Whites to become minority in Metro Vancouver by 2031 - Polidicks

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40121747][url]http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst_argument_in_the/[/url][/QUOTE] you used the graph to prove that all races are not psychologically identical. it doesn't show that. it shows that the measured iq are different. it doesn't say shit about the reason, you made that up.

[QUOTE=sp00ks;40123256]you used the graph to prove that "all races are psychologically identical." it doesn't show that. it shows that the measured iq are different. it doesn't say shit about the reason, you made that up.[/QUOTE] What [editline]1st April 2013[/editline] I'm saying that races [B]aren't[/B] psychologically identical and yeah of course it doesn't say the reason, graphs don't do that. the other stuff I posted supports my argument as to the reasons.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40123199]What actual contrary scientific evidence has been posted in this thread? People have been posting vague, qualitative counterarguments and I've supplied citations, statistics and graphs at every turn. I've even conceded where a particular study is weak and that one should take it with a grain of salt, even though that would hurt my argument. I'd like to see an actual answer to the stuff I posted rather than "you're ignoring everything".[/QUOTE] Let's go back to that graph you love so much. First, it's cited as being nationally representative. Fairly large sample. That's good, because it's actually a weakness. Second, it cites the test scores of students. You tend to have some white people living in lower-income neighborhoods, but many ghettos in the USA are still overwhelmingly black. This is because it takes more than a generation or two to heal the damage caused by centuries of slavery and systemic oppression. These students, regardless of their intelligence, would have scored poorly because they've likely got more troubles in their life than test scores. Lower-income families tend to do more poorly on these tests because of a number of factors, not least of which are nutrition and stress levels. If the study was conducted in a very rich neighborhood or a very poor neighborhood, and all of the subjects shared the same social position, income range and education, you'd actually have an argument. As things stand now, it's bullshit, a sham, a mockery of science.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40123199] [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1258072&p=40121164&viewfull=1#post40121164[/url] Here's the bit where it explains how it takes socioeconomic status into account. (also note the numerous graphs posted previously where socioeconomic status was held constant) Also ty for the ad hominem, yes I'm obviously posting this because I'm insecure about the size of my penis :downs: [/QUOTE] i don't know who wrote that (you didn't post the source or i can't find it), but they write some stupid shit. [quote]The trouble is that socioeconomic status is also a result of cognitive ability, as people of high and low cognitive ability move to correspondingly high and low places in the socioeconomic continuum. The reason that parents have high or low socioeconomic status is in part a function of their intelligence, and their intelligence also affects the IQ of the children via both genes and environment.[/quote] [editline]1st April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40123277]What [editline]1st April 2013[/editline] I'm saying that races [B]aren't[/B] psychologically identical and yeah of course it doesn't say the reason, graphs don't do that. the other stuff I posted supports my argument as to the reasons.[/QUOTE] i just can't quote

You know what? I'm not going to convince you. You'e going to believe what you want to believe, and your convictions will lead you to perceive only what you want to perceive. Meritocracy is also fucking bullshit, as sp00ks pointed out above. I hope you see sense one day, and I've said what I can to help. The rest is up to you. Open your mind. Or don't.

[QUOTE=archangel125;40123354]You know what? I'm not going to convince you. You'e going to believe what you want to believe, and your convictions will lead you to perceive only what you want to perceive. Meritocracy is also fucking bullshit, as sp00ks pointed out above. I hope you see sense one day, and I've said what I can to help. The rest is up to you. Open your mind. Or don't.[/QUOTE] no meritocracy is how the world works, the american dream is real! george w bush, for example, was obviously an brilliant man and his success was only the result of his and his parents intelligence, nothing else.

[QUOTE=archangel125;40123305]Let's go back to that graph you love so much. First, it's cited as being nationally representative. Fairly large sample. That's good, because it's actually a weakness.[/quote] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers]what[/url] [quote]Second, it cites the test scores of students. You tend to have some white people living in lower-income neighborhoods, but many ghettos in the USA are still overwhelmingly black. This is because it takes more than a generation or two to heal the damage caused by centuries of slavery and systemic oppression. These students, regardless of their intelligence, would have scored poorly because they've likely got more troubles in their life than test scores. Lower-income families tend to do more poorly on these tests because of a number of factors, not least of which are nutrition and stress levels.[/quote] I never said that lower income families don't do worse on tests? I'm saying that even adjusting for the income and background and so on, the gap still remains. Though I will admit that poverty for blacks and poverty for whites are two different things and the difference between the two (which might not be accounted for in the statistics) could have an influence on the scores. I'm not quite so confident that it could account for the whole difference though. [quote]If the study was conducted in a very rich neighborhood or a very poor neighborhood, and all of the subjects shared the same social position, income range and education, you'd actually have an argument. As things stand now, it's bullshit, a sham, a mockery of science.[/QUOTE] What about the adoption study?

[QUOTE=archangel125;40123150]DainBramage, my expertise in this field can be considered greater than your own. I'm majoring in psychology and social service work. I know well the chain of causality that can lead the results of your tests to be flawed, and I know better than you do the history of oppression, because it's required reading for my education. At this point, you're spouting drivel. You've been presented with plenty of scientific evidence and common-sense arguments that contradict your results, but it's clear that this racial difference in intelligence crap is something you truly want to believe. You're welcome to your beliefs, but to save face, at this point it'd probably be best for you to back out of this argument. You won't win it.[/QUOTE] Well I've been studying psychology too, and from my own understanding of the material in the course, my lecturer (who has a PhD from Harvard), and of the topics we are studying, that IQ is not as you previously claimed "bullshit". A full century of psychometric research (and my lecturers concede that despite problems with measurement, that IQ can be used rather reliably to measure differences in intelligence between populations, plus individuals to a degree) and support in academia, leads me to suggest that if IQ really is bullshit, you should have extremely strong arguments as to why it is the case that it is completely discredited as a method of psychometric research into intelligence.

[quote]The trouble is that socioeconomic status is also a result of cognitive ability, as people of high and low cognitive ability move to correspondingly high and low places in the socioeconomic continuum. The reason that parents have high or low socioeconomic status is in part a function of their intelligence, and their intelligence also affects the IQ of the children via both genes and environment.[/quote] This here is what we call a loss in authority. This statement has no supporting evidence, and is the basis for their argument.

[QUOTE=sp00ks;40123310]i don't know who wrote that (you didn't post the source or i can't find it), but they write some stupid shit.[/QUOTE] I'm don't see what's wrong with what they said? Intelligence is a causal factor in where you end up on the social ladder (i.e. socioeconomic status) Intelligence can be influenced by socioeconomic status (during childhood) Intelligence is heritable. Therefore it's difficult to sort out whether in a particular case, the intelligence is a cause or an effect of socioeconomic status. [editline]1st April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=archangel125;40123408]This here is what we call a loss in authority. This statement has no supporting evidence, and is the basis for their argument.[/QUOTE] There is evidence but it was mentioned earlier and I didn't quote it. Hang on and I'll post it. [editline]1st April 2013[/editline] also can you explain to me what exactly you mean by large sample sizes being bad? that goes against the very fabric of probability theory

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40123397]Well I've been studying psychology too, and from my own understanding of the material in the course, my lecturer (who has a PhD from Harvard), and of the topics we are studying, that IQ is not as you previously claimed "bullshit". A full century of psychometric research (and my lecturers concede that despite problems with measurement, that IQ can be used rather reliably to measure differences in intelligence between populations, plus individuals to a degree) and support in academia, leads me to suggest that if IQ really is bullshit, you should have extremely strong arguments as to why it is the case that it is completely discredited as a method of psychometric research into intelligence.[/QUOTE] IQ measures certain elements of intelligence, but it has a bias against those who have a lower-than-average share of linguistic intelligence. Furthermore, these tests contain questions that have a geographical bias and other questions that require a certain level of education to answer. Trouble is, there's no standard for education in the States.

[QUOTE=archangel125;40123455]IQ measures certain elements of intelligence, but it has a bias against those who have a lower-than-average share of linguistic intelligence. Furthermore, these tests contain questions that have a geographical bias and other questions that require a certain level of education to answer. Trouble is, there's no standard for education in the States.[/QUOTE] But IQ tests have been conducted, refined, and utilized worldwide for the past century. Plus they show consistent changes depending on factors such as diet or pollution.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40123437]I'm don't see what's wrong with what they said? Intelligence is a causal factor in where you end up on the social ladder (i.e. socioeconomic status) Intelligence can be influenced by socioeconomic status (during childhood) Intelligence is heritable. Therefore it's difficult to sort out whether in a particular case, the intelligence is a cause or an effect of socioeconomic status. [editline]1st April 2013[/editline] There is evidence but it was mentioned earlier and I didn't quote it. Hang on and I'll post it. [editline]1st April 2013[/editline] also can you explain to me what exactly you mean by large sample sizes being bad? that goes against the very fabric of probability theory[/QUOTE] Weakness because of inconsistencies within the sample of education level, family history, physical and mental health, addictions/substance abuse, socioeconomic position, and more. Even among blacks in the upper class, the effects of internalized oppression can still be seen - But of course, you dismissed the study I cited arbitrarily, didn't you?

[QUOTE=archangel125;40123455]IQ measures certain elements of intelligence, but it has a bias against those who have a lower-than-average share of linguistic intelligence. Furthermore, these tests contain questions that have a geographical bias and other questions that require a certain level of education to answer. Trouble is, there's no standard for education in the States.[/QUOTE] You seem to have outdated knowledge. Modern IQ tests don't have things like geographical questions in them. The gold-standard nowadays for culture-fair testing are [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven's_Progressive_Matrices]Raven's Matrices[/url], which do not rely on linguistic ability at all.

[QUOTE=Cone;40120770]would you mind showing me this post? because you [I]did[/I] say this: this: this: and this: that's a LOT of misunderstandings if you're trying to tell me that you meant absolutely none of this bullshit and honestly i'm finding your excuse pretty fucking flimsy at this point, so either stop hiding behind this crap or don't talk about shit you know nothing about. at this point you might as well admit that you're genocidal, because you'd have to be illiterate if you're gonna tell me that you didn't understand what you or anyone else was saying, and you seem to speak English pretty damn well until someone calls you out for being a fucking Hitler Youth.[/QUOTE] Because you could grab all I said, along with that first quote, and make it look instantly like I'm the second coming of Hitler... The best part, is that if I had not made that post that got me banned, all the rest probably wouldn't catch someone's attention at all, and the next best thing about it, is that the post I was banned for was genuinely bad reading by me, followed by the wrong reply. Did anyone even bother asking for an explanation on the RC thread? Nope. Let's just act like armchair white knights for equality and point fingers, because we know better than anyone else, and even if we are wrong or if someone made a mistake, who gives a fuck! But lets make it simple. You want to call me Hitler Youth? You want to call me Gaddafi? You want to call me Mussolini? Satan? Fine. Do it. Call me whatever you want. In the end, I don't care because I'm not associated with any of that shit, and if you or anyone else wants to act like I believe in "ethnicity genocide" and that I said that and meant it, and it totally wasn't a bad reading mistake, go ahead. You got everything you want to disregard me as any other person who makes reading mistakes. A shitty reply by me to something I didn't read right, and a not-so-great history with another ethnicity due to what happens around here. So yeah, do as you will. Call me Hitler and disregard everything else like the other bunch around here. Oh, and thanks for the compliment on my English. A flaw here and there but it's mostly good I guess.

[QUOTE=archangel125;40123513]Weakness because of inconsistencies within the sample of education level, family history, physical and mental health, addictions/substance abuse, socioeconomic position, and more.[/quote] I'll admit that is a weakness but the effects of those are partially canceled out when you control for SES, since SES can predict a lot of those things. You as a psychologist you of all people should know how difficult it is to control for literally everything. This is a longitudinal study, not an interventional study. [quote]Even among blacks in the upper class, the effects of internalized oppression can still be seen - But of course, you dismissed the study I cited arbitrarily, didn't you?[/QUOTE] which study

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40122884]people what got moms and dads from different races i reckon that would handle the mixed race statistic[/QUOTE] But not everyone uses that definition. For example, Obama is considered by most people to be African-American, but his parents were different races.

[QUOTE=archangel125;40123408]This here is what we call a loss in authority. This statement has no supporting evidence, and is the basis for their argument.[/QUOTE] Ok, IQ predicting income: [quote]While it has been suggested that "in economic terms it appears that the IQ score measures something with decreasing marginal value. It is important to have enough of it, but having lots and lots does not buy you that much.",[84][85] large scale longitudinal studies indicate an increase in IQ translates into an increase in performance at all levels of IQ: i.e., that ability and job performance are monotonically linked at all IQ levels.[86] Charles Murray, coauthor of The Bell Curve, found that IQ has a substantial effect on income independently of family background.[87] The link from IQ to wealth is much less strong that than from IQ to job performance. Some studies indicate that IQ is unrelated to net worth.[88][89] The American Psychological Association's 1995 report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns stated that IQ scores accounted for (explained variance) about quarter of the social status variance and one-sixth of the income variance. Statistical controls for parental SES eliminate about a quarter of this predictive power. Psychometric intelligence appears as only one of a great many factors that influence social outcomes.[38] Some studies claim that IQ only accounts for (explains) a sixth of the variation in income because many studies are based on young adults, many of whom have not yet reached their peak earning capacity, or even their education. On pg 568 of The g Factor, Arthur Jensen claims that although the correlation between IQ and income averages a moderate 0.4 (one sixth or 16% of the variance), the relationship increases with age, and peaks at middle age when people have reached their maximum career potential. In the book, A Question of Intelligence, Daniel Seligman cites an IQ income correlation of 0.5 (25% of the variance). A 2002 study[90] further examined the impact of non-IQ factors on income and concluded that an individual's location, inherited wealth, race, and schooling are more important as factors in determining income than IQ.[/quote] i.e. moderately good but not that strong. intelligence being heritable [quote]Behavioral genetic research has established that the construct of g is highly heritable. It has a number of other biological correlates, including brain size.[/quote] and I think it's pretty obvious how intelligent parents can influence the intelligence of their children purely through environmental means, I think you'd agree. there's your evidence.

sources? [editline]1st April 2013[/editline] you are generally impressively bad at providing sources.

What in the mother fucking shit is going on in this thread. Shit's crazy.

[QUOTE=BenJammin';40123753]What in the mother fucking shit is going on in this thread. Shit's crazy.[/QUOTE] MRA's vs Racists crazy thread, dain seems to think blacks are inferior though

[QUOTE=sp00ks;40123683]sources? [editline]1st April 2013[/editline] you are generally impressively bad at providing sources.[/QUOTE] I detect the subtle hint of hypocrisy.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40123552] You as a psychologist you of all people should know how difficult it is to control for literally everything. This is a longitudinal study, not an interventional study. [/QUOTE] Exactly. There are far too many variables to come up with any sort of conclusive result, especially in a longitudinal study. [editline]1st April 2013[/editline] [url]http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED394096&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED394096[/url] [url]http://irows.ucr.edu/cd/courses/232/pyke/intracopp.pdf[/url] <- This one deals specifically with the mechanics of internalized oppression and paints a pretty good picture of how it works. That's two articles citing studies. There's also a documentary of another that's marginally easier to get access to. [url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/etc/view.html[/url] [editline]1st April 2013[/editline] I'm sort of irritated that the text of most academic articles needs to be bought to be read. I took for granted the studies I had access to as a student because of my college's priveleges, but finding them independently is ridiculously slow.

[QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;40123611]But not everyone uses that definition. For example, Obama is considered by most people to be African-American, but his parents were different races.[/QUOTE] what are you even talking about obama is mixed race despite misconceptions made by uninformed americans you're being ridiculous

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40123631]Ok, IQ predicting income: i.e. moderately good but not that strong. [/QUOTE] Moderately good is an exaggeration. Slight correlation that's vastly dwarfed by social class, education, etc. "In the book, A Question of Intelligence, Daniel Seligman cites an IQ income correlation of 0.5 (25% of the variance)." "A 2002 study[90] further examined the impact of non-IQ factors on income and concluded that an individual's location, inherited wealth, race, and schooling are more important as factors in determining income than IQ."

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40121701]But IQ is one of the most useful and accurate predictors of anything and everything remotely linked to intelligence. Please do your research.[/quote] IQ correlates with a lot of things that people at some point decided are representations of intelligence. If I decided that intelligence was represented by the ability to make cool paintings and pull off sick snowboard tricks IQ wouldn't be an [i]intelligence[/i] quotient anymore. It'd be a number that correlates to useless things like test scores which totally don't represent ability to do a double backflip at all.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40124062]what are you even talking about obama is mixed race despite misconceptions made by uninformed americans you're being ridiculous[/QUOTE] I'm just checking your logic. So, his children by your definition are mixed race, and so will be their children, and their children's children, ad infinitum right?

[QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;40124169]I'm just checking your logic. So, his children by your definition are mixed race, and so will be their children, and their children's children, ad infinitum right?[/QUOTE] sure yeah who gives a shit whats your point with all this

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40124220]sure yeah who gives a shit whats your point with all this[/QUOTE] Congratulations, you just set up for the conclusion that no one is possibly anything but mixed race or black, since far enough back every human has African ancestry. That's why you need a better definition than that.

[QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;40124287]Congratulations, you just set up for the conclusion that no one is possibly anything but mixed race or black, since far enough back every human has African ancestry. That's why you need a better definition than that.[/QUOTE] then define it like i said originally, people with mixed parents?? you're being purposefully abstract about a pretty simple definition (most people would say mixed parents = mixed race) for god knows what ridiculous argument