« First « Previous Comments 7 - 46 of 46 Search these comments
Your narrative in this thread is flawed Patrick.
“all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says, not really”
Not saying your conclusion is wrong, but a measure as shown in your diagram which doesn't account for multiple variables (i.e. a multivariate study) is not very scientific.
I think maybe you, Patrick, and some of the commenters might be missing the key point here
it isn't about whether Watson is CORRECT about his views or not. I personally question the validity of IQ tests in measuring intelligence, and believe that intelligence is much more than what IQ tests measure. It may be that black people are MORE intelligent than whites in CERTAIN TYPES of musical expression (blues, folk, etc), and better in certain sports, but LESS intelligent in physics or Beethoven-type classical music.
I suggest that's not the issue here.
It's about whether scientists have the RIGHT, in a modern western democratic society, to HOLD some views of whatever content, without being stripped of honors they have rightfully earned in true scientific work. For "politically correct" reasons.
I assert that Watson has this right, and he has been wronged by being divested of his honors on unrelated grounds.
I was quite surprised that feelings, to her, were more important than science
Yet James Watson himself stated “I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said. There is no scientific basis for such a belief.”
Regardless, it's not the science that's objectionable, it's the conclusions. What's the implication of stating "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours"? Should we be changing our social policies to degrade blacks? I reckon we should "nurture" our citizens, including and perhaps more so those that have the most to gain from an improved social environment.
My wife thought the dismissal of Watson may be justified because he made people feel bad. I was quite surprised that feelings, to her, were more important than science.
Indians in Central and South America, who knows how the pure blood Indians would have scored.
And it still doesn't invalidate the measures and the results. You can criticize the IQ test used but you cannot say it doesn't matter or worse threaten sanctions against those who are experts and conduct that research. That's not better than being a nazi. Come up with a different test and have it peer reviewed and accepted but don't go trigglypuff on the messenger.
willywonka saysIndians in Central and South America, who knows how the pure blood Indians would have scored.
They are genetically quite close to SE Asians, so might be scoring very high.
Arent american Indians also genetically similar? Why are american Indians low in IQ whereas SE asians are high?
I think culture is a HUGE part of IQ.
They are genetically quite close to SE Asians, so might be scoring very high.Illogical. If that were the case, there would be no racial differences at all as everyone is from Africa. But compare Argentina, mostly white, and 1.4% Indian, to Mexico, 12% Indian, to Guatemala, 40% Indian, and the IQ matches, i.e, Argentina: 93, Mexico: 88, Guatemala: 79. The more Indian the population, the less the IQ.
Illogical. If that were the case, there would be no racial differences at all as everyone is from Africa. But compare Argentina, mostly white, and 1.4% Indian, to Mexico, 12% Indian, to Guatemala, 40% Indian, and the IQ matches, i.e, Argentina: 93, Mexico: 88, Guatemala: 79. The more Indian the population, the less the IQ.
"They are genetically quite close to SE Asians, so might be scoring very high." Ok, that was wrong.
Perhaps TOXIC WHITE CULTURE and toxic Asian culture are the ways to go if we want successful citizenry.
Patrick saysI was quite surprised that feelings, to her, were more important than science
Is she a scientist or have significant science training/degrees? If not, then i don’t know why this is surprising. Women are emotional creatures and place the most importance on relationships. Men place more importance on doing things and understanding our world so that we can tame it and thus provide for women and the children we will make together. This is as nature intended it to be.
My wife actually is highly science trained and she still comes down on the side of emotion quite a bit on these sorts of issues. Maybe 50-50 on those odds for her.
My wife thought the dismissal of Watson may be justified because he made people feel bad. I was quite surprised that feelings, to her, were more important than science.
Patrick saysMy wife thought the dismissal of Watson may be justified because he made people feel bad. I was quite surprised that feelings, to her, were more important than science.
Maybe more important than feelings are the fact that any public discourse is political by nature, and politics have practical consequences.
So here you leave people 1 or 2 direct implications away from white nationalism, race based tribalism, etc...
It doesn't lead to holding hands and singing Kumbaya.
I think that left is very crazy about policing speech
Free speech doesn't imply that no public shaming
Shaming should apply to people like Alex Jones.
Fortwaynemobile saysI think that left is very crazy about policing speech
You mean censorship.
Free speech doesn't imply that no public shaming will take place based on what people say.
workplaces should not fire people for politics of any kind. Deplatforming and/or kicking someone or a company off of email services, payment services, etc... these are the tools of tyranny that the left is cheering on.
Very much like Galileo when faced with the hostility of the Catholic Church for suggesting that the earth moves around the sun: E pur si muove
« First « Previous Comments 7 - 46 of 46 Search these comments
Very much like Galileo when faced with the hostility of the Catholic Church for suggesting that the earth moves around the sun: E pur si muove