At 11/21/11 06:25 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote::
When the state's economic programs encourage people who make unfit parents (see: ghettos, London) the consequences are bad, in the same way going back in time to help less fit individuals survive/reproduce and protect them selection pressures.
I'm not going to say there isn't an argument to be made for free market economics, but believing it's flawed does not make someone a hypocrite for also believing in evolution.
That doesn't make sense. "They are retarded given neither their arrogance."
(Pedantry doesn't become you) Neither does arrogance. Quite ironic you should get pedantic about that point.
So? It also agreed with Abraham Lincoln, but surprise surprise you just HAPPEN to liken me to the mas-murderer.
Abraham Lincoln lived a LONG time ago, in a completely different scientific environment. Hitler is far more recent.
Sigh...read the damn thread before you say retarded shit like this.
Famas: "I hope you're trolling, I don't want to assume that there are actual neo-nazi advocates on this board."
Yeah, OK, but its not like you were JUST responding to Famas, you were responding to everyone who dared point out the similarities between your fallacious views on race/ intelligence and Hitler's. You still haven't addressed any differences between the two besides stating that you wouldn't put your views into action as you are a non- statist (implying that Hitler would have been on solid intellectual ground provided he too was a non- statist).
Wrong again retard.
Eugenics as Francis Galton (the founder of eugenics) practiced it was still viewed as eugenics, though it never forced any two people to mate. It was his intensive study of the differences between races, as he saw them, that was named eugenics, and though he fantasised about putting his ideas into practice and you may not, if you are using the same scientific approach with the same assumptions, don't be shocked when someone calls you up on it. What Francis Galton studied is universally noted as eugenics, and though it was the logical conclusion there was no force breeding. A dictionary.com quote doesn't make you scientifically literate.
So? There are plenty of black supremicists in the world. Hitler just happened to be in a position of power to do what the black supremicists would have done too, I don't see why this make's Hitler's "intolerance" particuarly evil.
The fact that it led him to believe killing 8/ 9 million people was the right thing to do?
You are right though, Hitler was not the only intolerant bigot. This doesn't make his intolerance any better. I think if you honestly think that there is nothing wrong with the (scientifically disproven) train of thought you're taking, you should look into the history of Rwanda, and its Dutch occupation. The fashionable eugenics introduced theorised that the Tutsi minority where a long lost ancient Egyptian tribe, far superior to the ethnic majority. We all know the consequences the subsequent cultural divisions birthed.
"Or at least people like you." <<<
"I'm sure you're going to go ahead and make some more unfalsifiable hypotheses about me though, so I might as well not spend too much time addressing that one." <<<
People who are strongly "anti-racist" want policies like welfare and affirmative action to be based on race, and these people are often evolution advocates.
And I am like them because I am an evolution advocate? So its hypocrisy by association?
You called me a eugenicist.
Well you kinda are, with the stand you're taking on race.
Never said that IQ is 100% hereditary.
Then how was it relevant to your point?
IQ is linked with income and educational acheivement.
Neither of which are equal to cognitive ability. The common factors they share with IQ are in fact... A stable learning environment on socio-economic position! Cognitive ability DOES come into the mix somewhere, but its damned ridiculous to assume a difference with SD that great compared to the difference of averages implies causation.
So the fact that all the asians beat all the white kids in my uni program is just a coincidence?
No, but it isn't necessarily a race thing. There are more common factors than that that you haven't even considered.
That's a completely unfair comparison and you know it.
It points out why the mean is so often unreliable and you know it. It ignores other common factors and subgroups (ie sex).
And yet despite this "knowlege" and all the neat educational stratergies. the black-white IQ gap isn't shrinking :( :(
This is a tragedy, I'm sure we both agree. To me, though, it highlights the need for a revitalisation of "black" culture, which all too often now is euphemism for "gang culture" among the poor black population. It isn't coincidence that with the rise of American rap culture in the UK the number of blacks in prison has risen and the number of blacks at university, relatively, has fallen. I highly recommend tthat before you give up all hope and assign the differences to insurmountable race differences, you look up the "acting white" phenomenon. A good introduction.
In any case, the most critical studies you can cite find the SD on black IQ scores between 1-1.1, meaning that the differences in the scores on an individual basis put around a fifth above the white average anywho, which would make the Pearson's r value way below the 0.8 that is generally accepted as the rule of thumb for a significant positive correlation.Wait so you're actually contending that there isn't a significant difference in IQ between blacks and whites? lmao
Yes I am, given, well, statistically speaking, THERE ISN'T. Or rather, the correlation there is is below the 0.8 mark of Pearson's r value, meaning you'd be really forcing it to infer direct causation. Go take a statistics class.
Sigh, another boring appeal to authority. I suppose you think that the majoirty of people in east-asians countries live in better environments than blacks in america? No?
No but, their culture places a far higher stress on the need for personal achievement and a far higher social stigma on failing. Anyone who's opened the Book of Changes, anyone with the most cursory knowledge of East Asian culture and family structures knows this to be true. Same for India, another rising star.
I don't want to end this post you under the impression (or anyone else reading this comment) that I think you've a similar personality profile/ moral compass to a mass murderer. I don't. But the Hitler comparison on your view of insurmountable race differences stands (if you believe them insurmountable. I will concede I may have got you wrong, you seem more rational than that). It is an act of intellectual cowardice to give up on a field of studies arise when problems arise, lay it down any obstacles to progress as insurmountable and ignore the statistics when they say your dispositional hypothesis is wrong (as so many did about the Germans being inherently more "Nazi" than Americans before Milgram),
Where there are problems there are solutions. If new, cultural, ones arise, we do our predecessors a disservice by standing up to face them. The race disparity issue is close to my heart, and one of the reasons I am so passionate about psychology. The scientific theories of "Social Learning" and "Learned Helplessness" go someway to explaining this divide. Culture can be changed, the difference is not insurmountable.