This is the way I see it: if you believe, as you should, that people from different areas are genetically different in physical attributes, it's absolutely retarded to believe that we're all exactly the same when it comes to mental attributes. It's like saying that everyone has the mental capacity of Einstein. It just doesn't make sense.
I hear ya, but the problem is its human nature to exaggerate those differences. The truth is there isn't enough statistical difference to justify making policy along racial lines. Although I actually think a mature society should have some form of eugenics policy to try and control population and weed out congenital diseases, but the discussion always devolves to racist nonsense.
Every successful black businessman and every mouth-breathing, white trash, alcoholic of European ancestry pretty much backs up your point on policy.
Eugenics is horse shit, no matter what the intentions eventually it's used to further the power goals of those implementing it. It's human impatience not wanting to wait on evolution. With a little more progress in gene therapy, it won't be necessary anyway.
Gene therapy could be the method to accelerate eugenics.
For the folks who can afford it, gene therapy could create super-humans. Individuals with the genetics for an olympic physique at birth or with the ability to do maths like a Harvard Math professor with a all of the maladaptive genetic conditions that dispose people to alzhiemers, disease or illness removed.
Truthfully, this genetic foundation would only give you the possibility of achieving the true potential of this advantage. But just as children born to rich parents have financial advantages, infants born into these families could be given Genetic advantages.
You could be asked to provide evidence of your improved genetic state for particular jobs or to date someone.
It wouldn't just be the rich though. Once the rich have it, and once enough rich buy it, the price comes down. Like how only rich people could afford a house, a car, computers, cell phones, or genetic testing. Each in turn became easily attainable for the average person. Not an issue.
What all 5 of them that can have lower SAT scores than any other race and still get into college. We already have eugenic policy.
Oh, and next time try and make the black boy the dumb, ghetto alcoholic in your weak argument. I know that's too hard a stretch to insult your black masters.
I don't associate with white trash, ghetto thugs, or mojados. I grew up in shit neighborhoods all over the country, and had to leave the vast majority of my friends behind. Mostly white kids who ended up in and out of prison with various addictions.
Today I do have a life full of white, black, hispanic, and asian Americans, friends from a multitude of other countries where I've lived and worked. It's too bad you never escaped the trailer park. You should see the world. It's so much bigger than the parking lot of the Piggly-Wiggly.
You are no better than the alcoholic black ghetto gang-banger thug. Hell, you're a lot worse. You waste your intellect in a pathetic hate-induced spiral of frustration, blaming others for all the ills of the world when you are no better than they are. At least they are operating at their potential. At least when I see them I know what they are, they don't hide and pretend. Coward.
Every successful black businessman and every mouth-breathing, white trash, alcoholic of European ancestry pretty much backs up your point on policy.
Do you understand the basic relation between "average" and "exception"?
Yes, there are whites at the low end of the bell curve. Yes, there are blacks at the high end of the bell curve. The point remains that the averages, that is most people, fall into the average. The white average is higher than the black average.
I think that you'll find a common trend in history: there usually isn't a correct decision that's equally pleasant for all parties. The pre-hippy generations understood this.
As it stands the education of Whites and Asians is suffering because all kids must pass, so the curriculum needs to be lowered and simplified so even the lowest end of the black bell curve can pass it.
It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture. It's not genetic, it's identity psychology. It's not cool to succeed in school in black culture. Has nothing to do with genetics or any of that other bullshit. Case in point, in white cultures in the South where education is not valued and parents are not involved in kids' lives the same patterns emerge that exist in inner city schools.
All you have to do is make education merit based. No need to even look at race. Separate classes based on performance and aptitude, the ones that can't hack by high school get trade school options. Easy. Strict grading, no curves, purely performance based results. You reward successful culture, you change the culture.
Common core isn't the answer, neither is the drivel you are selling.
It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture.
Did you read anything in the post? What I posted there I selected specifically because it controls both for socioeconomic environment and therefore against ghetto culture.
It's not genetic, it's identity psychology.
That's nice to think, but please, give me your logic on how all of the human branches developed identical brain function despite 135,000 years of separation on different continents.
Better yet, how feasible is it that despite differences in brain size and morphology the function of black, white and asian brains are exactly identical? How does that make sense?
We already know there are race-specific differences in morphology. We already know that East Africans are better runners because of their physicality that differs from Asians, Whites and even other Africans.
I provided two sources that state differences in black, white and asian brain morphology. Please don't post like you're the one coming to the table with content or you're the more rational / sane one.
Again:
"...the argument that the 100,000 years or so since the dispersal out of Africa were insufficient for the evolution of genetic differences is invalid. To create and IQ difference of, say, 15 points between two populations in 100,000 years, natural selection would have to drive their IQs apart by only 0.004 points every generation - about 1% of the selective pressure in late 20th-century America."
Here's another study that controlled for both culture and socioeconomic status. Not like you'll read it
anyway, might as well add it though.
All you have to do is make education merit based.
Yeah, I agree.
No need to even look at race.
Maybe it's possible that whites, asians and blacks learn in different ways and there should be different teaching strategies for each so they can reach their potential? Maybe blacks don't benefit from teaching styles that benefit from whites and asians.
Maybe it's possible that whites, asians and blacks learn in different ways and there should be different teaching strategies for each so they can reach their potential? Maybe blacks don't benefit from teaching styles that benefit from whites and asians.
Maybe it's possible that no two people think alike at all, and shoving some black kid who is the next Thomas Sowell or Allan West into the same mix as all the inner city kids isn't a great idea either. Unless you are a racist cunt and just don't like any black people, even blacks who excel. Or maybe especially blacks who excel.
I don't want my kids going to school with white trash any more than I want them going to school with ghetto ass thugs or mojados from the barrio. So long as the kids are all taking education seriously, and their parents are involved, I don't give a fuck what color they are and a simple minded approach based on race is pathetically degenerate.
Maybe it's possible that no two people think alike at all
But it's more likely that populations who developed side by side and in a different selective environment with exclusive gene interaction probably developed more similar cognitive function than somebody from a distinct, geographically and culturally separated population with it's own unique selective pressure and forces of drift.
I don't want my kids going to school with white trash
Well I just gave you two sources that state that poor whites outscore rich blacks on the LSAT, SAT and numerous tests that are part of the Ohio k-12 curriculum. Unlike poor blacks, poor whites don't get to take advantage of programs specially tailored to give blacks a boost like affirmative action.
Segregation is a good thing. Once again, silly me for bringing research and citations to the table when vague generic egalitarian shit responses that don't even address specific points of yours get more upvotes.
Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence
Multiculturalism and the benefits of "diversity" are based on nothing. Successful civilizations and societies are either racially / ethnically homogeneous or highly segregated. But I bet you know better than that, right? Come on, let's hear some tired generic slogans about how great diversity is.
Here's some more shit you and the people upvoting you won't read.
Cultural pluralism [i.e., ethnic diversity],” notes Crawford Young, “is a quintessentially modern phenomenon.”
Politics of Cultural Pluralism and Ethnic Conflict:
Continuing ethnic tensions in the early years of the twenty-first century seem to confirm Mahabun ul Haq’s prediction—that wars between “people" (ethnic, religious, racial or cultural groups) will continue to far out-number wars between nation-states.
''Classic accounts of modernization, particularly those influenced by Marx, predicted that the old basis for divisions, such as tribe and religion, would be swept aside. As hundreds of millions of people poured from rural to urban areas worldwide, during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, it was expected that new allianceswould be formed, based on social class in particular.''
Scholars point out that fear of and hostility toward other ethnic groups are far older and often more entrenched than modern principles of tolerance or equality under the law.“ No matter how we may wish for it otherwise, we did not leave violence against outsiders behind us as our nations became modern and democratic.”4
Indeed, over the past 50 years, the most frequent settings for violent conflict have not been wars between sovereign states, but rather internal strife tied to cultural, tribal, religious, or other ethnic animosities. Between 1989 and 2004, there were 118 military conflicts in the world. Of those, only seven were between nation-states and the remaining 111 occurred within a single state, a large portion of which involved ethnic conflict.6
According to another recent estimate, “nearly two-thirds of all [the world’s] armed conflicts [at that time] included an ethnic component. [In fact], ethnic conflicts [were] four times more likely than interstate wars.”7 Another study claimed that 80 percent of “major conflicts” in the 1990s had an ethnic element.
Then what are you afraid of? A purely merit-based system would, if you are right, achieve the same end. If you are not right, there would still be blacks going to school with whites, and you just can't have that, even if the black kids are intelligent, motivated, moral individuals?
even if the black kids are intelligent, motivated, moral individuals?
You'd still have the social dynamic of whites feeling out of place and facing adversity in majority black schools and vice versa. The ideal would be an environment that empowers whites, asians, blacks and whatever ethnicity they are. This is increasingly difficult when they're all thrown in the same school together. Again, these are basic failings of multiculturalism.
Ethnic identity gives teens daily happiness boost
Adolescents with positive feelings toward their ethnic group say they are happier on a daily basis than those who have a more negative attitude about their ethnic identity. The study, involving 415 ninth-graders from Chinese and Mexican backgrounds, shows the protective effects of ethnic identity on daily psychological well-being.
''The researchers focused on adolescents because that is when identity issues are at the forefront. Kiang said the positive effects of ethnic pride found in this study could suggest that parents and society in general should encourage strong ethnic identity in families.''
Study Finds That Blacks With Strong Racial Identity Are Happier
Black people who identify more strongly with their racial identity are generally happier, according to a study led by psychology researchers at Michigan State University.
''The study also explored the reasons behind the connection. Yap said it may be fuelled by a sense of belongingness – that is, blacks with a strong sense of racial identity may feel more connected to their racial group, which in turn makes them happy.''
Ethnic-Racial Socialization Has an Indirect Effect on Self-Esteem for Asian American Emerging Adults
The findings of the present study contribute to the discussion of the role that perceived ethnic-racial socialization plays in Asian Americans’ positive development.
Perceived ethnic-racial socialization, ethnic identity, and social competence among Asian American late adolescents.
They also found that perceived cultural socialization-pluralism was significantly related to social competence through ethnic identity. Results support the importance of perceived ethnic-racial socialization for Asian American development.
What are you afraid of? A merit based system would give you the same result, if you were right. But you aren't and you know it. Your motivation is racism and segregation, the rest of this horse shit is working backwards from that conclusion, not the other way around.
You can have a culture different from your race. I know, don't let that concept give you a nose bleed, but it's true.
Because there'd still be animalistic 70 IQ niggers running around ruining the education experience for everybody else.
No they wouldn't. They'd be put in schools with other people failing to perform, or given a shot at a trade school.
Meanwhile your system would put people who are far superior to YOU in the position of being lumped in with the troglodytes of their own race. It's exactly as unjust and immoral as the system we have now. You judge and condemn based on race and not ethics, behavior, or intelligence. You are worse than the thing you hate.
So what about me, surrounded by and perpetually disappointed by the lack of genius in my white bretheren? Am I supposed to put that away and work harder to support them as my white brothers (as David Lane says) like I already do other races, or continue on my "keep up or GTFO" path with no racial preference?
I'm genuinely interested on your perspective—no snark.
Once again, silly me for bringing research and citations to the table when vague generic egalitarian shit responses that don't even address specific points of yours get more upvotes.
I don't see the other guy getting all that many upvotes. It's mostly just your obviously obsession-driven horse shit getting downvotes.
Yeah, I have. Epi-genetics aren't a magical ability that turns retards into geniuses, though. I figured the test scores I linked that include socio-economic status would factor in the higher-end of epi-genetic capability.
Yeah, like I said, environment effects IQ, sure, but it can only do so much.
I've heard that IQ at age 18 correlates with parental IQ level more than any other factor, I'll have to do some digging to find out where I heard that.
Yeah, but parental IQ correlating with offspring's IQ isn't 100% genetic, either. Parents who value education and intellectual pursuits will create an environment to bring that out in their kids, so it's tough to tell in that case how much is inherent potential and how much is environmental.
Impossible to tell exactly at this point, but as anyone who has had an education in genetics (we all know that leaves Fidena out) can tell, not very much genotypically. Every time a parent creates offspring they're shaking up a pool of millions of their genes and far fewer of them are "racially theirs" than are shared in common by the subspecies.
In fact molecular processes like random segregation of alleles and chromosomal crossover not only increase differences even more (exponentially), but completely obliterate the silliness argued by uneducated race obsessors who say it's better to stick to your own kind. These processes are meant to increase the overall health, viability and adaptability of any and all individuals in the subspecies (a subspecies which, of course, has never shown any signs of interracial reproductive isolation or barriers). Same principle as bacteria's abundant variation to effect a shotgun approach that counters novel molecules that are lethal to them.
The truth is there isn't enough statistical difference to justify making policy along racial lines.
Are you serious? There's an incredible abundance. Much more than I've seen that make a case for egalitarianism.
This weird 'flat earth' liberal egalitarian fantasy land version of reality so many people trick themselves into believing is a weird as shit phenomenon. I haven't found one data set, whether it be standardized testing or IQ scores, or even crime statistics that support racial egalitarianism, and not even between just whites and blacks. The hierarchy, without fail and around the globe is Asians -> Whites -> Blacks, with latinos inbetween whites and blacks where it's counted.
I generally trust the old racialists than champions of egalitarianism like Stephen Jay Gould and Franz Boas, both of which who lied yet are cited as if they 'debunked' the old racialists of the time. Lewontin is another one, who misinterpreted at best and misconstrued his data at worse to create the fallacy named after him "there is more variation within than between".
"...the argument that the 100,000 years or so since the dispersal out of Africa were insufficient for the evolution of genetic differences is invalid. To create and IQ difference of, say, 15 points between two populations in 100,000 years, natural selection would have to drive their IQs apart by only 0.004 points every generation - about 1% of the selective pressure in late 20th-century America."
This page goes rather in depth into the issue and cites a lot of studies and genetic explanations with citations and the like.
These test scores control for socio-economic environment:
Affluent black children still score lower than poor white children on Ohio achievement test in grades K-12.
On the LSAT the case is much the same. Blacks from the richest economic category get outscored by whites from the lowest economic category.
Only 61% of blacks pass their state's bar exam on the first try, whereas the number for whites is 91%. These are college-educated law school graduates!
Only 58% of blacks pass Step 1 of the US Medical Licensing Exam on the first try, whereas the number for whites is 93%. These are college-educated medical students!
Some differences in white and black brain morphology:
"Moreover, volumetric MRI analysis also shows region-specific volume differences in the cerebellum, amygdala, and orbital frontal cortex between the African-Americans and Caucasians [4], and in the widespread frontal and temporal cortical regions, basal ganglia, and midbrain between Chinese and Caucasians [5]."
"The A118G polymorphism was associated with dispositional sensitivity to rejection in the entire sample and in the fMRI subsample. Consistent with these results, G allele carriers showed greater reactivity to social rejection in neural regions previously shown to be involved in processing social pain as well as the unpleasantness of physical pain, particularly the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) and anterior insula. Furthermore, dACC activity mediated the relationship between the A118G polymorphism and dispositional sensitivity to rejection, suggesting that this is a critical site for µ-opioid-related influence on social pain. Taken together, these data suggest that the A118G polymorphism specifically, and the µ-opioid receptor more generally, are involved in social pain in addition to physical pain. "
"The new polymorphism, occurs in highest frequencies in East Asians, and in lowest frequencies in sub-Saharan Africans, with Europeans in between."
Edit: How about you guys come up with content to counter this instead of downvoting on knee-jerk emotional response? What have egalitarians provided you with to make you feel skeptical of this information?
All mainstream, official sources that are easily verifiable. Don't be scared. Have any problems with it, I'll be free to address them.
Maybe if we faced the music and realized there are different levels of ability and you're not going to make all kids geniuses we could plan accordingly.
Did I say anything about that? You completely jumped the gun with your ready-made wall of shite. For the record I am most definitely not one of the "no child left behind" idealists. I fully support segregating kids based on ability, and if that means some kids fall through the cracks, thats the price you pay so that the majority can reach their potential. What I'm not saying is that anyone ever should be segregated based on their race.
It wouldn't be racist since the reason for their being in the lower tier would be their ability, not their race. If you think a persons ability is determined by their race, well say hi to Fidena above me.
Honestly, that's just a typical 'hands over your ears' response. And it plays exactly into my hypothetical example - the minute that there were disproportionate numbers of blacks being represented in something that was anything other than positive, you'd be called a racist for creating the hierarchy, regardless of the intention. I can't tell if you're being intentionally ironic, but the stats that Fidena presented would actually put blacks in the lower tier at disproportionate rates to whites.
*Here's my bigger problem with this shit. You can point to smart, successful black people, and say that it's absolutely wrong to generalize. Meanwhile, it's completely acceptable to point to inbred southern hicks to show that white people can be retarded. Why can't we just be honest? I'm not saying every black guy is a thug nigger when I talk about black guys in general, but a lot more blacks are that way compared to white guys. Maybe we should qualify every statement about a group with a seinfeld-esque "not that they're all like that" but it's really nitpicking to point out the outliers to prove a point.
Hands over ears, how so? All Fidena's stats prove is that blacks perform worse in standardised tests, and then try to infer that its due to their inferior mental capability. I don't agree with that conclusion. Even if you could prove an inherent difference in intelligence between the races, and even if that difference was significant you still would have to prove that is the main factor in determining your performance in school.
Just think about your own experience: what do you think was the main contributing factor to your grades? Was it proportional to how much you studied and paid attention in class? or how much melanin was in your skin? Having a strict, egalitarian education system where blacks end up stuck in the lower classes might force society to ask why they are underperforming rather than just blaming it on racism.
It's hands over your ears because you choose to dismiss hard stats by creating your own problem instead, which is impossible to quantify. The fact that sub-saharan africans have a significantly lower IQ in all given variations of the test, and at all ages, has nothing to do with the education system.
And when you say things like:
Was it proportional to how much you studied and paid attention in class? or how much melanin was in your skin?
You're turning it into a skin color issue again, rather than a brain chemistry issue. If you believe in evolution, then you know about selective breeding. Africans favored physical superiority while most European societies favored intelligence. It has nothing to do with the color of their skin, it's the environments that they evolved in.
54 comments
8 opiesucks 2013-09-26
loving Norton going "right" and "no i agree" but then saying the opposite opinion. in his eyes, thats him being open and fair
5 bouras 2013-09-26
You can tell that anthony is the Alpha and jimmy is the beta.
3 pbpble 2013-09-26
This is the way I see it: if you believe, as you should, that people from different areas are genetically different in physical attributes, it's absolutely retarded to believe that we're all exactly the same when it comes to mental attributes. It's like saying that everyone has the mental capacity of Einstein. It just doesn't make sense.
11 jags85 2013-09-26
I hear ya, but the problem is its human nature to exaggerate those differences. The truth is there isn't enough statistical difference to justify making policy along racial lines. Although I actually think a mature society should have some form of eugenics policy to try and control population and weed out congenital diseases, but the discussion always devolves to racist nonsense.
16 Autorotator 2013-09-26
Every successful black businessman and every mouth-breathing, white trash, alcoholic of European ancestry pretty much backs up your point on policy.
Eugenics is horse shit, no matter what the intentions eventually it's used to further the power goals of those implementing it. It's human impatience not wanting to wait on evolution. With a little more progress in gene therapy, it won't be necessary anyway.
3 mrlithic 2013-09-26
Gene therapy could be the method to accelerate eugenics.
For the folks who can afford it, gene therapy could create super-humans. Individuals with the genetics for an olympic physique at birth or with the ability to do maths like a Harvard Math professor with a all of the maladaptive genetic conditions that dispose people to alzhiemers, disease or illness removed.
Truthfully, this genetic foundation would only give you the possibility of achieving the true potential of this advantage. But just as children born to rich parents have financial advantages, infants born into these families could be given Genetic advantages.
You could be asked to provide evidence of your improved genetic state for particular jobs or to date someone.
The ramifications of this are pretty big.
10 Slippery_Slope_Guy 2013-09-26
Are you saying we should create super kids?
7 Autorotator 2013-09-26
I saw GATTACA too.
It wouldn't just be the rich though. Once the rich have it, and once enough rich buy it, the price comes down. Like how only rich people could afford a house, a car, computers, cell phones, or genetic testing. Each in turn became easily attainable for the average person. Not an issue.
1 packitchofsositch 2013-09-26
"I never saved anything for the way back"
BOOO!
1 Autorotator 2013-09-26
Righties don't hold it with their left hand.
-5 hithat 2013-09-26
What all 5 of them that can have lower SAT scores than any other race and still get into college. We already have eugenic policy.
Oh, and next time try and make the black boy the dumb, ghetto alcoholic in your weak argument. I know that's too hard a stretch to insult your black masters.
5 Autorotator 2013-09-26
I don't associate with white trash, ghetto thugs, or mojados. I grew up in shit neighborhoods all over the country, and had to leave the vast majority of my friends behind. Mostly white kids who ended up in and out of prison with various addictions.
Today I do have a life full of white, black, hispanic, and asian Americans, friends from a multitude of other countries where I've lived and worked. It's too bad you never escaped the trailer park. You should see the world. It's so much bigger than the parking lot of the Piggly-Wiggly.
You are no better than the alcoholic black ghetto gang-banger thug. Hell, you're a lot worse. You waste your intellect in a pathetic hate-induced spiral of frustration, blaming others for all the ills of the world when you are no better than they are. At least they are operating at their potential. At least when I see them I know what they are, they don't hide and pretend. Coward.
-8 Fidena 2013-09-26
Do you understand the basic relation between "average" and "exception"?
Yes, there are whites at the low end of the bell curve. Yes, there are blacks at the high end of the bell curve. The point remains that the averages, that is most people, fall into the average. The white average is higher than the black average.
6 Autorotator 2013-09-26
So long as there is an exception, there can be no just policy. You understand that don't you?
-4 Know_Ur-Role 2013-09-26
It's averages you retard.
Those exceptions are outliers, holy fuck take a stats class.
4 Autorotator 2013-09-26
The point isn't the stats you fuckstain, it's the morality of imposing policy while ignoring the outliers. Go fuck a moving train.
-9 Know_Ur-Role 2013-09-26
Oh eat a dick you bleeding heart faggot.
-5 Fidena 2013-09-26
I think that you'll find a common trend in history: there usually isn't a correct decision that's equally pleasant for all parties. The pre-hippy generations understood this.
As it stands the education of Whites and Asians is suffering because all kids must pass, so the curriculum needs to be lowered and simplified so even the lowest end of the black bell curve can pass it.
5 Autorotator 2013-09-26
It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture. It's not genetic, it's identity psychology. It's not cool to succeed in school in black culture. Has nothing to do with genetics or any of that other bullshit. Case in point, in white cultures in the South where education is not valued and parents are not involved in kids' lives the same patterns emerge that exist in inner city schools.
All you have to do is make education merit based. No need to even look at race. Separate classes based on performance and aptitude, the ones that can't hack by high school get trade school options. Easy. Strict grading, no curves, purely performance based results. You reward successful culture, you change the culture.
Common core isn't the answer, neither is the drivel you are selling.
-6 Fidena 2013-09-26
Did you read anything in the post? What I posted there I selected specifically because it controls both for socioeconomic environment and therefore against ghetto culture.
That's nice to think, but please, give me your logic on how all of the human branches developed identical brain function despite 135,000 years of separation on different continents.
Better yet, how feasible is it that despite differences in brain size and morphology the function of black, white and asian brains are exactly identical? How does that make sense?
We already know there are race-specific differences in morphology. We already know that East Africans are better runners because of their physicality that differs from Asians, Whites and even other Africans.
I provided two sources that state differences in black, white and asian brain morphology. Please don't post like you're the one coming to the table with content or you're the more rational / sane one.
Again:
Yes, IQ has a lot to do with genetics, sorry.
2004 meta-analysis of reports in Current Directions in Psychological Science gave an overall estimate of around .85 for 18-year-olds and older.[8] The New York Times Magazine has listed about three quarters as a figure held by the majority of studies.
Here's another study that controlled for both culture and socioeconomic status. Not like you'll read it anyway, might as well add it though.
Yeah, I agree.
Maybe it's possible that whites, asians and blacks learn in different ways and there should be different teaching strategies for each so they can reach their potential? Maybe blacks don't benefit from teaching styles that benefit from whites and asians.
4 Autorotator 2013-09-26
Maybe it's possible that no two people think alike at all, and shoving some black kid who is the next Thomas Sowell or Allan West into the same mix as all the inner city kids isn't a great idea either. Unless you are a racist cunt and just don't like any black people, even blacks who excel. Or maybe especially blacks who excel.
I don't want my kids going to school with white trash any more than I want them going to school with ghetto ass thugs or mojados from the barrio. So long as the kids are all taking education seriously, and their parents are involved, I don't give a fuck what color they are and a simple minded approach based on race is pathetically degenerate.
1 Fidena 2013-09-26
But it's more likely that populations who developed side by side and in a different selective environment with exclusive gene interaction probably developed more similar cognitive function than somebody from a distinct, geographically and culturally separated population with it's own unique selective pressure and forces of drift.
Well I just gave you two sources that state that poor whites outscore rich blacks on the LSAT, SAT and numerous tests that are part of the Ohio k-12 curriculum. Unlike poor blacks, poor whites don't get to take advantage of programs specially tailored to give blacks a boost like affirmative action.
MUH WHITE PRIVILEGE
3 Autorotator 2013-09-26
I'm not defending programs aimed at disproportionally giving advantages to black kids, I'm shitting on your arguments for segregation.
-6 Fidena 2013-09-26
Segregation is a good thing. Once again, silly me for bringing research and citations to the table when vague generic egalitarian shit responses that don't even address specific points of yours get more upvotes.
Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence
Robert Putnam’s sobering new diversity research scares its author.
Multiculturalism and the benefits of "diversity" are based on nothing. Successful civilizations and societies are either racially / ethnically homogeneous or highly segregated. But I bet you know better than that, right? Come on, let's hear some tired generic slogans about how great diversity is.
Here's some more shit you and the people upvoting you won't read.
Cultural pluralism [i.e., ethnic diversity],” notes Crawford Young, “is a quintessentially modern phenomenon.”
Politics of Cultural Pluralism and Ethnic Conflict:
2 Autorotator 2013-09-26
Then what are you afraid of? A purely merit-based system would, if you are right, achieve the same end. If you are not right, there would still be blacks going to school with whites, and you just can't have that, even if the black kids are intelligent, motivated, moral individuals?
1 [deleted] 2013-09-26
[deleted]
-4 Fidena 2013-09-26
You'd still have the social dynamic of whites feeling out of place and facing adversity in majority black schools and vice versa. The ideal would be an environment that empowers whites, asians, blacks and whatever ethnicity they are. This is increasingly difficult when they're all thrown in the same school together. Again, these are basic failings of multiculturalism.
Ethnic identity gives teens daily happiness boost
Study Finds That Blacks With Strong Racial Identity Are Happier
Ethnic-Racial Socialization Has an Indirect Effect on Self-Esteem for Asian American Emerging Adults
Perceived ethnic-racial socialization, ethnic identity, and social competence among Asian American late adolescents.
Racial socialization—messages about ethnic pride, history, and heritage
3 Autorotator 2013-09-26
What are you afraid of? A merit based system would give you the same result, if you were right. But you aren't and you know it. Your motivation is racism and segregation, the rest of this horse shit is working backwards from that conclusion, not the other way around.
You can have a culture different from your race. I know, don't let that concept give you a nose bleed, but it's true.
-2 [deleted] 2013-09-26
[deleted]
5 Autorotator 2013-09-26
No they wouldn't. They'd be put in schools with other people failing to perform, or given a shot at a trade school.
Meanwhile your system would put people who are far superior to YOU in the position of being lumped in with the troglodytes of their own race. It's exactly as unjust and immoral as the system we have now. You judge and condemn based on race and not ethics, behavior, or intelligence. You are worse than the thing you hate.
1 PhilipeNegro 2013-09-26
So what about me, surrounded by and perpetually disappointed by the lack of genius in my white bretheren? Am I supposed to put that away and work harder to support them as my white brothers (as David Lane says) like I already do other races, or continue on my "keep up or GTFO" path with no racial preference?
I'm genuinely interested on your perspective—no snark.
1 Fidena 2013-09-26
Join a workplace that has a lot of affirmative action hires and you'll begin to appreciate your white co-workers in a completely new light?
Also, a side note, most whites are completely black-worshipping pop culture morons, so I can see why you'd have distaste for them.
1 PhilipeNegro 2013-09-26
What does a society do, though? Do I have the stomach for forced mass re-education? I may, but I'm honestly not sure.
0 [deleted] 2013-09-26
[deleted]
2 packitchofsositch 2013-09-26
I don't see the other guy getting all that many upvotes. It's mostly just your obviously obsession-driven horse shit getting downvotes.
0 bouras 2013-09-26
Are japanese smarter than mongols?
1 Fidena 2013-09-26
Don't know, haven't seen any studies on that. I'd assume so.
-1 hithat 2013-09-26
Don't you're hurting house cracker here with all your facts.
1 bouras 2013-09-26
Ever heard of epi-genetics?
0 Fidena 2013-09-26
Yeah, I have. Epi-genetics aren't a magical ability that turns retards into geniuses, though. I figured the test scores I linked that include socio-economic status would factor in the higher-end of epi-genetic capability.
1 bouras 2013-09-26
That is where you were wrong. Not your fault though.
0 Fidena 2013-09-26
Please elaborate then, inform me.
2 bouras 2013-09-26
I dont feel like wasting too much time to educate you but lets just say that epi-genetics has close to nothing to do with how much money you have.
1 Fidena 2013-09-26
Aren't epi-genetics the flexible portion of your genetic potential that environment effects?
1 bouras 2013-09-26
yup.
1 Fidena 2013-09-26
Yeah, like I said, environment effects IQ, sure, but it can only do so much.
I've heard that IQ at age 18 correlates with parental IQ level more than any other factor, I'll have to do some digging to find out where I heard that.
2 CBAnaesthesia 2013-09-26
Yeah, but parental IQ correlating with offspring's IQ isn't 100% genetic, either. Parents who value education and intellectual pursuits will create an environment to bring that out in their kids, so it's tough to tell in that case how much is inherent potential and how much is environmental.
3 packitchofsositch 2013-09-26
Impossible to tell exactly at this point, but as anyone who has had an education in genetics (we all know that leaves Fidena out) can tell, not very much genotypically. Every time a parent creates offspring they're shaking up a pool of millions of their genes and far fewer of them are "racially theirs" than are shared in common by the subspecies.
In fact molecular processes like random segregation of alleles and chromosomal crossover not only increase differences even more (exponentially), but completely obliterate the silliness argued by uneducated race obsessors who say it's better to stick to your own kind. These processes are meant to increase the overall health, viability and adaptability of any and all individuals in the subspecies (a subspecies which, of course, has never shown any signs of interracial reproductive isolation or barriers). Same principle as bacteria's abundant variation to effect a shotgun approach that counters novel molecules that are lethal to them.
It's always a pisser to watch them try, though.
1 [deleted] 2013-09-26
[deleted]
-10 Fidena 2013-09-26
Are you serious? There's an incredible abundance. Much more than I've seen that make a case for egalitarianism.
This weird 'flat earth' liberal egalitarian fantasy land version of reality so many people trick themselves into believing is a weird as shit phenomenon. I haven't found one data set, whether it be standardized testing or IQ scores, or even crime statistics that support racial egalitarianism, and not even between just whites and blacks. The hierarchy, without fail and around the globe is Asians -> Whites -> Blacks, with latinos inbetween whites and blacks where it's counted.
I generally trust the old racialists than champions of egalitarianism like Stephen Jay Gould and Franz Boas, both of which who lied yet are cited as if they 'debunked' the old racialists of the time. Lewontin is another one, who misinterpreted at best and misconstrued his data at worse to create the fallacy named after him "there is more variation within than between".
"...the argument that the 100,000 years or so since the dispersal out of Africa were insufficient for the evolution of genetic differences is invalid. To create and IQ difference of, say, 15 points between two populations in 100,000 years, natural selection would have to drive their IQs apart by only 0.004 points every generation - about 1% of the selective pressure in late 20th-century America."
Source for that.
This page goes rather in depth into the issue and cites a lot of studies and genetic explanations with citations and the like.
These test scores control for socio-economic environment:
Affluent black children still score lower than poor white children on Ohio achievement test in grades K-12.
On the LSAT the case is much the same. Blacks from the richest economic category get outscored by whites from the lowest economic category.
Only 61% of blacks pass their state's bar exam on the first try, whereas the number for whites is 91%. These are college-educated law school graduates!
Only 58% of blacks pass Step 1 of the US Medical Licensing Exam on the first try, whereas the number for whites is 93%. These are college-educated medical students!
Some differences in white and black brain morphology:
"Moreover, volumetric MRI analysis also shows region-specific volume differences in the cerebellum, amygdala, and orbital frontal cortex between the African-Americans and Caucasians [4], and in the widespread frontal and temporal cortical regions, basal ganglia, and midbrain between Chinese and Caucasians [5]."
"The A118G polymorphism was associated with dispositional sensitivity to rejection in the entire sample and in the fMRI subsample. Consistent with these results, G allele carriers showed greater reactivity to social rejection in neural regions previously shown to be involved in processing social pain as well as the unpleasantness of physical pain, particularly the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) and anterior insula. Furthermore, dACC activity mediated the relationship between the A118G polymorphism and dispositional sensitivity to rejection, suggesting that this is a critical site for µ-opioid-related influence on social pain. Taken together, these data suggest that the A118G polymorphism specifically, and the µ-opioid receptor more generally, are involved in social pain in addition to physical pain. "
"The new polymorphism, occurs in highest frequencies in East Asians, and in lowest frequencies in sub-Saharan Africans, with Europeans in between."
Edit: How about you guys come up with content to counter this instead of downvoting on knee-jerk emotional response? What have egalitarians provided you with to make you feel skeptical of this information?
All mainstream, official sources that are easily verifiable. Don't be scared. Have any problems with it, I'll be free to address them.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/05/why-race-as-a-biological-construct-matters/
8 jags85 2013-09-26
Did I say anything about that? You completely jumped the gun with your ready-made wall of shite. For the record I am most definitely not one of the "no child left behind" idealists. I fully support segregating kids based on ability, and if that means some kids fall through the cracks, thats the price you pay so that the majority can reach their potential. What I'm not saying is that anyone ever should be segregated based on their race.
1 pbpble 2013-09-26
But if kids were segregated based on their ability, and the lowest tier was made up mostly of blacks, wouldn't that be called out as racist?
3 jags85 2013-09-26
It wouldn't be racist since the reason for their being in the lower tier would be their ability, not their race. If you think a persons ability is determined by their race, well say hi to Fidena above me.
1 pbpble 2013-09-26
Honestly, that's just a typical 'hands over your ears' response. And it plays exactly into my hypothetical example - the minute that there were disproportionate numbers of blacks being represented in something that was anything other than positive, you'd be called a racist for creating the hierarchy, regardless of the intention. I can't tell if you're being intentionally ironic, but the stats that Fidena presented would actually put blacks in the lower tier at disproportionate rates to whites.
*Here's my bigger problem with this shit. You can point to smart, successful black people, and say that it's absolutely wrong to generalize. Meanwhile, it's completely acceptable to point to inbred southern hicks to show that white people can be retarded. Why can't we just be honest? I'm not saying every black guy is a thug nigger when I talk about black guys in general, but a lot more blacks are that way compared to white guys. Maybe we should qualify every statement about a group with a seinfeld-esque "not that they're all like that" but it's really nitpicking to point out the outliers to prove a point.
0 jags85 2013-09-26
Hands over ears, how so? All Fidena's stats prove is that blacks perform worse in standardised tests, and then try to infer that its due to their inferior mental capability. I don't agree with that conclusion. Even if you could prove an inherent difference in intelligence between the races, and even if that difference was significant you still would have to prove that is the main factor in determining your performance in school.
Just think about your own experience: what do you think was the main contributing factor to your grades? Was it proportional to how much you studied and paid attention in class? or how much melanin was in your skin? Having a strict, egalitarian education system where blacks end up stuck in the lower classes might force society to ask why they are underperforming rather than just blaming it on racism.
2 pbpble 2013-09-26
It's hands over your ears because you choose to dismiss hard stats by creating your own problem instead, which is impossible to quantify. The fact that sub-saharan africans have a significantly lower IQ in all given variations of the test, and at all ages, has nothing to do with the education system.
And when you say things like:
You're turning it into a skin color issue again, rather than a brain chemistry issue. If you believe in evolution, then you know about selective breeding. Africans favored physical superiority while most European societies favored intelligence. It has nothing to do with the color of their skin, it's the environments that they evolved in.
-2 Acatalepsia 2013-09-26
Someone should cross post this to /r/badscience
-4 jhohcable 2013-09-26
The man makes a good point I say!