Total posts: 206
Posted in:
-->
@Username
For someone who's big on moderating personal attacks and verbal misconduct, this isn't a good look.
No, I'm not "big" on any of that, it's just a preference. I'd prefer if this website isn't akin to the Morning Kumite, but I'll oblige where necessary. The mods have made it clear that they don't care about people teeing off on each other (especially since one of them engages in such behaviour), and not to do so would put me at a disadvantage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
> Claims to be completely pWniNG the liBtARdS> Hasn't done a single debate
Yes, you can't prove someone wrong unless it's through an official debate.
Btw, I'll correct you by saying that the thread addresses leftwing narratives, not "libtards".
Created:
It's a well-established fact that's likely caused by disadvantageous environmental conditions, and perhaps to some extent a lesser cultural emphasis on academics in the black community for the older children.
At this point you're essentially arguing that despite evolution making literally everything different, human brains were not affected.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Where is your source for this?
I have dozens but this is a good one: Race Differences in Intelligence (wordpress.com) (go to chapter 13).
Created:
-->
@Athias
Because I've read extensively on the I.Q. born from a fervor in my youth. Furthermore, your data does not rebut, refute, contradict, or even "counterargue" that "Black is not a race." Hence, I disregarded it.
LOL so now you're appealing to authority, something which you accused me of, and better yet you've made yourself the authority xD
I'm going to copy-paste my copy-paste of my argument because, again, you haven't addressed any of it with your appeal to authority:
You've, for some reason, left out the entirety of the study I provided which provided to prove my point. I'm going to copy-paste it so you have another chance to respond to it:
"This study breaks down those broad generalised genetically distinct groups (African, European and East Asian) into smaller genetically distinct groups https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180234/ . Notice how "African" is a distinct category amongst "European" and "Asian", which shows that we can have racial classifications that are not solely "African descent". Figure 4 shows a further breaking down of "African, European and East Asian", and even African has distinct racial groups within it."
Now, using data-based arguments like this above, is it unreasonable to assume that 'Black' could easily be replaced with 'African', given that African Americans and Africans use the term to describe themselves? I didn't think so, and so becoming hung up on this semantic is unwise.
As for the latter part of this comment, again, the research I provided showed that we can sub-divide people into other categories other than "African descent" (Asian and European), all the whilst retaining the category of "African descent". Hence, if we use the term Black/African, not everyone would have to be racially classified as of "African descent".
Accountable for what?
You are so obtuse lol.
Membership in these groups is commonly inferred by use of a proxy such as place-of-origin or ethnic affiliation. These inferences are frequently weakened, however, by use of surrogates, such as skin color, for these proxies, the distribution of which bears little resemblance to the distribution of neutral genetic variation. Consequently, it has become increasingly controversial whether proxies are sufficient and accurate representations of groups inferred from neutral genetic variation.
Okay so you've probably read only the abstract of the study lol (and then complained I hadn't read all of the study hahaha).
Anyway, what this is saying is that the colour of your skin isn't sufficient to correctly group you in terms of race, in all cases. For example, Aboriginal Australians, Maoris, Sub-Saharan Africans and North Africans all have varying I.Q, despite having roughly the same skin colour Lynn.jpg (536×232) (amren.com)
Now, I showed you data which suggested that despite this shortcoming, even if we used the super-broad term of African, we get very good race distribution of people into African, European and Asian (so long as the loci/SNPs are high enough).
I would contend that we shouldn't use super-broad, K=3 categorisation of humans in place of better categorisations, and hence, if you actually read the study (instead of complaining that I haven't read it), it goes on to break down humans into far more appropriate categories wherein races (shown in figure 4). However, what I showed is that even if we use a super-broad term like African (which was implied when I used the term "black", we can genetically divide most of humanity incredibly well.
Finally, again, "black" is typically referred to as meaning "African", or in the United States (which was implied in my OP), to mean African American. No one refers to Australian Aboriginals as being black, despite having black skin.
Historically, proxies such as skin color, race, and ethnic label have been used to make inferences about population structure, even in the absence of corroborative genetic data (Cooper 1994; Laveist 1997; Williams 1997; Aspinall 1998). As a result, there is a large body of literature comparing phenotypes between cohorts defined, for example, as “blacks” and “whites.” In recent years, the validity of this classification scheme has been criticized for its weak conceptual underpinnings and its strong assumptions about underlying biology (Lee et al. 2001; Wilson et al. 2001; Foster and Sharp 2002). Given the growing availability of large collections of human genetic data from populations throughout the world, it was anticipated that the reliability of such proxies would be resolved via empirical testing (Mountain and Cavalli-Sforza 1997; Rannala and Mountain 1997; Shriver et al. 1997). Instead, recent, well-publicized studies have led to disparate and sometimes contradictory conclusions (Wilson et al. 2001; Risch et al. 2002). The result has been increased polarization about the nature of human population structure and a widespread belief that all commonly used proxies correspond poorly to genetically inferred clusters (Witzig 1996; Goodman 2000; Schwartz 2001). However, contrasting interpretations of the same set of data (Wilson et al. 2001) suggest that the signal from these data is too weak to justify such strong inferences (Risch et al. 2002).
Firstly, you've literally copy-pasted all of this from this paper: doi:10.1086/368061 (cell.com) . It's amusing that you'd try to play this off as you painstakingly looking through all these studies yourself, you plagiarist dickhead. I have no idea why you thought you get away with this.
Secondly, we're not talking about history here. My source is Bamshad 2003 which comes after *all* the studies quoted in your plagirisation here. Bamshad showed that you *could* sort people into black and white "African and European" racial groups, and yet still produce significant results. Now, again, I think it's clearly better to sort them into more categories, and the study I cited shows this, too.
Thirdly, I think if we referred to "black" as in "African American", as most African Americans like to do, then we'd be even more accurate racial grouping.
Third, Alu markers and microsatellites have comparable power to detect population structure and assign origin, although accurate cluster assignment requires substantially more markers than have typically been tested.
What they are saying here is that what "other" studies have tested, in regards to Alu amounts, hasn't been sufficient. Hence, "have typically been tested", meaning done in the past.
Fourth, the proxies associated with the samples used in this analysis were sometimes, though not always, sufficient representations of the inferred genetic clusters, reflecting the complex and interwoven history of the human species.
So this is referring to, "skin color, race, and ethnic". Again, as I demonstrated using Lynn's I.Q. data above, 'skin color' isn't necessarily accurate, so I'd agree with that. However, we can only infer what the study meant here, as it doesn't appear to detail which specifically it meant, but its results shows that 'race' is a very good proxy.
206 individuals in 20 ethnic groups from sub-Saharan Africa (58), East Asia (67), and Europe (81). The Alu polymorphisms were also genotyped in 55 individuals from these groups who lacked microsatellite data, including 33 additional Mbuti pygmies from the Ituri forest, 41 sub-Saharan Africans from another three ethnic groups, and 263 individuals in various caste populations from the subcontinent of India. Thus, a total of 565 individuals from 23 ethnic groups and southern India were used in subsequent tests of sample assignment to inferred genetic clusters.
Yes, you can sub-divide these groups into categories that are no longer "African". Again, that doesn't mean you have to, and if you don't, you still get meaningful racial groups.
Second, the geographic origin of individual samples, even from an admixed population, can be assigned with a moderate level of accuracy.
It's saying that race-mixed people don't fit racial groups as easily because they have genetics from multiple races. What did you expect?
How is this analogy applicable at all? With the lottery, you win or you don't win. You can reduce it by analyzing the probability of determining a series of numbers within the domain, and the allotted amount of selections. But how does that at all reflect the methodology in "calculating" the I.Q.? You're randomly taking the notion of "probability" and citing it without context."Probably true" is irrational language. Here let me try:The illuminati "probably" exists.Sugar-free ice cream is "probably" real.JFK was "probably" murdered by the mafia.You'll "probably" die from smoking cigarettes.Your marriage will "probably" end in divorce.You'll "probably" die from a car accident.Etcetera, Etcetera.Having an "idea" in the context of scientific metrics is not the same as "knowing." And attempts to equate the two especially in language which qualifies the extent of knowledge, i.e. "don't know for sure," is purposefully misleading.
Yes, we don't know for sure, but that doesn't mean something highly probably is irrational language which is completely worthless and should be ignored.
If your doctor told you, "if you continue to eat this much food, you will probably die", would anyone ever respond, "hurrrr that is IRRATIONAL LANGUAGE. I'm either going to die or not. You're randomly taking the notion of "probability" and citing it without context!!! You are purposefully misleading me!!!!"
Do you understand how ridiculous you look?
Created:
-->
@Athias
I've unblocked you and will respond because you've decided to be reasonable and post some sources for your claims (not all, but that's a good enough start).
I'll respond to your post from 2 posts ago, and then your more recent post.
No one charged you with the responsibility of "citing my claims." I stated you were free to confirm at your own leisure.
You still need to cite this claim: "the relationship between I.Q. and overall "success" typically has a covariance of just 0.3." Again, it is not the responsibility of the person you're talking to. If you are unable to cite your claims, your claims are bare assertions, which are logical fallacies.
A conception no less, which by your description is malleable contingent on our "colloquial" understanding. So once again, what does that indicate about I.Q.'s attempted measure? And again, introduce yourself to the definitions of "cite."
Your argument here is an absolute mess.
Firstly, you never cited this claim: "And if you look into the history of I.Q. you'd discover that what was once colloquially defined as "intelligent" was physical strength." You made this claim several posts ago, got called out on it, and have proceeded to ignore requests for citation. Again, if you're incapable of citing your claims where appropriate, you are not fit for this discussion.
Secondly, I assume you mean 'mealleably contingent', as opposed to "malleable contingent", because I've never seen the latter which is implied as noun (correct me if I'm wrong). So, our "colloquial understanding" is being tested against I.Q. tests. This colloquial understanding isn't changing across studies. The fact that this colloquial understanding remains consistent, involves results which is replicable, and coincides with I.Q. test findings, shows that there is something real being measured here. Thus, this indicates this indicates that I.Q's attempted measure coincides with colloquial undertandings of intelligence.
Thirdly, since I think I need to be plainly said (since you miss the inference every time), these studies aren't the only studies required to prove that I.Q. is a valid metric of intelligence. These studies were used to counter-act your original claim of: "At best, it gives some speculative gauge of classroom discipline. Trying to quantify intelligence is like trying quantify "dancing skills" or a person's "appearance."" Thus, I presented these studies that show that general conceptions of intelligence (i.e. NOT classroom discipline, and not something as nebulous as "dancing skills") correlate with I.Q. test scores. That's all the studies were meant to do.
Fourthly, you still haven't cited this claim: "the relationship between I.Q. and overall "success" typically has a covariance of just 0.3." This isn't a verbal debate where you can use sophistry, deflects and pivots to escape. Everyone can go back and see you didn't cite this claim.
Finally, I cited all the studies multiple times, of which you proceeded to say all "meant nothing" lol.
I'll cite them for a 3rd time, just for you:
Antecedents and consequences of peer‐rated intelligence - Denissen - 2011 - European Journal of Personality - Wiley Online Library Interpersonal Perceptions of Intelligence in Late Childhood and Early Adolescent Friendships: The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Vol 135, No 1 (tandfonline.com) PERCEIVED INTELLIGENCE IN MARRIED PARTNERS: Ingenta Connect (PDF) Self-Report Measures of Intelligence: Are They Useful as Proxy IQ Tests? (researchgate.net) Gender differences in self-estimated IQ: The need for care in interpreting group data - ScienceDirect
Assumptions and arbitrary "quantification" based on correlations aren't "replicable results."
There isn't correlation between studies. They all show *precisely* the same thing. Thus, we see the replicable results. Furthermore, that also shows that it isn't "arbitrary" because the results *are* being replicated.
The scientific method is a set of principles, the subject of which doesn't fall under my criticism. I have no intention on reading material about assumptions based on impressions of abstracts which can't be quantified.
At this point you're arguing that the "abstract" of intelligence doesn't exist.
Also, it lays the groundwork for quantifying intelligence by showing that I.Q. probably measures intelligence.
Furthermore, this applicable here: Thirdly, since I think I need to be plainly said (since you miss the inference every time), these studies aren't the only studies required to prove that I.Q. is a valid metric of intelligence. These studies were used to counter-act your original claim of: "At best, it gives some speculative gauge of classroom discipline. Trying to quantify intelligence is like trying quantify "dancing skills" or a person's "appearance."" Thus, I presented these studies that show that general conceptions of intelligence (i.e. NOT classroom discipline, and not something as nebulous as "dancing skills") correlate with I.Q. test scores. That's all the studies were meant to do.
I'm not the one pedaling "psychometrics."
So you're arguing that psychometrics are completely worthless. LOL.
Who is disputing this? What does that matter? No, I'm able to verify their conclusions. "Veracity" is different.
So you are able to verify their "veracity", hence I am not merely "appealing to authorities".
Your other points are addressed elsewhere.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I decided that I'm not gonna get into an unending debate with you about a topic that doesn't really excite me .
Thanks for the formal concession which comes after you said you would respond United States slaves were, overall, treated quite well (debateart.com)
It's weird you think I'm left wing lol
If you move your eyes to the title of the thread (just above the first post), it says "leftwing narratives", not 'leftwing people'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Shh don't tell anyone or he'll lose his mod status.
Created:
-->
@Trent0405
This sort of avoids the point no? We account for disadvantaged status because we want to find the results when all other variables are equal. I can accept everything you said here (about less desirable genes and whatnot) and my point would still stand. If African Americans have undesirable genes, we would want to compare blacks with desirable genes to whites with equivalent genes to truly see if race is playing a role.
Yeah you're right. I didn't realise I wrote the wrong conclusion.
Let me fix the part that is wrong. I'll quote the wrong part first:
"If we were to control for it, I suspect (but not know) that the racial gap would disappear entirely, because you would be eliminating the undesirable genes (and the expression thereof) that create the gap in the first place."
This should read:
"If we were to control for it, I suspect (but not know) that the racial gap wouldn't disappear entirely, because you would not be eliminating the undesirable genes (and the expression thereof) that create the gap in the first place."
Okay, so what I'm saying is these non disadvantaged blacks would still get sentenced longer than equally non disadvantaged whites. About 20.4% longer actually.
So the 20.4% is from the Booker report 2012. The critique I can give of it is the following:
The variables not addressed in the 2012 Booker report are as follows: (1) how the defendant presents himself in court, (2) and how likely he is to reoffend. The latter is partially controlled for by the Booker report in that it takes into account criminal history, but that isn't the only part in determining future likelihood of committing a crime (e.g. a new drug habit could have been formed).
I don't know if the 20.4% would evaporate entirely or minutely, but not controlling these variables puts an otherwise excellent study into some doubt.
Also, to go off topic slightly, I can't find any plausible critiques of this part (quoting a previous post of yours): "men have to endure sentences which are 63% longer than their female counterparts (I know my link is a 538 article but it summarizes a 2015 study from Michigan state university)". So, the study certainly isn't complete trash and is actually quite good.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Difference of opinion.Such is the way of things.
Nope. I provided sources and data to back my claim. You haven't.
Therefore, it's a difference of sourced arguments versus mere opinion. If you can't be bothered/are too stupid to source your arguments, then you're not worth talking to on this subject.
Up to you, buddy.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
It is a reasonable question because you said 55 hours a week is not a lot. So, how many hours a week do you work?
That isn't what I wrote. I said, "A moderate working week (considering that they were only picking cotton and not at a super fast rate)." This is why you're wasting everyone's time by posting drive-by snark. You missed the mark, just end up looking like a dickhead, and the site is all the worse for it. You've even done it with this post yet again. You still haven't responded to the whole of what I said. If you can't do that, then I'm not answering your question. Up to you, kiddo:
"Yes. Free, quality food (better than what they were getting in Africa). Free education (1870's African Americans reached a 20% literally rate nearing a century before Africans in 1950). A moderate working week (considering that they were only picking cotton and not at a super fast rate).
Clearly, whilst slavery is wrong and I don't condone it, the slaves weren't brutality treated for the most part, and actually benefitted a lot for living in a far superior country. Later, when people realised some of the African Americans were intelligent and talented, they earned emancipation and integrated into a truly 1st world country, living ten-fold better than they would have had they stayed in Africa."
Created:
Posted in:
Assias
Ignores scientific data. Claims a bunch of stuff without sourcing any of it: Using the terms "racism" and "racist" makes you look stupid (debateart.com)
Gets called out on everything: Using the terms "racism" and "racist" makes you look stupid (debateart.com)
Reduced to refusing to source anything or engage with any source I provide: Using the terms "racism" and "racist" makes you look stupid (debateart.com)
Created:
-->
@Athias
No, I disregarded it. But after perusing the study, I've come to the conclusion that you haven't read the entirety of your study, much less pay attention to the language used.
Firstly, why did you disregard it? You haven't at all explained why. You simply ignored it and moved onto other parts of the post. You're only addressing it now because I am holding you accountable.
Secondly, how do you know I haven't read the entirety of the study or paid attention to the language used? Again, no explanation of a pretty sizeable claim.
Thirdly, why would the second point even matter? Are you going to address the conclusions I make from the study or not?
Again, you really need to stop blindly asserting things. No reasonable person is going to accept that.
So how do you justify asserting that I.Q. differentials are a "scientifically verifiable fact?"
We are using science to verify it. Why is this even a question?
Non sequitur. I never stated or insinuated that intelligence didn't exist.
I didn't claim you did. I stated this for rhetorical purposes. It's good that you agree intelligence exists. Thus, we can delve into how to measure it (and I'd argue through I.Q.).
It's not that we don't know "for sure." We don't know. And once again, "probably measures" is not part of (hard) scientific lexicon.
Similar to how "we don't know for sure" whether we will win the lottery or not, we can guess that we are not going to, based on the probability. No reasonable person, as you're doing here, will hammer on about "we don't know for sure", and refuse to guess.
Whilst the likelihood involving I.Q. isn't nearly as probably, you can see that "we don't know for sure" doesn't mean "we have absolutely no idea and cannot make guesses which are probably true". Hence, it is reasonable to go with the probably correct stance that I.Q. exists and measures intelligence.
I don't have to provide you a link, nor will I.
Since you refuse to provide links/data to support your claims, you're no longer capable of discussing this with me.
Goodbye.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
If I'm a lady I want to marry SupaDudz
No man wants to be involved with *that* kind of lady xD
Created:
Make a case against them.
THAT IS LITERALLY THE OP HAHAHHAHAHAH
HAHAHHAHAAHHAHAH
HAHAHHAHAHAHAAHHA
How are you a real person LOL
Please stop I am actually dying XD
Created:
Posted in:
For you edification and amusement, here is a list of leftwing narratives getting obliterated on this site:
BrainDeath23
Gets asked to provide sources to back his claims: At What Point Does the "Racism" Boogeyman Go Away? (debateart.com)
MissChris
Making her case denying the genetic component to black disadvantage: Using the terms "racism" and "racist" makes you look stupid (debateart.com)
Getting blown out on every point with most of my points having the data to show her wrong: Using the terms "racism" and "racist" makes you look stupid (debateart.com)
Pretending she's too superior to read it because it annihilated her argument (a typical female tactic, hence "MissChris"): How to act like a child on Dart (debateart.com)
Sum1hugmeI'mupset
Tries to argue a case that slaves we're treated terribly: United States slaves were, overall, treated quite well (debateart.com)
Gets a hefty response that uses strong logic: United States slaves were, overall, treated quite well (debateart.com)
Says he'll respond to this "nonsense" later (never responds): United States slaves were, overall, treated quite well (debateart.com)
More to come in the future...
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
You're making a nasty habit of leaving paltry, one-liner comments that don't add anything discussions: United States slaves were, overall, treated quite well (debateart.com) United States slaves were, overall, treated quite well (debateart.com)
We're still waiting for you to post something worthwhile in response to this United States slaves were, overall, treated quite well (debateart.com)
Don't become another BrainDeath23.
Created:
With all these drive-by, one-liner comments, you'd think we're in the hood lol.
Created:
Uh oh back to the usual one-liners again hahahaha.
Shame I can't add it to this list: Using the terms "racism" and "racist" makes you look stupid (debateart.com)
Created:
"All of your sources, scientific research and data is wrong because my definitions say so." -- BrainDeath23
He's so upset that he literally one-lined 11 different hyperlinks in one post, as well as bothering to format them all to make it not look like one-liners, something that would usually take him 11 posts xD
Is there a better shit-poster than BrainDeath on Dart? It's hard to imagine so.
Created:
You have damages. Perhaps you should whine to the mods. Tell them that you were innocently reading the forum, posting your raging incel bigot bullshit when the big bad Death posted a transracial adoption study. Keep saying “whilst” or hurling insults, perhaps if there’s someone as stupid and ignorant as you in the audience they may be convinced by appealing to intellectual snobbery and ad hominem attacks.
Imagine getting this mad at someone calling out your shit-posting xD
Anyway, if anyone wants to actually discuss the transracial adoption this shit-poster posted (which is actually worth discussing with worthwhile people), let me know because I know the response by heart.
Created:
Posted in:
I didn't even read it. I knew whatever it was it'd be pretty cancerous
Lol how did anyone think it would be a good idea to make this kid a mod of a debate site?
Created:
-->
@BearMan
You continue to advocate for non-censorship but then you go fucking ape-shit when someone calls you a dick. And let’s see who really violated the CoC or “TOS” as you call it. It is a violation to make a call-out thread of a certain user, no matter what they did. So in fucking conclusion, you fucked up bro.
You didn't insert enough swear words into your sentences. Therefore, I don't find your arguments effective, and more importantly, I don't think you're a cool kid.
Therefore, it is imperative that you read this OP:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Serious enough to blow you away on this post:
Created:
-->
@Athias
No such fallacy was imputed. You never read a statement on my part which stated race does not exist. I stated, "'Black' is not a race." If you're going to associate the term "Black" with those of "African descent," then everyone would be "Black."
You've, for some reason, left out the entirety of the study I provided which provided to prove my point. I'm going to copy-paste it so you have another chance to respond to it:
"This study breaks down those broad generalised genetically distinct groups (African, European and East Asian) into smaller genetically distinct groups https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180234/ . Notice how "African" is a distinct category amongst "European" and "Asian", which shows that we can have racial classifications that are not solely "African descent". Figure 4 shows a further breaking down of "African, European and East Asian", and even African has distinct racial groups within it."
Now, using data-based arguments like this above, is it unreasonable to assume that 'Black' could easily be replaced with 'African', given that African Americans and Africans use the term to describe themselves? I didn't think so, and so becoming hung up on this semantic is unwise.
As for the latter part of this comment, again, the research I provided showed that we can sub-divide people into other categories other than "African descent" (Asian and European), all the whilst retaining the category of "African descent". Hence, if we use the term Black/African, not everyone would have to be racially classified as of "African descent".
I.Q. is a pyschometric, which once again is an oxymoron. There's no "whether" about it. It isn't a hard science; there's no "whether" about that either. Yes it is. You claim that differences in particular I.Q.'s are a "scientifically verifiable fact." So what is it you're "scientifically verifying"? Assumptions based on, at best, ecological inferences. It isn't a measure of intelligence. It's being "perfect" is besides the point. In (hard) science, there's no such thing as "most likely measures." It either does or it doesn't.
These objections all fall under the broad category of "I.Q. calculation is a soft science", so I will respond to them all at once.
I.Q. calculation is a soft science that relies on correlation instead causation -- I agree. It relies on correlation because, currently, science is not able to determine all the genes which generate the 'g' factor (which is intelligence). Are we then to say that intelligence is a myth that doesn't exist? Or, using the strong correlations which are produced in I.Q. calculations, could we determine that despite not knowing for sure (a casual link), we can say that I.Q. *probably* measures intelligence?
Which of those seems more reasonable to you?
No, I did not "assert"; I "cited." It's not a debate. Feel free to confirm at your leisure.
You did not, at any stage, cite your claim that "the relationship between I.Q. and overall "success" typically has a covariance of just 0.3." Using the terms "racism" and "racist" makes you look stupid (debateart.com) . Hence, it was an assertion.
Furthermore, it is not my responsibility to cite the claims you're making, so asking me to "confirm" your uncited claims isn't reasonable.
And if you look into the history of I.Q. you'd discover that what was once colloquially defined as "intelligent" was physical strength. So what does that indicate about the attempted measures of the I.Q.? Does it "measure" intelligence, or reinforces the standards on which it is based (i.e. classroom discipline?)
Believe it or not, we are not living in the past, and hence we don't have primitive conceptions of intelligence (if that was even true, since you haven't cited anything you claimed, let alone this claim). It would be appreciated if you started to cite even the odd thing you say.
Right now, our colloquial understanding on intelligence correlates extremely well with I.Q. results. Again, is it more likely that I.Q. is measuring nothing and all the studies were coincidental, or perhaps, that after numerous studies have replicated the same result, I.Q. is measuring something real that we haven't perfectly quantified yet?
Psychology is a soft science which doesn't conduct experiments with controls nor does it replicate its results.
You're incorrect because these studies did replicate the results with near unerring accuracy. This is what happens when you get hung up on word games about terms like "soft science": this science is conducted, the results show strong correlation which is replicated across all studies, and you no longer have a leg to stand on. Studies cited are re-posted below:
Antecedents and consequences of peer‐rated intelligence - Denissen - 2011 - European Journal of Personality - Wiley Online Library Interpersonal Perceptions of Intelligence in Late Childhood and Early Adolescent Friendships: The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Vol 135, No 1 (tandfonline.com) PERCEIVED INTELLIGENCE IN MARRIED PARTNERS: Ingenta Connect (PDF) Self-Report Measures of Intelligence: Are They Useful as Proxy IQ Tests? (researchgate.net) Gender differences in self-estimated IQ: The need for care in interpreting group data - ScienceDirect
All of which [the studies MgtowDemon referenced] mean nothing. You can throw as many links as you want. Unless you can demonstrate an understanding of I.Q. and that which it attempts to measure, then your links will only inform the assumptions of those who are no more "authorities" on the topic than you or I.
The fact that you think a collection of studies, of which use the scientific method showing their methodologies, all amount to meaning "nothing", is ridiculous. If you have an anti-science stance that prohibits you from engaging with scientific research, then you are not fit for debate.
These "authorities" have shown their workings. This is not a case wherein the studies are behind a paywall and I've said 'just believe me', or I blankly assert that 'the authorities agree with me on this'. You are able to verify the veracity of the claims made, analysing their methodologies and logical conclusions. That is what you should do.
"ecological inference"
This is a word game that is actually meaningful and would give a lot of credence to your argument. Unfortunately, it misaligns with the data I've provided.
I typed this into Google and found this definition: "drawing conclusions about individual-level behavior from aggregate-level data." If there is an issue with this, let me know.
Anyway, if I were to cite research that had the methodology of 'people looked at other people and determined how smart they were.", this would precisely be the ecological inference that you refer to. However, there was an extra step involving an I.Q. tests, of which was then compared to these ecological inferences. *That* is the crucial step because now we can see if these "ecological inferences" have rhyme and reason backed by I.Q, and the answer is that they do. Hence, the studies I provided are not purely "ecological inferences", in fact they are testing to see if the ecological inferences have any merit. Thus, no fallacy was committed.
It either does or it doesn't. Not a statistical probability.
Is correlation a completely worthless metric? You are arguing that it is. Do I need to explain why that isn't correct?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
An I.Q test, is more a test of acuity rather than a test of intelligence.
This was the quote from this post you made On the validity of I.Q. as a measurement of intelligence (debateart.com)
You have asserted this without any sources and only two sentences of argument. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to provide logical, sourced-based justifications for claims like this.
Until then, an I.Q. test is more a test of intelligence.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm not going to feed any gossip about users on this site. I just address the ideas and content.
Alright. Here's the "content" that proves the "idea" that he's a shit-poster who often just posts one-liner hyperlinks, instead of contributing anything useful:
You're welcome.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I guess disrupting the western family as BLM advocates isn't such a great idea according to your study.
Whoah slow down. Don't expect a known shit-poster to have any kind of consistency with his political views. All he wants to do is copy-paste Wikipedia, Youtube and some imgur memes. He actually didn't just post his hyperlink by itself this time (a truly rare feat for him), and instead wrote a whole sentence to accompany his copy-paste, including a bonus half-sentence to introduce his hyperlink.
If you ask for logical consistency with what he shit-posts with, you might accidentally turn him into a worthwhile poster, and we certainly don't want that.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Meritocracies work just fine in Jingoist nations where there is only one tribe comprised of one nation.
That's actually fair enough. Perhaps you do understand after all.
Trouble is, how do we get these Western nations to this stage? Promoting a 'White America policy' isn't something non-whites will readily accept.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
In a meritocracy, skin color means nothing. Either you can do a task competently or you can not.No DNA testing required.
This loses hard to racial in-group bias. If races are only bothered whether their "own kind" gets into power/get resources/wins, and you're worried about having an even playing field, eventually you'll lose on the even playing field, a member of the racial in-group gets into power, and then gives his/her "own" a lot of free stuff and advantages, and thus destroy the even playing field. Apart from people who have been brainwashed into believing in individualism (mostly White people), this is how people behave.
Take for example Jewish people. Keep in mind this isn't to bash Jews, because every other racial group would do this if they could. Jews are the most competent race in the world, in regards to intelligence, with an average I.Q. ranging from 108-115, depending on the study you look at. This often makes them the best candidate for jobs, in meritocracies, particularly the more cerebral ones which tend to attract a lot of power. Then they get the job, start practicing racial in-group bias for their own kind, and suddenly you end up with a case like America's where Jews own 50% of the largest corporations in America, despite being 2% of the population. Then the other racial groups gets mad that Jews control everything, then they make up stuff like "Jews are Satanic" or "All Jewish people are scamming liars", not understanding at all what happened, and so the Jews get kicked out of the country (or worse).
This has happened over 100 times in history just with the Jews alone, and will continue to happen with any person with a racial in-group bias that gets into power because people, like you, don't understand why meritocracies don't work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
At least you know who the clique is now.
Absolutely.
This post of yours was prophetic: TOS infractions engaged in and ignored by a moderator (debateart.com)
Created:
-->
@Athias
"Black" is not a race. Even if one uses it as a placeholder for "African descent," then believing the anthropologists would also have you believe that everyone is of African descent.
This is incorrect. What you have committed is the continuum fallacy in that you've implied that because it's possible to place all races into a broad category of "African descent" (which is debatable anyway), then there are no phenotypical distinctions if we sub-divided into "race". This fallacy is best understood by the layman when it is compared to colours. Sure, red, blue, green, orange etc. can be broadly defined as "colours" (the human race), but that doesn't mean we are not able to divide them into smaller groups of shades of the same colour (races). Similar to how it makes no sense to say there are distinctions between colours therefore we can't divide them, the same logic can be applied to human races.
This study breaks down those broad generalised genetically distinct groups (African, European and East Asian) into smaller genetically distinct groups https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180234/ . Notice how "African" is a distinct category amongst "European" and "Asian", which shows that we can have racial classifications that are not solely "African descent". Figure 4 shows a further breaking down of "African, European and East Asian", and even African has distinct racial groups within it.
All of this is to ignore the fact that differing groups of humans evolved in different geographical regions throughout the world, and expecting them all to be precisely the same is belief in magic.
No, it is not a "scientifically verifiable fact." The Intelligence Quotient, i.e. I.Q., is a psychometric, which in itself is an oxymoron. Psychology isn't a hard science. That means that there are no controls, and the results aren't replicable. This is the reason that the relationship between I.Q. and overall "success" typically has a covariance of just 0.3. Not to mention, despite years of effort, a causal link between genetic inheritance and I.Q. has not been and will never be substantiated. The I.Q. is the psychologist's bar trick. It doesn't measure intelligence. At best, it gives some speculative gauge of classroom discipline. Trying to quantify intelligence is like trying quantify "dancing skills" or a person's "appearance." It's great for entertainment, but reckless when taken seriously.
Whether I.Q. is a psychometric, and whether it's a hard science or not, isn't particularly relevant. There is no doubt that the science shows us I.Q. isn't a perfect measurement of intelligence, but that's besides the point. What we're interested in whether I.Q. probably measures something of practical importance, and the answer to that question is 'yes'.
The question then becomes how accurate is I.Q. is in determining that. Whilst you've failed to reference any scientific material, I've already written an OP on covering the correlation between "success" and I.Q. On the validity of I.Q. as a measurement of intelligence (debateart.com) . Depending on what you define as success (education level, job title, income level etc.), the correlate varies and isn't a static "0.3" as you've asserted without a shred of evidence.
I.Q. correlates even better with what we colloquially define as intelligent. In a variety of peer and self-rated estimates of intelligence, which were all followed by taking an actual I.Q. test, these metrics of intelligence aligned Antecedents and consequences of peer‐rated intelligence - Denissen - 2011 - European Journal of Personality - Wiley Online Library Interpersonal Perceptions of Intelligence in Late Childhood and Early Adolescent Friendships: The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Vol 135, No 1 (tandfonline.com) PERCEIVED INTELLIGENCE IN MARRIED PARTNERS: Ingenta Connect (PDF) Self-Report Measures of Intelligence: Are They Useful as Proxy IQ Tests? (researchgate.net) Gender differences in self-estimated IQ: The need for care in interpreting group data - ScienceDirect
Clearly, despite there not being a perfect causal link, I.Q. most likely measures intelligence. Thus, what is more "reckless" is to ignore statistical probability.
Created:
Posted in:
Acting like a child is the way to go on Dart. If you attempt to make rational arguments using data, you will lose out big time on looking cool in front of your friends. Since you're unable to sit at the back of the classroom on Dart, here is a list of how to stay cool and act like a child:
1) Post Wikipedia articles as one-line responses. DO NOT make the mistake of reading the sources, or even attempting to explain the general argument you're referencing. If it's on Wikipedia, the sources it references don't matter. These are good examples of doing it correctly: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5189-united-states-slaves-were-overall-treated-quite-well?page=3&post_number=58 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5189-united-states-slaves-were-overall-treated-quite-well?page=2&post_number=36 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5189-united-states-slaves-were-overall-treated-quite-well?page=1&post_number=19
2) Use anecdotal evidence wherever possible in place of data. Better yet, spam a giant list of anecdotal evidence without explaining any of it. DO NOT make the mistake of attempting to read all the sources. Just make sure the title supports what you're saying, and then add it to the list. Remember: the bigger the list, the more da- I mean anecdotal evidence you have, which is always better than data: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5189-united-states-slaves-were-overall-treated-quite-well?page=2&post_number=41 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5189-united-states-slaves-were-overall-treated-quite-well?page=3&post_number=61 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5189-united-states-slaves-were-overall-treated-quite-well?page=1&post_number=19
3) If someone asks you to elaborate on any sources you provide to make your argument, say that it's their burden to do so. DO NOT attempt to actually read your sources, as this takes precious time away from completing your homework and playing Fornite https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5189-united-states-slaves-were-overall-treated-quite-well?page=3&post_number=56
4) Remember to look for opportunities to use vulgar language. Everyone thinks you're more intelligent if you can use abusive language. You can win an argument on the spot if you are able to shove a bunch of swearwords into your sentence https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5160-pornography-and-the-destruction-it-causes?page=2&post_number=26 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5160-pornography-and-the-destruction-it-causes?page=2&post_number=28 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5160-pornography-and-the-destruction-it-causes?page=2&post_number=32
Protip: become a moderator so you can abuse people, receive the report for the abuse, and just ignore it. Conflict of interest is for dumb adults.
Created:
Please stop responding to the children. They won't leave if you continue to feed them the attention their parents don't give them.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
No, not right now, as I don't have the time
Oh yeah I'm sure 1 hour of highschool homework a day makes you very busy.
and I using the cited definition of racism earlier, your points are semantic at best.
Wow. Amazing. In me attempting to explain why the definition was faulty, you accurately stated that my points were semantic.
Who ever thought that arguing about definitions would be semantic?
Truly, you are prodigy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Can you please respond to my post directed at you before you pivot?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
This is semantic at best
Bare assertion.
btw, my own IQ scores gave me a 121 as a 12-year-old, when I retook it last year I got 140 back.
Which I.Q. test?
I don't think IQ scores are wrong because I got a low score, I think IQ scores are bad because they're bad
Nice circular reasoning.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
So I replied that I.Q. was more a measure of mental acuity that intelligence.
... without a source and three sentences.
I wonder why you didn't convince me...
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Nah, I think that's your burden.
LOL it's my burden to show the data for the argument you're making?
This is truly a roflcopter moment.
I didn't get specific statistics
We could end the discussion right here.
I got you primary sources detailing the treatment of slavery and such
A more accurate term: anecdotes.
Imagine unironically thinking that anecdotes are better evidence than data xD
Go and find some data on the topic, kiddo, and then come back to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
None of your sources provided the existence of a so-called, "Violence gene"
This is a strawman because I said "violent genes", not "violence gene".
in fact they went on to speculate exactly what caused this drop of violence and what made it specifically seemingly "inheritable".
Do you believe genetics don't influence behaviour?
Not only this, but they do not actually rebuke my own source which it seems you have failed to actually read or at all respond to.
The study you provided said that there was no current evidence to suggest that a gene, or a small number of genes, are accountable for criminal behaviour. It was published in 2003. Since then, in 2015, we have my study which shows a severe drop in criminality as the worst criminals are killed in each generation. Did you understand this time?
Furthermore, since you didn't understand the OP, I never argued that a singular gene or "small number" of genes causes criminality. I argued that a number of genes were eradicated from the genepool, as the criminals were ended. That number of genes could be a medium, large or gigantic amount -- it isn't specified.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
What is it with this site and drive-by comments?
So they were allowed to eat, they learned a language, and they only had to work 54 hours a week as property.
Yes. Free, quality food (better than what they were getting in Africa). Free education (1870's African Americans reached a 20% literally rate nearing a century before Africans in 1950). A moderate working week (considering that they were only picking cotton and not at a super fast rate).
Clearly, whilst slavery is wrong and I don't condone it, the slaves weren't brutality treated for the most part, and actually benefitted a lot for living in a far superior country. Later, when people realised some of the African Americans were intelligent and talented, they earned emancipation and integrated into a truly 1st world country, living ten-fold better than they would have had they stayed in Africa.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
MgtowDemon you are incorrect in your assertions, and you still haven't refuted my points, you bring have points and then don't even completely justify your opinions, your sources are sad at best
I responded to this post https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5189-united-states-slaves-were-overall-treated-quite-well?page=1&post_number=4 , which you said was a "copy and paste" of the message you sent me in PMs, here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5189-united-states-slaves-were-overall-treated-quite-well?page=1&post_number=18
People can then see that none of your subsequent posts address this response to your points.
As we can see, in actuality, you're the one who hasn't responded to me yet.
Seeing that you've read all these (and haven't just rapidly gathered a bunch of articles that seem to support your stance, in order to look smart, all without reading them), could you direct me to the parts wherein data is used to support the points you're making? I hope that I don't need to explain why anecdotes make for bad arguments, either.
Created:
-->
@Crocodile
Why was I spanked in the ass if I got an f on my test?seriously I don’t get it tbh
You don't get it because you're an immature 16 year old.
Off you go.
Created:
tl;dr this is what happens when you let children become moderators.
Ethang5 was right https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5196-tos-infractions-engaged-in-and-ignored-by-a-moderator?page=1&post_number=8
Ragnar (an actual moderator) has responded and made what he believes to be the necessary actions. There is nothing else to discuss. The thread is over.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
As you never responded to the very first objections: You can be racist and not hate that other race, you can be racist and hate the other race.
These terms aren't defined to the point of being debatable, hence this is a non-starter. You need to specify what you mean by "racist" (which you would have known had you read the OP).
you only rebuked a single source in the multitude of sources that disagreed with you.
Yeah I don't consider Youtube videos and links to Google docs rants to be sources LOL.
I'm not clicking on Death's link because he's blocked me (what's the point in conversing with someone who doesn't want a conversation?), and he could rip my I.P. address from it. If he has anything worthwhile to say, he can say it in the post, include of lazily posting random links and not explaining them at all.
I've explained why those definitions those people linked are wrong. If you still disagree purely because a random dictionary said so, you are appealing to authority and not addressing the logic/argumentation I've provided.
this was all started because you couldn't handle the fact that you couldn't convince me of your clearly definitionally racist sentiments.
Can you actually read the OP lol
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
Now that you're behaving yourself, we can have worthwhile discussions. Albeit, *none* of what you said in *either* post about race and I.Q. is referenced. So, like your OP post on masturbation previously, your arguments here are sub-standard.
Brain size means very little when it is slight deviations. Albert Einstein had a smaller than average brain.
Firstly, I.Q. isn't determined wholly by brain size, so you're partially correct. This is a heavily studied topic and there have been 100s of studies on it (including a meta-analysis of a lot of them). Brain size and I.Q. correlate at somewhere between 0.24 and 0.4, depending on the study/studies you look at http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Big-Brained%20article.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668913/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S014976341500250X
Thus, "very little" isn't accurate.
What means more is the way you were raised. If from the time your brain was easily malleable you were constantly fed Mozart, forced to play piano and violin, and did nothing but study astrophysics while taking an IQ test every 2 months... you could potentially be the next Einstein. That is true of any race. It just happens with Asians more frequently.
This is absolutely incorrect.
The last 100 years has produced a lot of studies on monozygotic twins, dizygotic twins, siblings, half-siblings and parent-offspring pairs, and more importantly, how whether they grew up in the same environment affected their I.Q. So, by comparing how similar I.Q. is when they lived in the same house (i.e. same environment), and then comparing that to how similar it is if they were reared apart, and then comparing their resulting I.Q's, behavioural geneticists estimate the I.Q. variation which is determined by genes and environment.
Reviewing more than 200 studies of twin studies, the heritability lies of I.Q. lies between 0.5 and 0.7 in correlation https://www.scribd.com/document/140571400/Bouchard-McGue-2003-Genetic-and-Environmental-Influences-on-Human-Psychological-Differences https://b-ok.cc/book/2782065/daf1e0
Therefore, out of more than 200 studies attempting to determine the environmental impact of I.Q, zero of them support your conclusion that "what means more is the way you were raised".
You definitely could make the case that Asians are smarter on average, just as white people are smarter on average than black people. But I don't know why you should.
I'll give you the answer: you should.
It isn't because of biology, and saying such statements is of no use to anyone. It simply fuels the egos of racists. Non-racists do not care and see no use in pointing it out.
Wrong.
I.Q. meaningfully correlates with job performance http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/PSYC%20651/Huffcutt%20&%20Arthur%20(1994)%20Interview.pdf . Employers would benefit from being able to give potential employees an I.Q. test -- that's useful to someone.
I.Q. is a good predictor of education level, occupation level and income level https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Intelligence-and-socioeconomic-success-A-meta-analytic-review-of-longitudinal-research.pdf . People could take an I.Q. test and see roughly what they can expect from their lives -- that's useful to someone.
I.Q. correlates with school grades https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289615001269 . Rather than berating a kid for doing poorly on a test, thinking that he/she simply didn't study hard enough, it could be that the kid did but simply isn't smart enough -- that's useful to someone.
To prove my point, take all high IQ people of all races together. What makes them high IQ? You will find a lot of similarities across all racial categories. Generally they are wealthier, have high education, play musical instruments, etc...So, perhaps the more productive conversation is, how can we increase wealth and education for all people?Do that, and you will see all IQ rates rise to the point of each race matching the other.
You haven't proven anything at all, nor have you provided any study to back *any* of yours claims.
Here, you've reversed cause and effect. Low I.Q's correlate with lower wealth and lower education. Sure, there is a feedback loop in that these lower I.Q's result in that person ending up in a worse environment, and thereby potentially further lowering I.Q. (because I.Q. is partially determined by the environment, but not nearly to the degree you suggest). But the low I.Q. is largely responsible for them ending up with lower wealth and lower education.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Read the thing below. You can disagree if you want.
The phenomenon that is occurring here racial in-group biases fighting against each other. From a purely literal position, both "Black Lives Matter" and "All Lives Matter" are phrases the majority of people will agree with, but it's the underlying connotations cause people to contest. Focusing purely on "black lives" angers the egalitarians and other non-black races with in-group bias, all because it takes the focus away from their perceived in-groups. For a similar reason, black people get annoyed when you take the focus away from their racial group with "All Lives Matter".
The truth is, when it comes to racial conflict, the details don't matter. It doesn't matter what actually happened with George Floyd. All that matters was that he was killed by a White man, therefore Black people lost out. It doesn't matter what happened with Breonna Taylor. She was a Black woman who was shot by police, there Black people lost out. Perhaps both were cases of injustice. Perhaps neither were.
When it comes to fighting between races, you push the truth when it aids your cause (if you can be bothered to determine it, which most people aren't), and you ignore it when it doesn't. There is no point in discussing these events because most people are not interested in the truth. Instead, they're interested in pushing their own race's agenda, damn everything else.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Lmao, I did not expect to see this on the forum this morning.
I understand it's a rather shocking OP, given the general progressiveness of this site.
I'd say that slavery conditions varied widely. Some house slaves were treated as well as if they were the slave owner's own child. Some field slaves were malnourished, beaten, and slept in overcrowded shacks.
I think I have some data which indicates latter cases were vanishingly rare. The fact that I have nearly everyone else disagreeing with me in this thread, yet only responder has been able to provide a couple anecdotes (one seemingly quite good, mind you), indicates that there simply isn't the breath of data required to make the case that a large number of slaves were treated poorly.
In fact, I've provided data that shows slaves were growing significantly taller, and thus at least the vast majority of them were not malnourished. The beaten point seems to only ever have anecdotal evidence (which could be true, but people have the capacity to lie, especially if they get reparations, attention and sympathy for doing so). Perhaps the "slept in overcrowded shacks" is right -- I haven't seen any data on this.
Difficulty of work would also depend on the type of crop and if the owner was rich enough to purchase better equipment.
Well I provided the data that showed the average yearly slave hours, and that was compared to the 2015 study which showed that children could basically match harvest rate. I think that's enough data to show that the average slave didn't work to the bone. Of course, you'll get the exception where the slaves were, but it all averages out to a pretty reasonable amount of work.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
The words Racism and Racist are just fine, when used appropriately....Just like the words Use and Misuse.
My whole contention is that they cannot be used appropriately. They are political weapons dripping in slanderous vitriol, of which obliterates any rational discussion people might otherwise have. They are also poorly defined so they are able to attack extreme racial hatred (e.g. justifications for a race's genocide), with scientific fact (some races are better at things than others).
However your arrogance and attempts at pedanticism are beginning to make you "look stupid".
You're entitled to this wrong opinion.
Though a pedant would argue that using the term "look stupid" in an imageless medium is stupid.
Thank you for this overly-literal, autistic take. It's such a shame metaphorical language doesn't exist.
Created: