In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On September 06 2017 22:53 Aquanim wrote: I'm not sure this argument deserves to be treated with as much contempt as it has been. The fact that I have significantly above average intelligence means that in many ways my life is easier and has more material perks than the life of somebody who does not have above average intelligence. Whether that is fair or not, and what role (if any) the greater society should play in ensuring that everybody has a fulfilling life, are legitimate fields of inquiry.
It's obviously bad to use such a field of inquiry to distract from the other reasons that one person might have an easier life than another (such as ethnicity) that don't even have the excuse of being based on contribution to society or what have you.
Highly intelligent people serve distinct purposes and move society forward in ways that others can not. There is no such exclusivity for men or white people. It is similar to how leaders are necessary to herd the followers.
I agree that that is true, but I think that does not mean that the people who don't have special skills to move society forward in ways other do not should be treated as being any less worthy to live a fulfilling life.
On September 06 2017 22:53 Aquanim wrote: I'm not sure this argument deserves to be treated with as much contempt as it has been. The fact that I have significantly above average intelligence means that in many ways my life is easier and has more material perks than the life of somebody who does not have above average intelligence. Whether that is fair or not, and what role (if any) the greater society should play in ensuring that everybody has a fulfilling life, are legitimate fields of inquiry.
It's obviously bad to use such a field of inquiry to distract from the other reasons that one person might have an easier life than another (such as ethnicity) that don't even have the excuse of being based on contribution to society or what have you.
The contempt, as knee-jerk as it may be, stems from routine associations with discussions involving race relations. When folks consistently try and whatabout their way out of acknowledging that the US has a uniquely awful past of race-based discrimination and subjugation, "legitimate" asides start to look illegitimate as a matter of course.
What you're speaking about relative to intelligence is absolutely a thing and I'd argue that our terrible attitudes towards academic failure and trade schools lie at its heart, but at the end of the day, this needn't be a zero-sum game.
I do understand that the "had this conversation before" effect is pretty strong, but we should always strive to be at least civil. (That isn't a criticism of anybody in particular, just wanted to put it out there.)
On September 06 2017 22:53 Aquanim wrote: I'm not sure this argument deserves to be treated with as much contempt as it has been. The fact that I have significantly above average intelligence means that in many ways my life is easier and has more material perks than the life of somebody who does not have above average intelligence. Whether that is fair or not, and what role (if any) the greater society should play in ensuring that everybody has a fulfilling life, are legitimate fields of inquiry.
It's obviously bad to use such a field of inquiry to distract from the other reasons that one person might have an easier life than another (such as ethnicity) that don't even have the excuse of being based on contribution to society or what have you.
The argument is used because smart privilege shouldn't quite be fixed. You're not going to engage less intelligent people into physics labs just to be "fair" to them, that wouldn't make sense. So by equating the two, dishonest people get to pretend that we're engaged in an illogical process. Of course it's not a serious argument.
And of course the same type of people will then turn around and demand that you hire more "conservative" professors than what happens organically out of a desire to be fair & balanced, but hey at some point we're past surprise aren't we.
I'm not saying that people who only have the intellectual capacity to dust the floors and clean toilets in a physics lab should be made to do things they don't have the capability to do. I'm saying that those people should be given the material means to live a fulfilling life (after all, they're doing a job I really don't want to do), and I think in modern Western society they're frequently not.
On September 06 2017 23:09 Aquanim wrote: I'm not saying that people who only have the intellectual capacity to dust the floors and clean toilets in a physics lab should be made to do things they don't have the capability to do. I'm saying that those people should be given the material means to live a fulfilling life (after all, they're doing a job I really don't want to do), and I think in modern Western society they're frequently not.
Sure I agree with you. But I don't really think that falls under the privilege discussion.
On September 06 2017 22:53 Aquanim wrote: I'm not sure this argument deserves to be treated with as much contempt as it has been. The fact that I have significantly above average intelligence means that in many ways my life is easier and has more material perks than the life of somebody who does not have above average intelligence. Whether that is fair or not, and what role (if any) the greater society should play in ensuring that everybody has a fulfilling life, are legitimate fields of inquiry.
It's obviously bad to use such a field of inquiry to distract from the other reasons that one person might have an easier life than another (such as ethnicity) that don't even have the excuse of being based on contribution to society or what have you.
Highly intelligent people serve distinct purposes and move society forward in ways that others can not. There is no such exclusivity for men or white people. It is similar to how leaders are necessary to herd the followers.
I agree that that is true, but I think that does not mean that the people who don't have special skills to move society forward in ways other do not should be treated as being any less worthy to live a fulfilling life.
On September 06 2017 22:53 Aquanim wrote: I'm not sure this argument deserves to be treated with as much contempt as it has been. The fact that I have significantly above average intelligence means that in many ways my life is easier and has more material perks than the life of somebody who does not have above average intelligence. Whether that is fair or not, and what role (if any) the greater society should play in ensuring that everybody has a fulfilling life, are legitimate fields of inquiry.
It's obviously bad to use such a field of inquiry to distract from the other reasons that one person might have an easier life than another (such as ethnicity) that don't even have the excuse of being based on contribution to society or what have you.
The contempt, as knee-jerk as it may be, stems from routine associations with discussions involving race relations. When folks consistently try and whatabout their way out of acknowledging that the US has a uniquely awful past of race-based discrimination and subjugation, "legitimate" asides start to look illegitimate as a matter of course.
What you're speaking about relative to intelligence is absolutely a thing and I'd argue that our terrible attitudes towards academic failure and trade schools lie at its heart, but at the end of the day, this needn't be a zero-sum game.
I do understand that the "had this conversation before" effect is pretty strong, but we should always strive to be at least civil. (That isn't a criticism of anybody in particular, just wanted to put it out there.)
On September 06 2017 22:53 Aquanim wrote: I'm not sure this argument deserves to be treated with as much contempt as it has been. The fact that I have significantly above average intelligence means that in many ways my life is easier and has more material perks than the life of somebody who does not have above average intelligence. Whether that is fair or not, and what role (if any) the greater society should play in ensuring that everybody has a fulfilling life, are legitimate fields of inquiry.
It's obviously bad to use such a field of inquiry to distract from the other reasons that one person might have an easier life than another (such as ethnicity) that don't even have the excuse of being based on contribution to society or what have you.
The argument is used because smart privilege shouldn't quite be fixed. You're not going to engage less intelligent people into physics labs just to be "fair" to them, that wouldn't make sense. So by equating the two, dishonest people get to pretend that we're engaged in an illogical process. Of course it's not a serious argument.
And of course the same type of people will then turn around and demand that you hire more "conservative" professors than what happens organically out of a desire to be fair & balanced, but hey at some point we're past surprise aren't we.
I'm not saying that people who only have the intellectual capacity to dust the floors and clean toilets in a physics lab should be made to do things they don't have the capability to do. I'm saying that those people should be given the material means to live a fulfilling life (after all, they're doing a job I really don't want to do), and I think in modern Western society they're frequently not.
I think what you are describing relates more strongly to discussions on minimum wage and basic income. These people definitely get the short end of the stick and it's not like we could afford to simply not have these people doing what they do. Janitors and the like are reasons why UBI is a good idea. To be honest, I consider the class of people we're describing as heroes. The idea of doing that work my entire life legitimately gives me a mild panic attack. It feels like a hell I could never even imagine. They should be paid better. They should be able to go on vacations. These people have sometimes never even left the country. It's super sad.
On September 06 2017 22:11 Kickboxer wrote: You're factually wrong on IQ. Latest research shows it is largely inherited. Unless you're information-deprived or malnourished (these will lower your IQ), the genetic component is overwhelming. There is no program that will make people smarter.
As far as looks vs. race, are you serious? Being good looking is an INCREDIBLY powerful asset in all walks of life. It's so much more important than skin color I can't even believe anyone could disagree.
Also, ask any short guy about his discrimination experiences. Some of them can't even order drinks in a crowded bar.
Can I get a link to this latest research on IQ proving this fact?
I am also very interested in these findings, as IQ was considering to be a pretty flawed metric in the 1990s.
On September 06 2017 23:09 Aquanim wrote: I'm not saying that people who only have the intellectual capacity to dust the floors and clean toilets in a physics lab should be made to do things they don't have the capability to do. I'm saying that those people should be given the material means to live a fulfilling life (after all, they're doing a job I really don't want to do), and I think in modern Western society they're frequently not.
Sure I agree with you. But I don't really think that falls under the privilege discussion.
You may be right. I just think it's important to emphasise that that question does have merit, even if using it as a distraction from other forms of discrimination does not.
On September 06 2017 22:11 Kickboxer wrote: You're factually wrong on IQ. Latest research shows it is largely inherited. Unless you're information-deprived or malnourished (these will lower your IQ), the genetic component is overwhelming. There is no program that will make people smarter.
As far as looks vs. race, are you serious? Being good looking is an INCREDIBLY powerful asset in all walks of life. It's so much more important than skin color I can't even believe anyone could disagree.
Also, ask any short guy about his discrimination experiences. Some of them can't even order drinks in a crowded bar.
Can I get a link to this latest research on IQ proving this fact?
I am also very interested in these findings, as IQ was considering to be a pretty flawed metric in the 1990s.
I'm also very interested - I would not judge a person's "intelligence" by looking at his/her IQ (honestly I don't know my IQ nor the IQ of any of my friends, I doubt any of us has ever been tested). I'm 90% sure Kickboxer is trolling, but I'm still curious.
On September 06 2017 22:11 Kickboxer wrote: You're factually wrong on IQ. Latest research shows it is largely inherited. Unless you're information-deprived or malnourished (these will lower your IQ), the genetic component is overwhelming. There is no program that will make people smarter.
As far as looks vs. race, are you serious? Being good looking is an INCREDIBLY powerful asset in all walks of life. It's so much more important than skin color I can't even believe anyone could disagree.
Also, ask any short guy about his discrimination experiences. Some of them can't even order drinks in a crowded bar.
Can I get a link to this latest research on IQ proving this fact?
I am also very interested in these findings, as IQ was considering to be a pretty flawed metric in the 1990s.
I'm also very interested - I would not judge a person's "intelligence" by looking at his/her IQ (honestly I don't know my IQ nor the IQ of any of my friends, I doubt any of us has ever been tested). I'm 90% sure Kickboxer is trolling, but I'm still curious.
Oh no he's not trolling. There's a history of people legit believing that, stemming from the Bell Curve to whatever he's going to quote from more recent time. You can meet a bunch of them if you go to specific parts of youtube, or if specific parts of youtube are unleashed on you by a link on /pol/.
On September 06 2017 23:07 Nevuk wrote: Can I get a link to this latest research on IQ proving this fact?
Look at people with Down's Syndrome. It's genetic. You don't even need to fucking go into the nuanced details for this. But hey, let me entertain you a bit more: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182557/ They basically identified genetic variations, assessed them and saw which genetic variations were significantly more present (in combination with other genetic variations) in people with higher intelligence. They used 3511 individuals. This way of study doesn't rely on epigenetic effects, however, which might also impact gene expression levels, and in turn, intelligence. It does show that he basic makeup of your genome (the base pairs) can account for intelligence alone by a significant margin.
Also, this is very interesting:
It's Jordan B Peterson discussing intelligence with a neuroscientist Dr. Richard Haier.
I skimmed through the article and it says that genetics can account for about half of the variation? That seems like a pretty reasonable finding, but it's far from saying genetics is the primary determinant of intelligence.
Worth noting, 3,500 (the actual analysis dataset used is actually a little smaller b/c) sample is actually kinda on the smaller end for this sort of analysis. But no quibbles with the design, seems legit.
Of course genetic disorders can negatively impact IQ. But unless you're arguing that not being white is a genetic disorder I fail to see the relevance.
My fellow white people: if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem - by Katherine Craig ... We live in a society that is built on the spoils of racism, and that continues to benefit from inequality in all its forms. Or, as Bergdorf put it: “Slavery and colonialism, at the hands of white supremacy, played a huge part in shaping the United Kingdom and much of the west, into the superpower that it is today.”
“Why does that make me a racist?!” I hear you ask. It comes down to this: in western society we are all taught (explicitly or implicitly) that lighter is better. Those racist narratives are particularly prevalent in the US, but you’re kidding yourself if you think we Britons don’t suffer from the same prejudice. Take, for example, the stereotypical portrayals of black people in the media.
The net effect of this conscious and subconscious racism was reflected in a recent study recreating the landmark doll test of the 1940s. It showed that “we are still living in a society where dark things are devalued and white things are valued’.
In other words, if you grow up in a racist society, through no fault of your own, some of that racism is bound to stick subconsciously. It’s an unconscious conspiracy in which we are all complicit, unless we fight it. ... I’m sure most of the people who were upset by Bergdorf’s statements would never be racially abusive or violent. But in a society that is still too often skewed in favour of white people, at the cost of everyone else, that is not enough. As Bergdorf states: “Institutionalised, systemic racism is just as damaging as a violent, racist attack.”
Bergdorf didn’t cause offence because she was wrong. She caused offence because she highlighted an uncomfortable truth: that being un-racist is not the same as being anti-racist.
Any white person who is serious about racial equality has to be anti-racist. This requires us to actively acknowledge our privilege, because that privilege – even though we never asked for it – is the very cause of the inequity suffered by others. Only then can we be part of a meaningful solution to institutional racism. We have a choice: be offended, or be part of the solution. But we can’t be both. I’ve learned not to bristle at the statement “all white people are racist”. Instead, I learned to listen to the pain, injustice and – yes – the accuracy in that statement. Just like I learned to recognise those subtle situations where my race made my life easier, and someone else’s life harder. Every day, I am still unlearning subconscious prejudices, and checking my thoughts, actions and language for hidden bias. Because I would rather acknowledge those faults now than look back in years to come and know that I could have done more to be on the right side of history.
As Martin Luther King said: “The privileged have a responsibility to do what they know is right.” Right now, when a black woman is being attacked for opposing structural racism, that means standing shoulder to shoulder with Munroe Bergdorf. If you’re a white person reading this, I hope you’ll do the same.
"Honestly I don't have energy to talk about the racial violence of white people any more. Yes ALL white people," Bergdorf wrote, according to copies posted in British media.
"Once white people begin to admit that their race is the most violent and oppressive force of nature on Earth... then we can talk," the model reportedly wrote.
This loon is writing that Bergdorf wasn't fired because that quoted statement is idiotic and hateful. It's because she revealed uncomfortable truths. What a dumb article and what a strike against racialism. If you'd have linked this to show what race activism isn't--the radical fringe--then I'd clap that people can tell the difference. But she's one that takes the rather tame white privilege argument and extends it to ALL white people exhibit racial violence and ALL white people must admit their race is the most violent and oppressive force of nature on Earth.
On September 06 2017 10:47 Introvert wrote: Considering that Obama is directly responsible for the of-more-than-dubious-legality DACA program, I'd say shots at him(who's busy not going away like most people want) are well earned.
Edit: although I'm not a fan of how they are doing this. Somehow free DACA is the only thing this Congress will accomplish. What a bunch of useless idiots.
Obama asked Congress to pass a law. Congress didn't pass a law. Obama put a stopgap measure in place while waiting for Congress to pass a law.
Trump repealed the stopgap. Trump demanded that Congress act because he said he had forced their hand by repealing the stopgap. Trump announced that it was fine because if they didn't pass a law he would reinstate the stopgap.
The answer to the intelligence question depends on how nuanced you want it to be. What we measure with IQ tests is indeed primarily though not exclusively determined by genetics. Whether what the IQ test measures is the equivalent of what you guys are thinking of when you debate the concept of intelligence is an entirely different question, but it's hard to argue IQ is entirely irrelevant given its correlation with what we call success in life.
As an aside, yes, IQ tests can be practiced to a certain extent. It's a flaw entirely inconsistent with its defined purpose and conception of intelligence.
Are you under the impression that blacks had equal rights with whites in the North and were treated fairly?
What? No, of course not. But I reject the notion that people bear any responsibility for crimes and injustices that have happened decades before they were born, and simply looking at skin colour (which is the level of sophistication of which SJWs are capable) doesn't tell you anything about anyone.
Nobody is saying that you are responsible for things that happened before you're born. Literally all that is being asked is that you recognize the legacy of those things.
On September 06 2017 22:23 Kickboxer wrote: There's nothing narrow. You're either privileged, or you're not. If "white privilege" is real so are all the others. Take your pick.
The others are real. People with favourable genetic traits such as symmetrical faces get unearned benefits all the time over their less fortunate peers. So we're agreed that privilege exists?
On September 06 2017 22:11 Kickboxer wrote: You're factually wrong on IQ. Latest research shows it is largely inherited. Unless you're information-deprived or malnourished (these will lower your IQ), the genetic component is overwhelming. There is no program that will make people smarter.
As far as looks vs. race, are you serious? Being good looking is an INCREDIBLY powerful asset in all walks of life. It's so much more important than skin color I can't even believe anyone could disagree.
Also, ask any short guy about his discrimination experiences. Some of them can't even order drinks in a crowded bar.
Can I get a link to this latest research on IQ proving this fact?
I am also very interested in these findings, as IQ was considering to be a pretty flawed metric in the 1990s.
I'm also very interested - I would not judge a person's "intelligence" by looking at his/her IQ (honestly I don't know my IQ nor the IQ of any of my friends, I doubt any of us has ever been tested). I'm 90% sure Kickboxer is trolling, but I'm still curious.
Oh no he's not trolling. There's a history of people legit believing that, stemming from the Bell Curve to whatever he's going to quote from more recent time. You can meet a bunch of them if you go to specific parts of youtube, or if specific parts of youtube are unleashed on you by a link on /pol/.
The long history of people who believe they are smarter than most of the population and their attempts to create a quantifiable metric to prove that. This style of thinking has found new life in the garbage piles of the internet.
On September 06 2017 23:43 Orome wrote: What we measure with IQ tests is indeed primarily though not exclusively determined by genetics.
Highly doubt that's true.
You can look at the Flynn Effect that shows we universally score much higher on IQ tests than our ancestors, which would suggest our genes have improved drastically for no particular reason. For more specific counters you have for example the scores of Southern Italian Americans at the beginning of last century. They used to be similar to the scores of African Americans, but then in the span of very few generations the Italians improved and are now scoring similar to other white Americans, which can't really be explained genetically. For even more specific counters you have situations like the children that african american soldiers had in Germany during/after WW2. They score similar to other Germans.
Those are the three that I remember off the top of my head but there are plenty of examples, some involving twins raised in different environments. You can also use logic rather than examples and consider what an IQ test considers intelligence: your capacity to do abstraction and generalization is tasked a lot. This isn't a capacity that is used at the same rate in all environments, most notably rural vs modern. From what I've seen it's extremely hard to look at the data and conclude that environmental factors don't play a major role in scores on IQ tests.
EPT
