Jordan Peterson pointing out "irremediable and biological" ethnic IQ differences, and why SJW's are wrong
invite response
2018 Aug 8, 11:06pm 8,645 views 51 comments
« First « Previous Comments 44 - 51 of 51 Search these comments
44
CBOEtrader
2018 Aug 9, 1:47pm
CBOEtrader
2018 Aug 9, 1:47pm
marcus says
Changed it. But the point of calling you out was to specifically discuss JP's work, as we had a disagreement about his meaning.
The title of this thread:
CBOEtrader says
Jordan Peterson pointing out "irremediable and biological" ethnic IQ differences, and why Marcus is wrong
Changed it. But the point of calling you out was to specifically discuss JP's work, as we had a disagreement about his meaning.
45
marcus
2018 Aug 9, 1:49pm
marcus
2018 Aug 9, 1:49pm
CBOEtrader says
One would think, yes, becasue a group is nothing more than a collection of individuals and as noted IQ is heritable.
It seems like cultures (i.e. groups) that place a super high priority on intelligence and the types of competence that lead to success in school and the the job market, in mating decisions., that is the mates that females select, and the hierarchies males in the group compete in for mates, may have a huge impact on average higher IQ in their respective populations becasue of that. If a poorer performing group (say inner city blacks) somehow had a radical change in beliefs and priorities for mate selection, how many generations do you think it would take to bring IQ averages to parity with other groups ? (In my opinion less than 5 maybe just two or three)
So how might institutional policies facilitate such change in group beliefs ? Wouldn't there first need to be enough middle class role models in the group showing the others in the group what "winners" look like ?
To truly understand all these questions is to gain insight in to the reasoning behind affirmative action (which I have mixed opinions about - it depends on the situation).
To be adamantly opposed to all forms of affirmative action, and college quotas etc., is in my opinion tantamount to wanting to make more difficult the progress toward undoing inequality which has come about for many reasons, some of the reasons being independent of biology and more about past prejudices and policies that only served to worsen inequality.
I bet we could narrow that gap and help lower IQ groups immensely
One would think, yes, becasue a group is nothing more than a collection of individuals and as noted IQ is heritable.
It seems like cultures (i.e. groups) that place a super high priority on intelligence and the types of competence that lead to success in school and the the job market, in mating decisions., that is the mates that females select, and the hierarchies males in the group compete in for mates, may have a huge impact on average higher IQ in their respective populations becasue of that. If a poorer performing group (say inner city blacks) somehow had a radical change in beliefs and priorities for mate selection, how many generations do you think it would take to bring IQ averages to parity with other groups ? (In my opinion less than 5 maybe just two or three)
So how might institutional policies facilitate such change in group beliefs ? Wouldn't there first need to be enough middle class role models in the group showing the others in the group what "winners" look like ?
To truly understand all these questions is to gain insight in to the reasoning behind affirmative action (which I have mixed opinions about - it depends on the situation).
To be adamantly opposed to all forms of affirmative action, and college quotas etc., is in my opinion tantamount to wanting to make more difficult the progress toward undoing inequality which has come about for many reasons, some of the reasons being independent of biology and more about past prejudices and policies that only served to worsen inequality.
46
CBOEtrader
2018 Aug 9, 2:06pm
CBOEtrader
2018 Aug 9, 2:06pm
marcus says
I would guess it could happen within 3 to 5 generations.
marcus says
Group is too ambiguous. Will Smith's rich kids should never get favorable treatment to Stanford over an Asian immigrant's children.
I wouldnt have a problem w economic or life difficulty based preferential treatment for college admissions. For example, I saw one of those social media shorts wherein a kid self educated on khan academy and immigrated to the US w no family. Would anyone have a problem giving this kid an SAT fudge factor? Allowing Will Smith's kids a spot over a middle class, second generation Asian american kid is grossly unfair to the asian kid.
I have a huge problem w Macron hiring half women for his cabinet, when only about 20% of the candidate pool is women. IMO, gender/race/genitals should never be a part of an employment application (unless those traits are required to do the job).
how many generations do you think it would take to bring IQ averages to parity with other groups ?
I would guess it could happen within 3 to 5 generations.
marcus says
Wouldn't there first need to be enough middle class role models in the group showing the others in the group what "winners" look like ?
Group is too ambiguous. Will Smith's rich kids should never get favorable treatment to Stanford over an Asian immigrant's children.
I wouldnt have a problem w economic or life difficulty based preferential treatment for college admissions. For example, I saw one of those social media shorts wherein a kid self educated on khan academy and immigrated to the US w no family. Would anyone have a problem giving this kid an SAT fudge factor? Allowing Will Smith's kids a spot over a middle class, second generation Asian american kid is grossly unfair to the asian kid.
I have a huge problem w Macron hiring half women for his cabinet, when only about 20% of the candidate pool is women. IMO, gender/race/genitals should never be a part of an employment application (unless those traits are required to do the job).
47
marcus
2018 Aug 9, 2:10pm
marcus
2018 Aug 9, 2:10pm
CBOEtrader says
We agree - I added an opinion to the same effect before reading this. Then you should be more understanding of affirmative action and policies getting more blacks and latinos in to colleges.
CBOEtrader says
Yeah it's stupid. Political. I don't want to see anti-white or anti male prejudice in the the future any more than you do
I would guess it could happen within 3 to 5 generations.
We agree - I added an opinion to the same effect before reading this. Then you should be more understanding of affirmative action and policies getting more blacks and latinos in to colleges.
CBOEtrader says
I have a huge problem w Macron hiring half women for his cabinet, when only about 20% of the candidate pool is women. IMO, gender/race/genitals should never be a part of an employment application (unless those traits are required to do the job).
Yeah it's stupid. Political. I don't want to see anti-white or anti male prejudice in the the future any more than you do
48
marcus
2018 Aug 9, 2:13pm
marcus
2018 Aug 9, 2:13pm
CBOEtrader says
By the way, this contradicts your title for this thread. It's cultural and economic, and not biologically racial, or ethnic, at least not to an extent that's significant.
I would guess it could happen within 3 to 5 generations.
By the way, this contradicts your title for this thread. It's cultural and economic, and not biologically racial, or ethnic, at least not to an extent that's significant.
49
CBOEtrader
2018 Aug 9, 3:03pm
CBOEtrader
2018 Aug 9, 3:03pm
marcus says
I dont know if science can say how much is nurture vs nature. I'd suggest that better nurture over 3 to 5 generations should improve both the nurture and the nature aspect of the equation.
The reverse is also true. I went to Washington and Lee University in the blue ridge mountains of virginia.
After 150 years of mountain living, some hillbilly local communities all have the same problems as the inner city poor, just with more space between them. These are Scottish/irish decent hillbillies. Meanwhile their cousins who moved away are thriving. The local test scores are garbage, many struggling w proper English. If one of them moves to the bug city, they are normal within 1 generation of decent schools.
CBOEtrader saysI would guess it could happen within 3 to 5 generations.
By the way, this contradicts your title for this thread. It's cultural and economic, and not biologically racial, or ethnic, at least not to an extent that's significant.
I dont know if science can say how much is nurture vs nature. I'd suggest that better nurture over 3 to 5 generations should improve both the nurture and the nature aspect of the equation.
The reverse is also true. I went to Washington and Lee University in the blue ridge mountains of virginia.
After 150 years of mountain living, some hillbilly local communities all have the same problems as the inner city poor, just with more space between them. These are Scottish/irish decent hillbillies. Meanwhile their cousins who moved away are thriving. The local test scores are garbage, many struggling w proper English. If one of them moves to the bug city, they are normal within 1 generation of decent schools.
51
NuttBoxer
2018 Aug 10, 11:05am
NuttBoxer
2018 Aug 10, 11:05am
mell says
True, I was definitely thinking only in the scope of Americans. As far as programs helping out, that's only true if the program is local(neighborhood). Government programs lack the compassion, accountability, and oversight to be helpful. There are a few who will use them to make their lives better, but they are designed to create dependence, not to improve anyone's status.
mell says
That I think is a point worth considering, but from the perspective of cultural values, not race. You may think I'm being picky, but race and genetics cannot be changed, where cultural values can grow and shift over time. The latter allows that anyone from any race can be intelligent, while the former pigeon holes someone, unfairly, because of something they cannot change. From a cultural perspective, I think it is also important to consider size and how homogeneous the group is. Large groups that allow for more diversity, tend to lose their cultural traits as they mix with people of different backgrounds. Again, is any of this taken into consideration with these studies?
If you focus on the US only you could postulate that the difference in social and economic status and thus better access to education for one group is a main driver and thus the test is not "fair". However we have tons of programs directed at helping the poorer and even laws that discriminate against those that score better (affirmative action), yet not much progress is being made and often a toxic culture (high single-motherhood, absence of fathers, crime etc.) remains.
True, I was definitely thinking only in the scope of Americans. As far as programs helping out, that's only true if the program is local(neighborhood). Government programs lack the compassion, accountability, and oversight to be helpful. There are a few who will use them to make their lives better, but they are designed to create dependence, not to improve anyone's status.
mell says
I have no problems accepting that Ashkenazi Jews and many Asians score higher on average than my genetic lineage does
That I think is a point worth considering, but from the perspective of cultural values, not race. You may think I'm being picky, but race and genetics cannot be changed, where cultural values can grow and shift over time. The latter allows that anyone from any race can be intelligent, while the former pigeon holes someone, unfairly, because of something they cannot change. From a cultural perspective, I think it is also important to consider size and how homogeneous the group is. Large groups that allow for more diversity, tend to lose their cultural traits as they mix with people of different backgrounds. Again, is any of this taken into consideration with these studies?
« First « Previous Comments 44 - 51 of 51 Search these comments
This topic goes to the core of PC culture, and the resulting SJW tyranny. The unfortunate truth is that groups of people do indeed have different heritable talents. IQ is simply an easily measurable talent.
Before any idiot calls me racist for pointing out facts lets be clear about a few things: 1) IQ DOES NOT EQUAL MORAL VALUE. 2) Monetary success DOES NOT EQUAL MORE/LESS human value.
IQ does, however, predict stratification of society, and IQ is very correlated to racial groups. "I dont have a solution to that, but at least I can point out the problem." -JP Pointing out the problem is the first step towards helping people.
Here's another great conversation between Dave Ruben and SM. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0KKc6GbeNo
"Black make way less money than Jews, but when you normalize for IQ they dont."
Blaming stratification of society on the patriarchy is deeply flawed. As JP points out, its like building a model of society the way a child draws a house. Is a pentagram with rectangle "door", and two square windows a house? Or is it a very low level model of a house?