Unpopular Opinions.

smegmar

Well done Cavehill, it's good to see some unpopular opinions well researched and backed up with a good argument.

To often people jump on the "It's racist" point and can't see an underlying reality. Yea African blacks lack some amount of cranial capacity, and abstract thought however in physical fields (sport) and music blacks win hands down.

It's about time we recognise there are some traits that on average give one race advantages or disadvantages, and use that for our collective gain.

Who is the fastest sprinter in the world: Usain Bolt Jamaican of African black decent.

Who is the fastest swimmer in the world: Michael Phelps, American, of White European decent.

If I need someone to sprint and I know nothing more then the colour of candidates skin, I won't voluntarily blind myself to be politically correct. Likewise if I need someone to do math I'll pick the guy with a Asian name.

It's a bit like betting on horses, you can only have indicators of potential speed of the horse, and never know for sure. However you're still going to bet knowing that you're playing on the statistics.

smegmar

On the topic of "Politically correct" and "Racism" I'll ask all those against me a question....

Which is superior Blue or Green?

I'm not asking which is your favorite, but which is the better and which is inferior.

The true answer is there is no superior, but if I awoke some morning and found the sky was green and the grass was blue, I'd know something has gone wrong.

wonderfulname

smegmar wrote: »

To often people jump on the "It's racist" point and can't see an underlying reality. Yea African blacks lack some amount of cranial capacity, and abstract thought however in physical fields (sport) and music blacks win hands down.

Em, that's not what lower IQ on average actually means.

It's about time we recognise there are some traits that on average give one race advantages or disadvantages, and use that for our collective gain.

How could this be used to our "collective gain"?

If I need someone to sprint and I know nothing more then the colour of candidates skin, I won't voluntarily blind myself to be politically correct. Likewise if I need someone to do math I'll pick the guy with a Asian name.

That's completely stupid, if you need someone to do maths just ask who's good at it, if you need someone to run from a group of non runners pick the one with the greatest overall fitness, there are so many relevant deciding factors before you bring up minor differences in racial averages.

It's a bit like betting on horses, you can only have indicators of potential speed of the horse, and never know for sure. However you're still going to bet knowing that you're playing on the statistics.

Not really, it's a bit like betting on a horse based on the fact he's Bay and hence more likely to be descended from Red Rum than the other horses, the probability is minute and you're better off looking at his history, parentage and jockey.

keano_afc

I really cant understand the fuss about Lone Parent allowance being cut. In my opinion, it is a financial reward for irresponsibly having children outside a stable relationship and should be cut altogether. My wife and I have one child, which we quite rightly receive no weekly payment for. Our neighbour, who has a boyfiend and they both work, receives a weekly payment for her child as she is unmarried. How can that be right?

wonderfulname

Tax credits for married couples - Why do they get free money when it costs less per head to keep two people than one?

Cavehill Red

wonderfulname wrote: »

Did you even read my post?

Judging by your complete failure to address anything in my last post, I'm going to be generous and suggest you didn't read it (wherein not only did I demonstrate I read your post, but answered it conclusively.)

The alternative interpretation would be that you have no response that doesn't conflict with your own prejudged ideology on the matter.

az2wp0sye65487

wonderfulname wrote: »

Tax credits for married couples - Why do they get free money when it costs less per head to keep two people than one?

To encourage marriage

wonderfulname

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Judging by your complete failure to address anything in my last post, I'm going to be generous and suggest you didn't read it (wherein not only did I demonstrate I read your post, but answered it conclusively.)

The alternative interpretation would be that you have no response that doesn't conflict with your own prejudged ideology on the matter.

No, you responded to what you assumed was an argument against everything you said, I can only assume you are as biased as I in reading what I wrote, let's try again; you cannot judge the individual on the basis of a collective average, so it's not an unpopular opinion to cite research that says black people on average have lower IQs, and it's not racist, you'd have to be dense to think it was, however it becomes racist when someone uses this information to prejudge an individual (which you didn't do by the way), you are for some reason being defensive towards a deserved negative backlash to the latter position when you are pushing the former, which makes no sense.

The implication of the information you chose to present as a personal experience of black people still stands as racist, it may merely be in the way you phrased it or you might be confident in tarring all people of one colour with the same brush, but it's not a valid point as it stands and you did put it very poorly.

Cavehill Red

keano_afc wrote: »

I really cant understand the fuss about Lone Parent allowance being cut. In my opinion, it is a financial reward for irresponsibly having children outside a stable relationship and should be cut altogether. My wife and I have one child, which we quite rightly receive no weekly payment for. Our neighbour, who has a boyfiend and they both work, receives a weekly payment for her child as she is unmarried. How can that be right?

It isn't, which is why they are now cross-referencing with tax returns to identify those claiming the allowance who are actually in relationships and not entitled to the benefit, something they ought to have done a long time ago.

However, the cut also affects those who ought to be entitled to it, despite your judgemental attitude. You're only one serious argument away from being one yourself, let's bear in mind. As a single parent myself, I certainly didn't have a child planning to be the sole parent. But sometimes life's like that.

The correct thing to do should have been to cut out the fraudulent claims, not slash and burn every one of those single parents who are struggling to raise children on the breadline without reference to their individual circumstances.

wonderfulname

Leandro Limited Saturn wrote: »

To encourage marriage

I know that, but why is that still relevant today? Why is it the states business?

Dudess

smegmar wrote: »

Well done Cavehill, it's good to see some unpopular opinions well researched and backed up with a good argument.

That is true. Because it is extremely, extremely rare.

Cavehill Red

wonderfulname wrote: »

No, you responded to what you assumed was an argument against everything you said, I can only assume you are as biased as I in reading what I wrote, let's try again; you cannot judge the individual on the basis of a collective average, so it's not an unpopular opinion to cite research that says black people on average have lower IQs, and it's not racist, you'd have to be dense to think it was, however it becomes racist when someone uses this information to prejudge an individual (which you didn't do by the way), you are for some reason being defensive towards a deserved negative backlash to the latter position when you are pushing the former, which makes no sense.

You're arguing a straw man here. At least you noted that I've consistently avoided any sense of judging any individual on anything other than their merits. Nevertheless, the withdrawing of funding and isolating within the scientific community (often as a result of tabloid hysteria) of researchers in this field indicates that it very much is an unpopular opinion to hold, precisely because people like you continually seek to conflate judging individuals with assessing average traits.

wonderfulname wrote: »

The implication of the information you chose to present as a personal experience of black people still stands as racist, it may merely be in the way you phrased it or you might be confident in tarring all people of one colour with the same brush, but it's not a valid point as it stands and you did put it very poorly.

In your opinion. In the opinion of another poster, it was a well researched argument. I offered supporting evidence for my anecdotal assertion and it is based on extensive interaction with black Africans here and in many sub-Saharan African countries.

To address a point you raised to that other poster, as to the relevance of dealing with averages, I would have thought that was also self-evident. While one deals with individuals on an individual basis, circumstances arise wherein one may have to deal with collectives of individuals, or where one does not have an indentifiable individual with whom to treat.

If, as is the case in the US, some 70% of black children are raised without fathers, then if you are in a position of having to plan or organise infrastructure such as schooling, then you'd need to be willfully blind to ignore that fact, since it requires that you plan into the system measures to address the concomitant effects of that in terms of unruly behaviour, poverty, lack of support for their educational needs and so on. It is in such circumstances that it is entirely legitimate to be cogniscent of averages and statistical likelihoods in a given cohort of people.

keano_afc

Cavehill Red wrote: »

It isn't, which is why they are now cross-referencing with tax returns to identify those claiming the allowance who are actually in relationships and not entitled to the benefit, something they ought to have done a long time ago.

However, the cut also affects those who ought to be entitled to it, despite your judgemental attitude. You're only one serious argument away from being one yourself, let's bear in mind. As a single parent myself, I certainly didn't have a child planning to be the sole parent. But sometimes life's like that.

The correct thing to do should have been to cut out the fraudulent claims, not slash and burn every one of those single parents who are struggling to raise children on the breadline without reference to their individual circumstances.

Well I dont believe anyone should be entitled to it. If I have an argument and break up with my wife, as you refer to, should it be up to the state to give me money then? Of course not. Its not up to the state to financially pick up the pieces if your relationship with the other parent ends.

Cavehill Red

keano_afc wrote: »

Well I dont believe anyone should be entitled to it. If I have an argument and break up with my wife, as you refer to, should it be up to the state to give me money then? Of course not. Its not up to the state to financially pick up the pieces if your relationship with the other parent ends.

The way the system works is that the parents, together or apart, are supposed to pay for the raising of their offspring as you seem to desire. However, not all men step up to the plate as I have done. In some cases, as in my own, some women don't step up to the plate either. At that point, either the state steps in to assist where assistance is needed, or else the state is going to have to pay a lot more to raise the child in state care.

hooradiation

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I suppose I'd espouse one particularly unpopular opinion in the current climate.

I believe that - on average - people of negroid origin are less intelligent than other people. Various forms of intelligence tests (and some physiological ones) have indicated this in the past, placing some Jews top of intelligence tables, followed by East Asians, with caucasians a little above the global average and blacks about 15% back on average.

But doing such research is considered racist now because we all must consider everybody to be equal in capabilities (even though there hasn't been a white 100 metre sprinter of note in nearly 40 years.) Now, I've no problem with black people. I've been all over Africa, and enjoyed their company immensely. But they do seem to lack some forms of abstract thinking and can be much quicker to emotive responses, I find (anecdotally). I'm speaking averages here - obviously there are outliers and overlapping bell curves, which means that of course there are some immensely intelligent black people just as there are some incredibly dumb whites and Jews.

Given the number of caveats you had to dump on this, I can't imagine why you think it's worth sharing.

keano_afc

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The way the system works is that the parents, together or apart, are supposed to pay for the raising of their offspring as you seem to desire. However, not all men step up to the plate as I have done. In some cases, as in my own, some women don't step up to the plate either. At that point, either the state steps in to assist where assistance is needed, or else the state is going to have to pay a lot more to raise the child in state care.

Which is why children should only be brought into a family of married parents. Then there is a legal responsibility on the parent that doesnt "step up to the plate" to contribute to the upbringing of their child.

Cavehill Red

hooradiation wrote: »

Given the number of caveats you had to dump on this, I can't imagine why you think it's worth sharing.

Because academics engaged in legitimate research in this field have bee vilified, ostracised and had their funding slashed because morons in the press and those inclined to wave the race card at any given opportunity find such facts to be unpalatable to the extent that they wish to censor such knowledge.

Anyhow, I don't see that I made any caveats. I simply provided extensive evidential support to back up my opinion, as anybody ought to be able to.

wonderfulname

Cavehill Red wrote: »

You're arguing a straw man here. At least you noted that I've consistently avoided any sense of judging any individual on anything other than their merits. Nevertheless, the withdrawing of funding and isolating within the scientific community (often as a result of tabloid hysteria) of researchers in this field indicates that it very much is an unpopular opinion to hold, precisely because people like you continually seek to conflate judging individuals with assessing average traits.

You really don't like reading my posts, let me break it down one more time.

• Assessing averages is not unpopular, its not even an opinion
• misusing averages is unpopular, for good reason
• you appear to be backing the former, but defensive due to reactions to the latter
• this reaction makes no sense

In your opinion. In the opinion of another poster, it was a well researched argument. I offered supporting evidence for my anecdotal assertion and it is based on extensive interaction with black Africans here and in many sub-Saharan African countries.

But that's not supporting evidence, it becomes supporting evidence when you can see definite cause and effect, which whilst true of your first point is not true of this.

To address a point you raised to that other poster, as to the relevance of dealing with averages, I would have thought that was also self-evident. While one deals with individuals on an individual basis, circumstances arise wherein one may have to deal with collectives of individuals, or where one does not have an indentifiable individual with whom to treat.

I foresee no situation when in dealing with an unidentifiable individual it becomes relevant to make judgement of innate characteristics based on race, the probabilities are just too low to make a difference, hence the Red Rum analogy.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

If, as is the case in the US, some 70% of black children are raised without fathers, then if you are in a position of having to plan or organise infrastructure such as schooling, then you'd need to be willfully blind to ignore that fact, since it requires that you plan into the system measures to address the concomitant effects of that in terms of unruly behaviour, poverty, lack of support for their educational needs and so on. It is in such circumstances that it is entirely legitimate to be cogniscent of averages and statistical likelihoods in a given cohort of people.

That's a considerably larger statistic and a case of nurture, not nature, which you have been steering clear of until now, this isn't a situation relevant to the discussion so I'm not going to address it.

Cavehill Red

keano_afc wrote: »

Which is why children should only be brought into a family of married parents. Then there is a legal responsibility on the parent that doesnt "step up to the plate" to contribute to the upbringing of their child.

Marriage has bugger all to do with it. Plenty of kids born into married relationships now live with only one parent, and that parent receives lone parent allowance as a result.

pickarooney

smegmar wrote: »

Who is the fastest swimmer in the world: Michael Phelps, American, of White European decent.

Phelps is not, nor has he ever been, the fastest swimmer in the worlds. Currently the record is held by Brazilian César Cielo. He's quite white, for the record.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

there hasn't been a white 100 metre sprinter of note in nearly 40 years.

Chrstophe Lemaitre is one of the fastest men in the world and is whiter than I am.

Cavehill Red

wonderfulname wrote: »

You really don't like reading my posts, let me break it down one more time.

• Assessing averages is not unpopular, its not even an opinion
• misusing averages is unpopular, for good reason
• you appear to be backing the former, but defensive due to reactions to the latter
• this reaction makes no sense

But that's not supporting evidence, it becomes supporting evidence when you can see definite cause and effect, which whilst true of your first point is not true of this.

On the contrary, this very research has proved so unpopular it has led to academic careers being buried and an almost total effective ban on funding for further research in the area.
Secondly, there are as I stated plenty of good reasons to work off the conclusions of such data when dealing with groups rather than individuals. Your confusion seems to be your own, not arising from what I've written. I'm sorry I can't spell it out any more simply for you.

wonderfulname wrote: »

I foresee no situation when in dealing with an unidentifiable individual it becomes relevant to make judgement of innate characteristics based on race, the probabilities are just too low to make a difference, hence the Red Rum analogy.

You compare people to animals, yet somehow I'm racist? Amusing. Nevertheless, another poster already ran with your horses for courses comparison quite effectively with their athletics versus swimming example. A more likely one to occur in reality is the one I offered. If, as a headmaster, you were to receive a new student in your US-based school, and knew no familial details about the child, as is all too common in such circumstances, school reports detailing academic rather than social data, then it would to my mind seem legitimate to work off the assumption that there is a 70% likelihood that that child is being raised without a father and prepare accordingly. Further down the line, one can then deal with the individual as an individual and clarify their individual circumstances and adjust planning to account for that.

wonderfulname wrote: »

That's a considerably larger statistic and a case of nurture, not nature, which you have been steering clear of until now, this isn't a situation relevant to the discussion so I'm not going to address it.

I'm not entirely clear what you're referring to here. But I would suggest you go back and read that meta-study, which on the basis of intelligence assessment rules out nurture as a relevant causative factor, due to the results gleaned from trans-adoption studies. If what you're suggesting is that you accept the principle of statistical planning, then in turn I'd suggest that in our hypothetical US school, you as headmaster were about to engage in a merger with a predominantly black school as happened in many placed in the 60s and 70s, then it would be poor planning not to account for the fact that on average, that cohort of students would not only have a 70% likelihood of being raised by one parent, but would also be on average 15 percentile points behind on an intelligence scale. Again, individual circumstances may vary from the mean, so an individual black child could well be the next Henry Gates raised in the most stable family around.

wonderfulname

Cavehill Red wrote: »

You compare people to animals, yet somehow I'm racist? Amusing. Nevertheless, another poster already ran with your horses for courses comparison quite effectively with their athletics versus swimming example.

Are you stupid or do you think I am? Either way, I'm not going to bite.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

A more likely one to occur in reality is the one I offered. If, as a headmaster, you were to receive a new student in your US-based school, and knew no familial details about the child, as is all too common in such circumstances, school reports detailing academic rather than social data, then it would to my mind seem legitimate to work off the assumption that there is a 70% likelihood that that child is being raised without a father and prepare accordingly. Further down the line, one can then deal with the individual as an individual and clarify their individual circumstances and adjust planning to account for that.

But that's not an actual situation because you'll know the stats for your catchment area as a whole and funding will be distributed according to that?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'm not entirely clear what you're referring to here. But I would suggest you go back and read that meta-study, which on the basis of intelligence assessment rules out nurture as a relevant causative factor, due to the results gleaned from trans-adoption studies.

I was referring to the quote above that, which is pretty standard layout here, so at this point I figure you're either trolling or the only manner of discussion you know is black and white, right and wrong. That meta study is related to intelligence, not the likelihood of lone parents, so is not remotely relevant, being a lone parent is not a genetic trait, so how can it be a reflection on a race?

Cavehill Red

wonderfulname wrote: »

Are you stupid or do you think I am? Either way, I'm not going to bite.

Don't accuse people of racism and then go about comparing people to horses then if you don't wish to see that hypocrisy highlighted, there's a good chap.

wonderfulname wrote: »

But that's not an actual situation because you'll know the stats for your catchment area as a whole and funding will be distributed according to that?

Possibly you will, possibly you won't. All I'm suggesting is that in planning matters using statistical averages data is a perfectly legitimate practice, which is something you appear to now accept.

wonderfulname wrote: »

I was referring to the quote above that, which is pretty standard layout here, so at this point I figure you're either trolling or the only manner of discussion you know is black and white, right and wrong. That meta study is related to intelligence, not the likelihood of lone parents, so is not remotely relevant, being a lone parent is not a genetic trait, so how can it be a reflection on a race?

I didn't suggest it was. I was offering the lone parent data as an example of utilising such data in a planning environment. I then went on to offer a second example drawing on the very intelligence data cited in the meta-study to indicate that nurture need not be a factor in such planning.

hooradiation

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Anyhow, I don't see that I made any caveats. I simply provided extensive evidential support to back up my opinion, as anybody ought to be able to.

of course you don't, the same way you believe this is "legitimate" research.

Cavehill Red

hooradiation wrote: »

of course you don't, the same way you believe this is "legitimate" research.

Of course, you're qualified and capable of discrediting ninety years of scientific research in your very next post, which I await breathlessly ...

TinfoilTinman

In my opinion, sausages go well with jam (normally berry jams).

Discuss.

TinfoilTinman

TinfoilTinman wrote: »

In my opinion, sausages go well with jam (normally berry jams).

I'd really like to hear about non-berry jams.

I'm a strawberry girl myself but I wouldn't put it on a sausage. Bit too racy for me.

languagenerd

keano_afc wrote: »

I really cant understand the fuss about Lone Parent allowance being cut. In my opinion, it is a financial reward for irresponsibly having children outside a stable relationship and should be cut altogether. My wife and I have one child, which we quite rightly receive no weekly payment for. Our neighbour, who has a boyfiend and they both work, receives a weekly payment for her child as she is unmarried. How can that be right?

I don't think it should be cut completely. What about cases where one parent has died? Or where one parent leaves the other and completely disappears out of their lives? If the one left behind is trying to raise kids and pay for childcare on one salary, they could be dependant on it. It should be provided to people who genuinely need it.

It's one of the most exploited payments though, loads of fraudulent claims. They need to tighten up controls, but they shouldn't completely axe it.

(For the record, I have no children, so no bias)

TinfoilTinman

true-or-false wrote: »

I'd really like to hear about non-berry jams.

I'm a strawberry girl myself but I wouldn't put it on a sausage. Bit too racy for me.

Well, I've been told that my tastes in food/combinations are a little strange. I eat most things except:

Unpopular opinion no.2 -- I hate ketchup. It is the devil. I like tomatoes and tomato based sauces/pureés/soups but hate ketchup.

As for jams, rhubarb is really nice. Apricot too.

Mike Litoris

TinfoilTinman wrote: »

Unpopular opinion no.2 -- I hate ketchup. It is the devil. I like tomatoes

:eek:OMG, you do realise that scientists around the globe would kill to have you as a test subject.:D

TinfoilTinman

Mike Litoris wrote: »

:eek:OMG, you do realise that scientists around the globe would kill to have you as a test subject.:D

I know, i'm a freak. It makes ordering fast food a pain though as they normally misinterpret NONE as BUCKET LOADS.

Chuck Stone

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This meta-study was quite revealing.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx

It debunks all the usual rejoinders offered to IQ testing differences.

On this type of research.

Melvin Konner wrote in the notes to his book The Tangled Wing: Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit:

Statements made by Arthur Jensen, William Shockley, and other investigators in the late 1960s and early 1970s about race and IQ or social class and IQ rapidly passed into currency in policy discussions. Many of these statements were proved wrong, but they had already influenced some policymakers, and that influence is very difficult to recant.

Lisa Suzuki and Joshua Aronson of New York University wrote in 2005 that Jensen has largely ignored evidence that fails to support his position that IQ test score gaps represent a genetic racial hierarchy unwaveringly for over 30 years. During this time, Jensen has received more than one million dollars from the sometimes controversial Pioneer fund.

Wiki.

The author is probably a Hereditarian, which is perhaps more a reflection on his stance than his scientific rigour.

You will see below (from your own link) that this paper appeared with one positive commentary and three critical ones.

The paper, "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability," by J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario and Arthur R. Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley, appeared with a positive commentary by Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware, three critical ones (by Robert Sternberg of Yale University, Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan, and Lisa Suzuki & Joshua Aronson of New York University), and the authors' reply.

Nurture is ruled out

It is?

steddyeddy

keano_afc wrote: »

I really cant understand the fuss about Lone Parent allowance being cut. In my opinion, it is a financial reward for irresponsibly having children outside a stable relationship and should be cut altogether. My wife and I have one child, which we quite rightly receive no weekly payment for. Our neighbour, who has a boyfiend and they both work, receives a weekly payment for her child as she is unmarried. How can that be right?

You understand lone parent can also mean widow, widower or deserted wife or husband?

paddythere

Steve Kean is a great manager

Cavehill Red

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The author is probably a Hereditarian, which is perhaps more a reflection on his stance than his scientific rigour.

It's a meta-study. It's a survey appraisal of the existing data relating to the subject. If there is any form of study that prohibits authorial bias, it's a meta-study, since it is a survey of many other people's work.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You will see below (from your own link) that this paper appeared with one positive commentary and three critical ones.

Which simply reflects the political values of the era which have led to scientific ostracism. What are the substances of those critiques, I'd ask? Are they based on querying the data, or are they based on a political objection to this form of inquiry (which amounts to little more than censorship of science)?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It is?

Sure it is. Trans-adoption studies found that a significant differential still existed in relation to IQ even after all subjects received similar levels of affluent upbringing and education. In fact, they actually uncovered the fact that mixed race children performed almost exactly between the caucasian average and the black average.
In other words, when black kids were adopted by affluent middle class white families, they did no better.

coonecb1

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I suppose I'd espouse one particularly unpopular opinion in the current climate.

I believe that - on average - people of negroid origin are less intelligent than other people. Various forms of intelligence tests (and some physiological ones) have indicated this in the past, placing some Jews top of intelligence tables, followed by East Asians, with caucasians a little above the global average and blacks about 15% back on average.

But doing such research is considered racist now because we all must consider everybody to be equal in capabilities (even though there hasn't been a white 100 metre sprinter of note in nearly 40 years.) Now, I've no problem with black people. I've been all over Africa, and enjoyed their company immensely. But they do seem to lack some forms of abstract thinking and can be much quicker to emotive responses, I find (anecdotally). I'm speaking averages here - obviously there are outliers and overlapping bell curves, which means that of course there are some immensely intelligent black people just as there are some incredibly dumb whites and Jews.

I remember seeing a documentary about this on Channel 4 a year or two ago. From the first few minutes, it was clear what their angle would be. It focussed on the racist element to it, rather than accepting or refuting the evidence. The overall conclusion was that we're all equal.

What's funny is that it was part of a 'season' of race-based programmes, one of which claimed that mixed-race people were superior to other races. But, I thought we were all equal

AstridBean

I do think Father Ted WAS a teensy bit racist in 'Are You Right There, Father Ted?'.

languagenerd

TinfoilTinman wrote: »

Unpopular opinion no.2 -- I hate ketchup. It is the devil. I like tomatoes and tomato based sauces/pureés/soups but hate ketchup.

Me too! I actually have a sort of ketchup-phobia .

K-9

smegmar wrote: »

Well done Cavehill, it's good to see some unpopular opinions well researched and backed up with a good argument.

To often people jump on the "It's racist" point and can't see an underlying reality. Yea African blacks lack some amount of cranial capacity, and abstract thought however in physical fields (sport) and music blacks win hands down.

It's about time we recognise there are some traits that on average give one race advantages or disadvantages, and use that for our collective gain.

Who is the fastest sprinter in the world: Usain Bolt Jamaican of African black decent.

Who is the fastest swimmer in the world: Michael Phelps, American, of White European decent.

If I need someone to sprint and I know nothing more then the colour of candidates skin, I won't voluntarily blind myself to be politically correct. Likewise if I need someone to do math I'll pick the guy with a Asian name.

It's a bit like betting on horses, you can only have indicators of potential speed of the horse, and never know for sure. However you're still going to bet knowing that you're playing on the statistics.

That's a fair point, IQ is a very restrictive basis of intelligence.

Sporting, artistic, spatial and in particular, social intelligence are very under rated.

Putting a big emphasis on IQ without also considering the above seems a bit dim to me tbh!

SeanW

Nuclear Electricity FTW!

(Hides behind a wall to dodge the flaming) :cool:

Dudess

Flaming with a plutonium rod in your case.

AstridBean

SeanW wrote: »

Nuclear Electricity FTW!

(Hides behind a wall to dodge the flaming) :cool:

I actually tentatively agree!

Brendog

I hate unnecessarily long posts and when someone quotes numerous previous posts into their reply.

grenache

The Irish are not only the dirtiest nation in Europe, but also the ugliest. A painful truth.

And yes I'm Irish.

AstridBean

grenache wrote: »

The Irish are not only the dirtiest nation in Europe, but also the ugliest. A painful truth.

And yes I'm Irish.

You... might want to narrow down what you mean by "dirty".

You ugly, dirty fecker. :P

Chuck Stone

Cavehill Red wrote: »

It's a meta-study. It's a survey appraisal of the existing data relating to the subject. If there is any form of study that prohibits authorial bias, it's a meta-study, since it is a survey of many other people's work.

A meta-study that includes looking over tainted research.

Statements made by Arthur Jensen, William Shockley, and other investigators in the late 1960s and early 1970s about race and IQ or social class and IQ rapidly passed into currency in policy discussions. Many of these statements were proved wrong, but they had already influenced some policymakers, and that influence is very difficult to recant.

Which simply reflects the political values of the era which have led to scientific ostracism.

How can it claim to be scientific if it is affected by values?

What are the substances of those critiques, I'd ask?

I can't get access to the journals - original piece included.

Are they based on querying the data, or are they based on a political objection to this form of inquiry (which amounts to little more than censorship of science)?

Again, if a study that claims to scientific can be debunked by opposing values how scientific can it claim to be?

Therein lies the problem. It's impossible to remove values from this type of study rendering them effectively useless from a scientific POV imho.

In other words, when black kids were adopted by affluent middle class white families, they did no better.

These are adopted black children growing up in affluent white families. IQ testing would completely overlook the environmental stressors that might hinder the development of IQ on an adopted child wondering why the hell he has black skin and all the other kids with white parents don't.

You see that's the problem with IQ and these types of studies. They are reductive and polluted with the values of those who design, test and consider the outcomes.

Jesus Wept

Brendog wrote: »

I hate unnecessarily long posts and when someone quotes numerous previous posts into their reply.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

A meta-study that includes looking over tainted research.





How can it claim to be scientific if it is affected by values?



I can't get access to the journals - original piece included.



Again, if a study that claims to scientific can be debunked by opposing values how scientific can it claim to be?

Therein lies the problem. It's impossible to remove values from this type of study rendering them effectively useless from a scientific POV imho.



These are adopted black children growing up in affluent white families. IQ testing would completely overlook the environmental stressors that might hinder the development of IQ on an adopted child wondering why the hell he has black skin and all the other kids with white parents don't.

You see that's the problem with IQ and these types of studies. They are reductive and polluted with the values of those who design, test and consider the outcomes.

EgalitarianJay

Hello everyone. This is my first post.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I suppose I'd espouse one particularly unpopular opinion in the current climate.

I believe that - on average - people of negroid origin are less intelligent than other people. Various forms of intelligence tests (and some physiological ones) have indicated this in the past, placing some Jews top of intelligence tables, followed by East Asians, with caucasians a little above the global average and blacks about 15% back on average.

But doing such research is considered racist now because we all must consider everybody to be equal in capabilities (even though there hasn't been a white 100 metre sprinter of note in nearly 40 years.) Now, I've no problem with black people. I've been all over Africa, and enjoyed their company immensely. But they do seem to lack some forms of abstract thinking and can be much quicker to emotive responses, I find (anecdotally). I'm speaking averages here - obviously there are outliers and overlapping bell curves, which means that of course there are some immensely intelligent black people just as there are some incredibly dumb whites and Jews.

I myself have researched the Race and Intelligence controversy in depth.

For starters the research you are referencing is regarded as racist because historically theories of racial differences in intelligence have been linked to racist ideological agendas. The notion of racial inferiority is rooted in the belief that races differ in socially important mental traits which justify social injustice and this belief was used as the propaganda that fueled racist acts such as the chattel slavery of Africans in America, the Holocaust under Nazi Germany as well as Segregation and Apartheid.

Modern IQ researchers who postulate a disparity in intelligence between races based on IQ test results are almost all part of a small group within Psychology who are grantees of an organization known as the Pioneer Fund which for years has helped finance scholars who support the idea of group differences in intelligence. Much of the research in The Bell Curve was financed by the Pioneer Fund. One of the lead researchers who has outspokenly claimed that races differ in intelligence, J Philippe Rushton is now the President of the Pioneer Fund.

These views have been rejected by a large number of scholars who maintain the research is biased and unscientific.

Check out this article for some details:

Racism Resurgent: How Media Let The Bell Curve's Pseudo-Science Define the Agenda on Race

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This meta-study was quite revealing.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx

It debunks all the usual rejoinders offered to IQ testing differences. Nurture is ruled out by trans-adoption studies, cultural specificity of the test is ruled out by the fact that East Asians consistently outperform Europeans who developed the test, historicity is ruled out by virtue of consistent results over a 90 year period using variations of intelligence testing, and there is a provable correlation in relation to cranial capacity and intelligence (wherein east asians have on average an extra cubic inch of brain capacity compared to whites, who have five cubic inches more than blacks)

Several rebuttals to this article have been written.

One of the best I've read was by Richard Nisbett who cited a multitude of studies that Rushton and Jensen ignore which directly test the genetic hypothesis for the cause of racial differences in IQ. This study addresses the transracial adoption study Rushton and Jensen claim most supports their argument for a hereditarian interpretation and counters with a lot of other research that supports the Nil Hypothesis for the degree of genetic contribution to the Black-White IQ gap.

Richard Nisbett wrote:

J. P. Rushton and A. R. Jensen (2005) ignore or misinterpret most of the evidence of greatest relevance to the question of heritability of the Black–White IQ gap. A dispassionate reading of the evidence on the association of IQ with degree of European ancestry for members of Black populations, convergence of Black and White IQ in recent years, alterability of Black IQ by intervention programs, and adoption studies lend no support to a hereditarian interpretation of the Black–White IQ gap. On the contrary, the evidence most relevant to the question indicates that the genetic contribution to the Black–White IQ gap is nil.


Source: HEREDITY, ENVIRONMENT, AND RACE DIFFERENCES IN IQ A Commentary on Rushton and Jensen (2005) Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2005, Vol. 11, No. 2, 302–310

Link

As far as claims about racial differences in brain size and cranial capacity which are allegedly correlated with intelligence are concerned I recommend this article by Leonard Lieberman which critiques the research of Rushton on that topic and exposes glaring flaws in his methodology revealing that there is no racial hierarchy brain size.

Leonard Lieberman wrote:

In the 19th century measurements of cranial capacity by Morton and others supported a “Caucasoid > Mongoloid > Negroid” hierarchy of intelligence. This continued through most of the 20th century but was challenged by a nonhierarchical view originating with Boas. Beginning in the 1980s Rushton correlated cranial and IQ measurements and presented a hierarchy with “Mongoloids” at the top. Each of these periods relates to its social context: the 19th-century hierarchy paralleled the height of European world domination; the nonhierarchy of the 20th century reflected world wars, worldwide depression, and the breakup of empires; the “Mongoloid > Caucasoid > Negroid” hierarchy followed the economic success of several Asian nations. Morton’s cranial ranking was the result of his sampling error and his acceptance of the hierarchical thinking of his time. But how is it possible for Rushton to support the M > C > N ordering while using the data of several anthropologists who have rejected racial hierarchies on empirical grounds? The answer to this question involves a critique of Rushton’s use of the race concept, his aggregation of diverse populations into three traditional races, his claim to explain differences in “cultural achievements” on the basis of variation in brain size, and a number of other problems. The study concludes by noting that the major consequence of these hierarchies is the apparent justification for the exploitation of those at the bottom.

Source: How “Caucasoids” Got Such Big Crania and Why They Shrank From Morton to Rushton Current Anthropology Volume 42, Number 1, February 2001

link

Additionally your link cites Rushton's theories on race and human evolution as a basis for racial differences in intelligence. His theory was refuted by an evolutionary biologist named Joseph L Graves who revealed that Rushton used a discredited ecological theory to support data that was tainted and unreliable for testing his hypothesis.

Joseph Graves wrote:

The last decade of the 20th century experienced a resurgence of genetically based theories of racial hierarchy regarding intelligence and morality. Most notably was Herrnstein and Murray’s The Bell Curve (1994), that claimed genetic causality for long-standing racial differences in IQ. In addition, it raised the time worn argument that the over-reproduction of genetically deficient individuals within our population would lead to a serious decline in average American intelligence. These authors provided no specific rationale for why these genetic differences should exist between human ‘races’. Instead, they relied heavily on the work of Canadian psychologist J. Philipe Rushton (in The Bell Curve, 1994, Appendix 5: 642–3). Rushton has advanced a specific evolutionary genetic rationale for how gene frequencies are differentiated between the ‘races’ relative to intelligence. He claims that human racial differences result from natural selection for particular reproductive strategies in the various racial groups. Rushton’s theory is based entirely on the concept of r- and K-selection, first explicitly outlined by MacArthur and Wilson in 1967. This article examines both the flaws in the general theory, and specifically Rushton’s application of that same theory to human data. It concludes that neither Rushton’s use of the theory nor the data that he has assembled could possibly test any meaningful hypotheses concerning human evolution and/or the distribution of genetic variation relating to reproductive strategies or ‘intelligence’, however defined.


Source: What a tangled web he weaves: Race, reproductive strategies and Rushton's life history theory Anthropological Theory Vol 2(2): 131–154

link

Chuck Stone

EgalitarianJay wrote: »

Hello everyone. This is my first post.

Welcome to boards.ie. Great first post.

Mountainsandh

Wow, a link and multi quotes ? Took me ages to do that.