An Open Letter to White Privilege

[Mr.Samsa]

Just a note on the IQ test claim - it's actually an incredibly valid and accurate measure of intelligence that predicts a whole host of important things, and the idea that it only measures how well you do on IQ tests is a popular myth that has been debunked by practically every study on intelligence over the last few decades.

It's the behavioral tests that are important, and IQ is an important part of that. I'm kind of surprised you agree with the validity of these types of tests, since your actions and beliefs don't seem to reflect it. Unless you believe the genetic component is small, which sort of invalidates natural selection.

What have I said that makes it seem like I don't accept the validity of IQ tests? What beliefs do I have? And no, the genetic component is certainly very significant. Even if it wasn't though it wouldn't invalidate natural selection in any way as it's not necessary to propose a selection view of intelligence in order to accept it as a genetic reality. I actually do accept that it likely came about primarily due to selection but it's just not necessary at all to believe that.

[Gallstones]

Vandals paint whiteface on black conservative’s campaign sign: Where’s the outrage? July 1, 2014

“A Florida Republican congressional candidate’s campaign sign was vandalized with whiteface paint last week in a district with overwhelmingly Democratic voter registration.
...
I know Glo Smith and her story is one of individual triumph and success, which should be celebrated. However, in the real War on Women — especially conservative black women — she is to be degraded and disrespected by the so-called “champions of civil rights.”

Do you think there will be any coverage of this by the mainstream media? Will John Lewis, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or Congressional Black Caucus Chairman Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio) stand up and condemn this action?

Nah, I ain’t holding my breath. Especially after the 2012 election cycle when a TV commercial was done depicting me with a gold tooth, punching white women — nothing was said. And you may recall the “birthing tubes” cartoon of Condoleeza Rice and the white face caricature of Michael Steele. See, when you swim against the current of black dogma, in the minds of progressive blacks and white progressive socialists, you get what you deserve.

[pErvinalia]

Beautiful avatar, G!

[Tyrannical]

Just a note on the IQ test claim - it's actually an incredibly valid and accurate measure of intelligence that predicts a whole host of important things, and the idea that it only measures how well you do on IQ tests is a popular myth that has been debunked by practically every study on intelligence over the last few decades.

It's the behavioral tests that are important, and IQ is an important part of that. I'm kind of surprised you agree with the validity of these types of tests, since your actions and beliefs don't seem to reflect it. Unless you believe the genetic component is small, which sort of invalidates natural selection.

What have I said that makes it seem like I don't accept the validity of IQ tests? What beliefs do I have? And no, the genetic component is certainly very significant. Even if it wasn't though it wouldn't invalidate natural selection in any way as it's not necessary to propose a selection view of intelligence in order to accept it as a genetic reality. I actually do accept that it likely came about primarily due to selection but it's just not necessary at all to believe that.

It's not that you don't accept the validity of the tests, you clearly do. It's the reasons you hold for the differences I may question. Now I see you call the genetic component significant, and I clearly feel that is an understatement. The genetic component is so dominant that any other contribution is minor. This significance has escaped testing in the past because the genetic component is not so dominant in children, and school testing was a major source of research data. The older the subject, the more dominant the pure genetic aspect becomes until mature adulthood where it essentially becomes the only thing that matters significantly.
Of course this is classified as "dangerous" research since it is set to scientifically disprove the notion of racial equality, and with it the moral need to pretend. A new morality based on scientific evidence will once again insist on segregation just as we did in the past. Perhaps then Detroit will once again be known as the Paris of the West.

[pErvinalia]

Huh? The older a subject gets the more environmental influence they get. Pure genetic component would presumably be weakened in any results.

Oh, and you're a racist cunt.

[Hermit]

The older the subject, the more dominant the pure genetic aspect becomes until mature adulthood where it essentially becomes the only thing that matters significantly.

I love how this assertion is immediately followed by a conspiracy theory.

Of course this is classified as "dangerous" research since it is set to scientifically disprove the notion of racial equality

[Tyrannical]

Huh? The older a subject gets the more environmental influence they get. Pure genetic component would presumably be weakened in any results.

Oh, and you're a racist cunt.

You might think that, but the older a subject gets based partly on separated at birth twin studies the less important environmental influence becomes as the twins become more similar in both IQ and other behavioral characteristics as they age until the similarity reaches around 90% at age 28. An apple never falls far from the tree......

[Mr.Samsa]

Vandals paint whiteface on black conservative’s campaign sign: Where’s the outrage? July 1, 2014

This concept sounds interesting - was there a significant problem of white minstrel shows back in the day where black people painted their faces white and pretended to be mentally deficient and perpetuated a number of stereotypes about white people?

What have I said that makes it seem like I don't accept the validity of IQ tests? What beliefs do I have? And no, the genetic component is certainly very significant. Even if it wasn't though it wouldn't invalidate natural selection in any way as it's not necessary to propose a selection view of intelligence in order to accept it as a genetic reality. I actually do accept that it likely came about primarily due to selection but it's just not necessary at all to believe that.

It's not that you don't accept the validity of the tests, you clearly do. It's the reasons you hold for the differences I may question. Now I see you call the genetic component significant, and I clearly feel that is an understatement. The genetic component is so dominant that any other contribution is minor. This significance has escaped testing in the past because the genetic component is not so dominant in children, and school testing was a major source of research data. The older the subject, the more dominant the pure genetic aspect becomes until mature adulthood where it essentially becomes the only thing that matters significantly.

I think describing non-genetic components as "minor" is a massive understatement. At it's most extreme, non-genetic components still account for around .2 of the variance, which is massive on a psychological scale. Both components are clearly very significant and ignoring one or the other suggests a political bias.

Of course this is classified as "dangerous" research since it is set to scientifically disprove the notion of racial equality, and with it the moral need to pretend. A new morality based on scientific evidence will once again insist on segregation just as we did in the past. Perhaps then Detroit will once again be known as the Paris of the West.

I'm not sure how any of that follows. I don't think anyone argues that research into genetic components of intelligence is "dangerous" and it's not even questioned in any way since it's accepted as an undeniable fact in the field. It's certainly not "dangerous" in terms of racial issues because there is no reason to think that genetic causes of intelligence have any relationship to race at all - it could be 100% genetic and it still wouldn't necessarily apply to race.

Huh? The older a subject gets the more environmental influence they get. Pure genetic component would presumably be weakened in any results.

Oh, and you're a racist cunt.

Tyrannical is right, kind of. It's actually that the hereditary component increases as you look at older age groups but there's still a little bit of a bait and switch with hereditary evidence being interpreted as genetic evidence, since not all hereditary factors are genetic.

[Tyrannical]

The older the subject, the more dominant the pure genetic aspect becomes until mature adulthood where it essentially becomes the only thing that matters significantly.

I love how this assertion is immediately followed by a conspiracy theory.

Of course this is classified as "dangerous" research since it is set to scientifically disprove the notion of racial equality

Oh but it's not a conspiracy theory. It's a conspiracy fact and is discussed in scientific journals. Just Google racism and behavioral genetics.

http://www.nature.com/news/ethics-taboo ... cs-1.13858

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro ... ce-stinks/

Last spring, I kicked up a kerfuffle by proposing that research on race and intelligence, given its potential for exacerbating discrimination, should be banned.

I suppose having scientific proof supporting the justification for discrimination certainly does have the potential for exacerbating discrimination

[tattuchu]

It's not that you don't accept the validity of the tests, you clearly do. It's the reasons you hold for the differences I may question. Now I see you call the genetic component significant, and I clearly feel that is an understatement. The genetic component is so dominant that any other contribution is minor. This significance has escaped testing in the past because the genetic component is not so dominant in children, and school testing was a major source of research data. The older the subject, the more dominant the pure genetic aspect becomes until mature adulthood where it essentially becomes the only thing that matters significantly.
Of course this is classified as "dangerous" research since it is set to scientifically disprove the notion of racial equality, and with it the moral need to pretend. A new morality based on scientific evidence will once again insist on segregation just as we did in the past. Perhaps then Detroit will once again be known as the Paris of the West.

I don't understand this bit. Why would it lead to segregation? Why couldn't two unequal (in intelligence) races peacefully co-exist? And, actually, desegregation seems to me an effective remedy for the problem. The more inter-race fucking that goes on, the more the gene pool is improved. I mean, just look at Neil DeGrasse-Tyson. He's pretty damn smart, right? Well how do you think he got that way? Answer: slave owners fucking their slaves and whitening up the gene pool!

[tattuchu]

More fucking, I say. Fucking is the answer

[Tyrannical]

It's not that you don't accept the validity of the tests, you clearly do. It's the reasons you hold for the differences I may question. Now I see you call the genetic component significant, and I clearly feel that is an understatement. The genetic component is so dominant that any other contribution is minor. This significance has escaped testing in the past because the genetic component is not so dominant in children, and school testing was a major source of research data. The older the subject, the more dominant the pure genetic aspect becomes until mature adulthood where it essentially becomes the only thing that matters significantly.
Of course this is classified as "dangerous" research since it is set to scientifically disprove the notion of racial equality, and with it the moral need to pretend. A new morality based on scientific evidence will once again insist on segregation just as we did in the past. Perhaps then Detroit will once again be known as the Paris of the West.

I don't understand this bit. Why would it lead to segregation? Why couldn't two unequal (in intelligence) races peacefully co-exist? And, actually, desegregation seems to me an effective remedy for the problem. The more inter-race fucking that goes on, the more the gene pool is improved. I mean, just look at Neil DeGrasse-Tyson. He's pretty damn smart, right? Well how do you think he got that way? Answer: slave owners fucking their slaves and whitening up the gene pool!

Sure Neil DeGrasse-Tyson is smart, but he is the exception and not the rule. It's is the group averages and distribution that is important.
Our modern society depends on a certain percentage of very smart people that can invent new technology or maintain the current technology. Certain groups of people lack a high enough percentage of these exceptionally smart individuals that allows our modern society to function.
Medical doctors require a certain level of intelligence to be able to learn and understand their profession. A society that wants good medical care needs a certain percentage of the population with both the talent and desire to become doctors. But some groups based on percentages lack enough intelligent and driven candidates to provide it.

I suppose you could have two races of differing IQ peacefully coexisting, even though in nature rarely do two different organism peacefully coexist in the same niche. But it is not just IQ differences, there are also huge genetic based differences that manifest itself in increased violence and sexual assault. It is very difficult to peacefully coexist when one group commits crimes and exhibits other antisocial characteristics many times higher and not just a few percentage points.

As for race mixing, it is extremely dangerous. Individuals from two different groups have offspring that tends to regresses to the mean of the two groups. If all smart people married dumb people we'd have less dumb people, but we'd also have less smart people. It is the smart people that are needed to both maintain and research further our accumulated knowledge.

Answer: slave owners fucking their slaves and whitening up the gene pool!

That's true, and the earliest use of IQ tests had shown this. The slave owners tended to be more intelligent than average, no surprise as their is a correlation between intelligence and wealth. Not an absolute correlation even if you discount entertainers and athletes which may be wealthy but not very bright. However unlike in the slave days, it is mostly low IQ or otherwise character flawed (drugs, crime, etc) whites that interbreed with blacks. The improvement of their gene pool would be much less if at all under these circumstances.

[pErvinalia]

Both your parents were obviously dumb.

[Hermit]

Smart people are the exception full stop. Race doesn't enter into it, but while you are entertaining your notions of racial superiority, let me ask you this: What about women? Are they genetically inferior too? I mean, just look how few of them are Nobel laureates. Between 1901 and 2013 854 people got the award. Only 45 of them were women. Stupid women I say.

[pErvinalia]

Segregate the bitches!!