Why are most of the artists in the USA democrats?

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Maner [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're same logic can be used to prove police involved killings and abuse are even rarer than the black violent crime rate yet this movement and people like you push that it's a widespread problem and an irrational fear of the police is a proper response. Black people killed by cops is in direct proportion to black violent crime rates which are 12x higher than white violent crime rates. You are bitching about cause and effect, you want the cops to stop focusing on black communities then fix the crime problems in those communities.

The FBI also shows that a white perso is 30x more likely to be killed by a black person than a black person is to be killed by a white. It's great that you accept some things from the FBI but completely ignore everything else

I wasn't ignoring anything, what I was saying was that practically speaking your risk of violent crime is already very low, and then the odds of you acting racist towards all black people all the time and having it someday save from violent crime are truly incredibly low.

Yes, the violent crime rate of African-Americans is high. No that is not an unfix-able problem, nor is the only solution to be racist.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I wasn't ignoring anything, what I was saying was that practically speaking your risk of violent crime is already very low, and then the odds of you acting racist towards all black people all the time and having it someday save from violent crime are truly incredibly low.

Yes, the violent crime rate of African-Americans is high. No that is not an unfix-able problem, nor is the only solution to be racist.

no, im pretty sure the only practical solution is to be racist. in all honesty, if everyone just surrendered to racism, we could stop worrying about it and find other more useful applications of our irrational fears. there are plenty of other phantom oppressors that we can invent without continuing this senseless assault on racism.

Furthermore, if we surrender to racism, we can stop pretending that racism is something as trivial as discrimination in the absence of a belief that one's own race is superior to the race against which one discriminates or that discrimination itself is predicated on racism. it's not. it is possible and indeed most ordinary to discriminate in the absence of a belief of one's own racial superiority. The fact that racism may include discriminatory behavior based on a belief of racial superiority does not require that ALL discriminatory behavior is predicated on a belief in racial superiority. If it did, nobody could be sexist, homophobic, or able to tell a ham sandwich from a garbage can.

there are infinitely more racial disparities beyond skin color and asserting recognition of differences between populations of dissimilar skin tone to be racist is simple idiocy. There are behavioral differences which are products of culture which in turn are rooted in environment in addition to genetics.

For good or for ill, there are profound racial disparities in IQ, which is the psychological metric upon which all other psychometric principles are derived from. Mean white IQ is 100 with a standard deviation of 15, meaning that 67% of the white population has an IQ between 85 and 115, with only about 16% above 115 and 16% below. Average Ahekenazi Jew IQ is 115, meaning half of all Ashekenazi Jews are more intelligent than 84% of the white population! Mean Asian IQ is about 5 points or 1/3 SD higher than mean white IQ. Mean black IQ is 85 or one standard deviation below mean white IQ. That means half of all blacks are less intelligent than 84% of whites. The United States military will not enlist
anyone with an IQ less than 83 because they have found that such individuals are incapable of being trained for any position available in the military.

You want to know what is truly terrifying? Cast aside racial disparities and you still have almost 1.3 billion people with IQ below 85. That is terrifying.

So let's just surrender to racism, because single metrics are what constitute the worth of individuals. dumb people have no value, right? We should actively hate dumb people for
their genetic shortcomings and do the same for people who are too short, too tall, too fat, too thin, too lazy, too ambitious, too aggressive, too passive and so on. We can continue swinging the axe of hate until we are left with the great virtues of mediocrity and homogey.

Everyone just needs to stop pretending they're not racist so that we may advance our idiocy.

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yes, the violent crime rate of African-Americans is high. No that is not an unfix-able problem, nor is the only solution to be racist.

https://youtu.be/884W4l3eoQg?t=33

Get out there and do something about it. Talk is cheep.

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

no, im pretty sure the only practical solution is to be racist. in all honesty, if everyone just surrendered to racism, we could stop worrying about it and find other more useful applications of our irrational fears. there are plenty of other phantom oppressors that we can invent without continuing this senseless assault on racism.

Furthermore, if we surrender to racism, we can stop pretending that racism is something as trivial as discrimination in the absence of a belief that one's own race is superior to the race against which one discriminates or that discrimination itself is predicated on racism. it's not. it is possible and indeed most ordinary to discriminate in the absence of a belief of one's own racial superiority. The fact that racism may include discriminatory behavior based on a belief of racial superiority does not require that ALL discriminatory behavior is predicated on a belief in racial superiority. If it did, nobody could be sexist, homophobic, or able to tell a ham sandwich from a garbage can.

there are infinitely more racial disparities beyond skin color and asserting recognition of differences between populations of dissimilar skin tone to be racist is simple idiocy. There are behavioral differences which are products of culture which in turn are rooted in environment in addition to genetics.

For good or for ill, there are profound racial disparities in IQ, which is the psychological metric upon which all other psychometric principles are derived from. Mean white IQ is 100 with a standard deviation of 15, meaning that 67% of the white population has an IQ between 85 and 115, with only about 16% above 115 and 16% below. Average Ahekenazi Jew IQ is 115, meaning half of all Ashekenazi Jews are more intelligent than 84% of the white population! Mean Asian IQ is about 5 points or 1/3 SD higher than mean white IQ. Mean black IQ is 85 or one standard deviation below mean white IQ. That means half of all blacks are less intelligent than 84% of whites. The United States military will not enlist
anyone with an IQ less than 83 because they have found that such individuals are incapable of being trained for any position available in the military.

You want to know what is truly terrifying? Cast aside racial disparities and you still have almost 1.3 billion people with IQ below 85. That is terrifying.

So let's just surrender to racism, because single metrics are what constitute the worth of individuals. dumb people have no value, right? We should actively hate dumb people for
their genetic shortcomings and do the same for people who are too short, too tall, too fat, too thin, too lazy, too ambitious, too aggressive, too passive and so on. We can continue swinging the axe of hate until we are left with the great virtues of mediocrity and homogey.

Everyone just needs to stop pretending they're not racist so that we may advance our idiocy.

IQ is overrated. People with ultra-high IQ often prove worse at making decisions then people with just slightly high IQ. High IQ is mostly useful for IQ tests. That, and for stuff like picking the right investment, gambling, manipulation. These are the things IQ helps you with.

You can be dumb as a rock to be an honest and dutiful businessman.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

IQ is overrated. People with ultra-high IQ often prove worse at making decisions then people with just slightly high IQ. High IQ is mostly useful for IQ tests. That, and for stuff like picking the right investment, gambling, manipulation. These are the things IQ helps you with.

You can be dumb as a rock to be an honest and dutiful businessman.

are you suggesting that we can't rely on a single metric to value an individual's worth!? ^^

i actually tohhhhhtally agree. IQ has nothing to do with work ethic and perhaps much more interestingly research has shown that neither is it correlated with skepticism. That combined with a natural arrogance fostered by being smarter than everyone else is why smart people can be as easily mired in ideologically driven untruth as anyone else.

That does not discount the consequences of low IQ though and the ability to learn, which is exceptionally more problematic in advanced societies most especially with an automated revolution on the horizon. IQ is more closely correlated with success in western societies than hardwork by a factor of 2!

[loramin]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

are you suggesting that we can't rely on a single metric to value an individual's worth!? ^^

i actually tohhhhhtally agree. IQ has nothing to do with work ethic and perhaps much more interestingly research has shown that neither is it correlated with skepticism. That combined with a natural arrogance fostered by being smarter than everyone else is why smart people can be as easily mired in ideologically driven untruth as anyone else.

That does not discount the consequences of low IQ though and the ability to learn, which is exceptionally more problematic in advanced societies most especially with an automated revolution on the horizon. IQ is more closely correlated with success in western societies than hardwork by a factor of 2!

Fun fact: IQ was never designed to measure the intelligence of normal people. I did my high school senior thesis as a nerdy kid with a high IQ believing in the concept of IQ. By the end of it I realized that the word "intelligence", as it's often used, depended heavily on the person using the term. Most people use it to refer to "g" or "general" (all around) intelligence ... which doesn't exist.

The whole point of IQ tests originally were just to determine which people were mentally handicapped . Even the guy who invented the IQ test (Lewis Terman who, incidentally, was the father of the guy who started Silicon Valley) said that we shouldn't use it for anything else. But people did, even though it would later be determined that we have at least 7 (or more, there's disagreement) types of intelligence. There's mathematical intelligence, spacial intelligence, verbal intelligence, musical intelligence, etc. and there is no strong correlation connecting them all together.

As a result the idea of a single "g" intelligence has more or less been debunked, which in turn debunks the idea that you can measure such a "g" intelligence. In other words, there are no "smart" people, just people who are smart about different things, and any given person might have any combination of "smarts" because the different kinds mostly don't correlate. Now that's not to say that intelligence tests don't measure something, because they clearly do, but whatever they measure it's a certain subset of the many different intelligences, and which ones are included and to what degree depend largely on the person writing test.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Fun fact: IQ was never designed to measure the intelligence of normal people. I did my high school senior thesis as a nerdy kid with a high IQ believing in the concept of IQ. By the end of it I realized that the word "intelligence", as it's often used, depended heavily on the person using the term. Most people use it to refer to "g" or "general" (all around) intelligence ... which doesn't exist.

The whole point of IQ tests originally were just to determine which people were mentally handicapped . Even the guy who invented the IQ test (Lewis Terman who, incidentally, was the father of the guy who started Silicon Valley) said that we shouldn't use it for anything else. But people did, even though it would later be determined that we have at least 7 (or more, there's disagreement) types of intelligence. There's mathematical intelligence, spacial intelligence, verbal intelligence, musical intelligence, etc. and there is no strong correlation connecting them all together.

As a result the idea of a single "g" intelligence has more or less been debunked, which in turn debunks the idea that you can measure such a "g" intelligence. In other words, there are no "smart" people, just people who are smart about different things, and any given person might have any combination of "smarts" because the different kinds mostly don't correlate. Now that's not to say that intelligence tests don't measure something, because they clearly do, but whatever they measure it's a certain subset of the many different intelligences, and which ones are included and to what degree depend largely on the person writing test.

The "Theory" of Multiple Intellengences is pseudoscience rooted in egalitarian ethos. They were designed as participation trophies in the game of intellectual competency. The theory enjoys little support within the scientific community because it not only is without any empirical evidence, it is also at odds with neuroscience. Many of the intelligences are highly correlated with one another in addition to.... "g." Also, when you account for other cognitive processes and personality, there isn't anything else left to explain.


I liek the way you wrote this though ^^

[loramin]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The "Theory" of Multiple Intellengences is pseudoscience

Ok first off let me clarify that I'm not talking about multiple learning styles (which has been at least somewhat debunked).

But if you are referring to "Multiple Intellengences", then surely you have evidence to support that opinion? Like surely you have at least one paper that correlates multiple types of intelligence together to demonstrate they form a single "g" intelligence?

I can't wait to see it; just because Harvard's educational department believes in multiple intelligences doesn't mean it's not pesudoscience!

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Wow, melon I didn't know you had a PhD. in Neural Biology! Or maybe you're just really into the whole study of intelligence? Either way you speak so knowledgeably I'm sure you have tons of evidence to support that opinion? Like surely you have at least one paper that correlates multiple types of intelligence together to demonstrate they form a single "g" intelligence?

P.S. Just in case there's any confusion, I'm not talking about multiple learning styles, which has been (at least somewhat) debunked.

P.P.S. Side Note: If anyone out there is a big fan of Emotional Intelligence, it turns out the exact same thing is true for it, ie. there is no "emotional intelligence", just a bunch of random things that don't correlate but have gotten lumped together by the EQ believers.

omgosh Lor! you such a flatterer (*^^*) no, i don't actually have a degree neuroscience ^^; I'm just heavily vested in defending IQ to preserve what little self worth I have. If that means offhandedly refuting ideas whose author has multiply acknowledged lack empirical evidence, then so be it. I'll do what must be done, even if Occam could have made quicker work of it (^。~)v

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ok first off let me clarify that I'm not talking about multiple learning styles (which has been at least somewhat debunked).

But if you are referring to "Multiple Intellengences", then surely you have evidence to support that opinion? Like surely you have at least one paper that correlates multiple types of intelligence together to demonstrate they form a single "g" intelligence?

I can't wait to see it; just because Harvard's educational department believes in multiple intelligences doesn't mean it's not pesudoscience!

you a goof ^o^ I feel liek you playing softball with me now ^^ but to your article, yeah, Harvard employs the mind from which the idea of multiple intelligences stumbled. that page don't endorse it though. it just introduces it.