Site moderation feedback

Hey @bhops, do you have any idea what Father Serra, a guy who died in 1784, has to do with IQ tests that people took in the past 10 or 20 years? I'm struggling to make the connection too. Apparently biases in racially charged studies on intelligence 200 years ago, which were used as a basis to enslave natives, are still somehow to blame if in 2019 a group of black students score lower on an IQ test than their white peers. Am I picking this up correctly?

The tests are only culturally biased if the white students score higher than the black students, mind you. If the black students scored higher than their white classmates then it's because the tests weren't quite so racist and oppressive, naturally.

So math and logic-based problem solving tests are "biased" according to @The Truth, it seems. I'm trying to piece this together.
Asking black students to take the same IQ test as their white peers is 'biased'.
They're not 'culturally compatible' with the tests, is the implication. Nothing to do with intellect, it's the culture which is the culprit if they don't score too highly. And there are just different types of cultures and intellects, all more or less equal, in their own way! The very notion of a measurable 'intelligence' is farcical to Truth, unless they're white people who live in the Appalachians or the deep south, in which case he has no problem referring to them as white trash.

Actually in his comment yesterday he said "you're not dumb" to me, so maybe an overarching concept of ''intelligence" does exist in Truth's world.

When he said I'm not dumb what was the metric he was using which brought him to that conclusion? Comparing me with other white people, or...? Who is dumb if IQ tests are inherently biased and intelligence can't be measured? Is "dumb" even a thing, Truth? Can we only reasonably measure IQ among white people, possibly, and these same measures can't be applied to anyone else due to cultural biases?
Do you support a form of IQ segregation, or just abolishing entirely the idea of there being such a thing as 'IQ', because you find it inconvenient/potentially dangerous?

On the subject of culture: each ethnic group just stumbled randomly into their respective cultures of course, with the intelligence of the people having little to do with how their culture came into being. Tokyo is Tokyo and Monrovia is Monrovia only by happy accident. We're only being biased by seeing one as being more advanced or evolved than the other; like modern day Father Serras!

Maybe Europeans and south-east Asians would score much lower on these primitive 'audio' IQ tests that Truth referenced.
I don't see why they would; if they score highly on complex intelligence tests then the "primitive" tests should be a breeze, wouldn't you think?
So even if specialised tests were created for people in Monrovia which took their particular skill sets into account, whites and Asians would likely still ace it. And what would that have told us? Perhaps the Liberians could try our tests after that and see if they ace them in turn?

White men, we assume, set the questions in the aforementioned complex IQ tests, which immediately puts the black or native students taking the test at a disadvantage.
The white students will sense that the questions were set by someone who is also white and automatically will perform better as a result, or something like that.

The black students will perform worse because of the implicit racism in being asked to solve logic problems in tests that a white person compiled. Because it's white logic! So white logic is different from black logic? No of course not, it's just the cultural stuff which throws a spanner in the works and skews everything, yadda yadda.

Just to draw a line under my extrapolation based on the sterling logic on display from Truth, from what I think I could parse between the numerous deflections and digressions from him: if a group of white kids and a group of black kids take the same test and if the white kids score higher on average it's due to racism and/or cultural biases; that, along with Father Serra enslaving natives 200 years ago. Take your pick, he'll entertain every possibility except the most obvious one. Like the opposite of Occam's Razor; it's Truth's Razor.

As I said in my first comment: the reason given for differences in IQ averages is always anything except different races having differing levels of intelligence, as The Truth demonstrates to us again with his response. Yes Truth, "intelligence" meaning the western/south-east Asian standard of intelligence, which you also subscribe to, since you're communicating with hundreds of written words rather than with some sort of rain dance or ululating throat sound among your tribal members.

Having differing levels of anything else among races is fine according to what Truth's telling us, just not intelligence. And seemingly that's just in case we try to bring back slavery for example if one group comes to accept that their average IQ is one or two standard deviations higher than another group. Of course, slavery is still practiced in parts of Africa and the Middle East, which has nothing to do with them comparing and contrasting each other's IQ tests and taking slaves on that basis, as far as I know...

And no bhops, Truth hasn't read the Charles Murray book you mentioned, but he has read an article about the book which rubbishes the general ideas that he assumes the book posits which therefore told him all he needs to know about it without him having to take the time to read it. Since, after all, the book is merely 850 pages of unabashed racism, or so an opinion piece that he read about it reliably informed him.
 
The Truth said:
I would imagine that what you're taught in school had some similarities to what I was taight. I learned that Father Serra was a wonderful man, well loved by the natives who converted to Catholicism and helped build the missions in California. It was a lot later that I found out that he was actually a brutal tyrant who forced the natives into slavery. I would imagine something similar happened in your education, and colonialism was probably seen as building a nation in a new land. Except it wasn't new to the people that had been living there and studies of intelligence conducted by the invaders probably didn't favor the natives.
It's typical that "they" are portrayed as savage, superstitious, and primitive peoples who need the help of the invading forces to learn, basically to fully become human beings. In order to justify enslaving or conquering these people they are relegated to the class of a subspecies, even subhuman, somewhere between apes and men. This is where these racial IQ studies originate. Of course over time the language has become much slicker so that any overtly racist intentions have become more difficult to detect.
But any testing of intelligence where those being tested are divided according to race is inherently based on ideas or theories which are historically undeniably racially biased.
Click to expand...

At my Uni, we're required to take Intercultural literature classes to dismantle that narrative. However, from what I've learned, the colonialism narrative isn't quite accurate either. The native people weren't simply victims of the evil Europeans' tyranny. They fought back. They had power, as well. They took lives too. They lost the land after several wars. They weren't defenseless. The Europeans simply had better weapons. I think it does the natives a disservice to paint them as weakling sitting ducks. Otherwise, I agree completely. Dehumanization is how people justify any mistreatment of others- by asserting their superiority. I would say that the same applies to the mistreatment of animals, but that's usually where I lose people.

There's an intelligence squared debate about whether or not we should assert the superiority of Western values. I believe that the "Yes" side won, though I'm on the fence with regards to the subject. Do you believe that Western values are superior? It's not to say that western values are only for the Western world, and therefore that Western people are superior. Once one establishes that, it's a slippery slope that leads to the subjugation of a group of people. I speak solely of the values America was founded on.

About IQ, in our culture of identity politics, we're already focusing on race. We're already dividing people into these groups. Therefore, if the goal to get more black people into STEM fields, people must first learn why there aren't as many black people going to college. It would logically follow that they should study the IQ, and seeing the disparities, find out why so we could figure out a way to solve the problem.
You asked earlier what we would do with that information. We can at least acknowledge them- not on an individual basis but as an average. Do you think we should simply ignore these significant disparities? Should we just keep choosing the black person with the 3.6 GPA for college over the white person with the 3.8 GPA or the Asian person with the 4.1 GPA? It's not fair and Asians get the short hand of the stick. Affirmative action is discrimination in what's supposed to be a meritocracy.
Are you also against studying why Asian people seem to excel in certain academic fields? It's cultural, not racial.

Rant over. Respect to you, Truth.
 
Anonymous said:
Hey @bhops, do you have any idea what Father Serra, a guy who died in 1784, has to do with IQ tests that people took in the past 10 or 20 years? I'm struggling to make the connection too. Apparently biases in racially charged studies on intelligence 200 years ago, which were used as a basis to enslave natives, are still somehow to blame if in 2019 a group of black students score lower on an IQ test than their white peers. Am I picking this up correctly?

The tests are only culturally biased if the white students score higher than the black students, mind you. If the black students scored higher than their white classmates then it's because the tests weren't quite so racist and oppressive, naturally.

So math and logic-based problem solving tests are "biased" according to @The Truth, it seems. I'm trying to piece this together.
Asking black students to take the same IQ test as their white peers is 'biased'.
They're not 'culturally compatible' with the tests, is the implication. Nothing to do with intellect, it's the culture which is the culprit if they don't score too highly. And there are just different types of cultures and intellects, all more or less equal, in their own way! The very notion of a measurable 'intelligence' is farcical to Truth, unless they're white people who live in the Appalachians or the deep south, in which case he has no problem referring to them as white trash.

Actually in his comment yesterday he said "you're not dumb" to me, so maybe an overarching concept of ''intelligence" does exist in Truth's world.

When he said I'm not dumb what was the metric he was using which brought him to that conclusion? Comparing me with other white people, or...? Who is dumb if IQ tests are inherently biased and intelligence can't be measured? Is "dumb" even a thing, Truth? Can we only reasonably measure IQ among white people, possibly, and these same measures can't be applied to anyone else due to cultural biases?
Do you support a form of IQ segregation, or just abolishing entirely the idea of there being such a thing as 'IQ', because you find it inconvenient/potentially dangerous?

On the subject of culture: each ethnic group just stumbled randomly into their respective cultures of course, with the intelligence of the people having little to do with how their culture came into being. Tokyo is Tokyo and Monrovia is Monrovia only by happy accident. We're only being biased by seeing one as being more advanced or evolved than the other; like modern day Father Serras!

Maybe Europeans and south-east Asians would score much lower on these primitive 'audio' IQ tests that Truth referenced.
I don't see why they would; if they score highly on complex intelligence tests then the "primitive" tests should be a breeze, wouldn't you think?
So even if specialised tests were created for people in Monrovia which took their particular skill sets into account, whites and Asians would likely still ace it. And what would that have told us? Perhaps the Liberians could try our tests after that and see if they ace them in turn?

White men, we assume, set the questions in the aforementioned complex IQ tests, which immediately puts the black or native students taking the test at a disadvantage.
The white students will sense that the questions were set by someone who is also white and automatically will perform better as a result, or something like that.

The black students will perform worse because of the implicit racism in being asked to solve logic problems in tests that a white person compiled. Because it's white logic! So white logic is different from black logic? No of course not, it's just the cultural stuff which throws a spanner in the works and skews everything, yadda yadda.

Just to draw a line under my extrapolation based on the sterling logic on display from Truth, from what I think I could parse between the numerous deflections and digressions from him: if a group of white kids and a group of black kids take the same test and if the white kids score higher on average it's due to racism and/or cultural biases; that, along with Father Serra enslaving natives 200 years ago. Take your pick, he'll entertain every possibility except the most obvious one. Like the opposite of Occam's Razor; it's Truth's Razor.

As I said in my first comment: the reason given for differences in IQ averages is always anything except different races having differing levels of intelligence, as The Truth demonstrates to us again with his response. Yes Truth, "intelligence" meaning the western/south-east Asian standard of intelligence, which you also subscribe to, since you're communicating with hundreds of written words rather than with some sort of rain dance or ululating throat sound among your tribal members.

Having differing levels of anything else among races is fine according to what Truth's telling us, just not intelligence. And seemingly that's just in case we try to bring back slavery for example if one group comes to accept that their average IQ is one or two standard deviations higher than another group. Of course, slavery is still practiced in parts of Africa and the Middle East, which has nothing to do with them comparing and contrasting each other's IQ tests and taking slaves on that basis, as far as I know...

And no bhops, Truth hasn't read the Charles Murray book you mentioned, but he has read an article about the book which rubbishes the general ideas that he assumes the book posits which therefore told him all he needs to know about it without him having to take the time to read it. Since, after all, the book is merely 850 pages of unabashed racism, or so an opinion piece that he read about it reliably informed him.
Click to expand...

Nope, haven't read that book. I am waiting for the smoke signal version.

Also I don't think I call them white trash because that is a bigoted term. One of my favorite books is Grapes Of Wrath. But when talking about Trump supporters on this website I might have engaged in a little trolling. I think it was something about toothless hicks. Are you *triggered* yet?
You make an interesting comment about white students and their black peers. Do you think white students in the United States can really be said to have black peers given the history of this country which was founded by slave owners? Sure that's in the past but segregation wasn't that long ago. Black students have to overcome much more just to be equal.
 
Last edited:
Anonymous said:
At my Uni, we're required to take Intercultural literature classes to dismantle that narrative. However, from what I've learned, the colonialism narrative isn't quite accurate either. The native people weren't simply victims of the evil Europeans' tyranny. They fought back. They had power, as well. They took lives too. They lost the land after several wars. They weren't defenseless. The Europeans simply had better weapons. I think it does the natives a disservice to paint them as weakling sitting ducks. Otherwise, I agree completely. Dehumanization is how people justify any mistreatment of others- by asserting their superiority. I would say that the same applies to the mistreatment of animals, but that's usually where I lose people.

There's an intelligence squared debate about whether or not we should assert the superiority of Western values. I believe that the "Yes" side won, though I'm on the fence with regards to the subject. Do you believe that Western values are superior? It's not to say that western values are only for the Western world, and therefore that Western people are superior. Once one establishes that, it's a slippery slope that leads to the subjugation of a group of people. I speak solely of the values America was founded on.

About IQ, in our culture of identity politics, we're already focusing on race. We're already dividing people into these groups. Therefore, if the goal to get more black people into STEM fields, people must first learn why there aren't as many black people going to college. It would logically follow that they should study the IQ, and seeing the disparities, find out why so we could figure out a way to solve the problem.
You asked earlier what we would do with that information. We can at least acknowledge them- not on an individual basis but as an average. Do you think we should simply ignore these significant disparities? Should we just keep choosing the black person with the 3.6 GPA for college over the white person with the 3.8 GPA or the Asian person with the 4.1 GPA? It's not fair and Asians get the short hand of the stick. Affirmative action is discrimination in what's supposed to be a meritocracy.
Are you also against studying why Asian people seem to excel in certain academic fields? It's cultural, not racial.

Rant over. Respect to you, Truth.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you say at the beginning. The Europeans had better weapons. Maybe there is some romantic notion that the native peoples are enslaved and killed simply because of the treachery of the invaders. You're correct and I agree. Europeans didn't invent violence and there were wars happening and people being enslaved before they arrived whether you're talking about Africa or the Americas.

And the same way that a lot of people from the 60's thought it would be awesome to have communes and live in tepees many of them also turned to Eastern philosophies, none of which is automatically bad but led to a lot of cultural trends that seem to be kind of superficial. I do prefer Western values myself. I like to explore different ways of thinking but that is who I am. I think the key is to understand and respect other cultures and philosophies but yes, and this does make some points for "the other side," I do believe that cultural identity is deep and you can't erase it by taking some peyote and changing your name to Screeching Hawk. I tried it for a while but it didn't take.

Now the part about studying IQ in a positive way is interesting and I appreciate that you're saying the idea is to give everyone an equal chance, or actually a better chance on an individual level, to excel. The idea of making everyone equal may seem attractive from a liberal point of view, but trying to make these various groups equal is impossible, in my opinion, because these groups are made of individuals. I think what you might be getting at with studying intelligence is studying how people learn, and I think the real goal is to give individuals, not groups, the tools they need to excel. I do think that cultural studies is part of this. Why do people from some cultures seem to do better and what can we learn from that? Who could argue against studying that?

That kind of brings it back to popular culture and the way that different groups are portrayed. I do think that popular entertainment takes certain aspects of culture that already exist, magnifies these aspects and ,makes them mainstream sometimes to the detriment of certain groups. I remember when NWA was shocking. I remember clearly the first time I heard someone say "hey n*****," to their friend (it wasn't "nigga" yet) in a fast food place and the whole place went silent for a second. I hear it fifteen times a day now and it's nothing. But that's getting back to the original topic and not what you're discussing. I feel like I agree with most of your post, though. Good luck to you in your studies.
 
reelfountain said:
Machiavellian Jews run all the multinationals and all the banks, hence the world. That says it all. End of.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif

It's nap time.
 
The Truth said:
giphy.gif

It's nap time.
Click to expand...
.




No point in trying to reason with these racists. They all have their ‘facts’ ...brainwashed through self indoctrination. It’s unfortunate, but they must of had some one-off experience that brought them to their/this way of ‘thinking’, it’s really sad.

They have to find out for themselves how wrong they truly are in their beliefs. Can’t be shown the light, it’s like arguing with creationists, they prefer to live in the dark, in ignorance.



That says it all. End of.




.
 
reelfountain said:
Machiavellian Jews run all the multinationals and all the banks, hence the world. That says it all. End of.
Click to expand...

Anti-Semitism is not a unitary phenomenon, a coherent belief or ideology. Jews have been hated because they were rich and because they were poor; because they were capitalists and because they were communists; because they believed in tradition and because they were rootless cosmopolitans; because they kept to themselves and because they penetrated everywhere. Antisemitism is not a belief but a virus. The human body has an immensely sophisticated immune system which develops defences against viruses. It is penetrated, however, because viruses mutate. Antisemitism mutates. ” Jonathan Sacks
 
E Scott said:
Anti-Semitism is not a unitary phenomenon, a coherent belief or ideology. Jews have been hated because they were rich and because they were poor; because they were capitalists and because they were communists; because they believed in tradition and because they were rootless cosmopolitans; because they kept to themselves and because they penetrated everywhere. Antisemitism is not a belief but a virus. The human body has an immensely sophisticated immune system which develops defences against viruses. It is penetrated, however, because viruses mutate. Antisemitism mutates. ” Jonathan Sacks
Click to expand...
Jonathan Sacks recently compared Jeremy Corbyn to Enoch Powell. The man is neurotically insane. Either that or he has the usual agenda.

Zionism is unadulterated racism.
 
The Truth said:
Nope, haven't read that book. I am waiting for the smoke signal version.

Also I don't think I call them white trash because that is a bigoted term. One of my favorite books is Grapes Of Wrath. But when talking about Trump supporters on this website I might have engaged in a little trolling. I think it was something about toothless hicks. Are you *triggered* yet?
You make an interesting comment about white students and their black peers. Do you think white students in the United States can really be said to have black peers given the history of this country which was founded by slave owners? Sure that's in the past but segregation wasn't that long ago. Black students have to overcome much more just to be equal.
Click to expand...

In America, in the 50's blacks were doing very well. Homeowners, business owners, mostly christian and had a lower divorce rate then whites. Then civil rights happened and the black community started deteriorating . I don't like forced segregation however forced forced integration and mass immigration of low IQ people with different cultures and values is a recipe for conflict. To steer this back on topic, again Jews are nationalists when it comes to Israel but promote open borders in America. And it's not just about Jews. The Americans who are corrupt and serving Israel are the problem. I support Israel's right to exist but i don't want their globalist nonsense trying to rule the world
 
E Scott said:
Anti-Semitism is not a unitary phenomenon, a coherent belief or ideology. Jews have been hated because they were rich and because they were poor; because they were capitalists and because they were communists; because they believed in tradition and because they were rootless cosmopolitans; because they kept to themselves and because they penetrated everywhere. Antisemitism is not a belief but a virus. The human body has an immensely sophisticated immune system which develops defences against viruses. It is penetrated, however, because viruses mutate. Antisemitism mutates. ” Jonathan Sacks
Click to expand...

Anti-semite is a nonsense term that came into play around the turn of the century. It is used to shield Jews from criticism. People don't even know what a semite is and throw that wizard word around all the time to try and stop arguments they don't like
 

Similar threads

ZOOM FROM GLOOM
Site ads
Replies
6
Views
523
The Wild Turkey
The Wild Turkey
Light Housework
Site display issues
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
Mozzer1980
Mozzer1980
Back
Top Bottom