Support NeoGAF

[TheMikado]

There's something wrong with this.
China Industrialized and their IQ's eclipsed White Countries? But when America was already industrialized, it didn't bring Black IQ up to the same levels either?

But then you also turn around and say it's poverty? Does China not also have poverty too?

Also, do you ignore the mass slaughter of Chinese during the Communist takeover in the 1950/60s? Do you not count this as oppression?

China has several rigid systems including school and ironically their child limitation rules they had went a long way to helping pre-natal care in their country.
I'm not ignoring any of this. All I can show you is that the gap persists. Asian countries are unique in that their rate of IQ growth was faster than average, whether that is cultural or environment or genetic is unknown. Even when looking at the chart I showed above, African IQ gains are at and even above the rate of European IQ gains over time. I.E. Their slope increase is steeper and faster. Can't answer you why. No one can at this point because the concept is too nebulous. We don't know why IQ changes at such a rapid rate over a short period of time even between generations. That's why scientists can't say race is a primary factor because presently they can't even say heretity between parent and child is a primary factor let alone distant cousin.

But either way, I'm going to bed now. Hopefully there's lots to ponder over for everyone.

 

[Cato]

There is no such thing as race IQ differences. There is such thing as economic and environmental learning potential

For instance a white kid in Iowa with a fully funded school that has state of the art resources is likely going fair differently on tests then say a black kid in Chicago that has to pass two gang territories on his way home from school everyday.

Yes, And Colin Powells kid is going to do a lot better on these tests than some poor white kid in rural Kentucky.
I think all these papers show that the environment has a huge, dominating, influence.

 

[Cato]

There is no argument to win with a white nationalist, the only thing to do is swim through the shit you spew out of your mouth as you attempt to normalize the campaign of genocide you so very much wish to wage.

Please be civil even if you think his posts are offensive (to you).
EDIT: oops didn't see he was banned. Well, be civil when you return then.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

IQ gaps exist, that's not really debatable.
What is debatable is their significance and measurement.

Again, the idea that your average black person now has a significantly higher IQ than that of whites pre-1950s without the any inherent economic benefits that we claim is associated with higher IQs begs the question on if raw IQ scores even matter since they change so rapidly and without enough causation to figure out what's actually going on. That's the problem. What does it all mean of we know its so fluid?

Further I agree that there may be some genetic variance, but it would be so small at the racial level that it would be near insignificant.

Here's a good read out.

And there are more examples like this. Here is the complete set:
This is just what scientists have done. In the results shown below, the closer the number is to 1.0, the more similar are the IQs. So if you and your twin score a 1.0, then you have the exact same IQ. A 0.0 means you have as different an IQ as possible. Here is a sampling of the data:

• Same person (tested twice) .95
• Identical twins—Reared together .86
• Identical twins—Reared apart .76
• Fraternal twins—Reared together .55
• Biological siblings—Reared together .47
• Unrelated children—Reared together .30
• Parent-child—Living together .42
• Fraternal twins—Reared apart .35
• Fraternal twins—Reared apart .35
• Biological siblings—Reared apart .24
• Parent-child—Living apart .22
• Adoptive parent – child – Living together 0.19

Thus you can see even a parent passing on IQ to a child isn't more more effective on IQ then an adoptive parent to a child.
In this case the passing on of genetic IQ would be so diluted after only 2-3 generations that IQ by racial or ethnic group would be so insignificant as a whole it would only account for less than 1% of your IQ, because a grandparent theoretically would only have many a 5% effect on their grandchilds IQ at best, let alone distant cousins or relative. Let alone entire racial groups.

Just so its understood, your actual genes do play a strong part of your IQ, but little of it is directly inheritable from your parents. As noted previously environmental factors particularly prenatal which affect genetic growth are a strong indicator of IQ. Thus the idea of racial groups being significant indicators of themselves does not jive with the research we know of raw inheritable IQ. Meaning if the parent-child IQ relationship is low its even more unlikely to result in multiple generational correlations of any real significance.

https://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/intelligence-and-genetics

IQ is multigene trait. Like Height there is variation, and parents won't necessarily match children due to the change in combinations, which may result in greater or lower height. But if individuals with greater height mate with those with greater height generation upon generation, it will tend to increase height. IQ will go up over time in a population if individuals with greater IQ tend to mate with individuals with greater IQ.

Has that happened in some subpopulations, as happened with longevity giving some exceptionally longevous populations? Some would say certain social factors has resulted in a positive selection for intelligence in some populations, for example ashkenazi jews.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

There is no such thing as race IQ differences. There is such thing as economic and environmental learning potential

For instance a white kid in Iowa with a fully funded school that has state of the art resources is likely going fair differently on tests then say a black kid in Chicago that has to pass two gang territories on his way home from school everyday.

There's a black kid from an ultra-impoverished gang riddled neighborhood that makes it to be a neurosurgeon or AI Ph'd researcher or CEO. At the same time there's a white kid in the best private school with the wealthiest most caring parent, that simply can't pass the classes even with the best tutors no matter how hard he tries.

There are innate differences in ability at an individual level. Not everyone is equal in terms of abilities, equality in terms of human value does not mean equality in terms of ability. And while environment and luck provide a good chunk of the reasons for success or failure, differences in innate ability also play a role. People have to stop thinking throwing money and resources is going to make everyone a success, it is not going to happen.

 

[Death Dealer]

Yes, And Colin Powells kid is going to do a lot better on these tests than some poor white kid in rural Kentucky.
I think all these papers show that the environment has a huge, dominating, influence.

I just took a human development psychology class, and the latest thinking is intelligene is at least 50% based on genetics. The coefficient of determination for intelligence quotients of identical twins is around .7 But the environment does have an important impact. If you read more, vs watching TV,, fitness and nurtrition etc.

 

[Gander]

There's a black kid from an ultra-impoverished gang riddled neighborhood that makes it to be a neurosurgeon or AI Ph'd researcher or CEO. At the same time there's a white kid in the best private school with the wealthiest most caring parent, that simply can't pass the classes even with the best tutors no matter how hard he tries.

There are innate differences in ability at an individual level. Not everyone is equal in terms of abilities, equality in terms of human value does not mean equality in terms of ability. And while environment and luck provide a good chunk of the reasons for success or failure, differences in innate ability also play a role. People have to stop thinking throwing money and resources is going to make everyone a success, it is not going to happen.

I'm not saying there aren't individual differences obviously there are someone 4'6 isn't going to approach life the same way as someone 6'4.

There is no racial difference. You cannot say let's pick white people to do this task because they are white and pick black people to do this task because they are black. That is absolute fantasy.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

I'm not saying there are individual differences obviously there are someone 4'6 isn't going to approach life the same way as someone 6'4.

There is no racial difference. You cannot say let's pick white people to do this task because they are white and pick black people to do this task because they are black. That is absolute fantasy.

That is true, no one says you can pick based on external physical appearance, there can be individuals from any race or gender that may qualify. But Peterson said some of the tests used by corporations to screen candidates are actually proxies for IQ tests, since he says IQ testing is not legal.


The controversial claim some have made is that there is difference in the average IQ. Some say the difference is there but it is entirely environmental, others say it is genetic, and some say there is no difference.

The thing is it is not only intelligence, but personality traits that influence the chance at persistence, extroversion, etc. There are innate differences at the individual level that may predispose one for success or failure through no merit or fault of one's own. But in the end, many will fail, irregardless of race, gender, culture.

Many on both sides of the political spectrum take it that the individual can always succeed. The right blames personal responsibility, while the left blames the environment. But this ignores differences in innate capability at the individual level, there are individuals who will have a high likelihood to succeed through no merit or fault and may even show resistance to adverse environments. There are also individuals with a high likelihood to fail through no merit or fault who may even fail even with the best environments.

We're finally starting to understand the 'genetics of success'

For decades, we've known from twin studies that psychological traits like intelligence and personality are influenced by genes. That's why identical twins (who share all their genes) are not just more physically similar to each other than non-identical twins (who share half their genes), but also more similar in terms of their psychological traits. But what twin studies can't tell us is which particular genes are involved...

The children with more education-linked genes (that is, higher polygenic scores) learned to read faster. They did better on intelligence tests. They were more likely to go to university, and less likely to have financial problems. They were more likely to leave New Zealand to find job opportunities abroad, and more likely to choose a partner of higher social status. The idea is that the education-linked genes make people smarter, harder-working, and more socially successful—traits that help you lead a more "successful" life. Importantly, all this was predictable from a score that, in theory, could have been calculated on (or even before) the day the participants were born...

First, these results 'explain variance' at the group level, and we can't easily translate this to individual prediction - yet. business insider source

 

[Gander]

I think we are in agreement IQ is not about race but learning potential can be effected by environment, resources and some traits passed on by your parents.

 

[Papa]

tbh you’re all low IQ because I already trapped him a few pages back when I asked him what his solutions are. You’re all just going in circles and it’s hilarious.

 

[Cato]

I'm not saying there aren't individual differences obviously there are someone 4'6 isn't going to approach life the same way as someone 6'4.

There is no racial difference. You cannot say let's pick white people to do this task because they are white and pick black people to do this task because they are black. That is absolute fantasy.

+100

I agree 100%. Let's judge people on their individual qualities and not based on race or other group membership.

When folks start judging people based on group/race it is almost always in a negative and derogatory ways:
* all native-Americans are **********
* all whites are ******
* all blacks are ******* *********
...

And the list goes on.
Nothing good ever comes from identity politics and sorting/judging people based on groups.
Let us get rid of any and all group identity bs and judge each and everyone on their individual characteristics.

 

[LegendOfKage]

I think we are in agreement IQ is not about race but learning potential can be effected by environment, resources and some traits passed on by your parents.

Agreed.

This reminds me of another thread where I posted this interesting bit of history. Responding to a question of uneducated blacks perhaps not being smart enough to understand where to best send their children to school (as a counter argument to the idea of a school voucher system) Thomas Sowell once said this:



While you might be ideologically opposed to Sowell, it's still really inspiring to hear how quickly black people in this country went from slavery to literacy.

 

[JordanN]

+100

I agree 100%. Let's judge people on their individual qualities and not based on race or other group membership.

Keep in mind, when I talk about IQ, I don't literally believe that every single race is defined by just a single number.
I do believe there is room for nuance. For example, Nutrition and its affects on brain growth (or lack of), I consider a factor.

However, I do believe it's absolutely fair to make certain group observations. But it's all in context.

For example, going back to the China example. China has a population of 1.3 Billion.
If you take the average IQ of China (105) and assume there's 15 standard deviations, you get something like this.

The top 0.1% of China's entire population will produce people with 150 IQs, or 1,300,000 Chinese people.
Meanwhile 50% of the population will have IQ's of 105 or less, or 650,000,000 Chinese people.

Now lets take a look at Congo.
The average IQ is 68. With a total population of 78 million.

Using the same Standard Deviation, it's assumed the top 0.1% of Congo has an IQ of 113, or 78,000 Congolese.
Meanwhile, 50% of the population would have IQ's of 68 or less, or 39,000,000 Congolese.

Now again, I'm not being racist. I don't believe in any racial superiority/inferiority. I actually think the bell curve is absolutely critical for helping us understand and solve international issues.
That's why I care so much about this research. This data can be used as a force for good!

It's quite clear that in both Congo and China, there are still geniuses. So it's absolutely wrong to believe that "there are no smart Africans" or "only Chinese people are smart".
I have the data here that says, no, geniuses in Africa absolutely exists!

What matters however, is looking at how they're distributed in each country. And what we can do to focus our resources on them to better help them.
What we do know is China having a higher national IQ means they are more likely to have more geniuses. Does Congo having less geniuses spell doom or inferiority? NO.

While I agree that we still should judge people on individual basis, it is absolutely tantamount and helpful by looking at group data, we get a bigger picture of each country's puzzle. As opposed to trying to look at them through a magnifying glass.

 

[Beard of the Forest]

This thread is not about potential IQ variances of the different peoples of the world. That subject is tangentially relevant to this thread AT BEST and has been discussed far more than is warranted already. As such, further posts on this topic in this thread will result in a thread ban and a warning.

 

[dragonfart28]

Let's just have more interracial sex.

 

[AfricanKing]

Housing , Jobs , Banking , Schooling.. etc

It's pretty much a known aspect that white people have it allot easier then black people when we talk about a access to these fundamental pillars. White privilege existing is a thing Jim Crow may have a ended but equality has not reached the masses.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Housing ,

I've been homeless. I've also benefitted from my city's Land Bank which is aimed at getting low-income families (instead of renters) into neighborhoods.

Jobs

I've been unemployed and have benefitted from unemployment wages.

Banking

I've been denied loans on several occasions.

Schooling

I dropped out of community college (pathetic!) because I had no way to pay for classes and welfare programs are not aimed at "whitey".

etc

Do go on, though. Here I thought I was trying my best, struggling, succeeding, failing, and generally just living a human life but instead there was an invisible White Hand of White God helping me every step of the way.

The reason I responded isn't to belittle people who've genuinely suffered due to unfair practices, nor am I denying that sometimes racists get into positions of power and use that power to help their "fellow race". But blaming it on such a broad term as "white privilege" is ignorant, especially when there is still no agreed-upon tally or scorekeeping or "balance sheet" that details exactly how much or how little privilege a person has.

I'd be happy to change my standpoint as soon as someone can detail all the pluses and minuses of my "privilege score" and then weigh that score appropriately. "White privilege" is currently just a vague slur aimed at shutting down conversation and dismissing real problems in favor of a political agenda. My ethnic heritage is Irish, German, and Jewish in that order, so I'd be interested to learn how much that adds to or counteracts my "white privilege" score.

Also, does tanning help me at all? I have thick, dark hair and a dark beard, so maybe I could pass as Middle Eastern? Does that reduce my "white privilege" in any meaningful way? My wife once teased "you look like George Lopez" when I let my hair grow too shaggy. My whiteness was so taken aback that I immediately went outside and screamed "Sieg Heil!" to honor my German heritage, but then my Jewish heritage kicked in and I had to report myself for hate speech.

Thank you for the help. I look forward to balancing and correcting my privilege. Or, if I've hit the genetic jackpot, I look forward to receiving restitution and public sympathy for my ancestors' oppression.

 

[AfricanKing]

I've been homeless. I've also benefitted from my city's Land Bank which is aimed at getting low-income families (instead of renters) into neighborhoods.


I've been unemployed and have benefitted from unemployment wages.


I've been denied loans on several occasions.


I dropped out of community college (pathetic!) because I had no way to pay for classes and welfare programs are not aimed at "whitey".


Do go on, though. Here I thought I was trying my best, struggling, succeeding, failing, and generally just living a human life but instead there was an invisible White Hand of White God helping me every step of the way.

The reason I responded isn't to belittle people who've genuinely suffered due to unfair practices, nor am I denying that sometimes racists get into positions of power and use that power to help their "fellow race". But blaming it on such a broad term as "white privilege" is ignorant, especially when there is still no agreed-upon tally or scorekeeping or "balance sheet" that details exactly how much or how little privilege a person has.

I'd be happy to change my standpoint as soon as someone can detail all the pluses and minuses of my "privilege score" and then weigh that score appropriately. "White privilege" is currently just a vague slur aimed at shutting down conversation and dismissing real problems in favor of a political agenda. My ethnic heritage is Irish, German, and Jewish in that order, so I'd be interested to learn how much that adds to or counteracts my "white privilege" score.

Also, does tanning help me at all? I have thick, dark hair and a dark beard, so maybe I could pass as Middle Eastern? Does that reduce my "white privilege" in any meaningful way? My wife once teased "you look like George Lopez" when I let my hair grow too shaggy. My whiteness was so taken aback that I immediately went outside and screamed "Sieg Heil!" to honor my German heritage, but then my Jewish heritage kicked in and I had to report myself for hate speech.

Thank you for the help. I look forward to balancing and correcting my privilege. Or, if I've hit the genetic jackpot, I look forward to receiving restitution and public sympathy for my ancestors' oppression.

You misunderstood the post , we are comparing black people as compared to white people as a group, I did not say just because you are white you are automatically excluded from what was listed. But if you are black and in your situation it would have been a much harder time than I'd you where white .

So let's start with housing , since Slavery black people have historically had a harder and harsher time trying to find adequate housing for their needs. The concept of red lining was established in only the black community this happened when areas where designated as unfavorable

The pattern of exclusion continued into the Great Depression, when programs aimed at rescuing homes from foreclosure were carried out in a patently racist fashion. The Homeowners Loan Corporation, established in the 1930s to refinance mortgages, set a discriminatory pattern when it drew lines around black communities — a system known as “redlining” — and decreed them unsafe for federal investment.

Also explains it allot better , and that's just for housing. The experience whille being black is much more harsher than when a white person experiences it . If you want I can also give examples for the rest but it's not hard to find online to be honest

 

[Ulysses 31]

Also explains it allot better , and that's just for housing. The experience whille being black is much more harsher than when a white person experiences it . If you want I can also give examples for the rest but it's not hard to find online to be honest

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

You misunderstood the post , we are comparing black people as compared to white people as a group, I did not say just because you are white you are automatically excluded from what was listed. But if you are black and in your situation it would have been a much harder time than I'd you where white .

So let's start with housing , since Slavery black people have historically had a harder and harsher time trying to find adequate housing for their needs. The concept of red lining was established in only the black community this happened when areas where designated as unfavorable





Also explains it allot better , and that's just for housing. The experience whille being black is much more harsher than when a white person experiences it . If you want I can also give examples for the rest but it's not hard to find online to be honest

Thank you for sharing this information. It's always good to remember how far we've come in the last 100 years in terms of social equality. I think another example of housing/land-ownership that we should be bringing up is what happened in Tulsa, OK. In that case, it can't even be dismissed as "well, those black Americans weren't discriminated against because they were black, it was because they were poor" (which is a real facet of the situation and should not be brushed aside). Black property ownership has been attacked in numerous ways over the years by racists.

However -- in reference to the bolded -- this is what I take issue with. Although it may not be nearly as much of a media darling these days in the States, Irish and Jewish discrimination both have a history that spans centuries. When my German ancestors immigrated here (GGrandfather fought for the Kaiser in WW1 and then moved here in fear of the rise of the Nazis) they were mocked as 'Krauts' and experienced racism too, but let's "call that one even" for the sake of argument. Still, I have factual discrimination and oppression in my ancestry and I have yet to see how my white skin erases that or reduces the very real, historical, factual events of my ancestor's past. Now, I'll level with you: I have faced so many different ups and downs in my life that I tend to focus on what I can do now instead of who was trying to exterminate and mistreat my ancestors. There's enough evil today without trying to rectify the evil of the past.

And I am not denying that black Americans faced/face oppression, I'm simply curious why it is "black vs white" when clearly there are numerous historical examples of "white" people also facing the same kinds of oppression in the USA. It's almost as if... stick with me for a second... there are other forces at work beyond skin color. Don't tell me that my "whiteness" has given me advantages and then get upset when I provide factual counter-arguments under the same guidelines of racial/historical oppression (not directed at you, merely directed at the typical way these exchanges tend to go).

 

[Vicetrailia]

Oops, wrong img.

 

[Ke0]

Wow I see phrenology has been introduced under the guise of "difference of opinion" lol jfc

 

[SatansReverence]

Wow I see phrenology has been introduced under the guise of "difference of opinion" lol jfc

Receipts...

There were 2 seperate discussions regarding racial markers in bone structures and I.Q across races. You appear to be the only one connecting them.

 

[Ke0]

Receipts...

There were 2 seperate discussions regarding racial markers in bone structures and I.Q across races. You appear to be the only one connecting them.

Phrenology shouldn't be used in any discussion. It's not even real science

 

[SatansReverence]

Phrenology shouldn't be used in any discussion. It's not even real science

So why are YOU bringing it up?

 

[Dontero]

And I am not denying that black Americans faced/face oppression, I'm simply curious why it is "black vs white" when clearly there are numerous historical examples of "white" people also facing the same kinds of oppression in the USA.

Well education especially in US about world history is pretty fucking poor to point of hilarity. Those jokes about Americans not knowing anything outside of US don't come from nowhere. I know it is pretty gross statement but this is unfortunately true from my experience. And like they say: "If you don't know history then you are bound to make same mistakes"

For example Selfdorm. It is completely impossible concept to grasp from what i am on interned for last good 10-15 years. People tend to think Europe in therms of knights and all of that high status culture but they completely forget reality that people going up to 1900(!!) were effectively slaves to their noble masters. They couldn't move, they couldn't change their status, they couldn't learn, if there was a war they were first to die because every single party whatever it was "own army" or "enemy" would pillage those people, rape women and kill men. They had to work like slaves for their masters and if they couldn't "pay up" about most of their pitance they make they would be killed. Nobles traded whole families and if by chance noble expanded its territory one day some soldiers would show up and whatever you like it or not you will be taken away to new land to work fields and probably die especially if those were uninhibited lands. Selfedorm rules varied from place to place going from pretty lax rules to full on slavery especially in lands toward east of europe where climate was harsher and needed more development.

And you don't even need to go to pre 1900. Remeber gulags ? Milions of people taken from their houses against their will in literally chattel train wagons with barely any food or winter clothing and send to Siberia, most of kids didn't even made to Siberia because they just froze to death or died out of hunger midway.

And gulags were freaking NOTHING compared to RedKmer-Rogue in Cambodia and that was just few decades ago. When black people already won their rights, whole families in Cambodia were filling ditches, shitload of kids didn't even know who were their parents because "government" decided that kids should not take values of their parents but to be molded into state people usually ending up either way in ditches along with bones of their parents.

If you could even imagine concept of hell Red-Khmer Rogue went beyond what you can imagine and we will never know full extent of it because half of the nation died killed by their own countrymen in their retarded ideology.

And now someone has the face to tell kid from Cambodia that he has to score 15% better than anyone else because he has too good life or something or his ancestors had it "good".

 

[Gander]

And I am not denying that black Americans faced/face oppression, I'm simply curious why it is "black vs white" when clearly there are numerous historical examples of "white" people also facing the same kinds of oppression in the USA. It's almost as if... stick with me for a second... there are other forces at work beyond skin color. Don't tell me that my "whiteness" has given me advantages and then get upset when I provide factual counter-arguments under the same guidelines of racial/historical oppression (not directed at you, merely directed at the typical way these exchanges tend to go).

Apparently you don't understand slavery and it's effects

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Apparently you don't understand slavery and it's effects

I think it's easier for you to slap that on whomever you disagree with instead of engaging.

What evidence do you have that I "don't understand slavery and its effects"? Or is it merely my refusal to chalk everything up to "slavery and its effects" that causes the knee-jerk from you? I'm open to hearing your view, but you have quite a hostility toward anyone who doesn't already share your view of things.

Or, in Poker terms: I'll see your "slavery and its effects" and I'll raise you one "racial extermination", one "famine and systemic subjugation", and one "destruction of German middle-class". Fold, call, or do you have any other points to raise?

 

[JordanN]

Housing , Jobs , Banking , Schooling.. etc

It's pretty much a known aspect that white people have it allot easier then black people when we talk about a access to these fundamental pillars. White privilege existing is a thing Jim Crow may have a ended but equality has not reached the masses.

Asians right now are actually generating the most wealth per family.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income

In what way has housing,jobs,banking,schooling stopped this from happening? Wouldn't this imply there's actually Asian privilege if Whites are doing worse than them or they still get access?

 

[Vicetrailia]

Asians right now are actually generating the most wealth per family.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income

In what way has housing,jobs,banking,schooling stopped this from happening? Wouldn't this imply there's actually Asian privilege if Whites are doing worse than them or they still get access?

Nothing new under the sun.

We must remember the history of the model minority myth and the function it serves. The true purpose of viewing Asians as superior is not to compliment Asians nor to denigrate whites, but to undergird black oppression. Whenever someone says, “Asians are naturally (insert positive characteristic),” the unspoken corollary has been, and continues to infer, “and black people are not.”

https://www.npr.org/sections/codesw...d-as-a-racial-wedge-between-asians-and-blacks

 

[JordanN]

Nothing new under the sun.

https://www.npr.org/sections/codesw...d-as-a-racial-wedge-between-asians-and-blacks

That's a lot of assumptions in that article that doesn't change what I said.
Asians do hold the most wealth in America (on a per family basis). How is it White privilege if Whites are less richer than they are?

Also from that article

Many scholars have argued that some Asians only started to "make it" when the discrimination against them lessened — and only when it was politically convenient.

Did the civil rights act not passed in 1964? Where is this extra discrimination come from that only applies to black people and not everyone?

 

[Vicetrailia]

Did the civil rights act not passed in 1964? Where is this extra discrimination come from that only applies to black people and not everyone?

- The article covered this.

Your first question has nothing to do with white privilege.

 

[Tesseract]

if you're gonna compare groups of people, you better have overwhelming statistics behind your ideas or you're gonna seem foolish.

 

[iBuzzati]

Keep in mind, when I talk about IQ, I don't literally believe that every single race is defined by just a single number.
I do believe there is room for nuance. For example, Nutrition and its affects on brain growth (or lack of), I consider a factor.

However, I do believe it's absolutely fair to make certain group observations. But it's all in context.

For example, going back to the China example. China has a population of 1.3 Billion.
If you take the average IQ of China (105) and assume there's 15 standard deviations, you get something like this.

The top 0.1% of China's entire population will produce people with 150 IQs, or 1,300,000 Chinese people.
Meanwhile 50% of the population will have IQ's of 105 or less, or 650,000,000 Chinese people.

Now lets take a look at Congo.
The average IQ is 68. With a total population of 78 million.

Using the same Standard Deviation, it's assumed the top 0.1% of Congo has an IQ of 113, or 78,000 Congolese.
Meanwhile, 50% of the population would have IQ's of 68 or less, or 39,000,000 Congolese.

Now again, I'm not being racist. I don't believe in any racial superiority/inferiority. I actually think the bell curve is absolutely critical for helping us understand and solve international issues.
That's why I care so much about this research. This data can be used as a force for good!

It's quite clear that in both Congo and China, there are still geniuses. So it's absolutely wrong to believe that "there are no smart Africans" or "only Chinese people are smart".
I have the data here that says, no, geniuses in Africa absolutely exists!

What matters however, is looking at how they're distributed in each country. And what we can do to focus our resources on them to better help them.
What we do know is China having a higher national IQ means they are more likely to have more geniuses. Does Congo having less geniuses spell doom or inferiority? NO.

While I agree that we still should judge people on individual basis, it is absolutely tantamount and helpful by looking at group data, we get a bigger picture of each country's puzzle. As opposed to trying to look at them through a magnifying glass.

I'm going to preface this by saying, I'm going to accept responsibility for engaging in uncharitable message board decorum by letting you know that I'm not really interested in having a conversation about this beyond what I'm going to write here. It's not because I shy away from the implied conclusions of this sort of stuff, but rather I am not interested in spending time on message boards talking about this anymore. You can take or leave what I'm putting down here.

You're using Richard Lynn's estimates for your African sample. Lynn’s reviews of the literature are unsystematic and untrustworthy. He cherry picks and manipulates data to fit his predetermined conclusions. WIcherts et all actually did IQ tests in Subsaharran Africa and found they were higher than Lynn's estimates: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289609000634?via=ihub

The majority of studies on IQ test performance of Africans not taken into account by Lynn (and Vanhanen) and Malloy showed considerably higher average IQs than the studies that they did review. We judge the reviews of Lynn (and Vanhanen) and Malloy to be unsystematic. These authors missed a large part of the literature on IQ testing in Africa, failed to explicate their inclusion and exclusion criteria, and made downward errors in the conversion of raw scores to IQ

“We argue that their review of the literature is unsystematic, as it involves the inconsistent use of rules to determine the representativeness and hence selection of samples. […] We found that Lynn and Meisenberg’s assessment of the samples’ representativeness is not associated with any of the objective sampling characteristics, but rather with the average IQ in the sample. This suggests that Lynn and Meisenberg excluded samples of Africans who average IQs above 75 because they deemed these samples unrepresentative on the basis of the samples’ relatively high IQs. We conclude that Lynn and Meisenberg’s unsystematic methods are questionable and their results untrustworthy.“

Lynn cherry-picked samples with low IQs and omitted samples with higher IQs so that he would get the results he wanted. He also used samples of illiterate and disabled people, and of people to whom the test had been administered incorrectly. Lynn’s estimate is <70 for Africa at large, but the actual number is 82. That's almost a full standard deviation and makes a huge difference. The former is borderline retarded, while the latter is low but still normal in light of the Flynn Effect and poor environmental circumstances. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289609000634?via=ihub

Lynn’s sole criterion for representativeness was the IQ of the sample itself — if it was low he included it, and if it was high he didn’t. He had no qualms about using samples of mentally and physically disabled people, as well as samples where the test was not administered in its entirety, a time limit was imposed when it shouldn’t have been, proper instructions were not given, or there were a lack of appropriate norms. That’s not “a difference in methodological approach”. It’s fraud, plain and simple.

Wicherts et al. used all of the “samples that were based on stratified or clustered random sampling and were deemed representative by the original authors”, and then “three independent raters assessed five objective criteria for representativeness of all samples and their ratings showed moderate to almost perfect agreement." Lynn’s sole criterion for representativeness was the IQ of the sample — if it was low he included it, and if it was high he didn’t. Rushton and Jensen (like Lynn) are primarily racialists and eugenicists, not scientists. They’re affiliated with organizations like the Pioneer Fund and American Renaissance, and they have plenty of critics, including Arthur Jensen and J Phillippe Rushton who said his results were bunk.

A few more egregious "methodological errors" (scientific fraud) - in his Wealth of Nations book, he used sample sets of 108 9- to 15-year-olds in Barbados, of 50 13- to 16-year-olds in Colombia, of 104 5- to 17-year-olds in Ecuador, of 129 6- to 12-year-olds in Egypt, and of 48 10- to 14-year-olds in Equatorial Guinea, all were taken as measures of national IQ. In one study from Nigeria that involved seven samples, Lynn only used results from the two lowest scoring samples. Lynn did not provide an explanation about why the 5 highest scoring samples were ignored.


Again, I'm not really interested in debating the IQ scores of black people, but rather to let you know that Richard Lynn isn't trustworthy on this topic. Look elsewhere.

 

[iBuzzati]

looks like i double-wrote some sentences there and the edit timelimit got me. My bad.

 

[JordanN]

^^^^^ Now see. That is something I like to see. I'm glad to see another person can discuss IQ while examining sampling errors surrounding it, instead of dismissing it for any emotional ones.

I will concede I should be more skeptical of Richard Lynn's work. But not because "IQ is racist" but because his methods of doing it were untrustworthy/sketchy. This is how we need to approach the topic of IQ testing.

 

[iBuzzati]

Another error that I can't edit anymore. I wrote:
"Rushton and Jensen (like Lynn) are primarily racialists and eugenicists, not scientists. They’re affiliated with organizations like the Pioneer Fund and American Renaissance, and they have plenty of critics, including Arthur Jensen and J Phillippe Rushton who said his results were bunk" Accidentally repeated Jensen's name when I meant Borsboom, who is well-respected and noted in the field of psychometrics. Bears noting that Rushton is another racialist idealogue, but even he took issue with Lynn's findings. K, i'm done.

 

[TheMikado]

I meant to write this earlier, but in keeping with the discussion of the topic "White Privilege" both sides seem to have this concept wrong.

White privilege really is nothing more than the ability to be judged on the basis of your own INDIVIDUAL merits.

Why this means is that instead of being viewed to through the lens of a general stereotype, you are, on a social level, generally viewed as an individual and not some possible "average" representation of a race.

For instance these stereotypes don't really exist:

All White guys are good at golf.
All white guys know mixed martial arts.

Further you do not have temperament indexes.
Asians are "passive"
Blacks are "aggressive"

Further as we have PAGES of this now, we have IQ quotients.
By individuals who do not even know what or HOW IQ is measured.

Global IQ measurements ARE THE single most positive example of "White Privilege".
The idea that everything is weighted relative to being "white"

For context. IQ is based on the MEAN scoring on a particular test. This test is then found to be the mean in a given population and then adjusted so that X score represents a 100 (average IQ).

Again this is the epitome of "Privilege", you have based on your population indexed your IQ to be relative your population as "average" and weighting all those around you on this scale.

Again, and let me explain this clearly so as not confuse the issue and place this in real world views.

A minority walks into a job application, a number of thoughts can run through ones mind.

1) Will I get the job because of my race because they want a quota or expect a level of performance.
2) Will I not get the job because of my race because they don't want a quota or expect a level of performance.

Example an Asian individual is hired and he question:
Do they have higher expectations of me because of my race and the stereotype of "smart"
Am I here to meet a quota?

This is not to demean the idea that similar racial factors are not felt by whites, however any claim that the social and near globalized view of "white" as average is an invention of modern society through imperialism.
Yes socially we have dumb jokes such as white people cannot dance, however imagine taking that joke and applying to any and all aspects of your life and you being "white".
Having preconceived notions of what foods you like, where your grew-up, how you should speak, dress, etc, etc.

White Privilege is the privilege to not be quantified or stereotyped or averaged socially and primarily on the basis of your race but to be viewed as an individual person.

Many individuals do not understand how fortunate they are to be able to walk into a restaurant and not have a waiter assume you like Chicken over beef. Or noodles and rice over a Mexican dish.
There is no "debunking" of this fact of social interaction.

Here's a good real world example:
Ask any tall black man driving a 100K plus car how many times people have walked up to them and claimed they remember them a player for "X" sport team...

 

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Miikado -

Statistics are not white privilege. You find a mean to find the middle and then see how the distribution ends up.

If you think white stereotypes don't exist or that white people get judged as individuals then you're seriously naive. That entire view is nonsense. For one, the people that tend to bring up white privilege tend to also not see people as individuals. They think in racially coded lines. Just to bring up "white privilege" is to reduce the target the remark is aimed at to nothing but their skin color.

 

[TheMikado]

Miikado -

Statistics are not white privilege. You find a mean to find the middle and then see how the distribution ends up.

If you think white stereotypes don't exist or that white people get judged as individuals then you're seriously naive. That entire view is nonsense. For one, the people that tend to bring up white privilege tend to also not see people as individuals. They think in racially coded lines. Just to bring up "white privilege" is to reduce the target the remark is aimed at to nothing but their skin color.

What is the mean to assume Asians are bad drivers or know martial arts or most black men play basketball?
Again, the idea that whites are as boxed into stereotypes as minorities on the basis of their race is ludicrous.
Attempting to act as if there is not a marked difference between the extent whites are stereotyped when compared to those of other racial backgrounds is either true naivety or willfully sticking one's head in the sand. Which one are you doing?


But as you said "means" are not privilege so we can just go with hard numbers instead of using our "feelings".

 

[Pumpkin Seeds]

What is the mean to assume Asians are bad drivers or know martial arts or most black men play basketball?
Again, the idea that whites are as boxed into stereotypes as minorities on the basis of their race is ludicrous.
Attempting to act as if there is not a marked difference between the extent whites are stereotyped when compared to those of other racial backgrounds is either true naivety or willfully sticking one's head in the sand. Which one are you doing?


But as you said "means" are not privilege so we can just go with hard numbers instead of using our "feelings".

When I mentioned statistics, I was referring to IQ. Stereotypes versus individuality are obviously not a statistic argument. Also, measuring how people feel is not a measurement of what has actually happened. How a person feels is subject to surrounding influences. If you want a stereotype, here is one: Blacks are expected to feel discriminated againt. There is an industry built around promoting this self-image for blacks. There is group pressure within black communities to tear down individuals and those who "act smart" which is called "acting white". (Why not acting Asian?)

There's several glaring flaws in this approach to life and your world view. These are people who think in collectivist mindsets and then ask why others get to be seen as individuals. Gee, I wonder why?

 

[TheMikado]

When I mentioned statistics, I was referring to IQ. Stereotypes versus individuality are obviously not a statistic argument. Also, measuring how people feel is not a measurement of what has actually happened. How a person feels is subject to surrounding influences. If you want a stereotype, here is one: Blacks are expected to feel discriminated againt. There is an industry built around promoting this self-image for blacks. There is group pressure within black communities to tear down individuals and those who "act smart" which is called "acting white". (Why not acting Asian?)

There's several glaring flaws in this approach to life and your world view. These are people who think in collectivist mindsets and then ask why others get to be seen as individuals. Gee, I wonder why?

Do you even understand how IQ is calculated and what it represents?
The 100 value is set by a mean of a certain population. When talking about IQ, especially globally, the 100 value is generally the mean IQ of their initial sample, i.e. the country of their origin not a globally indexed value of 100. That's why its not actually mean. It's a mean of the population they are from and then performing a comparison on that. It's why the global IQ claims are so disingenuous because and preys on individuals such as yourself who do not seem to understand how IQ means work.

As for the glaring flaw in this approach to life, please explain it to me.
Everything you have said feeds into the concept of "White Privilege". These communities didn't just develop these concepts of "acting white" on their own. They were reinforced because there was a specific and intentional distance between some educated whites and the efforts to punish education of people of color. The separation of way blacks and whites should behave was not something a community itself developed and it's not something that is removed overnight either.

But again, you are exemplifying my point. You are referring to the black community as some collective hive mind, rather than a collection of individuals.
You, in your very post are verifying what I am saying, by referring to the black community as if it is a collective. Rather than individuals. That was my entire point and its done so easily and subconsciously that people do not even think twice about it.

 

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Yes, I understand how the mean works. That's not white privilege.

But again, you are exemplifying my point. You are referring to the black community as some collective hive mind, rather than a collection of individuals.

No, I am not. Read again. I am saying there is collectivist thought and pressure within communities that suppress individuals. I am not referring to the black community as a collective. I am referring to the black community as a community. As a group, and within that group, there are pressures of a collectivist sort. This isn't unique to American blacks either. When I say there are forces that suppress individualism within a group then I am obviously claiming there are individuals within that group. My statement was this comes from a stereotype that blacks should feel discriminated against. This is a stereotype whites have of blacks, that every and each one of them feels swamped by racism and oppression. It's a stereotype within the group as well. It's not something that can work on an individual level.

But that is so completely off your initial claim which is that white privilege is that whites get to be individuals and no other race does. That's complete bullshit. I will tell you the reality: It's hard for everyone to be seen as an individual. You have to set yourself out from the pack and people will fight you on this and try to reduce you to a group identity just as you are doing right now. Whites don't get that by default and if you think they do then you've fallen into a fashionable form of racism.

 

[TheMikado]

Yes, I understand how the mean works. That's not white privilege.


No, I am not. Read again. I am saying there is collectivist thought and pressure within communities that suppress individuals. I am not referring to the black community as a collective. I am referring to the black community as a community. As a group, and within that group, there are pressures of a collectivist sort. This isn't unique to American blacks either. When I say there are forces that suppress individualism within a group then I am obviously claiming there are individuals within that group. My statement was this comes from a stereotype that blacks should feel discriminated against. This is a stereotype whites have of blacks, that every and each one of them feels swamped by racism and oppression. It's a stereotype within the group as well. It's not something that can work on an individual level.

But that is so completely off your initial claim which is that white privilege is that whites get to be individuals and no other race does. That's complete bullshit. I will tell you the reality: It's hard for everyone to be seen as an individual. You have to set yourself out from the pack and people will fight you on this and try to reduce you to a group identity just as you are doing right now. Whites don't get that by default and if you think they do then you've fallen into a fashionable form of racism.

1) If you understand how the mean works then you understand that using the index of 100 based on your own population and calling it the average is privilege. That's the whole idea. That the UK 100 IQ is the "average" around the world and what is to compare everyone else to.

2)"But that is so completely off your initial claim which is that white privilege is that whites get to be individuals and no other race does. That's complete bullshit."
I NEVER MADE THIS CLAIM THAT NO OTHER RACE DOES. That's your own insecurity. I even go into detail explain that whites do experience stereotypes, but the fact is the degree to which whites on a global scale have been normalized as the average means that socially, and by comparison the stereotypes are far fewer. It's like you didn't even bother to read before complaining. Believing that whites are stereotyped more or even just as much in predominantly western societies where the majority is white is absurd and foolish. Just like if you went to China and you would be stereotyped far more by those around you. It's literally the same concept and not hard to understand...

 

[Pumpkin Seeds]

White Privilege is the privilege to not be quantified or stereotyped or averaged socially and primarily on the basis of your race but to be viewed as an individual person.

Many individuals do not understand how fortunate they are to be able to walk into a restaurant and not have a waiter assume you like Chicken over beef. Or noodles and rice over a Mexican dish.
There is no "debunking" of this fact of social interaction.

That's the privilege as you describe it and you denote it as white. You can now argue with yourself, but I think I'm done here.

 

[TheMikado]

That's the privilege as you describe it and you denote it as white. You can now argue with yourself, but I think I'm done here.

This screams "I didn't read your post before I came in screeching my arguments". Had you read further you would have seen this in the same post.

This is not to demean the idea that similar racial factors are not felt by whites, however any claim that the social and near globalized view of "white" as average is an invention of modern society through imperialism.
Yes socially we have dumb jokes such as white people cannot dance, however imagine taking that joke and applying to any and all aspects of your life and you being "white".
Having preconceived notions of what foods you like, where your grew-up, how you should speak, dress, etc, etc.

But you are right. You're done here. You only purpose was to come in and try to claim I was somehow wholesale ignoring the plight of white individuals who experience racism, yet didn't bother reading before screeching to the top of your lungs on an only gaming forum about naivety and misconstrued viewpoints. Yet not even reading the very thing you're complaining about....

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

But as you said "means" are not privilege so we can just go with hard numbers instead of using our "feelings".

According to the wording in that image, these are hard numbers about feelings.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

I meant to write this earlier, but in keeping with the discussion of the topic "White Privilege" both sides seem to have this concept wrong.

White privilege really is nothing more than the ability to be judged on the basis of your own INDIVIDUAL merits.

Why this means is that instead of being viewed to through the lens of a general stereotype, you are, on a social level, generally viewed as an individual and not some possible "average" representation of a race.

For instance these stereotypes don't really exist:

All White guys are good at golf.
All white guys know mixed martial arts.

Further you do not have temperament indexes.
Asians are "passive"
Blacks are "aggressive"

Further as we have PAGES of this now, we have IQ quotients.
By individuals who do not even know what or HOW IQ is measured.

Global IQ measurements ARE THE single most positive example of "White Privilege".
The idea that everything is weighted relative to being "white"

For context. IQ is based on the MEAN scoring on a particular test. This test is then found to be the mean in a given population and then adjusted so that X score represents a 100 (average IQ).

Again this is the epitome of "Privilege", you have based on your population indexed your IQ to be relative your population as "average" and weighting all those around you on this scale.

Again, and let me explain this clearly so as not confuse the issue and place this in real world views.

A minority walks into a job application, a number of thoughts can run through ones mind.

1) Will I get the job because of my race because they want a quota or expect a level of performance.
2) Will I not get the job because of my race because they don't want a quota or expect a level of performance.

Example an Asian individual is hired and he question:
Do they have higher expectations of me because of my race and the stereotype of "smart"
Am I here to meet a quota?

This is not to demean the idea that similar racial factors are not felt by whites, however any claim that the social and near globalized view of "white" as average is an invention of modern society through imperialism.
Yes socially we have dumb jokes such as white people cannot dance, however imagine taking that joke and applying to any and all aspects of your life and you being "white".
Having preconceived notions of what foods you like, where your grew-up, how you should speak, dress, etc, etc.

White Privilege is the privilege to not be quantified or stereotyped or averaged socially and primarily on the basis of your race but to be viewed as an individual person.

Many individuals do not understand how fortunate they are to be able to walk into a restaurant and not have a waiter assume you like Chicken over beef. Or noodles and rice over a Mexican dish.
There is no "debunking" of this fact of social interaction.

Here's a good real world example:
Ask any tall black man driving a 100K plus car how many times people have walked up to them and claimed they remember them a player for "X" sport team...

The word is Harvard was caught discriminating against asians because they would be too overrepresented

Harvard records show discrimination against Asian-Americans: group
-reuters link

A 2009 Princeton study showed that Asians had to score a hundred and forty points higher on the S.A.T. than whites to have the same chance of admission to top universities. -newyorker

There is a large asian representation in tech, and it is also said they face discrimination to not allow asians to be too overrepresented.

At the same time asians have to score significantly higher to make it, it is also said that different minorities are given artificial boosts and allowed to score significantly less and still qualify, to boost their numbers.

 

[TheMikado]

According to the wording in that image, these are hard numbers about feelings.

Because the entire premise of this thread (the video in the original post) is about "feelings"

Jordan Peterson CORRECTLY identifies the issues surrounding the discussion.

He CORRECTLY identifies that cultural privilege exists.
He CORRECTLY identifies that majority privilege exists.
He CORRECTLY identifies that wealth privilege exists.

BUT, he doesn't like that this that can be attributed to a European-centric or "White" box, so he renames each of this items and separates them so they no longer carry the umbrella term of "white".

Jordan Peterson even CORRECTLY identifies that the inherent mass grouping and marginalization of groups rather than the focus on individualism is absurd..

He CORRECTLY identifies all these things.

That there was around the time of imperialism, the permeation of cultural privilege, the explosive acquisition of wealth, and the explosive growth in global population of European peoples which results in the standardization of various practices today. Just the fact that the "Business Suit" is the standard dress of business globally is evidence of cultural mind share which exists. It is simply history, European colonialism/imperialism set cultural standards which benefited Europeans. It's just what happened and I don't understand why people are afraid to acknowledge it. He even conceptually understands and says EXACTLY what I said in earlier in the thread regarding China, even used the same example.

Believing that whites are stereotyped more or even just as much in predominantly western societies where the majority is white is absurd and foolish. Just like if you went to China and you would be stereotyped far more by those around you. It's literally the same concept and not hard to understand...

But Jordan Peterson, in his video doesn't like that it can be put under an umbrella or bucket called "white". His argument isn't even that it doesn't exist. I just boils down to him not liking the naming convention. To which I say we could simply rename it to "European Ancestry Privilege" if he would feel that was more accurate but of course it would not be because the two terms aren't synonymous.

 

[TheMikado]

The word is Harvard was caught discriminating against asians because they would be too overrepresented

There is a large asian representation in tech, and it is also said they face discrimination to not allow asians to be too overrepresented.

At the same time asians have to score significantly higher to make it, it is also said that different minorities are given artificial boosts and allowed to score significantly less and still qualify, to boost their numbers.

And again this is exactly what "White Privilege" means. For instance, it may have been decided that they needed to set quotas to ensure diversity.

But who sets them? Further who develops these tests and sets the standards? Who implements the rules and sets the rules for others to play by?
Of course there was minority input, but by and large the majority culture with the power and wealth will set the rules for others to follow in any society.

It simply is what it is.