patrick.net

Race is not just color.

Race is a word to refer to the many genetic differences between the subspecies of humans.

foxmannumber1 says

Race is not just color.

Race is a word to refer to the many genetic differences between the subspecies of humans.

You are judging people by the colour of their skin not their genetics as a whole. All population groups are genetically diverse. Perhaps you should be posting your hatred against the redheads down the street from you for all the difference it makes.

I judge people by their intelligence. Intelligence is the single most desirable trait in the modern world.

Asians have an average IQ if 107. Whites have an average IQ of 100. Hispanics/latinos/mestizos have an average IQ of 90. American blacks have an average IQ 85. Purebred sub saharan africans have an average IQ of 70. These numbers are genetic and unchangeable by 'nurture'.

There is no benefit for a more intelligent person to associate with a less intelligent person. There is benefit for a less intelligent person to associate with a more intelligent person. These 2 facts create conflict when the more intelligent attempt to avoid the less intelligent.

foxmannumber1 says

There is no benefit for a more intelligence person to associate with a less intelligent person.

Ha. You said it (or rather failed to say it correctly). I guess I shouldn't waste my time responding to you then.

I think you agree with me if all you can find wrong is a typo.

foxmannumber1 says

I think you agree with me if all you can find wrong is a typo.

Oh, I think any sane person could easily question the glib generalizations you are making and your narrow take on the basis for human interaction. Presumably every person you meet has to take an IQ test before you decide whether you can associate with them. How's that working out for you?

I use skin color to identify races. Thankfully the 4 major races in the USA have vastly different skin color.

I then use the repeatable and reliable science behind the intelligence tests which always show the same results I listed above to determine which races I wish to interact with personally.

Do you ever wonder why Asians seem to be immune to all the excuses that blacks and Hispanics/latinos/mestizos use to blame whites for their lack of achievement? The answer is they have a higher genetic intelligence and therefore are able to compete in a society that values merit.

Do you have a wife, kids and friends?

Stay on topic.

I believe in 'freedom of association'. This means that both parties have to agree to interact. This freedom infuriates multiculti zealots.

If whites want to live and interact with other whites only, it's their right. If blacks want to live and interact with other blacks only, it's their right. If whites and blacks want to live and interact with each other, it's their right.

Judging by how non diverse American neighborhoods are, I think more Americans than not agree with and practice this freedom.

foxmannumber1 says

Stay on topic.

I believe in 'freedom of association'. This means that both parties have to agree to interact. This freedom infuriates multiculti zealots.

If whites want to live and interact with other whites only, it's their right. If blacks want to live and interact with other blacks only, it's their right. If whites and blacks want to live and interact with each other, it's their right.

Judging by how non diverse American neighborhoods are, I think more Americans than not agree with and practice this freedom.

I am staying on topic. Do you have a wife, kids and friends?

And what you are saying here is hardly insightful. Two parties have to agree to interact (presumably before there is any kind of meaningful relationship)? No shit Sherlock. Who you associate with is your own choice, but you are making that decision before you've even met those people. Very sad indeed.

Only about 10% of American blacks have an IQ of 100 or greater. This is about 4 million people.

50% of American whites have an IQ of 100 or greater. This is about 100 million people.

This makes the odds for diversity very bad.

You have to get very lucky, or go out of your way to find a black with the intelligence equal to the average white. It's much easier for a white person to find another white person to have a pleasant and complimentary relationship with.

So let's say you have an IQ of 100 (I'm being generous here) and you move to a street populated by black Harvard professors. I presume you'd be as happy as a pig in shit.

And I'm still asking if you have a wife, kids and friends.

Such as Henry Gates?

Crowley then told Gates that he was leaving his residence and that if Gates wanted to continue discussing the matter, he would speak to him outside. Gates replied, "Yeah, I'll speak with your mama outside."

Model citizen.

That fails to answer either of my queries.

I would say that you have no point in the real world.

I doubt there is a street/neighborhood with a majority of black Harvard professors.

My point is that even a distinguished black Harvard professor is still an African at heart, but they hide their true nature much better than the average black. Henry Gates knows he let his instincts take over when he began acting uncivilized.

This is another, more comical example:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/m1gUdxOxsKg

So intelligence has nothing to do with it then. You negatively judge all black people irrespective of their individual characteristics. You are simply an out and out racist hiding behind some extremely debatable research on what constitutes intelligence. Thanks for the clarification.

foxmannumber1 says

I judge people by their intelligence. Intelligence is the single most desirable trait in the modern world.

Asians have an average IQ if 107. Whites have an average IQ of 100. Hispanics/latinos/mestizos have an average IQ of 90. American blacks have an average IQ 85. Purebred sub saharan africans have an average IQ of 70. These numbers are genetic and unchangeable by 'nurture'.

There is no benefit for a more intelligent person to associate with a less intelligent person. There is benefit for a less intelligent person to associate with a more intelligent person. These 2 facts create conflict when the more intelligent attempt to avoid the less intelligent.

Many autistic people or those with Asberger's have relatively high IQs, and are able to do things with their minds that are impossible for normal white or Asian people. However I doubt you would find them to be great neighbors or seek them out to be friends. They're usually very self-centered and not good at either conversation or social issues. I don't know crime statistics for this group but I don't think that's an issue.
Psychopaths are also often intelligent, and they use their superior minds to wreak havoc either physical or psychological among the people who encounter them.

Point is: intelligence alone is a poor instrument of divining human worth.
I submit that empathy is a better metric of social compatibility.

By endorsing the top 10% of blacks, you are also endorsing and enabling the negative behavior the bottom 90% of blacks as well. It's simply not worth it to invest in such a small group of 4 million people. You will get a much better societal and personal ROI by putting your efforts solely into Whites.

http://jewamongyou.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/reflections-of-a-racist-father/

Read this. It's a good article on why whites should never interact with blacks, but more on the personal relationship side.

foxmannumber1 says

By endorsing the top 10% of blacks, you are also endorsing and enabling the negative behavior the bottom 90% of blacks as well. It's simply not worth it to invest in such a small group of 4 million people. You will get a much better societal and personal ROI by putting your efforts solely into Whites.

http://jewamongyou.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/reflections-of-a-racist-father/

Read this. It's a good article on why whites should never interact with blacks, but more on the personal relationship side.

You know, I'm fairly intelligent, IQ133 at last test, which isn't exceptional by any means but also is well above average. And I find social interactions with well-adjusted black people to be stimulating on an emotional plane. Black people have an easy grace to their social lives that white people and Asian people usually lack. Having had a few good friends who were black and meeting and conversing with black people throughout my adult life, I'd say I'd rather meet a new black person than a new white person. They're more likely to be someone friendly and sociable.
While intellectual conversation is very stimulating, it doesn't reach the heart, which is our truest, most authentic self. I'd rather socialize with someone with a good heart and lower intelligence than someone with high intelligence and no heart.

Quigley says

Many autistic people or those with Asberger's have relatively high IQs, and are able to do things with their minds that are impossible for normal white or Asian people

Using anecdotal evidence provided by small populations with other genetic disorders shows me that you have no argument against the average populations I'm talking about.

foxmannumber1 says

By endorsing the top 10% of blacks, you are also endorsing and enabling the negative behavior the bottom 90% of blacks as well. It's simply not worth it to invest in such a small group of 4 million people. You will get a much better societal and personal ROI by putting your efforts solely into Whites.

http://jewamongyou.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/reflections-of-a-racist-father/

Read this. It's a good article on why whites should never interact with blacks, but more on the personal relationship side.

You are a very sad example of a human being but at least there's no need for you to hide behind your intelligence 'argument' anymore. You are an unreconstructed racist plain and simple. Own it. You judge people entirely based on the colour of their skin. Intelligence is not the determinant of association for you. It is colour. I presume you have a white wife, possibly (white) kids and white friends. You made the claim earlier that there was no benefit in associating with anyone less intelligent than yourself. Unless you have been remarkably lucky in finding only people of equal or greater intelligence than yourself (and who don't share your views about who to associate with), I suggest that you are utterly full of shit about how you determine who to mix with.

I am what you consider a racist. I call myself a 'race realist' though.

If you're going back to the 'color of their skin' argument then you haven't read anything I've said.

foxmannumber1 says

Quigley says

Many autistic people or those with Asberger's have relatively high IQs, and are able to do things with their minds that are impossible for normal white or Asian people

Using anecdotal evidence provided by small populations with other genetic disorders shows me that you have no argument against the average populations I'm talking about.

To go general, lower intelligence populations also need jobs to feel good about themselves and be productive and psychologically healthy. Unfortunately we've shipped most of those jobs overseas and replaced them with welfare. The psychopathic CEOs and shareholder-conscious boards of thousands of companies have eliminated jobs and then give political contributions to candidates and parties who will blame the unemployed for their predicament. It's sick and wrong, much like your twisted political philosophy. You take truth and pervert it in an attempt to validate falsehood.

I agree with everything you said except your opinion on my political philosophy.

I take fact and repeat it.

foxmannumber1 says

I am what you consider a racist. I call myself a 'race realist' though.

If you're going back to the 'color of their skin' argument then you haven't read anything I've said.

Oh, I've read what you said. The colour of a person's skin being black is clearly the issue for you irrespective of their intelligence.

foxmannumber1 says

I agree with everything you said except your opinion on my political philosophy.

I take fact and repeat it.

The 'facts' that you state are still highly contentious issues in the academic community.

tatupu70 says

Oh, no. Not any supply creates its own demand guy. Hasn't the supply side cult given up yet? Capital does NOT create jobs. For god's sake, look at the current situation--the country is awash in money. Interest rates are ridiculously low. Where are the jobs??

I am not speaking of QE capital. That's a different story. Because like you and I agreed with the rich or those who have money place their money into stocks. bonds, houses, just assets in general they don't place it in companies (well they do but they do for other reasons) or start up new businesses and etc all which help creates jobs.

tatupu70 says

You're actually almost on the right track there. The wealth gap increases because those with the capital are getting rewarded over those who only have their own labor to offer. The way to fix that is to reward labor over capital.

I guess we can agree some here. But you're about 1/2 right. But as I said previously capital does promote job grow but the problem is it's not promoting the right economic growth. What we have now is a promotion of asset inflation, thanks to once again QE and low interest rates.

tatupu70 says

First--unions don't affect prices. They bargain for wage and benefits. Second--how do you determine what a job is worth? Is it the added value that the job creates? The added value minus some % that goes to the owner?

Oh that's simple, the market. And yes Unions affect prices because they rise cost among workers who have not increased any value to businesses or organization. Prices aren't risen by a lot compared to QE or low interest rates but they do raise when you raise state or national minimum wages slightly. But usually it is sometimes off-set by massive layoffs or cutback in work hours due to high cost of labor. So either way you get higher unemployment, underemployment, or a small rise in prices and QE plus low interest rates just makes matters worst.

tatupu70 says

You really don't get it. In the real world, people are paid based on their negotiating power and how well they wield it. In any event, if the cost of living increases based on easy money, that implies that you should be raising your prices.

Oh you know what you're absolute right. But in reality it's the market that sets the price as employees and employees negotiate salaries, benefits, and what not. Not the damn unions who will literally hold a company or organization hostage if they don't get their way.

tatupu70 says

History disagrees with you. The time period when unions were strong was a great period in US economic history.

Technically, the greatest economic period in the History of the U.S. occurred during the gilded age, a little before the unions became. But even when they arrived during the progressive era economic growth was still strong but the difference then was the central bank was created in 1913 and after that things just began going down hill as purchasing power became less and less as the years and decades went by.

Yes, the gilded age did wield poverty but part of that is also due to the massive influx of immigration to the states. But even with poverty then America's economy was skyrocketing thanks to a ton of businesses and innovations created.

But unlike today we have the wealthy getting rich but economic growth is still sub-par nothing like how it was in the gilded age. We haven't made or created anything new (other than Facebook and internet companies), national infrastructure is the worst as its ever been, and I bet the people are in higher poverty today more so than we were in the gilded age. However; a lot of the numbers are hidden because we do have social programs (Most of them we cannot afford) that doesn't truly tell us how bad things really are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_States#The_Gilded_Age:_1865.E2.80.931900

Oh let me just add one other thing. We do have our government subsidizing corporations or industries (e.g. Banking, Energy, Oil, Higher education, etc), that is something we also need to be rid of as it shifts capital from labor to these crappy businesses that really needs to left alone to fail or thrive on their own.

So you see yes we need capital but the capital that goes into labor, that goes in to job creation, that goes into businesses, that goes into Manufacturing, that goes into R&D, and not capital that promotes asset inflation which is what we have now and where all the capital is going to. You have the idea that money needs to go to labor, job growth and etc but you have it all wrong. The real culprit is the central bank, government, and the demanding of unions who will shutdown operations if they don't get their way.

People like spydah want us to return to the bad old days of 1890-1910 when work days were 12-14 hours, pay was so small that both parents and their children had to work to keep the family fed, conditions were absolutely squalid, and the rich robber barons ran the country with an iron fist.
Theodore Roosevelt began the change by standing up to the rich bullies like Rockefeller. That age was only gilded for the wealthy super minority.

Bigsby says

The 'facts' that you state are still highly contentious issues in the academic community.

IQ tests are repeatable and predictable across all socioeconomic spectrums. Poor whites outperform rich blacks all the time. IQ tests are the best test for intelligence that we currently have.

Academia is overrun with liberals who want nothing more than to close the achievement gap. After trillions of dollars, preferential treatment and outright cheating(Atlanta Public Schools is just the tip of the iceberg), that gap has not closed.

There is no evidence to suggest that the intelligence gap between Whites and blacks is not genetic. Publicly claiming this will ruin your career though, which is why some call it contentious.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/09/22/wide-racial-gap-persists-in-testing.html

Quigley says

People like spydah want us to return to the bad old days of 1890-1910 when work days were 12-14 hours, pay was so small that both parents and their children had to work to keep the family fed, conditions were absolutely squalid, and the rich robber barons ran the country with an iron fist.

Theodore Roosevelt began the change by standing up to the rich bullies like Rockefeller. That age was only gilded for the wealthy super minority.

Yeah right I do... Since i am you know rich and all and control you peons.... *rollseyes*

Quigley says

Now, due to their social nets being wider and deeper, blue states also have much higher numbers of the poor they must feed and house and provide medical care for.

Apparently you've never lived in some of these red states. I'm originally from one of them. The poor in places like this aren't fewer...just ignored. On the contrary, they are more numerous per capita. Ever been to Louisiana or Alabama?

foxmannumber1 says

There is no evidence to suggest that the intelligence gap between Whites and blacks is not genetic. Publicly claiming this will ruin your career though, which is why some call it contentious.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/09/22/wide-racial-gap-persists-in-testing.html

So post up the research that proves that blacks have less innate intellectual ability than whites as a consequence of genetics.

Your initial question is dishonest.

Your question should read 'hypothetical' circumstance. There is no proof that a such street exists in the real world.

I addressed your hypothetical question in this post:

http://patrick.net/?p=1230637&c=1013820#comment-1013820

The short answer is it's not worth the personal and financial cost for a White to interact with any black.

The only fear I have of blacks is being a victim of their violent crime. Blacks are far more likely to commit violence overall, and far more likely to commit violence against Whites than Whites are to commit violence against blacks.
This suggests that blacks are targeting Whites for their violent crimes because they are White.

1. No, I would not move to this fictional street with those black professors because the risk/reward ratio is not in my favor. Even well to do blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime.

2. Skin color is the primary indicator of race and race is the primary indicator of intelligence. If in some bizarro reversed world where the races were reversed, I would be against the less intelligent whites.

foxmannumber1 says

Q tests are repeatable and predictable across all socioeconomic spectrums. Poor whites outperform rich blacks all the time. IQ tests are the best test for intelligence that we currently have.

Whole lot of ignorance going on in this post. The smartest guy in my all male high school was an African American, even more than the rich white guys that went to Yale and Brown in our class. He ran circles around the rest of us intellectually. Got a full ride scholarship to Johns Hopkins in Biomedical Engineering, even though his parents were well off. Today, an orthopedic surgeon. He could have gone anywhere, independent of his race.

The year before, our all state QB (African American) got a full ride at Harvard and his parents were poor. He is now a high powered attorney. The year before, another African American went to Stanford and was the general counsel of an NBA team.

You don't get into those schools if you aren't smart, even with affirmative action.

It's all about environment.

Anecdotal evidence is worthless.

No one is saying all of those that are predominately sub saharan African are unintelligent. Just the vast majority of them.

I would also say that the products of miscegenation are more intelligent than the sub Saharan African parent.

and your IQ is 4
foxmannumber1 says

I judge people by their intelligence. Intelligence is the single most desirable trait in the modern world.

Asians have an average IQ if 107. Whites have an average IQ of 100. Hispanics/latinos/mestizos have an average IQ of 90. American blacks have an average IQ 85. Purebred sub saharan africans have an average IQ of 70. These numbers are genetic and unchangeable by 'nurture'.

There is no benefit for a more intelligent person to associate with a less intelligent person. There is benefit for a less intelligent person to associate with a more intelligent person. These 2 facts create conflict when the more intelligent attempt to avoid the less intelligent.

foxmannumber1 says

Anecdotal evidence is worthless.

Good one! So is your race-based hypothesis. Take two kids, one Caucasian and one African American, and make one rich and the other poor. The rich kids nearly always outperform the poor.

Your eugenics argument was used by many, including the Nazis and has debunked over and over again by science.

It's proven that poor whites and Asians outperform rich blacks in intelligence tests.

I agree than a good intelligence test score is not a guarantee of good life performance though.

foxmannumber1 says

No one is saying all of those that are predominately sub saharan African are unintelligent. Just the vast majority of them.

My wife is from Europe. The greatest percentage of immigrants gaining entrance into med school where she lived were from...sub Saharan Africa.

You take people from one background, put them in a certain environment, and they excel, while others in the opposite fail.

Didn't you ever see Trading Places?

Europe, huh? That's like talking about North America in some general way: worthless.