EPTLiberal Press Bias - Page 22
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Ancestral
United States3230 Posts
| ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
edit: ok, real last post gtg now :[ | ||
|
Wysp
Canada2299 Posts
On December 08 2008 04:20 Ancestral wrote: Why are you arguing about women in combat? Women should not be in combat. Neither should men. Killing people is an antiquated and ineffective means of achieving an end. it would be great, and I'm not talking about any particular armed conflict, but sometimes armed conflict is nessicary. Both women and men should defend themselves if needed. | ||
|
outqast
United States287 Posts
On December 08 2008 03:39 HnR)hT wrote: I'm not an outright biological determinist, but I do think that genes play a bigger role than is commonly assumed. For most traits, yes, but there's a catch. Let's take intelligence for example (I know it's a very touchy issue but this is a fucking Starcraft forum). The current iq test data basically says that the black average is 85 and the asian average is 105. It means quite a few blacks are smarter than the average asian, and quite a few asians are dumber than the average black. BUT (and here is the crucial neglected part) it is also true that both asians and blacks have roughly the same standard deviation (~15 on this scale). Let's say (I know this is a gross oversimplification) that you need ~120 iq to be really successful in the modern information economy. According to a googled normal distribution table, this says that roghly 16% of asians fall into this category, while only 1% of blacks do. This means that SIXTEEN TIMES AS MANY asians will be really successful (in proportion to their total population) as blacks, for reasons that have little or nothing to do with racism, and have quite a bit to do with genetics. It considerably weakens the argument that blacks are not achieving because they are kept down by white oppression. True, but that was just one throwaway example. FWIW as far as I remember blacks have *more* sensitive testosterone receptors actually. It also explains their success in many sports, and may explain disproportionate black crime (though here it is probably 90% culture). IMO it is stronger than commonly assumed. I have only read the last page of this thread so forgive me if there is some type of qualification for these types of statements, but that is quite possibly the most retarded set of logic I have ever seen. I assume you are some sort of scientist or someone working in the sciences. I don't understand why you people, meaning scientists, try to look at these types of central tendencies figures as some type of natural experiment when it is clear that there are severe differences in the populations you are comparing. The history of Asian people in this country and Black people in this country are so different it is impossible to draw any type of causal analysis from some central tendency statistics based on IQ (even if IQ was a good measure of intelligence, but it is extremely culturally biased). Further, what is a black person? A person with dark skin, big nose, and nappy hair? I mean I can certainly describe some self proclaimed "white," "asian," and "Indian" people? People of "African" descent? Well I know a lot of "white" people who grew up in Africa. Further, where are "white" people from? "white land?" The notion is completely ridiculous. Race was a social construction created during slavery to justify it. If "black" people as a race were just dumb and animals they deserve to be enslaved. Go look at your history books and look for the first mentions of "race." As a scientist how do you rationalize the color of one's skin being linked to intelligence? That is about as logical as assuming all people with poor eyesight are smarter than those that don't (nerds are really smart and they wear glasses maybe poor eyesight causes intelligence)? Or looking at the size of your pinky toe, maybe that is related to intelligence? Intelligence is such a complicated attribute, that is the combination of so many different genetic and biological factors, I don't see how you can try to get anything from some mean of a population. I could go on and I know I'm probably talking to a brick wall if I expect to get any reasonable response from someone with opinions like yours, but as a scientist you should know better. When you set up an experiment, you control all your variables and you change one so you can see the effect of that one change on your results. That is causal. If you change 100 different things in your experiment, don't expect to garner anything from the results. I don't understand how so many people fall into this logical trap, it is just an err in the way of thinking. I'm beginning to think that people involved in sciences and mathematics, should stay completely out of the social sciences. | ||
|
Wysp
Canada2299 Posts
On December 08 2008 04:21 HnR)hT wrote: Funny, an article from a different point of view with a fucking shitload of facts and references gets instantly dismissed as "lying" "propaganda". And the insults continue unabated. It's like the Inquisition. edit: ok, real last post gtg now :[ When it starts out with a guy saying something that costed him all his honour in scientific community (for there was no testing done...) its pretty obvious a big shitfest. I'm not going to go ahead and discredit catagorically everything in your link (nice last post by the way.) But, when it begins by giving you misinformation its pretty safe to say they are lying, and trying to misdirect you (the goal of propaganda.) You need to wake up. Just adjust. http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=6hB9Qp15VMs | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
If you ignore this, you ARE pulling a liberal "oh no everyone's the same lol :D". Should factors like those above merit NEGATIVE discrimination (as opposed to positive discrimination, wherein, say, tall people get offered more spots on basketball teams)? Not to an extent which is more than the positive discrimination (Ie. Some short BBall players might be left out due to their height, because tall people have been selected for what they bring to the team). The step after this, ie, all black people are going to mug me, is flat out racism, but the aforementioned heuristic is not. One is using a merit system, which when accounting for genetic predispositions will favor some over others, whereas the other is flat out stereotyping and culturally degrading. The jump from the two is, however, very easy to make which is why a lot of people will choose to pick to call the first set of heuristics unethical, instead of attack the real problem. Another way of looking at this is, say, a system of merit points; If you need between 100 and 120 merit points to get a job, a large amount of people having 120 merit points would negatively influence the people sitting at 100's ability to get the job. There is a large intellectual jump needed, however, to assume merit and race directly co-relate. Similarly there's another jump needed to use that to espouse hate. | ||
|
Wysp
Canada2299 Posts
But about your actual post I think hT indeed argues that if we could do testing on black people and white people with equivalent social climates (ie parents, income, schooling. neighborhood) that black people would still be dumber and more likely to mug you on average. edit: srsly +1 IH now | ||
|
Fzero
United States1503 Posts
| ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On December 08 2008 04:47 L wrote: Dear sirs, race does have a significant 'nature' disposition in that the gene frequencies between them are vastly different. An example would be the African disposition towards sickle cell anemia because of the fact that a single recessive copy of the gene gives substantial protection against malaria. If you ignore this, you ARE pulling a liberal "oh no everyone's the same lol :D". Should factors like those above merit NEGATIVE discrimination (as opposed to positive discrimination, wherein, say, tall people get offered more spots on basketball teams)? Not to an extent which is more than the positive discrimination (Ie. Some short BBall players might be left out due to their height, because tall people have been selected for what they bring to the team). The step after this, ie, all black people are going to mug me, is flat out racism, but the aforementioned heuristic is not. One is using a merit system, which when accounting for genetic predispositions will favor some over others, whereas the other is flat out stereotyping and culturally degrading. The jump from the two is, however, very easy to make which is why a lot of people will choose to pick to call the first set of heuristics unethical, instead of attack the real problem. Another way of looking at this is, say, a system of merit points; If you need between 100 and 120 merit points to get a job, a large amount of people having 120 merit points would negatively influence the people sitting at 100's ability to get the job. There is a large intellectual jump needed, however, to assume merit and race directly co-relate. Similarly there's another jump needed to use that to espouse hate. saying someone is predisposed to sickle cell anemia based on genetics is one thing, saying they are predisposed to robbery is another. As for IQ, there are again societal factors at play that cant just be discredited. You cant just assume that IQ is directly related to genes | ||
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On December 08 2008 05:00 FzeroXx wrote: The sickle cell trait is not because their skin is black. It is based on location and adaptation to a harmful environment. It has NOTHING to do with their skin color. How is that hard to understand? White people are not fatter because they are white. Greeks were not more philosophical because of their olive skin. Who said dark skin was the origin of the sickle cell trait? | ||
|
Fzero
United States1503 Posts
| ||
|
QibingZero
2611 Posts
| ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On December 08 2008 05:20 FzeroXx wrote: Um, we're arguing racism in the last 5 pages. He was referring to black people in Africa. I was making a point that it was the location, and not the race. race is more than just skin color | ||
|
benjammin
United States2728 Posts
I guess that 60 Minutes must be liberal bias! | ||
|
ZERG_RUSSIAN
10417 Posts
On December 08 2008 03:39 HnR)hT wrote: For most traits, yes, but there's a catch. Let's take intelligence for example (I know it's a very touchy issue but this is a fucking Starcraft forum). The current iq test data basically says that the black average is 85 and the asian average is 105. It means quite a few blacks are smarter than the average asian, and quite a few asians are dumber than the average black. BUT (and here is the crucial neglected part) it is also true that both asians and blacks have roughly the same standard deviation (~15 on this scale). Let's say (I know this is a gross oversimplification) that you need ~120 iq to be really successful in the modern information economy. According to a googled normal distribution table, this says that roghly 16% of asians fall into this category, while only 1% of blacks do. This means that SIXTEEN TIMES AS MANY asians will be really successful (in proportion to their total population) as blacks, for reasons that have little or nothing to do with racism, and have quite a bit to do with genetics. It considerably weakens the argument that blacks are not achieving because they are kept down by white oppression. Holy fuck, the IQ test was made by white men to judge how white-smart people are. There was a study where they made a black IQ test to judge how black-smart people were, and the scores by race were almost reversed. You seem like a logical person, but your thought process and conclusion in this post are fucking stupid. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
Race is an oversimplified word for people who have no clue about history, anthropology nor genetics. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On December 08 2008 05:46 Boblion wrote: Race is an oversimplified word for people who have no clue about history, anthropology nor genetics. Race may be a social construct, but in no case has its definition been limited to skin color and skin color alone. | ||
|
Fzero
United States1503 Posts
| ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On December 08 2008 05:58 Mindcrime wrote: Race may be a social construct, but in no case has its definition been limited to skin color and skin color alone. Actually i don't really think there are "black" or "white" races  Try to compare the average Kenyan with a Pygme lulz. | ||
|
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
So, again, specifics? | ||
| ||
