Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)

[Divine Retribution]

-snip-

The thing is, if what you're saying is true, then they're not actually teaching white supremacy on the basis of scientific studies, they're teaching it on the basis of European colonization. Given all the other factors present in colonization, I would say that is, in and of itself, a fallacy.

I have always noticed that my close friend (who was born in South Korea) sometimes seems to imply that she thinks white supremacy movements might have some basis in fact, even if not in morals. It wasn't really something I ever talked with her about though, so I figured it was more of a personal quirk than anything else.

Lastly, even if it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that one race is more intelligent than the rest, I don't think that directly equates to superiority in any other sense. If I score higher on a math test than Bill Gates, I can prance around I want bragging about being smarter than him, but at the end of the day he's a multi-billionaire living in absolute luxury and I'm a flat broke college student living on a diet of ramen noodles and microwave pizzas. There are many, many, many other factors to be considered, and "superior" is in many ways subjective anyhow.

 

[Plaessy]

The thing is, if what you're saying is true, then they're not actually teaching white supremacy on the basis of scientific studies, they're teaching it on the basis of European colonization. Given all the other factors present in colonization, I would say that is, in and of itself, a fallacy.

I have always noticed that my close friend (who was born in South Korea) sometimes seems to imply that she thinks white supremacy movements might have some basis in fact, even if not in morals. It wasn't really something I ever talked with her about though, so I figured it was more of a personal quirk than anything else.

Lastly, even if it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that one race is more intelligent than the rest, I don't think that directly equates to superiority in any other sense. If I score higher on a math test than Bill Gates, I can prance around I want bragging about being smarter than him, but at the end of the day he's a multi-billionaire living in absolute luxury and I'm a flat broke college student living on a diet of ramen noodles and microwave pizzas. There are many, many, many other factors to be considered, and "superior" is in many ways subjective anyhow.

Its not about individual superiority, its about the whole picture. Europeans developed far more compared to africans, asians and americans. They conquered most of the world under to their ruling. This is where the whole thing originated. Right now Europe and North America, aka western world, the white race, are pretty much ahead, excluding China and Japan most notably, with China growing as a supercountry all the time and Japan openly learning from the westerners that conquered them and developing by their own means from there. It is a cruel fact that most of the other world is simply underdeveloped in the face of this supremacy.

 

[Divine Retribution]

Its not about individual superiority, its about the whole picture. Europeans developed far more compared to africans, asians and americans. They conquered most of the world under to their ruling. This is where the whole thing originated. Right now Europe and North America, aka western world, the white race, are pretty much ahead, excluding China and Japan most notably, with China growing as a supercountry all the time and Japan openly learning from the westerners that conquered them and developing by their own means from there. It is a cruel fact that most of the other world is simply underdeveloped in the face of this supremacy.

It's certainly an interesting point, I'd say.

If you took children from, say, a sub-Saharan African tribe at an early age and raised them in a Western country, would there still be a noticeable gap between the IQs of those children and the children native to the country they were raised in? That is to say, is it not a product of environment and culture rather than genetics? I don't know the answer to that question, if there are any relevant studies I'd be very interested in reading them.

As far as I'm aware intelligence has not been directly linked to genetics, but it's a tricky thing to measure in the first place, especially when you're measuring it from the perspective of a modern first-world country. The skills that we value (ability to understand mathematics, social skills, etc.) might not matter as much as basic survival instincts and environmental understanding in a less civilized, more hostile environment like much of Africa. I think that might mean a difference in intelligence (at least from the perspective from which we are currently measuring it) is more the product of natural selection, but I don't know.

I don't see any reason to believe that these kind of disparities are the product of genetics and not environment, but again, if anyone knows of any relevant studies, I'd love to take a look.

 

[Plaessy]

It's certainly an interesting point, I'd say.

If you took children from, say, a sub-Saharan African tribe at an early age and raised them in a Western country, would there still be a noticeable gap between the IQs of those children and the children native to the country they were raised in? That is to say, is it not a product of environment and culture rather than genetics? I don't know the answer to that question, if there are any relevant studies I'd be very interested in reading them.

As far as I'm aware intelligence has not been directly linked to genetics, but it's a tricky thing to measure in the first place, especially when you're measuring it from the perspective of a modern first-world country. The skills that we value (ability to understand mathematics, social skills, etc.) might not matter as much as basic survival instincts and environmental understanding in a less civilized, more hostile environment like much of Africa. I think that might mean a difference in intelligence (at least from the perspective from which we are currently measuring it) is more the product of natural selection, but I don't know.

I don't see any reason to believe that these kind of disparities are the product of genetics and not environment, but again, if anyone knows of any relevant studies, I'd love to take a look.

That is certainly interesting.

But isn't there already a scenario like this? For example USA, with its big amounts of immigrants and peeps with different cultural backgrounds. The blacks are stereotypically living in hoods, for instance. Of course, there are exceptions, but poverty, lack of education, and so forth are a thing for the minorities. They live with little, and their actions are less acceptable in western terms. Now compare this to the white population, they act even in the face of poverty quite civil, obviously with a few exceptions.

But this is all just a bit stereotypical, with no real proof at (my) hand. And what should be noted is that there are mini-cultures, mini-populations with these minorities, so they basically act accordingly with no real way to break the chain, so I wouldn't wonder if what I said is the case mostly. Thus I believe that a minority raised in white neighborhood will grow up as a more 'intelligent' person, and a minority raised in a minority one will be, well, less.

Recent studies estimate that genetics contribute to around 40% of a person's IQ.
So indeed, genetics isn't everything, but it certainly isn't nothing either.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...intelligence-inherited-researchers-claim.html

My answer towards the sub-Saharan African kid being raised in America, is that, even being raised in America, their IQ do not seem to equate with white people's IQ.
Racial IQ is being taken in many countries. And even within USA, black American's IQ is statistically a lot lower than white Americans.

Though you can argue that poverty and environment, and to some extent, culture, can affect a person's IQ.

Ah yes, this came while i was writing.

 

[Divine Retribution]

Thanks for the link, I'll be sure to give it a read.

The interesting thing is that genetics is plastic to the environment thanks to the process of natural selection, so even if there is a genetic intelligence gap, that doesn't rule out environmental factors as a cause of this gap.

Is it possible to blame poverty for every single one of these score gaps?

Well, one way to get an idea would be to compare scores for these groups by income. If poorer minorities are scoring below wealthier ones, then I think that indicates that poverty is quite a large factor. If not, then obviously there's something missing.

I think the question should be asked, if there are indeed differences in intelligence between different races, why is this the case? The only solution I can think of is that of natural selection, where the skills and traits necessary to thrive in a western (and primarily white) country are more traditionally thought of as "intelligent" than traits that are necessary to survive in an environment like Africa, which are traditionally thought of as "primitive".

 

[Divine Retribution]

I theorize that after being separated geographically for so long, obviously there will be some differences between different races.
The environment would select what it takes to survive in the area.

But even with these differences, it doesn't mean that one race should rule over the other, or that you could reject a person from being a friend just because he comes from a certain race.
And it certainly doesn't mean that you will be successful/ unsuccessful solely due to your race.

Seeing that most people won't have problems befriending people with a disability, I don't see how talking about racial differences would necessarily lead to supporting genocide or eugenics.

Some people with disabilities are also known to be very successful, as everyone would've known by now, success is not solely determined by IQ or one or two things.
But we can conclude that usually, a disabled person would need to try harder in order to achieve the same results as a person without a disability.

I'm not saying that having racial differences is as bad as having a disability. I'm saying that even in exaggerated cases like having a disability, people don't seem to have problems with success or making friends.

Indeed, but there is undoubtedly prejudice against disabled people. I'm not saying that discussing racial differences is going to turn good citizens into eugenics-supporting Nazis overnight, but I do worry that it might lend credibility and justification to racist and white nationalist groups, and that does seem rather dangerous to me. I hate to invoke Godwin's Law, but was Hitler not supported by a similar platform in the German scientific community?

 

[Fireflame]

I was writing this when all of the racial IQ posts started happening. My post doesn't relate to this, but I'll quickly throw my 2 cents on the matter. I originally wrote something else here, but I realized it was outdated so there's no point in keeping it. The IQ tests are a terrible way to figure out one's intelligence. Plain and simple. There's a lot more that goes into your IQ score other than your "intelligence" (poor, life at home, being healthy, culture, etc.), so it's a bad way to measure intelligence. And it's not like your IQ matters in your daily life now. I've never heard a conversation or been in one where we were taking about IQ. Don't know why this thread is either...

You know, technically the way the earth is tilted on its axis right now would normally lead to a cooling period for the earth. http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/milankovitch-cycles

Finally someone says something about that! The fact that earth is leading towards a cooling period combined with the hockey stick graph proves 100% that climate change is real and humans are the primary cause of global warming! Period, end of discussion, second freaking period.

The arguments against climate change are also so stupid. I'm going to list them all and disprove them so I can preach the truth to everyone reading this. I know most of you reading this probably are normal and think climate change is real. If you question climate change, it's the same answer to the question "Does gravity exist?"

If any of you are unfamiliar with the hockey stick graph, it is a graph that shows average temperature change, and it is the #1 proof for climate change (it has it's own name). In order to read it (and understand my post):
Blue = natural causes
Red = natural causes + human activity
Black = current readings

Argument 1). Climate change is a natural process, and humans aren't affecting it
Yes, climate change is supposed to be a natural process, but where the second part comes from... I honestly don't know. But please check out the hockey stick graph!

Argument 2). The Earth goes into natural periods of high temperature and low temperature
Again, yes, this is true. But as Gammafire said, the Earth is supposed to be receding into a low temperature period now. Yet, temperatures have been the highest... (hockey stick graph)

Argument 3). The temperature increases aren't significant
No, no, they are. From 1880 to 2012, average temperatures increased ~1.5°F. "Oh, but 1.5°F is nothing". Yeah, sure, but the WHOLE EARTH was NOT supposed to increase by that much AT ALL. It was supposed to be lowering, since we're going into a cold period. Now check this out: Increases in average global temperature are expected to be in the range of 0.5°F to 8.6°F by 2100! (Btw please read that article). From the same article, by 2100, the average U.S. temperature is projected to increase by about 3°F to 12°F. DO THE MATH. In 132 years, temperatures have risen by 1.5°F. Within almost half that time, the Earth will increase in temperature by more than DOUBLE what it increased last century. The U.S. itself will increase in temperature over the next 80 years more than double what the whole world experienced. Does an 8.6°F increase sound significant to you? Or how about the 3-12°F in the U.S.?

Or you could look at this.

Argument 4). Climate change isn't as serious as other problems
No, it's the opposite. What I presented in Argument 3 applies to this. The Earth is warming at an alarming rate. "But it's not a serious problem". Not a serious problem? The north pole is melting and all the polar bears are dying. All the glaciers are melting. The zika virus, a tropical disease which originated in Uganda, hit Florida! I wonder why... Check out where Uganda is, and look how far north Florida is. Yeah. These aren't natural problems. Anyone who knows people who say arguments #1-4, talk some sense into them.

Argument 5). Climate change/global warming is fake/a hoax
I must have missed the memo, right? Seriously, it's been scientifically proven. And it wasn't created by the Chinese, Trump. What did the Chinese have anything to do with this? There's a nice equation I came up with for those who believe in this argument

Earth is going into a cooling state + hockey stick graph = Humans are causing climate change!

Argument 6). Scientists are using climate change as propaganda
I hear this one at my school. I start to doubt their intelligence when they say this. Like, what?! You're telling me that all of the scientists EVERYWHERE are in some international transcontinental conspiracy to lie to the whole world about climate change. Bit of a stretch, no? And propaganda for what exactly? Are they planning to take over the government? Are they planning to start a war? Or you could just accept the fact that this is ridiculous.

It was shown that he had evaded taxes, declared bankruptcy, scammed people, neglected to pay workers, harassed women, mocked the disabled, mocked veterans, mocked the parents of a dead veteran, conspicuously refused to show any actual evidence for his wealth, courted racists and xenophobes, publicly and repeatedly encouraged war crimes, used a charitable foundation as a personal bank acount, and bragged about being able to get away with freaking assault. Among other things.

Yep. And on top of all of this, he doesn't think climate change is real nor a serious problem. He probably thinks every argument I disproved is true. He's not going to do anything to solve it, especially with a red congress.

Everyone, go to your zoo and take pictures of the polar bears. When your kids ask you what they were and why they're extinct, you'll know what happened. Go to a glacier park and take pictures of them. When your kids ask you what they were, you'll know what happened. When more tropical diseases from Africa reach inland America and start killing people in Iowa or whatever, then you know what happened.

 

[Solace]

idk how this thread turned into this particular discussion but my final thought on the matter is that advancements are made by necessity and culture. most colonized countries were areas that did not need technological advancements like guns and steel because their environment didn't demand it, unlike overcrowded european countries that were constantly fighting with each other. they made advancements that benefited their environment.

if you put every person on the same playing field with no cultural or economic differences and raised them exactly the same with the same amount of resources and the same exact education, i am sure that there would be no racially based difference in a test designed to measure a person's intelligence based on those factors.

the problem with any study looking at a relationship between race and intelligence is that it ignores the cultural differences in other countries and the socioeconomic differences within the same country.

--

anyway, back to the actual topic wrt to the election. there have been some (possibly unreliable) sources that have been saying that the fbi is going to investigate into the trump camp's relationship with russia. if there's something there, what happens next?

does the electoral college vote against him? does any culpability he has preclude him from the presidency? does he continue to be our president elect despite that?

 

[PK Gaming]

Papers published on proper science journals are bullshit?
Why do scientists even try anymore?

IQ is not entirely dependent on socioeconokic influences. Yes it matters, but genetics certainly also matter.
Why are African countries poor in the first place?
Yes, they were colonized by white countries.
But did white countries only colonize black countries? NO!
Hong Kong and Singapore became super rich during colonization.
Why can't black countries do the same?

You do realize that IQ tests are bullshit right? It's a fucking score on a test, not some perfect summation of someone's intelligence. Intelligence takes on many forms; it doesn't strictly deal with academic knowledge. Like, I wouldn't even consider someone like James Watson to be "intelligent", purely based on of the things he's said (which btw, is pretty similar to some what you're saying a.k.a "how come blacks aren't as good as asians, lol").

I'm just going to let my boy Stephen Hawking take it away

Steven Hawking (after being asked about what his IQ was): “I have no idea. People who boast about their IQ are losers.”

 

[Shurtugal]

Didn't Donald Trump say his IQ was like 180-190?

 

[Divine Retribution]

You do realize that IQ tests are bullshit right? It's a fucking score on a test, not some perfect summation of someone's intelligence. Intelligence takes on many forms; it doesn't strictly deal with academic knowledge. Like, I wouldn't even consider someone like James Watson to be "intelligent", purely based on of the things he's said (which btw, is pretty similar to some what you're saying a.k.a "how come blacks aren't as good as asians, lol").

I'm just going to let my boy Stephen Hawking take it away

Steven Hawking (after being asked about what his IQ was): “I have no idea. People who boast about their IQ are losers.”

That's actually more or less what I was trying to say, although I suppose I illustrated it poorly. IQ isn't a complete measure of intelligence and fails to address other factors and traits that may be more valuable in different environments than the modern West (and I actually don't think it's even accurate from a modern first world perspective, but that's an aside).

This is why, if there is a racial intelligence gap, I feel that it can be largely attributed to environmental plasticity and natural selection, as well as our biased definition of intelligence.

 

[JES]

I'm just dropping by to say that the talk from the DNC and CNN about how maybe Tim Kaine and the like could lead the charge in 2020 absolutely boggles my mind. As an Indian, their behaviour reminds me of how the INC (the party that has been in power around 90% of the time, founded before independence, run by the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty) has refused to change after they were crushed in 2013 2014. Just for some context, they suffered their biggest defeat ever, and Modi became our PM. I am not going to comment on any similarity between Modi and Trump, because honestly I don't feel there is that much other than some anti-Muslim rhetoric.

But the DNC now plays the blame game and fails to realise that the biggest reason Clinton lost, was that she was Hillary Clinton. If they don't change their approach and leadership, how do they expect to win in 2020, let alone make gains in 2018, unless Trump royally fucks up? Are they just banking on Trump to implode? Because that hasn't worked out so well, has it? Again back to the INC, their prime ministerial candidate - Rahul Gandhi, scion of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty - is now being elevated to the party chairman. As long as people like him are relevant in the INC, they stand no chance and offer no opposition.

Sorry if this seemed off topic to you guys, but I thought it was worth mentioning. Maybe Dem supporters here can feel some weird consolation that it's not just their party that is sometimes so absolutely blind. I know HRC won the popular vote, but it should not have even been close. And losing WI, MI, PA? That's inexcusable as well. As for Trump, I have but a few concerns- that he doesn't fuck up the progress the US has made towards combating climate change, and that he doesn't let Chinese aggression run rampant. And please, don't drop nukes.

Tim Kaine? Uh, no. The Democratic party needs progressives like Bernie Sanders, not establishment politicians. Do they want to leave the country in Trump's little hands?! Because progressives are just as pissed off as the people who voted for Trump! We don't want business as usual! We want people who will represent US!!! The special interests can go to hell for all I care at this point!!!

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Yet, none of you have still addressed why such "bullshit" is being published on a proper science journal.

I really don't like this argument. It has to be understood that publication in a scientific journal does not exempt a study or its findings from further criticism. Many factors can result in fallacious or misleading studies to be published in spite of peer review not the least of which is the inherent biases present in the peer-reviewing committee itself.

Moreover, we're right in the middle of what's been termed the 'Replication Crisis' wherein studies and papers have been reexamined to see if their results still hold true and it's been found that an alarmingly high percentage of studies cannot replicate their found results, either by new sets of researchers or, in many cases, the original researchers themselves.

Thirdly, there are many concepts that are published in scientific journals throughout the years. And the vast, vast, majority of them become outdated and replaced with newer, more effective or accurate concepts that invalidate the previous concept. IQ was held up as the standard method of intelligence for a long period of time and was deservedly accepted by the scientific community as the standard measure of its time. Time passes, flaws are found, and IQ is no longer universally accepted because, as others have said, it is an imperfect measure of intelligence. It has specific applications that are still valuable and lead to it continuing to be referenced today, but to hold it up as a collective measure of intelligence in spite of its flaws and in spite of evidence to the contrary is irresponsible to the critical mind.

tl;dr publication in a scientific journal is not sufficient to validate the results of a given study nor does it immunize the study from criticism, therefore cannot be used as a justification for upholding IQ as a valid intelligence measure

 

[Josh]

IQ hate is almost as popular as religion hate these days lmao

IQ is not worthless. It is not some magic solution that allows you to compare who's smarter (or more intelligent to take it literally), but it's not worthless. What IQ is good for is studying intelligence in relation to schooling. How "book-smart" you are, that kind of thing. Then there's EQ (emotional quotient) tests that are supposed to balance out with IQ to define someone's intelligence. Anywhere that wants to use your IQ for something is likely to test your EQ as well because the combination is a lot more valid than just IQ. And it has always been intended this way, IQ testing was initially created to test who needed additional help in school. It was never meant to be used for comparing who's smarter or any of that shit, and people using it for that is why people like Hawking regard it as a joke.

 

[Deck Knight]

Plenty of what Trump has said or ideas he's snowballed around aren't racist on the surface but have racially-charged undertones, because the only way to accomplish much of what he wants done in reality is to engage in racial profiling and racist actions. He's still said plenty of blatantly racist stuff too though. Ban all Muslims from the country (whatever the religious equivalent of racism is, anyway)! Which isn't even a realistic plan, mind you. Mexicans are bad! Stop-and-frisk is good and necessary to keep the "inner city youth" [black kids] safe... you know, a practice that studies show disproportionally affects minorities and was at one time deemed unconstitutional in a federal court.

Not that I don't want tougher immigration laws myself, as a generally liberal-minded individual, but FYI immigrants have lower crime rates than nationals. Cuz, you know, they don't want to get scooped for a crime and then fucking deported when they're caught. Besides, most illegal immigrants are presumed to be once-legal ones that simply overstayed their welcome (visas); building a wall won't keep them out, not that I believe he will have a literal wall built. (There's already a partial wall that was never completed because there's no fucking point.)

So is it ignorance like that, that elected Trump? Because regardless of his rhetoric, he isn't bringing manufacturing back in force. Neither was Clinton, nor can or will anyone else. Those jobs are dead. They're not coming back because they didn't go anywhere, they were simply eliminated by the inevitable advancement of technology far more than free trade, or clean energy initiatives LOOKING AT YOU WEST VIRGINIA, or immigration (illegal or not). A large majority of people will never educate themselves on issues, though, and vote based on bullshit rhetoric and simple feelings, if not the most superficial of talking points from a single biased media source.

Two points:

1. The criminality of illegal immigrants is de jure 100%. Legal immigrants have much lower crime rate than the general population because people following the legal immigration process have their residency and potential citizenship compromised by breaking the law, overstaying their visa, etc. Lumping them with illegal aliens into "immigrants" is combining one group with no sensitivity to the law and another with hypersensitivity to the law, handwaving the legal violation of the former group, and then declaring the weighted average below a general population which has only average sensitivity to the law.

2. Many of the policies implemented by police in minority neighborhoods are implemented in places where those same minorities have local control of the government. They are in a Gordian Knot situation because both the people victimized and the victimizers are of the same minority group. Therefore when the law targets the victimizers it is by definition going to disproportionately incarcerate minorities. I'm not sure if this has been changed recently, but the reason why ar one point the drug laws had penalties 10 times worse for the drugs black drug dealers tended to sell compared to what white drug dealers tended to sell is because black drug dealers were dealing primarily to black junkies. The black community was disproportionately harmed by their criminality, but since the dealers themselves were black it caused de jure disparate impact. The law in general has spent a lot of energy focusing on the traits of the victimizers without regard to the traits of their victims.

Our legal system would be much better if there were a way to account for that without allowing demagogues to cry a black community's own decisions to defend itself are examples of white or overarching societal racism. I'm not sure what that looks like written down on paper though.

A general point on economics is that I think if you renegotiate many of the trade deals and make the US generally a more attractive place to invest by lowering the corporate tax rate, you can reignite a knowledge base in manufacturing that still exists. Free trade is an ideal worth upholding, but maintaining NAFTA's structure in 2016/17 as if this were still the 1990s is not. As far as miners and coal workers, having a government that is not openly hostile to those industries existing will be a major boon to them. Trump approving several of the pipelines the Obama Administration sat on for basically the entirety of Obama's term wiil also generate jobs in the short term.

In any case Trump hasn't been inaugurated so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and let him actually assume office first. It may indeed be the case he's a shyster incapable of effective governance who has the additional benefit of a terrible, sordid history in his personal life. Elections are about alternatives though and Trump being a womanizing boor using celebrity to attract women is an evil that is mundane and understandable, detestable though it is. Hillary's evil is putting national secrets and political influence up for sale (while incidentally enabling a womanizing boor) which is an evil that freaks people out.

 

[Taistelu]

Wouldn't the journals try to prove that X group have a higher IQ but not intelligence or am I missing something here? Since intelligence can't really be gauged by IQ, right? You can try to prove that X group have a higher IQ but that doesn't correlate to intelligence, even if the study finds that X group does have a higher IQ.

(and yes, like others have said, IQ tests are bs)

EDIT: If a study tries to say that having a higher IQ means that you have a higher intelligence then it is flawed imo.

 

[PK Gaming]

I don't want to be a racist. It is immoral.
That's why I'm collecting arguments against racism here, as I trust that people on Smogon are the cleverest group of people my age.
I want you to help me collect arguments and data.
Because I can't find good arguments elsewhere.

Smogon isn't the place to come to if you want to engage in discourse with the smartest individuals on the internet. This isn't a shot at the Smogon userbase at all (in fact, some of the smartest people I know are from here), but it's a site for competitive Pokemon enthusiasts first and foremost. But even so, several users have tried to help you understand their perspective, but the issue here is that you straight up refuse to listen to them. When someone refuted your claim about climate change, you literally responded with "This is mainstream but not all scientists have to support mainstream theories." How is anyone supposed to engage with such a vague, non-answer? It's the same thing with your blatant White/Asian Supremacy. You have omfuga's amazing post breaking down why your post is misguided, and you still give him the brush off. Like, don't come preaching to me about wanting to "collect" data when your method for collecting data is clouded by bias.

How many pages ago was this?
You are the third person by now to repeat that "IQ test is bullshit" by now.
Yet, none of you have still addressed why such "bullshit" is being published on a proper science journal.
We aren't talking about IQ now. We are talking about score gaps in maths, science, reading and writing.

The fact that you think these articles are sacrosanct is incredibly worrying, since it shows you aren't willing to think and engage with scientific material on a level that isn't sophomoric. The second article you linked even goes into reasons for the perceived differences in IQ that contradict your claims:

Watson's first assertion could be read as scientifically supported: black Africans' IQ scores are lower than those of white Europeans. But Watson's use of 'intelligence' was interpreted as meaning 'intrinsic cognitive ability', ignoring how unfamiliarity with testing format, low quality of schooling, or poor health might depress IQ scores. There have been analyses showing average national IQs for sub-Saharan Africa to be approximately 30 points lower than average IQs for predominantly white European nations, and drawing a racial conclusion from those results1, 2. A refutation of these analyses would provide an opportunity to advance understanding. Sadly, although these analyses can be refuted, as we and others have done3, most of those who scorned Watson never knew they existed.

You're looking at it the wrong way. The question we need to ask ourselves isn't "why are some races scoring worse than others" but rather "what is the cause of that?" Socioeconomic factors play in determining intelligence. The reason white and asian people do better (in addition to reasons stated above) that is that education is much more widely available to them. Also brain weight article you linked was literally useless, but I did some basic googling, and correlation between brain weight and "IQ" is extremely minuscule. It's not really worth considering, especially when you take into account that Albert Einstein had an average sized brain.

Citing Stephen Hawking though?
Let me cite something:
1. James Watson who was one of the people who discovered the DNA double helix. And you tell me he's not clever?
2. Charles Darwin, the father of evolution biology, not only believes in racism, but also supports genocide.

But apparently you find James Watson not intelligent, so I don't know what to say.
You probably don't find Charles Darwin intelligent neither, according to your definition.

James Watson was incredibly knowledgeable in his field, I am absolutely not disputing that. But the man's social etiquette and ability to deal with other people was abysmal. I'm just going to quote the article I linked earlier.

This man is really fascinating. He’s smart enough to be partly responsible for what is definitely among the greatest scientific achievements of the 20th century, yet he has the social grace of warthog. It’s really interesting how people can be so contradictory in everything they are. His work is the basis of the careers of all contemporary biologists, yet it didn’t occur to him that saying racist things to a journalist would somehow make it into his or her article (a mistake even he admits to being “stupid”). He’s capable of transforming his field with his peers using hard science, yet he’s perfectly comfortable using anecdotal evidence about black employees he’s had to support his highly controversial statements (he told journalists that believed that different races are born with the potential for intelligence that those “who have to deal with black employees find this not true”). This man was part of something that literally changed history, but he’s too dense to realize all the social and historical implications of his commentary.

There is no doubt that there are many other scientists who hold thoughts rooted in eugenics, but most of them are either intelligent or at least discerning enough to hold their tongue. There is too much social and political context tied to those theories, and publicly pursuing them is career-suicide at this point. Furthermore, it actively goes against what many consider the purpose behind science in the first place (benefiting “mankind”) since all it could possibly lead to is divisions that would help absolutely nobody. The aspect of this I find funny though, is the thought process Watson has going into this. Just reading through his writing and his interviews, I’m definitely getting the sense that he sees himself as a vanguard, someone with the bravery and gumption “real-talk” the scientific community.

As for Charles Darwin, same deal. He literally revolutionized science, but his policies shouldn't apply to modern human society. (Unless you believe in Genocide and racism? Lol). Our society functions literally by doing the opposite of Darwanism.

It seems like your definition of intelligence lies on what a person choose to belief, which is very different from other people's definition.

No. My belief is that human intelligence can't be quantified with a simple score on a test. Intelligence is so much more than that. It deals with perception, creativity, ability, knowledge, insight, wisdom, athleticism, memory, social etiquette (aka street smart). These are concepts that IQ tests barely even register, so yes my definition of intelligence isn't rigid as fuck like yours.

PS: You get likes because your answer is moral, not because it's a good argument.

Please, No Johns. People aren't giving you likes because you're engaging in old school racist bullshit and legitimizing white/asian supremacy. That and you have terrible, terrible taste in Pokemon.

In the end stressing about racial superiority is needlessly divisive and ultimately pointless. We should embracing our differences and trying to make each other (and the world) better. That in my opinion, is the most intelligent thing our species can do.

 

[Shurtugal]

Uh, not to be rude or anything, but I think the discussion has totally derailed from its origins (us election), so I'll try to get us back on track in that direction:

So this is the first time "since 1920s" (from what I've heard) that the republicans have virtually full control. I wonder how this is going to impact us. As much as I like republicans, I don't think having a republican-dominant government is very, well, balanced, so I'm sort of concerned because the checks and balance system should struggle to, well, keep things in check right?

Also I hear a lot of people call Trump racist but I'm not sure if this is because his supporters are racist or if he is actually racist himself. It's like when a fandom is judged for its fanbase when the creator has very little control over its fanbase.

I'd comment on the IQ discussion but I don't think it is relevant unless we're talking about Trump's tweet when he said that his IQ was 180-190 or something insane like that. If so, I'd like to say that Trump doesn't seem to be a "highly intelligent" individual at all, especially one who has such little control over their emotions, so I would say Trump alone is evidence that IQ tests aren't all they're cracked up to be.

 

[Fireflame]

It just shows how much of a taboo "race" is in USA, and how little you guys are prepared for discussion like this.

But a discussion like this doesn't need to be happening right now. In fact, most people don't care about this. The majority of people here are in agreement that the IQ system is flawed and is pretty much useless. You can't measure a human being's intelligence with a test that was created by more human beings... You just keep throwing everyone info about how blacks are scoring less scores on the IQ test, among other stuff, which in reality, doesn't mean anything. Like I mentioned, the IQ tests are complete garbage. Even Stephen Hawking hates them, and he's arguably one of if not the smartest person on Earth.

"Race" being a "taboo" isn't necessarily all that bad in a perfect world. It prevents people from believing in certain stereotypes and therefore discourages racist acts. However, this is simply not the case in the US, so, I don't know what to tell you. There's racist acts literally all over the place, so it's not a taboo.

I'm surprised that none of you brought up how whites are the worst performing group academically in the UK. Studies have shown that in the UK , every single ethnic minority has outperformed whites.

I bet you millions of dollars that absolutely no one knows or cares that in the UK, ethnic minorities have outperformed whites on the IQ exam. Like... the UK? So if Americans don't know this specific piece of information about the IQ test in the United Kingdom, the U.S. is labeled as having a taboo for "race".

I'm also in agreement with PK Gaming on your vague non-answers to previous issues that no one can disprove because it's too vague and it's also not an answer. It doesn't strengthen your stance(s) either.

You could also have pointed out that "white" is a rather broad term, and if you divide "white" further into different groups according to heritage, different groups would also perform very differently, as the above chart has showed.

No no no no no. First off, HOW ON EARTH is white a broad term? Someone who's white = they have white skin. It's not broad. It doesn't matter what "heritage" you're born from if you're still white. And this is just so stretching it. Dividing white further into groups according to heritage? It was bad enough that everyone was chatting about how different races had different IQ scores, but now SUBDIVIDING this. You're missing the point that the IQ system is complete garbage. You can't measure a human's intelligence based on a test:

1). "How many steps does it take to put an elephant in the fridge?" "How many steps does it take to put a giraffe in the fridge?" "Who would win in the race, the giraffe or the elephant?"
2). "Before Mt. Everest was discovered, what was the highest mountain in the world?"
3). "A butcher is 5'10" and wears size 13 shoes? What does he weigh?"

THAT might as well be the IQ test. Find the answer to those questions and see why please. If you can only answer 3 parts correctly, then you're less intelligent than someone who has answered all 5?


Btw sorry Shurtugal I was in the middle of writing this when you posted... But yes yes I agree we should talk about the election now instead of this stupid IQ thing.

 

[Cresselia~~]

But a discussion like this doesn't need to be happening right now. In fact, most people don't care about this. The majority of people here are in agreement that the IQ system is flawed and is pretty much useless. You can't measure a human being's intelligence with a test that was created by more human beings... You just keep throwing everyone info about how blacks are scoring less scores on the IQ test, among other stuff, which in reality, doesn't mean anything. Like I mentioned, the IQ tests are complete garbage. Even Stephen Hawking hates them, and he's arguably one of if not the smartest person on Earth.

"Race" being a "taboo" isn't necessarily all that bad in a perfect world. It prevents people from believing in certain stereotypes and therefore discourages racist acts. However, this is simply not the case in the US, so, I don't know what to tell you. There's racist acts literally all over the place, so it's not a taboo.

I bet you millions of dollars that absolutely no one knows or cares that in the UK, ethnic minorities have outperformed whites on the IQ exam. Like... the UK? So if Americans don't know this specific piece of information about the IQ test in the United Kingdom, the U.S. is labeled as having a taboo for "race".

I'm also in agreement with PK Gaming on your vague non-answers to previous issues that no one can disprove because it's too vague and it's also not an answer. It doesn't strengthen your stance(s) either.

No no no no no. First off, HOW ON EARTH is white a broad term? Someone who's white = they have white skin. It's not broad. It doesn't matter what "heritage" you're born from if you're still white. And this is just so stretching it. Dividing white further into groups according to heritage? It was bad enough that everyone was chatting about how different races had different IQ scores, but now SUBDIVIDING this. You're missing the point that the IQ system is complete garbage. You can't measure a human's intelligence based on a test:

1). "How many steps does it take to put an elephant in the fridge?" "How many steps does it take to put a giraffe in the fridge?" "Who would win in the race, the giraffe or the elephant?"
2). "Before Mt. Everest was discovered, what was the highest mountain in the world?"
3). "A butcher is 5'10" and wears size 13 shoes? What does he weigh?"

THAT might as well be the IQ test. Find the answer to those questions and see why please. If you can only answer 3 parts correctly, then you're less intelligent than someone who has answered all 5?


Btw sorry Shurtugal I was in the middle of writing this when you posted... But yes yes I agree we should talk about the election now instead of this stupid IQ thing.

Are we still on IQ test right now?
The UK one has nothing to do with IQ.

You are clearly discrediting everything I've said that's not about IQ, by claiming that I'm still on the IQ business.

I've stopped talking about IQ for pages now, and somehow, you want to bring that up.

Only like one of my posts were about IQ, and 3 of them are about academic performances instead of IQ.

And you act like IQ is all I talk about.

Not sure what fallacy it is, but I think it is a fallacy of some sort.

Plus these questions have nothing to do with IQ tests at all.
You think these questions appear on IQ tests, and these questions are stupid, so IQ tests are stupid.
That's also a fallacy.

 

[Shurtugal]

We were literally discussing IQ towards the end half of the last page (you were discussing it too?). I'm pretty sure they brought up IQ and also race stuff you've been talking about. Their bringing up the IQs is one of their ways of addressing the race points you brought up, too.

-.-.-

"Get over it because I say so" and "Can't be bothered to look them up" how am I supposed to take you seriously?

You're just evading the points they're saying by saying you don't believe in your own arguments. I sort of understand that you're using them as a way to "collect" data or whatever, but you have to commit to your argument -- you can't just be like "heh time to dip" you have to defend your argument or concede? It's annoying that you keep bringing points up and then when anyone discusses it you're like "oh no I agree with you completely but data and XYZ points" so like everyone else said: how are we supposed to discuss things with you?

-.-.-

I don't really want to argue and seem aggressive or like I'm attacking you especially when that isn't my intention. I'd prefer if we started talking about Trump more, or discussing how these topics correlate with the election more. I came here to learn about what the OP is about.

EDIT: maybe we can discuss the points I brought up earlier? :O

 

[brightobject]

why are you posting these things? Simply to be contrarian?

Just being contrarian doesn't make your arguments all invincible simply because you yourself don't believe in them (if anything it just casts doubt on your understanding of the viewpoint you are arguing). People have responded plenty of times to the points you've raised regarding a possible factual basis for racism and you have dodged all of them under the pretense of "non-mainstream" opinions. I don't really think this discussion is appropriate for this thread, so if you care that much about fomenting this kind of asinine talk maybe you should make a thread for it instead of derailing this one.

 

[Cresselia~~]

why are you posting these things? Simply to be contrarian?

Just being contrarian doesn't make your arguments all invincible simply because you yourself don't believe in them (if anything it just casts doubt on your understanding of the viewpoint you are arguing). People have responded plenty of times to the points you've raised regarding a possible factual basis for racism and you have dodged all of them under the pretense of "non-mainstream" opinions. I don't really think this discussion is appropriate for this thread, so if you care that much about fomenting this kind of asinine talk maybe you should make a thread for it instead of derailing this one.

I thought I was going to stop when I brought up the UK data.
But some people are claiming and attacking me that the UK data is about IQ again, when it's definitely not about IQ.

And I'm not thinking that they are invincible.
I'm just simply saying that these are commonly brought up during arguments like these.

We were literally discussing IQ towards the end half of the last page (you were discussing it too?). I'm pretty sure they brought up IQ and also race stuff you've been talking about. Their bringing up the IQs is one of their ways of addressing the race points you brought up, too.

-.-.-

"Get over it because I say so" and "Can't be bothered to look them up" how am I supposed to take you seriously?

You're just evading the points they're saying by saying you don't believe in your own arguments. I sort of understand that you're using them as a way to "collect" data or whatever, but you have to commit to your argument -- you can't just be like "heh time to dip" you have to defend your argument or concede? It's annoying that you keep bringing points up and then when anyone discusses it you're like "oh no I agree with you completely but data and XYZ points" so like everyone else said: how are we supposed to discuss things with you?

-.-.-

I don't really want to argue and seem aggressive or like I'm attacking you especially when that isn't my intention. I'd prefer if we started talking about Trump more, or discussing how these topics correlate with the election more. I came here to learn about what the OP is about.

Hmmm... thinking about it, I've never seen this style in any formal debates, so maybe my ways are indeed inferior/ unviable.

You aren't sounding aggressive at all. I don't think you are attacking me, but obviously some other people are.

Seriously, people need to stop claiming that I'm still on the IQ business when literally only the first 30% of my posts were about IQ.

I'm literally losing my temper on this.
I hate it when people claim I'm doing something that I'm clearly not doing.

Some people here are acting like politicians-- they are putting stuff into other people's mouths and claims that I'm doing something that I'm not.
And people give them likes.
Probably because they know they are going to get likes, so that's why they act like a politician.
Politicians love straw man fallacies, don't they?

 

[shade]

can't believe i have to say this but everyone shut up about racism and IQ and talk about the election, i was reading and was gonna delete the posts until i realised there was like 4 pages of that bull shit. talk about the election and its permutations, not if white ppl have higher IQs

 

[Mazinger]

I still haven't received a real answer to any of my posts and I doubt I will get one after whatever happened on the last few pages so:

Can someone clarify the whole "the left needs to stop calling people bigots" thing? I'm struggling to figure out the following things:

a) Is this a factual or strategic argument?

b) If it is factual, what exactly are the false claims being made about people who apparently are not bigots but do act like bigots?

c) If it is strategic, do you really think pretending that people aren't bigots will do anything do stop bigotry?

The version that makes sense to me is "you can't stop hate but you can sweep it under the carpet to get votes and make policy that leads to long term improvements" but I feel like that's not what most people are actually saying.