Whites to become minority in Metro Vancouver by 2031 - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Professer Trall;40128620][IMG]http://i45.tinypic.com/c0tap.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] That doesn't make sense at [I]all[/I] (because it's simply not true). It's pathetic, my god.

I dunno guys, Just going to pop in here with my political and personal opinion. At my retail job I would be asked about once or twice a day if I spoke Spanish, or correctly they all asked me (You speaka spanish?). I don't get angry at them I just go yes this associate over here or no we don't have someone at the time. There was one incident where we didn't have anyone at that very moment (He was out for lunch) and I responded with "He'll be back in an hour" and she began to complaining why none of us knew Spanish and why was everything in English in our store. That made be quite bothered and was on my mind, Your mad because we don't have anything in our store in your language? It's America, Dominantly English and we offer plenty of programs and ESL programs in public education, community groups and private education. I don't mind if you don't know English, (See when I just refer them to an associate or just tell them we don't have anyone at the time and me and the person attempt to work together in translating each other). It's quite fun sometimes, both of us have fun translating each other and finding out what they need or need help with. I'd like to learn another language but after taken 3 years of Spanish in public education, it didn't work and I realized it wasn't working well for me. Culturally don't have much means on this part, Our Dominican and Spanish population is booming in our education system and population wise, Most of them are 2nd or 3rd generation Americans and are pretty much Americanized and speak full English and full Spanish. Basically, What I would like to hypotheize is that most likely there children will learn the native/ dominant language of the country mainly because the public education system will force ESL or etc. I consistently see teachers speaking in other languages to students in private manners after class or before, but they keep the regulation of English during it even if the entire class knows Spanish.

[QUOTE=Professer Trall;40128620][IMG]http://i45.tinypic.com/c0tap.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Hahaha, "women in particular".

well almost all of the spanish speaking parts of america spoke spanish before they were even part of america and theyve been predominately spanish for a very long time. in that case asking why no-one speaks spanish is a legitimate question

that picture was so vitriolic I couldn't even understand the point it was trying to make initially, though a second look pretty much clears things up also I find it hilarious that it's asserting that white male guilt can only be felt among the younger generations: during the Civil Rights Era for instance a lot of white people were just as confused as they are now as to why minorities were/are demanding equal treatment - the majority's always had a persecution complex and this generation's sentiments are nothing new

[QUOTE=Professer Trall;40128848]Here comes the cries of racism. What makes you think I'm racist? Because I believe that whites are currently experiencing a spiral downhill that will only get worse? [/QUOTE] no its because you consider minorities gaining rights and improving their situation as a "spiral downhill" for white people if anything its the opposite; the better non-white people do the better white people do, society aint a race war bud

[QUOTE=archangel125;40123815]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][/quote] Okay, the bias in this article is staggering. It seems to me that the authors are simply assuming that there exists no innate difference between the races, and concludes that any argument for that view is thinly veiled racism. For example: [quote]Terman's views on racial differences are seldom emphasized in the literature and rarely, if ever, discussed in the graduate courses where the theory and administration of the Stanford-Binet scale are taught. Terman's views on intelligence and racial differences were consistent with, if not influenced by, the ideology embodied in the eugenics movement of the day. His beliefs are clearly expressed in the following quote from one of his writings: [quote]"...their dullness seems to be racial, or at least inherent in the family stock from which they come. The fact that one meets this type with such frequency in Indians, Mexicans, and Negroes, suggests quite forcibly that the whole question of racial differences in mental traits will have to be taken up anew by experimental methods. This writer predicts that when this is done, there will be discovered enormously significant racial differences in general intelligence, differences which cannot be wiped out by any scheme of mental culture." (Terman, 1916, p. 92).[/quote][/quote] Terman had a hypothesis and made two predictions which could falsify his hypothesis. His hypothesis was that there were "racial differences in mental traits", which is something that could be true or false. His predictions were that IQ tests would demonstrate a difference between races apart from any socioeconomic factors, and that deliberate "scheme of mental culture" (i.e. something like enrichment programmes) wouldn't eradicate the difference. Terman was undeniably a racist, but that has [I]no bearing on whether or not what he was saying was correct.[/I] Scientifically speaking I can't find fault with what he said. The Universe doesn't care what your politics are - the differences are either there or they are not, and to hell with whether they are "racist". Then there's some useless well-poisoning about Goddard's crap about eastern european immigrants and the "feebleminded". Goddard himself admitted that his testing was flawed and that the study had little value, and it has been presented out of context by IQ opponents since its inception: [quote]Goddard established an intelligence testing program on Ellis Island in 1913. The purpose of the program was to identify "feeble-minded" persons whose nature was not obvious to the subjective judgement of immigration officers, who had previously made these judgements without the aid of tests.[4] When he published the results in 1917, Goddard stated that his results only applied to immigrants traveling steerage and did not apply to people traveling in first or second class.[5] He also noted that the population he studied had been preselected, cutting out those who were either "obviously normal" or "obviously feeble-minded", and stated that he made "no attempt to determine the percentage of feeble-minded among immigrants in general or even of the special groups named – the Jews, Hungarians, Italians, and Russians"; a qualifier omitted in works by opponents of the study of intelligence such as Gould and Kamin.[4][/quote] The bit about the WW1 draft exam looks interesting but there's a scanning error so I can't read the full section. I will however point out that this bit is misleading: [quote]Although these tests were essentially screening tests, they were quickly dubbed intelligence tests.[/quote] If something is [I]g[/I]-loaded, it can be used to estimate IQ. The more [I]g[/I]-loaded it is, the better a predictor it will be. Jensen's 1969 paper: [quote]Audrey Shuey's book the Testing of Negro Intelligence (Shuey, 1966) and Arthur Jensen's Harvard Educational Review article, How Much Can We Boost IQ and Achievement?" (Jensen, 1969) were undisguised, overt efforts to eliminate government support for enrichment programs for poor, minority group children, specifically the Head Start programs. Jensen's 1969 conclusion was identical to the 1994 message propagated by Henrnstein and Murray that infusion of federal dollars will not overcome the cognitive disadvantage imposed by the limited genetic endowment reflected in the low IQ scores which poor and minority group children obtain. These are a few examples of the efforts by members of the psychological community to advance theories of racial superiority based on distortions and misinterpretations of so-called scientific data[/quote] Calling Jensen's conclusions "theories of racial superiority" is disingenuous in the extreme. Jensen simply states that enrichment programmes do not succeed in substantially improving academic performance, and so why are we funding them? [quote]For years both the test industry and the APA have ignored requests from minority psychologists (The Association of Black Psychologists-ABPsi) to address the problem of cultural bias in standardized tests (Dent & Williams, 1972). The industry does not publicize the fact that bias favoring females was eliminated from the original IQ test (Loewen, 1993) and that until 1972 females averaged higher scores on the SAT (Loewen, 1993; Rosser, 1989), so much so that it had to be revised. If revisions can be made to remove and/or reverse gender bias in psychological testing, [B]it is logical to assume that the more sophisticated statistical techniques currently available could enable the industry to eliminate cultural bias against minorities or the bias favoring the dominant cultural group in existing tests.[/B][/quote] This isn't logical to assume at all. The reasons for the discrepancy between the gender scores and the discrepancy between the race scores might be distinct (I believe they are). [quote]To ask a child who was born and lived all his/her life on an island such as Hawaii, where the directional frame of reference is the sea, "Makai" and the mountains, "Mauka", In what direction does the sun set?, is to place that child at an experiential disadvantage. The child's natural response is Makai", but the only acceptable response listed in the manual is, "in the West". Similarly, to ask that same Hawaiian child, What would you do if you saw a train approaching a broken track?, is to place that child at a disadvantage. There are no trains in Hawaii![/quote] The author is strawmanning IQ tests. They don't have these sorts of questions in them because they're obviously culturally biased. Progressive matrices require no specific cultural knowledge and produce better measurements of [I]g[/I] than the older Stanford-Binet scale yet they still demonstrate racial differences. [quote][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.[/quote] Is this what passes for genuine sociological work? The ideological bias is mindblowing. The author seems to think of sociology as a political tool for promoting social equality rather than a means to find knowledge. [quote]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] check your academia privilege

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40128956]Is this what passes for genuine sociological work? The ideological bias is mindblowing. The author seems to think of sociology as a political tool for promoting social equality rather than a means to find knowledge.[/QUOTE] I remember upon doing the social sciences in college, when I entered sociology, I was given extensive notes to revise from. I skimmed them, and to my dismay, not a single concept from mathematics existed. This includes numbers. It was solely work which not only is difficult to research, but difficult to verify, and was in direct opposition to the other schools in sociology. Most curiously enough, these schools could never agree on a single thing, except possibly that scientific methodology cannot be used to study human behaviour, for the sole reason that they are terrified of the thought of being proven wrong.

thats a rather haughty thing to say sobotnik

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40128994]I skimmed them, and to my dismay, not a single concept from mathematics existed. This includes numbers.[/QUOTE] Good. Fuck numbers.

[QUOTE=thisispain;40129007]thats a rather haughty thing to say sobotnik[/QUOTE] The very fact that there are so many different schools (many of which offer wildly different explanations of behaviour) rings warning bells. If I am studying a social science, I expect to be learning the single and most valid theory, as opposed to multiple ones of increasing dubiousness. [editline]2nd April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Psychokitten;40129034]Good. Fuck numbers.[/QUOTE] "Mathematics is the gate and key of the sciences... Neglect of mathematics works injury to all knowledge, since he who is ignorant of it cannot know the other sciences or the things of this world. And what is worse, men who are thus Ignorant are unable to perceive their own ignorance and so do not seek a remedy." - Roger Bacon

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40129041]"Mathematics is the gate and key of the sciences... Neglect of mathematics works injury to all knowledge, since he who is ignorant of it cannot know the other sciences or the things of this world. And what is worse, men who are thus Ignorant are unable to perceive their own ignorance and so do not seek a remedy." - Roger Bacon[/QUOTE] Just because math is important doesn't mean I have to like it.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;40129081]Just because math is important doesn't mean I have to like it.[/QUOTE] Yes, but it is practically impossible to conduct science (and therefore study human behaviour objectively) without it.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40129041]The very fact that there are so many different schools (many of which offer wildly different explanations of behaviour) rings warning bells. If I am studying a social science, I expect to be learning the single and most valid theory, as opposed to multiple ones of increasing dubiousness.[/QUOTE] you could say the same thing about psychology or physics

[QUOTE=thisispain;40129328]you could say the same thing about psychology or physics[/QUOTE] Which is why successful theories tend to displace older and less successful ones. For instance, we know evolution to be pretty good at explaining the diversity behind life on earth, and we trust Einsteins theories more than Newtons when we want to explain why time dilation happens.

yes i know how science works thank you

[QUOTE=thisispain;40129375]yes i know how science works thank you[/QUOTE] Then why not choose the most valid theory out of competing ones, instead of learning five?

[QUOTE=thisispain;40129328]you could say the same thing about psychology or physics[/QUOTE] there aren't different schools of physics there are different hypotheses being considered (string theory, M-theory, etc) but they don't disagree on the fundamental methods by which to conduct their science and their entire framework like sociology or early psychology

[QUOTE=CubeManv2;40128910]I dunno guys, Just going to pop in here with my political and personal opinion. At my retail job I would be asked about once or twice a day if I spoke Spanish, or correctly they all asked me (You speaka spanish?). I don't get angry at them I just go yes this associate over here or no we don't have someone at the time. There was one incident where we didn't have anyone at that very moment (He was out for lunch) and I responded with "He'll be back in an hour" and she began to complaining why none of us knew Spanish and why was everything in English in our store. That made be quite bothered and was on my mind, Your mad because we don't have anything in our store in your language? It's America, Dominantly English and we offer plenty of programs and ESL programs in public education, community groups and private education. I don't mind if you don't know English, (See when I just refer them to an associate or just tell them we don't have anyone at the time and me and the person attempt to work together in translating each other). It's quite fun sometimes, both of us have fun translating each other and finding out what they need or need help with. I'd like to learn another language but after taken 3 years of Spanish in public education, it didn't work and I realized it wasn't working well for me. Culturally don't have much means on this part, Our Dominican and Spanish population is booming in our education system and population wise, Most of them are 2nd or 3rd generation Americans and are pretty much Americanized and speak full English and full Spanish. Basically, What I would like to hypotheize is that most likely there children will learn the native/ dominant language of the country mainly because the public education system will force ESL or etc. I consistently see teachers speaking in other languages to students in private manners after class or before, but they keep the regulation of English during it even if the entire class knows Spanish.[/QUOTE] Yes there are falsely entitled assholes in every race, no they are not representative of any large group.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40128956]Okay, the bias in this article is staggering. It seems to me that the authors are simply assuming that there exists no innate difference between the races, and concludes that any argument for that view is thinly veiled racism. For example: Terman had a hypothesis and made two predictions which could falsify his hypothesis. His hypothesis was that there were "racial differences in mental traits", which is something that could be true or false. His predictions were that IQ tests would demonstrate a difference between races apart from any socioeconomic factors, and that deliberate "scheme of mental culture" (i.e. something like enrichment programmes) wouldn't eradicate the difference. Terman was undeniably a racist, but that has [I]no bearing on whether or not what he was saying was correct.[/I] Scientifically speaking I can't find fault with what he said. The Universe doesn't care what your politics are - the differences are either there or they are not, and to hell with whether they are "racist". Then there's some useless well-poisoning about Goddard's crap about eastern european immigrants and the "feebleminded". Goddard himself admitted that his testing was flawed and that the study had little value, and it has been presented out of context by IQ opponents since its inception: The bit about the WW1 draft exam looks interesting but there's a scanning error so I can't read the full section. I will however point out that this bit is misleading: If something is [I]g[/I]-loaded, it can be used to estimate IQ. The more [I]g[/I]-loaded it is, the better a predictor it will be. Jensen's 1969 paper: Calling Jensen's conclusions "theories of racial superiority" is disingenuous in the extreme. Jensen simply states that enrichment programmes do not succeed in substantially improving academic performance, and so why are we funding them? This isn't logical to assume at all. The reasons for the discrepancy between the gender scores and the discrepancy between the race scores might be distinct (I believe they are). The author is strawmanning IQ tests. They don't have these sorts of questions in them because they're obviously culturally biased. Progressive matrices require no specific cultural knowledge and produce better measurements of [I]g[/I] than the older Stanford-Binet scale yet they still demonstrate racial differences. Is this what passes for genuine sociological work? The ideological bias is mindblowing. The author seems to think of sociology as a political tool for promoting social equality rather than a means to find knowledge. check your academia privilege[/QUOTE] archangel125 here. You still haven't proved anything. Academic articles must have a hypothesis and a bias, while expected, is backed up with supporting evidence. The collection of evidence presented in both of those articles is more sound and takes far more factors into account than your longitudinal survey. As I've said, I already know you won't be convinced by anything as mundane as facts and reason. The human mind is a wonderful thing and can find ways to justify any wishful thinking. And the political bias of a researcher, as I'm sure you'll find, tends to skew his results - It is incredibly easy to skew results where racial studies are concerned. (And I am quite aware that cuts both ways) The links I posted are not for your benefit, but for the benefit of any poor idiot who might be wondering if you've got a point. On this, you and I will have to agree to disagree. Our understanding of psychology itself is too incomplete to accurately measure intelligence. IQ tests are still quite limited in their scope. And the longitudinal study you cited had enough holes in it to allow for a considerable margin of error, regardless of the sample size. This is because of the discrepancy in the demographics between race and socioeconomic class, residual from the days before the civil rights movement. There is still no scientific basis for a discrepancy in racial intelligence. Tell you what. Let's wait two hundred years or so, when privilege itself is not so exclusive, and we can see what the results show then. [editline]2nd April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;40128994]I remember upon doing the social sciences in college, when I entered sociology, I was given extensive notes to revise from. I skimmed them, and to my dismay, not a single concept from mathematics existed. This includes numbers. It was solely work which not only is difficult to research, but difficult to verify, and was in direct opposition to the other schools in sociology. Most curiously enough, these schools could never agree on a single thing, except possibly that scientific methodology cannot be used to study human behaviour, for the sole reason that they are terrified of the thought of being proven wrong.[/QUOTE] Until we've found a way to map the neurons in a human brain so completely that we can trace every impulse from every axon to every dendrite and measure the overall effect on behaviour, mathematics is of limited use in the social sciences. Other methods will need to be used in the interim - Your methodology has to take into account your understanding of the subject matter, and adjust for as many variables as is possible, else your results are going to look retarded. Frankly, the way that longitudinal survey was conducted, I could have drawn any result I intended from the numbers.

-snip-

[QUOTE=Harnbrand;40131422]archangel125 here. You still haven't proved anything. Academic articles must have a hypothesis and a bias, while expected, is backed up with supporting evidence. The collection of evidence presented in both of those articles is more sound and takes far more factors into account than your longitudinal survey. As I've said, I already know you won't be convinced by anything as mundane as facts and reason. The human mind is a wonderful thing and can find ways to justify any wishful thinking. And the political bias of a researcher, as I'm sure you'll find, tends to skew his results - It is incredibly easy to skew results where racial studies are concerned. (And I am quite aware that cuts both ways) The links I posted are not for your benefit, but for the benefit of any poor idiot who might be wondering if you've got a point. On this, you and I will have to agree to disagree. Our understanding of psychology itself is too incomplete to accurately measure intelligence. IQ tests are still quite limited in their scope. And the longitudinal study you cited had enough holes in it to allow for a considerable margin of error, regardless of the sample size. This is because of the discrepancy in the demographics between race and socioeconomic class, residual from the days before the civil rights movement. There is still no scientific basis for a discrepancy in racial intelligence. Tell you what. Let's wait two hundred years or so, when privilege itself is not so exclusive, and we can see what the results show then.[/quote] Well I do intend on being around in a hundred years time. Tell you what - I bet you £100 (inflation adjusted so it's worth something in $$futurebux$$) that in 100 years time, the science on racial differences in intelligence will be uncontroversial and demonstrate beyond doubt that they exist. [quote]Until we've found a way to map the neurons in a human brain so completely that we can trace every impulse from every axon to every dendrite and measure the overall effect on behaviour, mathematics is of limited use in the social sciences. Other methods will need to be used in the interim - Your methodology has to take into account your understanding of the subject matter, and adjust for as many variables as is possible, else your results are going to look retarded. Frankly, the way that longitudinal survey was conducted, I could have drawn any result I intended from the numbers.[/QUOTE] That's an unreasonable expectation and vastly undervalues how useful mathematics can be. It's like saying maths is useless for thermodynamics unless we can simulate each individual molecule. And of course, the mathematical rules by which we update on evidence do not change regardless of our uncertainty - indeed they govern how we should reason under uncertainty.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40129379]Then why not choose the most valid theory out of competing ones, instead of learning five?[/QUOTE] It's difficult to call one theory the "best" one in Sociology because they're all accurate depending on the circumstances, same with Political Science. Symbolic Interactionalism can go great with Conflict theory to describe certain societal behavior while Functionalism claims a completely different cause, or Neorealism does a good job describing Cold War international dynamics while it does a poor job at describing post-Cold War behavior (unlike Neoliberalism.)

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40129408]there aren't different schools of physics there are different hypotheses being considered (string theory, M-theory, etc) but they don't disagree on the fundamental methods by which to conduct their science and their entire framework like sociology or early psychology[/QUOTE] sociology and psychology also involve humans, which makes the scientific method incredibly unreliable at analyzing it. [editline]2nd April 2013[/editline] obviously it should still be used, but it isn't as effective at gathering and analyzing data for social sciences.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;40133322]It's difficult to call one theory the "best" one in Sociology because they're all accurate depending on the circumstances, same with Political Science. Symbolic Interactionalism can go great with Conflict theory to describe certain societal behavior while Functionalism claims a completely different cause, or Neorealism does a good job describing Cold War international dynamics while it does a poor job at describing post-Cold War behavior (unlike Neoliberalism.)[/QUOTE] Doesn't this bother you at all?

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40133179]Well I do intend on being around in a hundred years time. Tell you what - I bet you £100 (inflation adjusted so it's worth something in $$futurebux$$) that in 100 years time, the science on racial differences in intelligence will be uncontroversial and demonstrate beyond doubt that they exist.[/QUOTE] thank your for that prediction dainbramagestudio, it means a lot when it's coming from such an expert as yourself.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40133684]Doesn't this bother you at all?[/QUOTE] Not really, why would it?

[QUOTE=sp00ks;40133713]thank your for that prediction dainbramagestudio, it means a lot when it's coming from such an expert as yourself.[/QUOTE] Why don't you bet money too? If you're correct then it's literally free money for you in a hundred years time.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40133684]Doesn't this bother you at all?[/QUOTE] it bothers almost everyone, the problem is that humans are very complex creatures and the interactions between humans is arguably more complex. this makes testing any single theory incredibly hard.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;40133722]Not really, why would it?[/QUOTE] Because reality can only be one way? It would be like noticing that you need to use different flat maps of the world depending on your latitude and then not realizing you're looking at a three-dimensional globe.