What do you consider more important.....

[tunot]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

When in 1969

You're kidding, right? We're a couple o' decades further, ma boy.

And by the way, it is not that I don't believe nothing can come out of the lower ends and dregs of society, I just don't care for them.

They are the ones who are going to rob you, rape your sister, and slice your nephew's throat. You sure you don't care for them?

They are not my concern and I should not be forced to subsidize them,

You are paying much more for their imprisonment now than you would if you would pay for their education which would keep them off the streets to begin with.

nor should I be forced to constantly hear about their so-called plight. I am also tired of the hippie egalitarian slant of how society is never compassionate enough for blacks. They have been freed from slavery since 1865, and it has been more than a century and they have still not gotten their acts together. Millions of Asians have now come to the United States and are far more successful than blacks yet we never hear about them whining. After thousands of legislations, and statutes and Civil Rights policies and affirmitive actions, and quotas and litigation, what has changed? Can you seriously sit there with a straight face and blame the poor performance of blacks and other 'victims' on the "cruel society"? Whatever happened to individual merit and responsibility?

A lot has changed, Mouse. How many black university professors do you see now compared to just fifty years ago? How many black celebs? How many blacks in the White House?

You're making a huge flaw comparing Asians to blacks, considering that blacks have had a much longer and more deep-rooted history in America.

[tunot]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

Intelligence is a mental quality that consists of the ability to learn from experience, solve problems, and use knowledge to adapt to new situations. (Myers, 2004)

Very vague.

Currently, it is measured by IQ tests such as the Stanford-Binet and the Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS; also a children's version WISC). They're not perfect, but it's the best we have. There are also measures of cognitive ability which is believed to be highly correlated with intelligence. An example of that test is the Woodxxxx-Johnson III (some name huh?) Test of Cognitive Abilities.

They're worthless and biased. That's what you should be saying as an objective scientist. Who exactly designed them and for what purpose exactly?

Bouchard (1996), Devlin et al. (1997), Neisser et al. (1996), and Plomin (2003) to name a few.

Again, I've said this already. They have assessed the IQ of monozygotic twin and siblings that have been reared apart (raised by different families, many in different socioeconomic classes even) and in childhood, there is a still a high correlation between the IQs of twins and siblings (though not as high as twins) which indicates a strong role of biology. Now if the correlations were perfect for monozygotic twins, that would mean it's all biology, but it isn't, so there's still a role for evironment. But realize that when they're finding correlations of .70 for example... that's saying that 70% of the variability in intelligence is accounted for by biology. That leaves 30% of the variability for environmental and other factors.
But when they test these twins and siblings as adults, they find that the correlation between them is higher than it was when they were children. So, it seems to indicate that whatever was producing that difference in the environment or whatever earlier, isn't functioning the same way anymore. So, maybe those environmental disadvantages are overcome? That's just speculation though. We cannot tease out the various environmental influences and control for them, so we can't know what exactly it is that was producing that difference in the first place, let alone what changed.

What environments did these twins grow up in? How different were the foster parents? Try harder. I'm still not convinced.

I am not interested in intelligence research... this isn't an area I am doing any research in. I did provide some citations above though.

The only thing I can offer is that when I was administering IQ tests (the WAIS), I tested some Japanese students who had only been in the US between 1-4 years who outscored some whose families had been here for generations and thus knew the culture and the language.

If you see the rigorous educational system in Japan compared to the lax attitude in America, you may understand better why these students scored so much higher.

There's a lot of individual variety. It could very well be that the small difference that exists between blacks and whites could be largely explained by that portion that's attributable to environmbent. The problem is that we can't really test that because there is so much that makes up environment.

Since you cannot test it, you should also not conclude that race plays a role.

I am not a shrink dear. Does biology not make different races look different? It's not that different. I'm not comparing a dog's intelligence to a humans. It's relative to their own species.

You did compare the two earlier on! Yes, biology makes us all look different, and I'm sure it composes our brains in variations as well, but it's not race-related! It's homo-sapien related, and since we're all homo-sapiens, we all produce both highly intelligent members as well as highly stupid ones. Though you may question what high intelligence exactly is, because as far as I'm concerned I've heard enough professors and people with supposed high IQ's say some pretty damn stupid things in their time.

? I dont think we can deny that blacks and other minorities are underrepresented in higher education or that many of the poorest schools are in areas that have large minority populations. I never said anything about this, so I don't see your point.

Thank you, and this is my point. If you are not stimulated in the right way, you cannot live up to your potential. You are ignoring this factor and giving me a very vague definition of intelligence, which goes to show that even after all these years of research no one still knows exactly what intelligence is, where it comes from, and whether it can be acquired.

I think I addressed some of this above. Hopefully, that should settle our little debate.
Yet again, I am not a school psychologist, or clinical psychologist... I do study cognition, but not intelligence. I agree that education really needs to be improved and I do my share of educating in the courses I teach, but that's at the university level, so I'll leave it to elementary and high school teacher like yourself to improve the quality of education at those levels where it's really suffering. Our administrators and goverments aren't making that an easy task and I feel for you guys... but you seem to be doing what you know is right regardless of all that which is why I applauded you earlier.

I don't really care to go against this, but I'm not a teacher anymore.

Like I said above, I never claimed that IQ tests were flawless.
Hell, when I was taking one there was a part where you are shown images and have to identify the object. They showed me a picture of what I later learned was a yoke. I am sitting there looking at it thinking "wtf is that?!" Where would I have encountered a yoke?
Yet despite that and having scored 40 percentiles lower on short-term memory and 30 lower on auditory processing (because of the ADD and this was on the cognitive abilities test I mentioned above btw and not an IQ test) than on the other sections, my overall performace was still iabove the 99th percentile. So however they calculate these scores must be taking some of these anomolous things into account.

Honestly, why do you think you scored the way you did?

What you're thinking is psychology is really a very narrow slice of the psychology pie.

I know there's more fields.

[Anonymouse]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

You're kidding, right? We're a couple o' decades further, ma boy.

That is a measly attempt to try to discredit a source when his book has been a recent publication and numerous other research only confirmed his essential point. The Professor from Berkeley merely broke the ice then.

They are the ones who are going to rob you, rape your sister, and slice your nephew's throat. You sure you don't care for them?

Socialist theories and social programs do not alter society for the good or change people, in fact, it only worsens it. My point still stands, I do not care for them. Why should I be forced to?

You are paying much more for their imprisonment now than you would if you would pay for their education which would keep them off the streets to begin with.

Which goes to my point about how people of lower quality breed at higher and faster rates than people of higher quality. How many children do you want to have or have thought of having, if any at all? Compare yourself with the average ignorant Mexican that you will find in the inner city.

A lot has changed, Mouse. How many black university professors do you see now compared to just fifty years ago? How many black celebs? How many blacks in the White House?

You're making a huge flaw comparing Asians to blacks, considering that blacks have had a much longer and more deep-rooted history in America.

That is not the point. So what, there are black professors and celebrities no doubt a product of the victim culture and the age of quotas. And what are these professors in? Mostly in the social sciences. Walk into any upper level physics class and most of students you will see are no doubt Asian, followed by whites, with barely any dark races.

Moreover, what I stated went to the effect of how blacks still whine and complain. Why do we not hear the same whining from Asians?

[Anonymouse]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

Very vague.

They're worthless and biased. That's what you should be saying as an objective scientist. Who exactly designed them and for what purpose exactly?

What environments did these twins grow up in? How different were the foster parents? Try harder. I'm still not convinced.

If you see the rigorous educational system in Japan compared to the lax attitude in America, you may understand better why these students scored so much higher.

Since you cannot test it, you should also not conclude that race plays a role.

You did compare the two earlier on! Yes, biology makes us all look different, and I'm sure it composes our brains in variations as well, but it's not race-related! It's homo-sapien related, and since we're all homo-sapiens, we all produce both highly intelligent members as well as highly stupid ones. Though you may question what high intelligence exactly is, because as far as I'm concerned I've heard enough professors and people with supposed high IQ's say some pretty damn stupid things in their time.

Thank you, and this is my point. If you are not stimulated in the right way, you cannot live up to your potential. You are ignoring this factor and giving me a very vague definition of intelligence, which goes to show that even after all these years of research no one still knows exactly what intelligence is, where it comes from, and whether it can be acquired.

I don't really care to go against this, but I'm not a teacher anymore.

Honestly, why do you think you scored the way you did?

I know there's more fields.

The problem is nothing in the world and no amount of evidence will convince you because you are set in your own way, in your own prism of thought and in your own epistemes.

If you seriously believe the childish notion that somehow there is such a thing as no bias, you do not need to be bothered with. Everything is biased since everything is an extension of the human will and character. As such, whatever is a product of a human will thus be influenced by the thoughts, modes and characters of that human, or humans.

Welcome to the world of eternal bias! Pick your truth and truth wins with power and what eventually becomes established as institutional wisdom, and thus knowledge.

Currently truth is that there are no such thing as races or racial differences, multiculturalism is the greatest thing alive, social programs or welfare help people and the poor, intervention into the marketplace is good and capitalism is evil and we should regulate and nationalize everything, and, although not the last, democracy and voting is the best thing ever. Notice how many of the things above you believe? You really are a product of the age! And they dare speak to us about propaganda and how universities encourage free thinking! Actually, they produce one-dimensional man, to steal from Marcuse.

[jgk3]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

Which goes to my point about how people of lower quality breed at higher and faster rates than people of higher quality. How many children do you want to have or have thought of having, if any at all? Compare yourself with the average ignorant Mexican that you will find in the inner city.

What if their rates of breeding would lower overtime if they performed better in schools? Just an idea, not willing to debate.

[Anonymouse]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

What if their rates of breeding would lower overtime if they performed better in schools? Just an idea, not willing to debate.

I don't know, the point about them breeding incessantly is the burden they create to the productive members of society who have to pick up the tab on them, whether it is welfare, jails, hospital use, medicare, social security, etc., and their gradual displacement of those that do not breed, whites in general, but for our sake, Armenians.

[tunot]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

Moreover, what I stated went to the effect of how blacks still whine and complain. Why do we not hear the same whining from Asians?

Why answer this question when you already have your preconceived notions of the intellectual inferiority of blacks.

They share different histories, I believe I already said. Absolutely not comparable. Asians have not been submitted to half the crap that blacks have been submitted to right up until the mid-20th century (if you want to discount today, at a time when there are still limitations). An entire nation was robbed of its roots, its culture, its language, and forced to live under subhuman circumstances for over three-hundred years. A bit of psychology should teach you that this will affect people, their offspring, and so on. The cycle has only started to be broken in the last 50 years. That's no where near beginning to draw conclusions about their potential at an academic level. It'll come, all in time, despite what the likes you have to say about this. It's a work in progress so to speak. Give them a few more generations, and then we'll see how wide you'll open your mouth with all your Western education that taught you that some races are inferior to others.

As for bias, of course there is bias in everything, and therefore it's ridiculous to draw such dangerous conclusions without ample proof. Neither do your articles show that academic achievement is more a biological than an environmental factor. It merely assumes it is, just like you.

I truly wish you would go back to your roots for a moment, read our folk tales, our fables, our authors, and our philosophers, and leave Western propaganda on the side for while, a propaganda that was never intended for us, because it hated us from the beginning.

[Anonymouse]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

Why answer this question when you already have your preconceived notions of the intellectual inferiority of blacks.

Who said they are inferior? Different maybe, but inferior? Inferior and superior are a matter of relations and as such relative. By that token, one could argue blacks are superior when it comes to athletics, which I actually believe they are due to, again, genetics.

They share different histories, I believe I already said. Absolutely not comparable.

Here you say we can't compare, yet you go on to contradict yourself and here:

Asians have not been submitted to half the crap that blacks have been submitted to right up until the mid-20th century

...you do exactly that - compare. Which is it? Either you can't compare at all times, or you can compare.

(if you want to discount today, at a time when there are still limitations). An entire nation was robbed of its roots, its culture, its language, and forced to live under subhuman circumstances for over three-hundred years. A bit of psychology should teach you that this will affect people, their offspring, and so on. The cycle has only started to be broken in the last 50 years. That's no where near beginning to draw conclusions about their potential at an academic level. It'll come, all in time, despite what the likes you have to say about this. It's a work in progress so to speak. Give them a few more generations, and then we'll see how wide you'll open your mouth with all your Western education that taught you that some races are inferior to others.

And if you insist, then why has Africa always been a backwater with all the natural resources they had? Generations do not explain why black Africa has always been less progressed than the rest of the world, even before the big bad Euros came to ruin their supposed civilization.

As for bias, of course there is bias in everything, and therefore it's ridiculous to draw such dangerous conclusions without ample proof. Neither do your articles show that academic achievement is more a biological than an environmental factor. It merely assumes it is, just like you.

Actually, this is a case when some opinions are more valid than others, as those rooted in evidence have the higher ground. And you should not confuse bias with actual evidence, as some bias have more evidence than others. Nothing has been assumed, and in fact, all conclusions have been extrapolated from differences and data that have been observed and measured both through history and the present, not the other way around. It is egalitarian ideologues such as you, which start from a simple point, an idea, namely that we are all equal and no differences matter, and from there you continue to cherry pick and gather 'evidence' and mold things to fit into your prism.

I truly wish you would go back to your roots for a moment, read our folk tales, our fables, our authors, and our philosophers, and leave Western propaganda on the side for while, a propaganda that was never intended for us, because it hated us from the beginning.

Oh hush, this is about our roots. You have forgotten the essential point that this speaks true for every race and culture. If it were up to you, you would support the genocide (yes, genocide is not only through rapid violent destruction but also through the slow and tedious process of dilution) of Armenians via the miscegenation of our commonfolk with every genotype. Before you speak about 'propaganda' it would be wise to consider the issues and realize what it is you actually advocate.

[One-Way]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

Someone who has traveled the world.

[tunot]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

Who said they are inferior? Different maybe, but inferior? Inferior and superior are a matter of relations and as such relative. By that token, one could argue blacks are superior when it comes to athletics, which I actually believe they are due to, again, genetics.

No. Inferior, due to their lower civilization, remember? How can that be equal or different? If they could not develop a higher civilization, then according to your view, it makes them inferior to the mighty white.
And blacks are not superior when it comes to athletics. The Olympic Games have proven this time and time again. Not all fields are dominated by blacks, and even the fields that are, have often enough been lost to white man or Asian man to leave out crap on athletic genetics. Look at homo-sapien instead, and you might come much closer to understanding your inferiorty/superiority/genetics theory.

Here you say we can't compare, yet you go on to contradict yourself and here:


...you do exactly that - compare. Which is it? Either you can't compare at all times, or you can compare.

Don't twist my words, Mouse, and play with semantics. What I meant was that the two should not be equated, in the way that you are doing it.

And if you insist, then why has Africa always been a backwater with all the natural resources they had? Generations do not explain why black Africa has always been less progressed than the rest of the world, even before the big bad Euros came to ruin their supposed civilization.

You suck, Mouse. Most African tribes (if not all of them) have deep respect for nature. They are not careless like white man to go about destroying and sieving out the last few drops of nature we still have. Do you think an African from Africa looks up to white people and considers them to be superior? With everything that white man does to nature and his children (sending them to daycare as toddlers, weaning at six months, leaving their children to go to school unattended, to name just a few)? Give me a break. There's a lot more white man could learn from black man when it comes to respecting nature and natural resources, than the other way around. Africans use as much natural resources as is strictly needed. Unlike us, they are not wasters.

Actually, this is a case when some opinions are more valid than others, as those rooted in evidence have the higher ground. And you should not confuse bias with actual evidence, as some bias have more evidence than others. Nothing has been assumed, and in fact, all conclusions have been extrapolated from differences and data that have been observed and measured both through history and the present, not the other way around. It is egalitarian ideologues such as you, which start from a simple point, an idea, namely that we are all equal and no differences matter, and from there you continue to cherry pick and gather 'evidence' and mold things to fit into your prism.

First of all you're quoting an experiment from 1969, when equality in America was still a work in progress. Baaaaaaad boy!

Second of all, there is NO evidence that suggests that intelligence (which no one has yet been able to define, not even all your scientific researchers) is race-related. Be more critical of the studies that you have read, and you'll have to agree with me on this.

Oh hush, this is about our roots. You have forgotten the essential point that this speaks true for every race and culture. If it were up to you, you would support the genocide (yes, genocide is not only through rapid violent destruction but also through the slow and tedious process of dilution) of Armenians via the miscegenation of our commonfolk with every genotype. Before you speak about 'propaganda' it would be wise to consider the issues and realize what it is you actually advocate.

The essential point is that you have been entirely lost to the West and that you have absolutely no contact or understanding of Armenian culture whatsoever. If you did, you might be much more skeptical of what the West has got to say, especially the sources that you choose to pick up and follow blindly. I'm advocating that which our ancestors have advocated for centuries now. You'd know what that was if you had bothered to study your own culture first, before getting caught up in big-headed German philosophers (who hated us and considered us inferior) and arrogant American scientists (who made sure their tests were designed in such a way to make us inferior).