Holocaust ... and other forms of Denial

[Michael]

Your source claims a black IQ of 85, which is twenty years out of date. The current black IQ is over 90 and rising. I posted at least two links for you, to that effect.

Perhaps the average black IQ is 150. So what? That's not your claim. Your claim is that 'white racism' / white people significantly affect the IQ of black people.

This is racism. It's formally called Critical Race Theory.

Further, HAVE THE PAPER RETRACTED if you think they are analyzing the wrong data set, because as of right now, the data is correct and ANYONE can go to the link I posted and datamine and find the data for themselves.

As for IQ and the Flynn effect, (A) most of IQ is genetic (B) because of the repeated exposure to IQ type testing, IQ scores (not brain function) increased over the last few decades (C) all good evidence suggests that IQ is now in decline - and has been for over a decade.

So Progressive Socialism hurts black IQ scores (because lies), but Jim Crow does not (because genetics). Did I read that right?

No, Progressive Socialism hurts PEOPLE with low IQ.

People. Not colored people. People (mostly white people by the bye).

I know, I know, it's really difficult to see the world without seeing it through the lens of Critical Race Theory where evil white people are lowering the IQ score of black people - which they are not. PEOPLE of ANY color who happen to be born with low IQ, end up in a lower socioeconomic bracket.

What are you missing here?

Even if what you propose is correct, and black people have an average IQ of 90+, so what? That is not the ONLY claim made by the authors. The authors show that regardless of ethnicity, people with high-IQ moved into the middle class. This means that once IQ is controlled for, RACE HAD NO EFFECT.

Again, can you read? What are you missing? Are you able to see empirical evidence without attempting to twist it around into some half-arsed race-baiting claim about evil white people?

The fact is Critical Race Theory has now been Scientifically proven to be incorrect, if you are a Scientifically minded person, you must align your thinking to the Scientific Evidence and reject Critical Race Theory. But you don't want to do that do you? Why? Because you're emotionally connected to this idea that evil White People are to blame. And, given you're a Progressive Socialist, and given Social Marxism is all the rage on the Left, you'd be giving up a lot more than just a pet theory.

So you don't.

According to your posted table of SAT scores, low IQ begets socioeconomic success in black people.

The SAT suggests that high-IQ blacks move into a higher socioeconomic bracket and then their children are born with a lower IQ due to genetic luck, and move right back down. It's a regression to the mean (no scientific dispute here). The SAT scores of at least four different populations: African, European, E. Asian, Latino. Each with different average IQ scores. The adoption studies showed the SAME EFFECT for yellow, white and black adopted children.

Adult IQ returns to the overall population mean.

Regression to the mean is true for yellow people and the same is true of white people. The only difference is the normality curved are shifted for each population. Which makes sense given IQ is mostly genetic (not a dispute here, ALL scientists agree with this statement) and different populations of humans have different averages for their IQ scores (again, this is NOT in dispute - E. Asians have an average of 105+, that's a scientific fact).

There is NO good evidence that 'white people' via 'white racism' is having ANY effect on the average brain function of black, yellow or other white people. What there is good evidence of is Governmental incompetence (and yes iceaura, GiverMint has employed people of all colors) is doing to the water supply, what it did to sound money, sound education and the environment: destroying it.

 

[Michael]

RE: Science Denying

An original analysis of 11,878 youths (including 3,022 Blacks) from the 12-year National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. It found that most 17-year-olds with high scores on the Armed Forces Qualification Test, regardless of ethnic background, went on to occupational success by their late 20s and early 30s, whereas those with low scores were more inclined to welfare dependency. The study also found that the average IQ for African Americans was lower than those for Latino, White, Asian, and Jewish Americans (85, 89, 103, 106, and 113, respectively; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994, pp. 273–278).​

If you think YOU have found a flaw in their analysis, then YOU write to the journal and have the paper retracted. It's this process called "Science" where peer-review is followed by publication and then anyone can scrutinize the data. I provided a link to the data.

 

[Michael]

It should be noted, in less than 20 years, we will be able to produce humans with IQ's double the average of today, maybe much higher. Like an assembly-line. My guess is, this will happen in E. Asia first, most likely in China because they have the technology and a Far Left Socialistic "Workers Party" government that will enforce this 'Progressive' police for the 'Good of the Nation State'. As they reap the rewards, other Nation States will follow suit. In 150 years, these problems will no longer exist.

The nice thing is, as IQ begins to hover around the equivalent of 135+ Progressive Socialism dies because there are no low-IQ people to lie to any longer. Thankfully

So, there is that

 

[Michael]

The CollegeFix reports on Evergreen State College:

Thanks to decades of (a) ignoring science and (b) building a non-free-market, not based on individuals but instead on IQ-based testing (mostly at Government schools) and regulatory capture, the conspiracy theory that 'white people' (never mind yellow people make more money and have a higher IQ) are somehow to blame for why some black people are poor. Nevermind most poor in the USA are white. Nevermind most low-IQ people in the USA are white. Hell nevermind that most people shot by police are white - even though white people commit less total crimes. And certainly, nevermind 30 years of scientific data that shows social mobility is so strongly correlated to IQ (which is mostly genetic) that in general people of ANY color move up and down the socioeconomic stratum based solely on their IQ.

Anyway, instead of retaining our tried and tests 'fair' system (see: late 1800s) - we have instead created a new form of Authoritarianism called: Progressive Socialism. And imported Social Marxism. And now blame 'white people' for something they have ZERO control over. Heck, not only that, there's entirely new histories were white are not to be congradulated for ending slavery, but BLAMED for it! You know, because 450000 African Slaves sold in America is way way way worse than the 1.2 million European Slaves sold in Africa.

Now, I can tell you why this narrative is popular. It's because white people have always had Guilt Cultures. You can try that shit in E. Asian and you'll get no where because Asians (and Africans by the bye) mostly have Shame cultures. They don't get guilted into providing people with free resoures. They may Shame someone into it - but this isn't the same as guilting them into giving you free-sh*t.

Anyway, so when we don't have an evil 'white' Jewish professors being harassed out of the classroom for not taking part in the University's "Day without White People", then Social Marxists are blaming white people - just for being born white (LOL). Social Marxism has finally turned everyone into little racist cliche's and pitted them against one another.

From the link:
— “Whiteness is the most violent f*ckin’ system to ever breathe!”

Oh well, Socialism is a mental illness.

How sad. In reality, white Europeans created the greatest culture that humanity has ever seen. The most advanced. And when Europeans possessed the power to eliminate all other cultures, they stopped, reflected, and instead shared their technology and helped other cultures.

No, not perfect. But don't expect this kindness to be repaid in kind. Most people do not think like this.


So? The solution?
Sadly, it's not going to be fun. But the best solution is voluntarism: End income tax, bring in sound money to outcompete the USD so that we can finally have an economy that reflects value, enforce property rights and contract law and remove all regulations that promote rent-seeking (such as state enforced professional liscencing). Is that going to happen? Probably not.

My guess, given 97.3% of Americans are Statists, is America will become a Police State. Right now, I read that if the military were allowed to fly military-grade drones (the ones used in Baghdad) over Chicago (and other cities) they could record with high fidelity all movements of all people and pretty much be able to trace most shootings back in recorded time right to the perpetrator's homes. They don't because that would turn our cities in near total Survalence States. But, when (not if) things get bad enough, they will. And when this works very well, we'll get used to it (just as we're now used to all phone and text messages being recorded) and slowly (or not so slowly) we'll get used to living in a Police State.

At that time, history suggests your chances of survival is best under a far right dictator. Sure, you may die. But, odds are much better you'll survive relative to if you live under a far left dictator. Just something to keep in mind as we go forward.

 

[iceaura]

Perhaps the average black IQ is 150. So what? That's not your claim. Your claim is that 'white racism' / white people significantly affect the IQ of black people.

No, my claim is that you deny white racism and its effects on black people in the US.

The SAT suggests that high-IQ blacks move into a higher socioeconomic bracket and then their children are born with a lower IQ due to genetic luck, and move right back down. It's a regression to the mean (no scientific dispute here).

They move from the highest to the lowest economic bracket IQ. That would be regression from the first to the fifth quintile, not to the "mean".

Besides, if you recall from the link I posted, that I'm sure you read because science is a big deal for you, black African immigrant IQs don't seem to regress to the mean like that. So it's not a racial matter.
Also, as I posted, among American blacks the regression and the mean itself varies by several points depending on the State - the variation is as large as the difference between white and black IQ means. The correlation with Jim Crow is obvious, if you look at which States vary low vs high.

Even if what you propose is correct, and black people have an average IQ of 90+, so what? That is not the ONLY claim made by the authors. The authors show that regardless of ethnicity, people with high-IQ moved into the middle class. This means that once IQ is controlled for, RACE HAD NO EFFECT.

So I have reason to believe the authors were not thinking clearly, and are apt to have made mistakes.
For example, If they "controlled for IQ" without accounting for the effects of race on IQ score, they may have discarded the effects of race that correlated with the effects of race on IQ - that's assuming the consequent.

If you think YOU have found a flaw in their analysis, then YOU write to the journal and have the paper retracted

One thing you can see immediately is that they are using data for black IQ that is twenty years out of date - unless they are drawing no conclusions about modern circumstances, that's an issue. You can see that for yourself.

And when you're all done, you still have your denial of Jim Crow to deal with. IQ is entertaining, but hardly the topic.

 

[iceaura]

From the link:
— “Whiteness is the most violent f*ckin’ system to ever breathe!”

Hmmm. Is that wrong?

It's dramatically worded, but the sense of it is at least plausible. The invention of the white race - "whiteness" - does correlate with plantation slavery, does seem to have been involved in the Holocaust, does seem to have generally underlain the dramatic horrors of colonial subjugation during the European expansion.

And one can't help but note that the people denying that general point are also denying Jim Crow in the US, in seemingly related reasoning. Absurd denials cluster.

But it doesn't seem to me to rise to the level of absurd denial. A reasonable case for greater violence in other systems seems likely - the Aztecs were actually making war in order to obtain captives for sacrifice involving cannibalism, for example. There was Carthage, with all the child skeletons in the ceremonial urns. Genghis Khan.

 

[Michael]

No, my claim is that you deny white racism and its effects on black people in the US.

So you no longer support the claim that: White racism is affecting the IQ of black people living in the USA?

You can make claims about my subject thoughts all day every day. I don't care

 

[Michael]

From the link:
— “Whiteness is the most violent f*ckin’ system to ever breathe!”

Hmmm. Is that wrong?

Yes, it is wrong.

But, it doesn't surprise me you may have difficulty understanding that.


Do you support the requirement of State licensing to practice medicine?

 

[iceaura]

So you no longer support the claim that: White racism is affecting the IQ of black people living in the USA?

You have now had that strawman question answered four times. The exact same question. Have you forgotten the answer? Go back and read it.

You can make claims about my subject thoughts all day every day. I don't care

Then go away. Your particular absurd denial and examples of the kind of "thinking" that goes into such denials is long complete - you have apparently no more contribution to the thread, and you impede the discussion if there's any left.

 

[Kittamaru]

Do you support the requirement of State licensing to practice medicine?

Given the proliferation of pseudoscience, snake oil, and outright dangerous bullshit people will tout as cured for everything from hair loss to cancer to homosexuality... Yes, I do support it. I don't want every stupid ass conman to be able to slap PhD after their name and go off to market bleach enemas as a cure for autism.

 

[Michael]

Your particular absurd denial and examples of the kind of "thinking" that goes into such denials is long complete - you have apparently no more contribution to the thread, and you impede the discussion if there's any left.

The only person denying science is you.

An original analysis of 11,878 youths (including 3,022 Blacks) from the 12-year National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. It found that most 17-year-olds with high scores on the Armed Forces Qualification Test, regardless of ethnic background, went on to occupational success by their late 20s and early 30s, whereas those with low scores were more inclined to welfare dependency. The study also found that the average IQ for African Americans was lower than those for Latino, White, Asian, and Jewish Americans (85, 89, 103, 106, and 113, respectively; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994, pp. 273–278).​

If you think YOU have found a flaw in their analysis, then YOU write to the journal and have the paper retracted. It's this process called "Science" where peer-review is followed by publication and then anyone can scrutinize the data. I provided a link to the data. Feel free to use said link to find that no, the data is perfectly cogent today.

 

[Michael]

Given the proliferation of pseudoscience, snake oil, and outright dangerous bullshit people will tout as cured for everything from hair loss to cancer to homosexuality... Yes, I do support it. I don't want every stupid ass conman to be able to slap PhD after their name and go off to market bleach enemas as a cure for autism.

Then you don't mind paying a lot of money for low quality healthcare. And you're mistaken if you think giving monopoly over to a group of public regulators is going to ensure you are not killed off by your healthcare. As a matter of fact, the science suggests if you do not smoke, you will eventually die of a medical error.

See, that's the 'science'. If you were scientifically minded, you would now begin to change your opinion to align it with the science and realize the regulatory-capture and rent-seeking is not improving healthcare, it's simply making the cost of healthcare go up, while quality goes down.

It should be noted, no one can market a bleach enema as a cure for autism without violating private property (which is a part of common law).
No one can market a cure for cancer or hair loss without violating contract law (which is a part of common law).

Thus, again, with simple reason and deduction you must change your opinion. But, we both know this isn't going to happen. Because you feel emotionally wedded to the idea of some magical State/God that's looking out for you. In this case, ensuring that when you are sick, a qualified AND competent physician will care for you.

Sorry, magic doesn't happen. Ticking the free-sh*t box next to the B.Sanders name isn't going to provide you with high quality cheap healthcare. As a matter of fact, when a SNAKE OIL salesman / politician tries you sell you some bullsh*t about "Universal Healthcare" that's both CHEAP and HIGH QUALITY, a reasoned person would think, hmmmm maybe this bullshi-*tter who's never worked a day in his life providing medical care, is full of sh*t and just trying to trick me into voting for him by promising me something that sounds a little too good to be true.

In the real world there's only one way to reduce the price of something: increase supply (deregulation) or reduce demand. There's only one known way to reliably increase quality: free-choice.

 

[Michael]

One more time for the record, so that we can see who is denying science in favor of race-baiting:

From the link:
— “Whiteness is the most violent f*ckin’ system to ever breathe!”

Hmmm. Is that wrong?

 

[Michael]

So you no longer support the claim that: White racism is affecting the IQ of black people living in the USA?

You have now had that strawman question answered four times.

I asked to determine if the repeated exposure to peer-reviewed scientific evidence and a link to the government's full dataset, so that if you were actually bringing up a valid objection, you may find the most recent empirical data, had in any way altered your opinion to align with objective reality.

Of course it didn't.

The cognitive dissonance you would experience at coming to terms with your racist hateful ideology, exemplified in modern day Social Marxism, but practiced as Progressive Socialism is what has ruined the livelihoods of generations of black, white and yellow Americans who had the misfortune, to be born at the lower end of the IQ normality curve is too much for you. It'd affect the core of your being. SO, you instead double down. Which is what the science says happens. When confronted with solid cogent peer-reviewed evidence, your biased belief is reinforced. Too bad too because the Progressive Socialists 'solution' of Government provided 'free-sh*t', in this case, Government-run welfare ghettos is destroying poor people, black people included.

Those are the objective facts. High IQ people move UP socioeconomically, low IQ people move DOWN. Regardless of ethnic background.

An original analysis of 11,878 youths (including 3,022 Blacks) from the 12-year National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. It found that most 17-year-olds with high scores on the Armed Forces Qualification Test, regardless of ethnic background, went on to occupational success by their late 20s and early 30s, whereas those with low scores were more inclined to welfare dependency. The study also found that the average IQ for African Americans was lower than those for Latino, White, Asian, and Jewish Americans (85, 89, 103, 106, and 113, respectively; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994, pp. 273–278).​

Sorry if you don't like science, but too bad, that's the data. Either accept the data, which is the general consensus of the scientific community or be a science denier.

Pretty simple really.

 

[iceaura]

One more time for the record, so that we can see who is denying science in favor of race-baiting:

According to the denial: Science says white racism has had no significant effects on black people in the US. According to one particular form of this denial: All of the apparent effects of white racism towards black people - if it even exists - are consequences of black people having lower IQs than white people - so says science.

According to the people who look around and record events, history, facts of the physical world, the invention of the white race is a characteristic feature and a key feature of an extraordinarily violent and damaging social and political system that afflicts us to this day. If science has missed that, science needs to be improved to be of even minimal use in this matter.

If you think YOU have found a flaw in their analysis, then YOU write to the journal and have the paper retracted.

I have found a flaw in your analysis, and labeled it "absurd denial". So what are my odds of having you retract your absurd denial? Zero, from the looks of things.

Absurd denial is immune to reason. If it were not, it would not exist in the first place.

 

[iceaura]

Those are the objective facts. High IQ people move UP socioeconomically, low IQ people move DOWN. Regardless of ethnic background.

I keep thinking you are going to come up with an argument there, instead of these endless repetitions of facts you don't understand followed by absurd denial of Jim Crow.
Silly me. I posted your argument, and it looked absurd even to you, so you will never make it explicit.

 

[Michael]

According to the denial: Science says white racism has had no significant effects on black people in the US.

Strawman, the argument was no significant effect on IQ of anyone, including black people, but not limited to black people. Further, the evidence shows that once IQ is controlled for, there's NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT of ethnicity.

You can continue to Deny the Science, but to do so is to deny objective reality in favor of your subjective beliefs - which appear to have turned into a conspiracy theory about white people as viewed through the lens of Social Marxism.

 

[Michael]

From the link:
— “Whiteness is the most violent f*ckin’ system to ever breathe!”

Hmmm. Is that wrong?

Economic Marxists destroyed various economies around the world, Social Marxists are doing likewise to culture.

 

[iceaura]

Strawman, the argument was

Your argument on this thread was exactly as described. Not a strawman.

Further, the evidence shows that once IQ is controlled for, there's NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT of ethnicity.

How did they control the IQ scores for the various effects of "ethnicity", in the first place? Because if they didn't, they hid the effects of ethnicity that correlate with its effects on IQ scores, when they "controlled for IQ".

And you saw evidence for that in your SAT score table, remember? As well as in my links, which you of course read.

But the punch line is simply your denial. You spend all this time talking about IQ, and then you turn around and try to deny Jim Crow ?

 

[Schmelzer]

You have stated, for example, that the direct and established temperature boost from the CO2 boost was logarithmic, that the expected boost from that cause was maybe a degree or two total, and that was the only established and unarguable fact of AGW. You stated that your doubt of the rest - everything except that - was not absurd, but legitimate. That denied the entire range of AGW as established by research etc.
We were talking about the cost of transition. You dismissed it far too casually. I posted an example of a high cost.

Emphasis for an open lie. I don't know the AGW literature, but have no doubt that there will be a lot of facts in it which are established. Doubt is legitimate in any case, even in cases where to doubt is absurd for those who have studied the literature. So, "not absurd but legitimate" is quite meaningless.

You are, quite possibly, talking about a significant evolutionary driver.

So what, we are talking about hundreds of years, this makes evolution almost irrelevant. (Except for organisms with very short life expectancy.)

You are definitely, beyond doubt, talking about a cultural change driver with physiological implications. If you adjust the temps to something your deluded mind has convinced you is optimal for human beings now, it is certain they will adjust - and a new optimum would appear.

The point being? You think that after this cultural adaption, the new optimum will not remain higher than the actual temperature now? And, even if this happens, it would be hardly predictable, thus, irrelevant for the discussion of AGW now.

Meanwhile, in the short run: Definitely you are talking about human beings with significantly different agricultural and industrial and geo-political setups, including a small but far from negligible possibility of no industrial civilization at all. Would that be "optimal"?

As you have recognized (not without cheap polemics, intentionally misinterpreting "optimal temperature" as if it would mean something with millidegree accuracy) we are talking here about a temperature range. The problem you mention is a general well-known problem, namely how to establish such things like what is optimal for humankind. Even if we would know what is optimal for every person, there would be no natural way to define the average.
bb But should this prevent us from making such estimates in some approximation? Certainly not. This would make states impossible - it is their claim, that they care about some "common good", which would be completely undefined without such ill-defined averaging. So, if you were an Austrian libertarian, fine, it would make sense to discuss this argument with you. Without this, think about your own inconsistency instead.

My position is that, indeed, the averaging of human interests is quite ill-defined. But it makes, nonetheless, sense as a quite rough approximation. An approximation which probably ignores the clear interest of a European alpinist who likes to look at glaciers in the nearby Alps, as well as of the misanthrope. But cares about agriculture, forests and so on,

Or lower but differently distributed.
Actually, I did throw in - back when I first pointed out how idiotic and irrelevant the question was, and noted where you got it from as well - my personal opinion that the planet was too cold for us. I derived that from the observation that the too cold areas were larger than the almost too hot ones.
But of course you can't solve that by boosting the average temperature. You have to control distribution. And the last thing we have with AGW is control.

First, it is the very thesis of AGW that humankind has some control over the average temperature. Which is what makes the question which temperature would be optimal interesting for human behavior and politically relevant. The AGW proponents are, clearly, arguing that we should invest a large amount of money to make the temperature lower than it would be if we would care at all. As already clarified, such action could be reasonable if the transition costs would be much higher than those proposed investments, even if the optimal temperature would be higher than now.

Once we have no ways to influence the distribution, the optimal distribution is quite irrelevant. (It plays, of course, a role in the models one would have to use to find out which temperature is optimal. Because the distribution will change with temperature. And then, it would depend on this temperature-dependent distribution if some temperature is better than another.)

I also have stated, frequently and I assume in response to you at some time, that the AGW warming is predicted to hit first, hardest, and most significantly, in the exact northern hemisphere places that are too cold. By your nonsense logic that means an improvement in the ambient temperature regime, which in your silly reasoning means an approach to an optimum.

If you would be correct about this, and even in those regions which are now too cold AGW would create in the long range more harm, then the idea that they are too cold would be wrong, and this would be evidence for the thesis that the optimal temperature would be even lower than it is now.

You are known to like arguments which pick out a small exception where the average is wrong, as if this would question the average. Given that I always accepted the point that transition costs are negative, I may have ignored your argument because I have identified it as a transition effect. One of this was probably the reason why I have ignored and forgotten this "frequently" made argument. If this justification for ignorance is wrong, then repeat your argument, I would be interested.