Can we ever understand each other?

[Dorset]

Originally posted by Dr. Dilznick@Oct 20 2005, 01:30 PM
I think the problem would lie not in actually finding differences (if that was the case), but in using that data to impose legislation that would be on the face of it differential to individuals, based on aggregate findings. That is morally questionably, not acknowledging differences if they do in fact exist. Of course, we all know the reason why most people are hesitant to even conduct or support these sorts of experiments.

[post=353492]Quoted post[/post]​

Wow, very good point

The truth is that if you got these answers and it showed a difference between races then it would cause far more harm than good. It would fuel the right wing cause of the race that faired best, create tensions among the races that faired worse and do more harm than good

This is a case where public ignorance is bliss

p.s. who says the research hasn't been done? It may well have been done but not released to prevent protest marches and even violence

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

No reputable scientist would risk his or her career over some bullshit. We have already seen personal morals get in the way of real science/progress (stem cells). I think we have to distinguish between morally deficient and political incorrectness, though. Science shouldn't operate independent of morality, or else you end up with a modern day Josef Mengele, which I'm sure you'd oppose, even despite the possible scientific gains it might afford.

 

[Shelby]

:hiding: Bring on the flames

 

[B_cricketsliar]

Originally posted by Shelby@Oct 20 2005, 09:32 PM
:hiding: Bring on the flames

[post=353639]Quoted post[/post]​

Thank you for the link, and that was quite an interesting T-shirt. Seeing it, reminds me that it seems to be MORE ACCEPTABLE to humorously demean African-American/Black people than it is other groups.

But I still have hope!

 

[Shelby]

Originally posted by cricketsliar+Oct 20 2005, 02:50 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(cricketsliar &#064; Oct 20 2005, 02:50 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Shelby@Oct 20 2005, 09:32 PM
:hiding: Bring on the flames

[post=353639]Quoted post[/post]​

Thank you for the link, and that was quite an interesting T-shirt. Seeing it, reminds me that it seems to be MORE ACCEPTABLE to humorously demean African-American/Black people than it is other groups.

But I still have hope&#33;

[post=353643]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

I think if you check the rest of the site (and especially if you sign up for the newsletter), you&#39;ll find that no groups or sacred cows are spared.

 

[B_cricketsliar]

Originally posted by Shelby+Oct 20 2005, 09:57 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Shelby &#064; Oct 20 2005, 09:57 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by cricketsliar@Oct 20 2005, 02:50 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Shelby

@Oct 20 2005, 09:32 PM
:hiding: Bring on the flames

[post=353639]Quoted post[/post]​

Thank you for the link, and that was quite an interesting T-shirt. Seeing it, reminds me that it seems to be MORE ACCEPTABLE to humorously demean African-American/Black people than it is other groups.

But I still have hope&#33;

[post=353643]Quoted post[/post]​

I think if you check the rest of the site (and especially if you sign up for the newsletter), you&#39;ll find that no groups or sacred cows are spared.

[post=353647]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

I&#39;ll do that&#33;

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by Dr. Dilznick@Oct 20 2005, 05:30 AM
An independent scientist wouldn&#39;t be tainted by any ideology or agenda but finding the truth, but people such as Madame Zora or JonB would have a hard time believing this was true, unless the results came back inconclusive or showing no difference. I think the problem would lie not in actually finding differences (if that was the case), but in using that data to impose legislation that would be on the face of it differential to individuals, based on aggregate findings. That is morally questionably, not acknowledging differences if they do in fact exist. Of course, we all know the reason why most people are hesitant to even conduct or support these sorts of experiments.

[post=353492]Quoted post[/post]​

Actually, Dr., I have no problem with if they had evidence. Instead they rely on studies of twins which proved that not only IQ was hereditary, but also religion, political beliefs, and economic class. Or stuff along the lines of &#39;relative head size and intelligence&#39; (subtly lying because there really is no black/white difference in stature, at least in the States). There&#39;s also the fact that modern DNA studies go against your belief in a correlation between race and IQ.

 

[madame_zora]

I get tired of being lumped into a category of believing in something I&#39;ve never supported at all. I question WHY a study is being done, is that wrong? Should anything that anyone calls "scientific" be accepted as such? Should everyone who claims to be "Christian" be just automatically believed, despite what their behavior exhibits?

I have no problem leaving room in the realm of possibility for the option that some races of people may be prone to have things unique to their character and experience that other races don&#39;t share, or not to the same degree. I just view with suspicion any results that are clearly intended to prove a political point where the criteria cited can be questioned (which is almost all the time). It bothers me that people don&#39;t understand that "evidence" is just our best guess at the time, based on our limited ability to clear things of pre-existing conditions at the time. To not recognise this is pure folly and the mark of shoddy workmanship. The best stance is, "I&#39;m not really sure, that&#39;s worth looking into, I&#39;ll keep an open mind, knowing that none of the "facts" I can gather are conclusive".

Some people just give more credibility that I do to our current methods of drawing conclusions. Personally, I don&#39;t give a study now more credibility than an older one just because it&#39;s newer, it has to also be more credible&#33; I don&#39;t give older studies more credibility that newer ones just because more of them agree, the Truth does not depend upon a lot of people&#39;s consesus, it either is or it isn&#39;t. Sorry, we usually just don&#39;t get a lot of feedback one way or another, so why get so attatched to thinking things must be one way or another? The best position I can find is to mind your own business and try not to worry about what other people are doing. Seems like a good position to me, but it seems to really piss people off to suggest it.

 

[Dorset]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX+Oct 21 2005, 12:26 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ChimeraTX &#064; Oct 21 2005, 12:26 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Dorset@Oct 20 2005, 08:47 AM
This is a case where public ignorance is bliss

[post=353495]Quoted post[/post]​

"The truth insults only the ignorant."
"You would rob me of the truth; you have robbed me of the world."

I question the value of anyone afraid of the truth; not to mention the lives that will be lost to immigrant violence.

Experience is all that will save the Occident now: more immigration, more political correctness, more Draconian anti-Free Speech laws, and more immigrant violence. It is harder to lie to those who may see the truth with their own eyes; who are forced to see it.

[post=353692]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
What I meant was more lives will be lost if there was found to be a genetic link between race and crime. Sometimes it&#39;s best that people don&#39;t know because that causes more danger

 

[Dorset]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Oct 21 2005, 05:58 AM
The best position I can find is to mind your own business and try not to worry about what other people are doing. Seems like a good position to me, but it seems to really piss people off to suggest it.

[post=353786]Quoted post[/post]​

It doesn&#39;t piss me off because it&#39;s what you think is best best but if everyone did that the world would be a terrible place

What if Nelson Mandela had minded his own business? There might still be apartheid in South Africa

What about Martin Luther? Or Martin Luther King?

If everyone failed to stand up and defend their freedom then soon we won&#39;t have any and you&#39;ll have no defence because you allowed it to happen by not objecting

I think the biggest falacy is the belief that one person doesn&#39;t have the power to change the world

 

[madame_zora]

Originally posted by Dorset+Oct 21 2005, 09:51 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dorset &#064; Oct 21 2005, 09:51 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-madame_zora@Oct 21 2005, 05:58 AM
The best position I can find is to mind your own business and try not to worry about what other people are doing. Seems like a good position to me, but it seems to really piss people off to suggest it.

[post=353786]Quoted post[/post]​

It doesn&#39;t piss me off because it&#39;s what you think is best best but if everyone did that the world would be a terrible place

What if Nelson Mandela had minded his own business? There might still be apartheid in South Africa

What about Martin Luther? Or Martin Luther King?

If everyone failed to stand up and defend their freedom then soon we won&#39;t have any and you&#39;ll have no defence because you allowed it to happen by not objecting

I think the biggest falacy is the belief that one person doesn&#39;t have the power to change the world

[post=353814]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

Yes, and here&#39;s where it gets really tricky. Every one of your examples are fighting oppressors. Unless you&#39;re clever enough to know when you&#39;re fighting oppression or when you&#39;re participating, you (we) should mind your(our) own business.

Oh yeah, add in Jesus, Ghandi, Mother Teresa, Buddha, Kahlil Ghibran. All peace advocates are trivialised as being heretics in their own time. Hell why was John Lennon killed? It certainly wasn&#39;t a musical criticism&#33; It&#39;s okay to threaten war, but suggest peace? You best not be fuckin&#39; with ME, mate&#33;

You can&#39;t deliver peace at the end of a sword. You can only stop playing the game, that is the lesson history teaches over and over, still we do not learn. ALL our great leaders teach us about love, and LIVING the example of our beliefs, not TELLING others to do things that even we ourselves do not do. This is the difference between words worth heeding and those worthy of flushing.

Look at what Ghandi did. He didn&#39;t wage a war against Great Britain for the righteous freedom of his imprisoned people, he stopped eating and prayed. Eventually, the oppressor brought enough shame upon itself to withdraw in disgrace. Today England and India are not enemies because there was no war, just an understanding between people that what was not acceptable would not be accepted.

You can&#39;t assert that the civil rights movement was brought about by the riots&#33; No, eventually enough people were willing to stand up and be counted that one race of people could not possibly be superior on rights to another. "Peaceful"? No, of course not, but we didn&#39;t have another civil war, we did manage to learn a little tiny bit about that. See, it was progress, and that coming from a very new entity at being a country at all. Yes, I think we can do better now, because we&#39;ve shown our ability to grow and advance beyond predictions already. My expectations are high.

I don&#39;t expect Americans to adopt a "religion as fallacy" motto any time soon, but I do expect tolerance for and from religion, we&#39;ve already had plenty of time to work that out and shame on us for not doing it already. If we have to start from behind where we were at the inception of our constitution, shame on all of us for allowing this unfotunate turn of events to occur. None of us are blameless in ignoring what we all see. Everyone and their "not me" attitude can go fuck right off. We all allowed it, we are all responsible to make it stop.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by jonb
Actually, Dr., I have no problem with if theyhad evidence. Instead they rely on studies of twins which proved that not only IQ was hereditary, but also religion, political beliefs, and economic class. Or stuff along the lines of &#39;relative head size and intelligence&#39; (subtly lying because there really is no black/white difference in stature, at least in the States).

"There is no conclusive evidence either way. A lot of possibly interesting and enlightening scientific studies are prevented due to lobbies, studies on race and sex differences in particular."

Scientific evidence, Jon. Racist "think tanks" or mail-order "Doctors" need not apply. It is important to let science operate independently of political correctness, but I can see why you would disagree.

There&#39;s also the fact that modern DNA studies go against your belief in a correlation between race and IQ.

If you have evidence, present it. Doubt it, though.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by Dr. Dilznick
It is important to let science operate independently of political correctness.

&#39;Men cleverer than women&#39; claim

Academics in the UK claim their research shows that men are more intelligent than women.
A study to be published later this year in the British Journal of Psychology says that men are on average five points ahead on IQ tests.

Paul Irwing and Professor Richard Lynn claim the difference grows when the highest IQ levels are considered.

Their research was based on IQ tests given to 80,000 people and a further study of 20,000 students.

&#39;Widening gap&#39;

Dr Irwing, a senior lecturer in organisational psychology at Manchester University, told the Today programme on BBC Radio Four the study showed that, up to the age of 14, there was no difference between the IQs of boys and girls.

"But beyond that age and into adulthood there is a difference of five points, which is small but it can have important implications," he said.

"This is against a background of women dramatically overtaking men in educational attainment and making very rapid advances in terms of occupational achievement."

The academics used a test which is said to measure "general cognitive ability" - spatial and verbal ability.

As intelligence scores among the study group rose, the academics say they found a widening gap between the sexes.

There were twice as many men with IQ scores of 125, for example, a level said to correspond with people getting first-class degrees.

At scores of 155, associated with genius, there were 5.5 men for every woman.

Nobel prize-winners

Dr Irwing told The Times the differences "may go some way to explaining the greater numbers of men achieving distinctions of various kinds, such as chess grandmasters, Fields medallists for mathematics, Nobel prize-winners and the like".

The paper will argue that there is evidence that at the same level of IQ, women are able to achieve more than men "possibly because they are more conscientious and better adapted to sustained periods of hard work".

Earlier this year, the president of Harvard University, Lawrence Summers, sparked controversy when he suggested at a seminar that one reason men outperformed women in maths and science was genetics.

Several guests walked out of the conference after hearing the comments.

Dr Summers, who has apologised repeatedly for his remarks, said later that the shortage of senior female academics was partly caused by child-minding duties, which restricted working hours.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4183166.stm

 

[Dorset]

Originally posted by madame_zora+Oct 21 2005, 11:29 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madame_zora &#064; Oct 21 2005, 11:29 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Yes, and here&#39;s where it gets really tricky. Every one of your examples are fighting oppressors. Unless you&#39;re clever enough to know when you&#39;re fighting oppression or when you&#39;re participating, you (we) should mind your(our) own business.

Oh yeah, add in Jesus, Ghandi, Mother Teresa, Buddha, Kahlil Ghibran. All peace advocates are trivialised as being heretics in their own time. Hell why was John Lennon killed? It certainly wasn&#39;t a musical criticism&#33; It&#39;s okay to threaten war, but suggest peace? You best not be fuckin&#39; with ME, mate&#33;

You can&#39;t deliver peace at the end of a sword.

[post=353834]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b]

Wow, I was making a general point that doing nothing is not always a good option. As in your example Gandi did do something&#33;

p.s. Peace at the end of a sword? What about world war 2? Gandi wouldn&#39;t have saved our lives by not eatting
<!--QuoteBegin-madame_zora@Oct 21 2005, 11:29 AM
Unless you&#39;re clever enough to know when you&#39;re fighting oppression or when you&#39;re participating, you (we) should mind your(our) own business

[post=353834]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]

In general I think you&#39;re 100% right on this one though :happy:

 

[B_HappyHammer1977]

I like to keep things simple *pauses for barrage of obvious insults*, so I&#39;ll just say this -

Nearly all of us through our lineage have been immigrants of some sort.
To insult another is to insult yourself.


(You know who said that? HappyHammer1977&#33

 

[Dr Rock]

nelson mandela is a fucking clown.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Originally posted by Dr Rock@Oct 21 2005, 03:32 PM
nelson mandela is a fucking clown.

[post=353961]Quoted post[/post]​

When we ALL know he should be a celibate clown. Shame on him.

 

[jonb]

And as soon as I saw the name Richard Lynn, I knew you were talking about a known fraud. Maybe not as famous as Rushton, but still . . .

 

[madame_zora]

See, that&#39;s the problem with so many things we discuss, even here. Personally, I am not offended by this study or it&#39;s results. There aren&#39;t too many such studies I care enough to be offended by, but it&#39;s the dolts who think that their results mean more than they do that irritate me.

As soon as someone can produce an IQ test that measures intelligence irrespective of education, I&#39;ll be interested to see the implied differences in whatever sub-categories of human beings they decide to separate from the pack. As long as it&#39;s groups of predominantly white, well educated men out to prove that their own sub category is still superior (and here&#39;s why&#33, I&#39;m bored shitless. Not OFFENDED, just bored.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by Dr. Dilznick+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr. Dilznick)</div><div class='quotemain'>
<!--QuoteBegin-Jonb
There&#39;s also the fact that modern DNA studies go against your belief in a correlation between race and IQ.

If you have evidence, present it. Doubt it, though.
[/b][/quote]
JonB, answer please.