounts to nothing more than "THATS RAYCISS!" pearl clutching.

It was my assertion that the studies are inconclusive. It was dac's assertion that there are no studies on IQ and race, per the below:

With all the ideologues in academia on both sides, it's not shocking at all that this is the case. Do you think in today's PC culture that a study of race and iq could ever happen, ever ever ever? That's haram today, and anybody who wants it would get the same treatment as galileo did when he claimed the sun was the center of the galaxy, and not earth was the center of the universe. Of course it could also be a heaven's day cultist treatment, but the fact is we won't know as long as it's "not allowed" to be discussed by an oppressive politlcal ideology.

I was responding to dac's assertion that there would be no studies to support his viewpoint, and pointing out that if he wants to assert that there are no studies, then how could he be so certain that there is causation? Where would he get causation from if there are no studies?

So swing and a miss for you.

Correlation of IQ score:
Same person (tested twice) .95
Identical twins—Reared together .86
Identical twins—Reared apart .76
Fraternal twins—Reared together .55
Fraternal twins—Reared apart .35
Biological siblings—Reared together .47
Biological siblings—Reared apart .24
Unrelated children—Reared together—Children .28
Unrelated children—Reared together—Adults .04
Cousins .15
Parent-child—Living together .42
Parent-child—Living apart .22
Adoptive parent–child—Living together .19

This is completely irrelevant, as nobody is claiming that there is not causation between IQ and close family members. We are only claiming that there is no causation between ethnicities and IQ. I am not sure how you are connecting these two things, as they are quite different.

In fact, if anything the data here supports my viewpoint (so thanks for sharing), because the correlation drops drastically after just barely getting to extended family members. In order to even speculate that there might be causation between ethnicity and IQ, it would have to first show a good correlation between many many many many generations (i.e. between a child and their great-great-great-great-grandfather, etc.) because it would take many many generations to connect people of the same ethnicity together genetically who are otherwise unrelated. Instead, this data shows the correlation goes down to .15 after just cousins (which is a smaller correlation than the other correlations that suggestions environmental factors rather than genetics, such as the adoptive parent-child, and unrelated children). So the ethnicity argument falls apart.

Another swing and a miss for you.

Looking forward to the explanation of how being more closely genetically related is only correlated with having similar IQ rather than having a causal relationship.

Happy to grant your wish, here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_q6Vh ... lPTVk/view

It is still not resolved what relation, if any, there is between group differences in IQ and race.

You can thank me later.

[dac]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_q6Vh ... lPTVk/view

It is still not resolved what relation, if any, there is between group differences in IQ and race.

You can thank me later.

Read the third paragraph of heritability and modifiability section, it wont let me copy paste or i would

but the last setnence is "Thus knowing the heritability of a trait does not tell us anything about its modifyability"

But that's really not the point. In fact the point was made earlier in his paragraph - they identified a recessive condition that is genetically inherited, and that the knowledge of that condition allowed them to modify diets to prevent babies from being retarded. Thus knowing the heritability of the gene didn't allow the gene to be massaged away, however, it armed science with information on what it was dealing with and allowed us to eventually figure out a solution.

The IQ gaps aren't a solution. They are a symptom that requires diagnosis.

Example, I can't perform heart surgery on anybody, I'm not qualified. I get this massive pain in my chest. Do I say well, knowing that a sensation in there doesnt help me fix it any cuz I cant do it anyway, really make any sense? People had heart attacks throughout history. And they couldnt solve it - until they could. Do you think that having information that you knew you couldnt fix at the time made it a bad thing? No. Cuz you can still act on certain types of information. You can get your will in order, make sure the family is taken care of, whatever. That's the type of information this would be, and once it's known, perhaps we'd find a solution or a way to bridge the gap and we could stop with the violence and live together in peace.

and yes, I get pissed whenever cops take out anybody. I've been bitching about that since loooong before BLM ever happened. There was a homeless guy beaten to death here a few years ago, just laying on the ground and a gorup of 8 cops came up and jsut took turns laying into him. He wasnt ever vertical, he just didnt want to move cuz he was sleeping on the sidewalk. They literally beat him to death.

I've been screaming about police crap for years. So yeah, i get upset whenever anyone takes it. I'm sick of people being choked out for not paying taxes on looseys in new york, or a cop going pavlov with the response and unloading into a guy who is under his full control. I'm tired of an apparatus that starts with a failure to signal and has the authority to escalate to the point of killing you in all situations. And most of all I'm tired of cops covering for each others illegal behaviors while holding the self-mdicating masses to higher standards than themselves. I hate the hypocrisy. It's retarded, it's ridiculous, and I've been talking to you about that shit for years.

[wwo]

In response to accusations of hit-and-run snarkiness, I tend to avoid online debates like this because 80% of this was clarifying assumptions on both sides. Eventually that 20% of disagreement will be talked about.

[Melekor]

This is completely irrelevant, as nobody is claiming that there is not causation between IQ and close family members.

This data establishes that variation in intelligence between individuals is primarily explained by genetics. I thought you were doubting this, but if you're on board that's good.

This data does not prove that variance in mean intelligence between race groups is primarily explained by genetics, but it's a starting point. Look at something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota ... tion_Study to factor out environmental influences.

In fact, if anything the data here supports my viewpoint (so thanks for sharing), because the correlation drops drastically after just barely getting to extended family members. In order to even speculate that there might be causation between ethnicity and IQ, it would have to first show a good correlation between many many many many generations (i.e. between a child and their great-great-great-great-grandfather, etc.) because otherwise the whole ethnicity argument falls apart. Instead, this data shows the correlation goes down to .15 after just cousins (which is a smaller correlation than the other correlations that suggestions environmental factors rather than genetics, such as the adoptive parent-child, and unrelated children).

Another swing and a miss for you.

Nice try smug guy, but your argument is mathematically illiterate. Correlation of randomly paired IQs drawn from a population is zero by definition if the population is normally distributed (as is generally accepted for IQ). It has no implications for the population mean.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_q6Vh ... lPTVk/view

Paper asserts race is a social construction. Junk science not even worth reading. It is telling that the paper comes from a Psychology journal and not Biology. Race as a mere social construct is another endlessly debunked leftist meme, similar to the wage gap meme that started this whole thread.

[Giant Killer General]

Read the third paragraph of heritability and modifiability section, it wont let me copy paste or i would

but the last setnence is "Thus knowing the heritability of a trait does not tell us anything about its modifyability"

But that's really not the point. In fact the point was made earlier in his paragraph - they identified a recessive condition that is genetically inherited, and that the knowledge of that condition allowed them to modify diets to prevent babies from being retarded. Thus knowing the heritability of the gene didn't allow the gene to be massaged away, however, it armed science with information on what it was dealing with and allowed us to eventually figure out a solution.

The IQ gaps aren't a solution. They are a symptom that requires diagnosis.

Okay I think I understand what you are saying here, but again this is all given the premise that ethnicity has a significant causal relationship with IQ, which of course was the whole premise that we were arguing. And if you read the conclusion of that paper, it concludes that at least the current science cannot support that. So let's not put all our eggs into a basket that is scientifically unfounded.

Also I gave the diagnosis - unequal wealth and education. So that is something actionable that can be done today, and we should be talking about that instead of some kind of made-up gene therapy that doesn't exist and the basis for which is scientifically unfounded.

I've been screaming about police crap for years...It's retarded, it's ridiculous, and I've been talking to you about that shit for years.

Fair enough, I just want to make sure we aren't framing the discussions so one-sided.

I just don't get why you wouldn't at least some shred of understanding for why some people might feel the need to protest it if you seem to have some sympathies for the cause. If police killed a family member of yours, you'd probably want to do something about it. You can have some shred of understanding for the reasons behind it without having to agree with all of it entirely. It's not like people were motivated to organize all around the country for no good reason.