patrick.net

marcus says

You're proving me right (15%) while lecturing me on how I suppoedy haven't listened that much to Jordan Peterson.

proof that you dont understand statistics, which btw is the exact problem that JP suggests leads most people to the incorrect patriarchy conclusion.

marcus says

Look I get it, in the past day or so you have listened to everything that comes up on searches on google or youtube related to Jordan Peterson and IQ.

Wrong again...and you dont get it. I've proven your statements wrong time and again. Or do you still believe JP doesnt discuss IQ just competence? Or how about your backtracked claim that JP only discusses IQ as it pertains to individuals? Both probably false, but I guess listening to a 6 minute video would be too much research for you.

If you cant admit when you are blatantly wrong then why even have a discussion?

marcus says

becasue differences in IQ by ethnic group was never a major point Jordan Peterson stresses. . Why would it be ? He's a really smart guy.

Fighting back against SJW/progressive tyranny is hone of his major points. He uses the "Jewish Question" IQ discussion to point out that differences of outcome, even if they are extreme at the tails DOES NOT equal a white racist patriarchy.

CBOEtrader says

Or do you still believe JP doesnt discuss IQ just competence?

I never believed this. You're lying. Here I'll try to go back to the very beginning of this. Sheesh.

Okay, here it is, what I believe is my very my first comment on this "discussion," #99 in another thread.

http://patrick.net/post/1317991?80#comment-1525222

Maybe if I hadn't included the last sentence, you could have just agreed with me (not that I don't stand by it as true).

marcus says

You totally misunderstand what JP has said. HE never said anything close to that. He has talked about IQ differences, which are different on average but at the level of selected individuals it's irrelevant. Further more there are other factors I won't go in to that make it difficult to get representative scores for entire races, while controlling for educational differences.

Peterson is opposed to going for equality of outcome. But he never said: "it is imperative to discuss differences in IQ levels that drive those results rather than blaming white patriarchy." He's simply opposed to blaming white patriarchy as oppressive, and argues that meritocracy works and is what people are conflating with Patriarchy. He also sometimes talks about how if someone has an IQ of 80 or lower(perhaps the border he cites is lower), it's really going to be hard for them to make a living. If anything this is an argument for safety nets, which he is not opposed to.

Yes, later I talked about competence being more relevant than IQ in one specific context, becasue if you weren't only searching for JP discussions on IQ you would know how often he talks about hierarchies and competence hierarchies specifically.

marcus says

Yes, later I talked about competence being more relavant than IQ in a specific context, becasue if you weren't only searching for discussions on IQ you would know how often he talks about hierachys and competence hierarchies specifically.

JP does somewhat use IQ and competence interchangably. He often describes competence as a combination of IQ and conscientiousness. IQ and conscientiousness can be measured, whereas competence is less statistically defined.

I believe I have found the core of our disagreement however.

marcus says

Peterson is opposed to going for equality of outcome. But he never said: "it is imperative to discuss differences in IQ levels that drive those results rather than blaming white patriarchy."

JP absolutely has said this, albeit in his own words. You quoting my patrick.net forum comment and saying "he never said this" is disingenuous. JP will ne far more careful w his words than myself. That's why JP is our champion, and I'm just some schmuck in a forum.

CBOEtrader says

I believe I have found the core of our disagreement however.

Very good !!

Good job !!!

I also made it clear with this repeated at least once.

marcus says

Even most conservatives, not even most hard right wing morons believe that it is differences in intelligence due to race that is the reason for under representations of blacks or latinos in the corporate world. Jordan Peterson certainly would not argue this.

marcus says

I also made it clear with this repeated at least once.

marcus says

Even most conservatives, not even most hard right wing morons believe that it is differences in intelligence due to race that is the reason for under representations of blacks or latinos in the corporate world. Jordan Peterson certainly would not argue this.

Your ad hums and cheap smears against me doesnt make your statement any less wrong. (Dear admins, I feel like Marcus and I are both being liberal w the rules in this convo so should we thunderdome this thread?)

Let's unpack your innacuracues. You suggest that noone "believes that it is differences in intelligence due to race that is the reason for under representations of blacks or latinos in the corporate world. "
Nothing is THE reason. IQ is the most predictive factor. You are ignoring nuance so-as to disregard these uncomfortable truths. JP said "IQ is the best factor for predicting success that we've found by a fa tor of 10". Then he brings up Ashkenazi Jews, who are overrepresented in positions of competence by many, many times their ratio of the population. JP doesnt often point out the groups with lower than average IQ, but he confirms that the academic research is undeniable (watch the video again if you dont believe me).

Let's go slow here...if groups w higher average IQ are overrepresented in highly competent positions, what conclusion can we draw about lower IQ groups?

FYI, the original conversation was about the need for a 1st amendment protections. I pointed out that facts will get you banned, which is unfortunate in that it prevents us from helping the exact people you pretend to support.

Do you think this kid should be labelled a racist? Or should you let him research his project? https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article199440204.html

Do you think it's fair that Asian students have to score 200 points higher on sats to get into the same elite college as a black?

These are important questions that need to be discussed, and require an iron clad 1st amendment.

The title of this thread:

CBOEtrader says

Jordan Peterson pointing out "irremediable and biological" ethnic IQ differences, and why Marcus is wrong

Is quoting that title a smear ?

CBOEtrader says

should we thunderdome this thread?

Even that title has got to be seriously embarrassing for you.

I asked a couple times for you to show me where in a Peterson video does he say the first sentence here. When you follow it with a quote as you do (the second sentence) , it implies that the previous sentence is not entirely your words.

CBOEtrader says

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.

By the way, the statement "IQ is very correlated to racial groups" doesn't even make sense.You can only have a correlation between two numerical variables.

marcus says

I asked a couple times for you to show me where in a Peterson video does he say the first sentence here. When you follow it with a quote as you do (the second sentence) , it implies that the previous sentence is not entirely your words.

Did you watch the video? My first sentence is a summary of their discussion. I believe the second was a direct quote, but ill have to go listen again to be sure.

Again, your only response is HE ISNT SAYING THAT. Well...ok, what do you think he is saying when he points out the Jewish Question IQ example? What do YOU think he saying when he agrees that different groups have different IQ levels, which he describes as heritable and irremediable?

JP says "Differences in [average] gender IQ is trivial. There are differences amongst ethnicities which dont look trivial."

Then he discusses his Jewish IQ question, pointing out that a 15 point average advantage means an enormous over representation amongst geniuses.

You are correct in that he doesnt specifically discuss american blacks having a 15 point disadvantage, and the natural conclusion you can make from this in a logical world. As you point out, this should be an irrelevant fact if we simply choose individuals on their own merits.

Unfortunately the cult of diversity want to force equality of representation in groups. ^^ this is the first reason why it's important to discuss racial IQ differences.

More fundamentally though, lower IQ problems could be fixed. If studied and analyzed, I bet we could narrow that gap and help lower IQ groups immensely. We will never know if everyone who brings it up is called a racist. Congrats on oppressing blacks Marcus:)

marcus says

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.

CBOEtrader says

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.

marcus says

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).

CBOEtrader says

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

CBOEtrader says

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.

marcus says

CBOEtrader says

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.

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.

And the correlation with shit hole countries is.....?

mell says

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?