The Dangers of White Supremacy Ideology in America

[BlackVision]

1. I quickly looked at that thread and it seems to be based on one study.

A study that's refuted even before it's let out. Read "The Bell Curve" and it will show you the exact flaws of the method used by this study.

 

[bobf]

What a lie. I tackled that over and over again. I repeately asked the question about the importance and relevance of intelligence to SES. Evo ignored my request every single time. I rest my case.

Its seems most on this board will dodge all the questions they do not have an answer for.

 

[Evo]

What a lie. I tackled that over and over again. I repeately asked the question about the importance and relevance of intelligence to SES. Evo ignored my request every single time. I rest my case.

Not a lie. You have never responded to this new study. Show me the posts where you have responded to THIS study. You haven't.

Why haven't you responded BV?

I'm waiting.

 

[bobf]

Numerous other studies were conducted at the same time to prove otherwise and were abandoned. No study to date has been able to disprove this and this is currently accepted.

If you can find a study that disproves this, I will be more than willing to read it.

But, the study is invalid if it has not been repeated with the same results. This is basic science.

 

[Evo]

But, the study is invalid if it has not been repeated with the same results. This is basic science.

So, the Bell Curve is invalid. I have studies listing the discrepancies and skewed data on that study also.

 

[bobf]

Can you post the studies title and authors here? Can you also tell me where it was published?

 

[bobf]

So, the Bell Curve is invalid.

Hmm, is the bell curve based on one study?? If so, can you please provide the evidence?? I would say if any book was based on one study, it would be invalid.

 

[Evo]

Its seems most on this board will dodge all the questions they do not have an answer for.

Yes, BV doesn't answer to direct questions.

 

[bobf]

Yes, BV doesn't answer to direct questions.

I was speaking of you.

 

[bobf]

If I can get more information on the study, I may try to find studies that both support and discredit it.

 

[jammieg]

It's highly unlikely we are all created equal, it is possible that slight differences in genetics could lead up to an industrial revolution 10k years later, but I do have a deepening suspicion that genes play a very small part in differences, maybe it was even the age of reason that sparked the industrial revolution, maybe it was having this strong belief that reason would get us there which is just some very elementary ways of thinking which anyone can do and pulled others out of the dark ages and it is more a communication of good or bad philosophies that lead to progress or disparities than anything else.

 

[Evo]

Hmm, is the bell curve based on one study?? If so, can you please provide the evidence?? I would say if any book was based on one study, it would be invalid.

It was one "study" based on information gathered and then "cleansed" and "edited" for their purposes.

The Bell curve was based on many "studies", I have the full information on them, quite interesting actually. Very interesting how the authors excluded the pertinent information that didn't agree with what they wanted to say.

 

[bobf]

It's highly unlikely we are all created equal, it is possible that slight differences in genetics could lead up to an industrial revolution 10k years later, but I do have a deepening suspicion that genes play a very small part in differences, maybe it was even the age of reason that sparked the industrial revolution, maybe it was having this strong belief that reason would get us there which is just some very elementary ways of thinking which anyone can do and pulled others out of the dark ages and it is more a communication of good or bad philosophies that lead to progress or disparities than anything else.

But this is nothing more then your personal opinion. Do you have any scientific backing or evidence to support your opinion?

 

[bobf]

It was one "study" based on information gathered and then "cleansed" and "edited" for their purposes.

The Bell curve was based on many "studies", I have the full information on them, quite interesting actually. Very interesting how the authors excluded the pertinent information that didn't agree with what they wanted to say.

Can you give me more information on that one "study"? What is the title, who are the authors, and where was it published? Was it published in a peer review journal?

 

[Evo]

I was speaking of you.

I asked you what questions I did not reply to. You have not answered. BV however, has not responded to my challenge.

 

[Evo]

Can you give me more information on that one "study"? What is the title, who are the authors, and where was it published? Was it published in a peer review journal?

I have posted all of that in another thread, but yes, I can repost it. I will have to get it from my file.

I have quite an extensive file.

Are you familiar with the Pioneer Fund?

 

[chroot]

jammieg,

It could simply be that the first society to try to develop advanced technology did so. It certainly does seem like the cultures that held scientific and technological progress as imperatives, like the Romans, were quite successful in those pursuits. Maybe the African cultures just didn't value that sort of progress, and thus didn't achieve it.

Maybe this entire argument boils down to a "blind watchmaker" situation -- who's to say that American industrial society is necessarily "better" than agrarian African society? Who's to say that technological progress is or should be the most important goal in a society, or that it's the most important way to judge that society's "success?"

- Warren

 

[BlackVision]

Hmm Evo is still playing dodgeball. Maybe if I repeat it several times in a row, she'll finally notice it.

Do you believe a person with higher intelligence will have higher probability to have a job that will give him higher SES?

Do you believe a person with higher intelligence will have higher probability to have a job that will give him higher SES?

Do you believe a person with higher intelligence will have higher probability to have a job that will give him higher SES?

Do you believe a person with higher intelligence will have higher probability to have a job that will give him higher SES?

Do you believe a person with higher intelligence will have higher probability to have a job that will give him higher SES?

Do you believe a person with higher intelligence will have higher probability to have a job that will give him higher SES?

Do you believe a person with higher intelligence will have higher probability to have a job that will give him higher SES?

Do you believe a person with higher intelligence will have higher probability to have a job that will give him higher SES?

Do you believe a person with higher intelligence will have higher probability to have a job that will give him higher SES?

 

[BlackVision]

So, the Bell Curve is invalid.

Untrue. The Bell Curve was been substantiated by countless psychologists and countless publications following it's own publication.

I have studies listing the discrepancies and skewed data on that study also.

All you ever do is say "it's racist. it's racist" without ever touching any of it's evidence.

 

[bobf]

I asked you what questions I did not reply to. You have not answered. BV however, has not responded to my challenge.

Actually, I listed them again in post #171.

 

[Evo]

Hmm Evo is still playing dodgeball. Many if I repeat it several times in a row, she'll finally notice it.

Do you believe a person with higher intelligence will have higher probability to have a job that will give him higher SES?

Silly question. It would depend on the motivation of that person.

BV - https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=38546

posts 21 & 25

Do you accept my challenge?

 

[bobf]

I have posted all of that in another thread, but yes, I can repost it. I will have to get it from my file.

I have quite an extensive file.

Are you familiar with the Pioneer Fund?

How about just the study title and authors?

 

[Evo]

All you ever do is say "it's racist. it's racist" without ever touching any of it's evidence.

Not true, I specifically listed the tainted studies and how they were tainted.

 

[Dagenais]

Yeah, show that to be a fact everywhere in the US. Dagenais just proved you wrong. At least he can post some truth.

I was simply saying that in some places, they post, "No Colors" instead, and Asians, Native Americans etc. are indeed considered colours (notice I spelt it the Canadian way? But in "No Color", the American way, due to American racism? I'm clever).

And what do you mean by some truth? I've posted nothing but the truth, and a lot of my opinions have been backed up by other people's opinions. My facts have been backed up by links and other resources. I make sure to do this before every post.

Check it out, asians were considered "whites" back then.

No chance in hell.

However, I did know someone who studied in South Africa once (Jahannesburg, I believe). He was Asian, and allowed to study at a 'non-color' school. But this was solely just because nobody bothered to investigate him. There weren't enough Asians there to worry about. However, their mantality was still to separate the races.

Check out what was considered "colored".

Yellow, Red, Black, Brown.

East Asians, Native Americans, Africans, Indians.

BlackVision has not accepted my challenge to refute the study of Eric Turkheimer published in the November 2003 issue of The Journal of Psychological Science.

I have allowed him three opportunities to do so.

I rest my case.

No offense, but you're being kind of childish.

Most of us here know that "no colors" means no browns, yellows, reds, blacks, or purples (yes, I've heard people use 'purple').

And "White-only" means white only, how can you argue that?

You're a mentor. Clearly you were promoted because you showed responsibility in the short amount of time that you were here, but you're not showing it now.

"White only" doesn't mean white only? You've got to be joking...

 

[bobf]

jammieg,

It could simply be that the first society to try to develop advanced technology did so. It certainly does seem like the cultures that held scientific and technological progress as imperatives, like the Romans, were quite successful in those pursuits. Maybe the African cultures just didn't value that sort of progress, and thus didn't achieve it.

Are you saying that Africans wouldn't want a better means of killing game? Did they not advance far enough to create the spear? Can you supply evidence that Africans do not value progress? This sounds more like a cop out.

Maybe this entire argument boils down to a "blind watchmaker" situation -- who's to say that American industrial society is necessarily "better" than agrarian African society? Who's to say that technological progress is or should be the most important goal in a society, or that it's the most important way to judge that society's "success?"

- Warren

I would say you are trying to use relativism. Do you think Africans would like to have a cure for Aids?

 

[BlackVision]

Hmm, is the bell curve based on one study?? If so, can you please provide the evidence?? I would say if any book was based on one study, it would be invalid.

The Bell Curve is confirmed by countless psychologists.

Mainstream Science on Intelligence

published in The Wall Street Journal, December 13, 1994

Since the publication of "The Bell Curve," many commentators have offered opinions about human intelligence that misstate current scientific evidence. Some conclusions [25 listed below] dismissed in the media as discredited are actually firmly supported.

This statement outlines conclusions regarded as mainstream among researchers on intelligence, in particular, on the nature, origins, and practical consequences of individual and group differences in intelligence. Its aim is to promote more reasoned discussion of the vexing phenomenon that the research has revealed in recent decades. The following conclusions are fully described in the major textbooks, professional journals and encyclopedias in intelligence.

The Meaning and Measurement of Intelligence

1) Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings-"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.

2) Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. They do not measure creativity, or other important differences among individuals, nor are they intended to.

3) While there are different types of intelligence tests, they all measure the same intelligence. Some use words or numbers and require specific cultural knowledge (like vocabulary). Others do not, and instead use shapes or designs and require knowledge of only simple, universal concepts (many/few, open/closed, up/down).

4) The spread of people along the IQ continuum, from low to high, can be represented well by the bell curve (in statistical jargon, the "normal curve"). Most people cluster around the average (IQ 100). Few are either very bright or very dull: About 3% of Americans score above IQ 130 (often considered the threshold for "giftedness"), with about the same percentage below IQ 70 (IQ 70-75 often being considered the threshold of mental retardation).

5) Intelligence tests are not culturally biased against American blacks or other native-born, English-speaking peoples in the U.S. Rather, IQ scores predict equally accurately for all such Americans, regardless of race and social class. Individuals who do not understand English well can be given either a nonverbal test or one in their native language.

6) The brain processes underlying intelligence are still little understood. Current research looks, for example, at speed of neural transmissions, glucose (energy) uptake, and electrical activity of the brain.

Group Differences

7) Members of all racial-ethnic groups can be found at every IQ level. The bell curves of different groups overlap considerably, but groups often differ in where their members tend to cluster along the IQ line. The bell curves for some groups (Jews and East Asians) are centered some what higher than for whites in general. Other groups (blacks and Hispanics) are centered somewhat lower than non-Hispanic whites.

8) The bell curve for whites is centered roughly around IQ 100; the bell curve for American blacks roughly around 85; and those for different subgroups of Hispanics roughly midway between those for whites and blacks. The evidence is less definitive for exactly where above IQ 100 the bell curves for Jews and Asians are centered.

Practical Importance

9) IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes. Its relation to the welfare and performance of individuals is very strong in some areas in life (education, military training), moderate but robust in others (social competence), and modest but consistent in others (law-abidingness). Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance.

10) A high IQ is an advantage in life because virtually all activities require some reasoning and decision-making. Conversely, a low IQ is often a disadvantage, especially in disorganized environments. Of course, a high IQ no more guarantees success than a low IQ guarantees failure in life. There are many exceptions, but the odds for success in our society greatly favor individuals with higher IQs.

11) The practical advantages of having a higher IQ increase as life settings become more complex (novel, ambiguous, changing , unpredictable, or multifaceted). For example, a high IQ is generally necessary to perform well in highly complex or fluid jobs (the professions, management); it is a considerable advantage in moderately complex jobs (crafts, clerical and police work); but it provides less advantage in settings that require only routine decision making or simple problem solving (unskilled work).

12) Differences in intelligence certainly are not the only factor affecting performance in education, training, and highly complex jobs (no one claims they are), but intelligence is often the most important. When individuals have already been selected for high (or low) intelligence and so do not differ as much in IQ, as in graduate school (or special education), other influences on performance loom larger in comparison.

13) Certain personality traits, special talents, aptitudes, physical capabilities, experience, and the like are important (sometimes essential) for successful performance in many jobs, but they have narrower (or unknown) applicability or "transferability" across tasks and settings compared with general intelligence. Some scholars choose to refer to these other human traits as other "intelligences."

Source and Stability of Within-Group Differences

14) Individuals differ in intelligence due to differences in both their environments and genetic heritage. Heritability estimates range from 0.4 to 0.8 (on a scale of 0 to 1), most thereby indicating that genetics plays a bigger role than does environment in creating IQ differences among individuals. (Heritability is the squared correlation of phenotype with genotype.) If all environments were to become equal for everyone, heritability would rise to 100% because all remaining differences in IQ would necessarily be genetic in origin."

15) Members of the same family also tend to differ substantially in intelligence (by an average of about 12 IQ points) for both genetic and environmental reasons. They differ genetically because biological brothers and sisters share exactly half their genes with each parent and, on the average, only half with each other. They also differ in IQ because they experience different environments within the same family.

16) That IQ may be highly heritable does not mean that it is not affected by the environment. Individuals are not born with fixed, unchangeable levels of intelligence (no one claims they are). IQs do gradually stabilize during childhood, however, and generally change little thereafter.

17) Although the environment is important in creating IQ differences, we do not know yet how to manipulate it to raise low IQs permanently. Whether recent attempts show promise is still a matter of considerable scientific debate.

18) Genetically caused differences are not necessarily irremediable (consider diabetes, poor vision, and phenal ketonuria), nor are environmentally caused ones necessarily remediable (consider injuries, poisons, sever neglect, and some diseases). Both may be preventable to some extent.

19) There is no persuasive evidence that the IQ bell curves for different racial-ethnic groups are converging. Surveys in some years show that gaps in academic achievement have narrowed a bit for some races, ages, school subjects and skill levels, but this picture seems too mixed to reflect a general shift in IQ levels themselves.

20) Racial-ethnic differences in IQ bell curves are essentially the same when youngsters leave high school as when they enter first grade. However, because bright youngsters learn faster than slow learners, these same IQ differences lead to growing disparities in amount learned as youngsters progress from grades on to 12. As large national surveys continue to show, black 17-year-olds perform, on the average, more like white 13-year-olds in reading, math, and science, with Hispanics in between.

21) The reasons that blacks differ among themselves in intelligence appear to be basically the same as those for why whites (or Asians or Hispanics) differ among themselves. Both environment and genetic heredity are involved.

22) there is no definitive answer to why IQ bell curves differ across racial-ethnic groups. The reasons for these IQ differences between groups may be markedly different from the reasons for why individuals differ among themselves within any particular group (whites or blacks or Asians). In fact, it is wrong to assume, as many do, that the reason why some individuals in a population have high IQs but others have low IQs must be the same reason why some populations contain more such high (or low) IQ individuals than others. Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too.

 

[BlackVision]

23) Racial-ethnic differences are somewhat smaller but still substantial for individuals from the same socioeconomic backgrounds. To illustrate, black students from prosperous families tend to score higher in IQ than blacks from poor families, but they score no higher, on average, than whites from poor families.

24) Almost all Americans who identify themselves as black have white ancestors--the white admixture is about 20%, on average--and many self-designated whites, Hispanics, and others likewise have mixed ancestry. Because research on intelligence relies on self-classification into distinct racial categories, as does most other social-science research, its findings likewise relate to some unclear mixture of social and biological distinctions among groups (no one claims otherwise).

Implications for Social Policy

25) The research findings neither dictate nor preclude any particular social policy, because they can never determine our goals. They can, however, help us estimate the likely success and side-effects of pursuing those goals via different means.

Experts:

Richard D. Arvey, University of Minnesota
Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., University of Minnesota
John B. Carroll, Un. Of North Caroline at Chapel Hill
Raymond B. Cattell, University of Hawaii
David B. Cohen, University of Texas at Austin
Rene V. Dawis, University of Minnesota
Douglas K. Detterman, Case Western Reserve Un.
Marvin Dunnette, University of Minnesota
Hand Eysenck, University of London
Jack Feldman, Georgia Institute of Technology
Edwin A. Fleishman, George Mason University
Grover G. Gilmore, Case Western Reserve University
Robert A. Gordon, Johns Hopkins University
Linda S. Gottfredson, University of Delaware
Robert L. Greene, Case Western Reserve University
Richard J. Haler, University of California at Irvine
Garrett Hardin, University of California at Berkeley
Robert Hogan, University of Tulsa
Joseph M. Horn, University of Texas at Austin
Lloyd G. Humphreys, Un.of Illinois.@ Cham'-Urbana
John E. Hunter, Michigan State University
Seymour W. Itzkoff, Smith College
Douglas N. Jackson, Un. Of Western Ontario
James J. Jenkins, University of South Florida
Arthur R. Jensen, University of California at Berkeley
Alan S. Kaufman, University of Alabama
Nadeen L. Kaufman, Cal. School of Psychology@S.D.
Timothy Z. Keith, Alfred University
Nadine Lambert, University of California at Berkeley
John C. Loehlin, University of Texas at Austin
David Lubinski, Iowa State University
David T. Lykken, University of Minnesota
Richard Lynn, University of Ulster at Coleraine
Paul E. Meehl, University of Minnesota
R. Travis Osborne, university of Georgia
Robert Perloff, University of Pittsburgh
Robert Plomin, Institute of Psychiatry, London
Cecil R. Reynolds, Texas A&M University
David C. Rowe, University of Arizona
J. Phillippe Rushton, Un. Of Western Ontario
Vincent Sarich, University of California at Berkeley
Sandra Scarr, University of Virginia
Frank L. Schmidt, University of Iowa
Lyle F. Schoenfeldt, Texas A&M University
James C. Sharf, George Washington University
Herman Spitz, former director E.R. Johnstone Training and Research Center, Bordentown,
N.J.
Julian C. Stanley, Johns Hopkins University
Del Thiessen, University of Texas at Austin
Lee A. Thompson, Case Western Reserve University
Robert M. Thorndike, Western Washington Un.
Philip Anthony Vernon, Un. of Western Ontario
Lee Willerman, University of Texas at Austin

 

[BlackVision]

Yes, BV doesn't answer to direct questions.

LOL. I would say the majority of the readers will say quite the contrary and that it is you.

 

[jammieg]

That's a good and sad point Chroot, I hadn't heard of the blind watchmaker theory, it's all rather absurd when put that way.

 

[chroot]

Are you saying that Africans wouldn't want better means of killing game? Did they not advance far enough for create the spear? Can you supply evidence that Africans do not value progress? This sounds more like a cop out.

I've already explained what I personally feel is the reason why Europeans attained technological progress before Africans. This unrelated argument is just another possible explanation. It's just as much speculation as the first.

There is some evidence, however, in that some African cultures do not value individually owned material possessions; objects belong to the entire village. They simply don't encourage greed, which ultimately is at heart of a LOT of modern technological progress.

I would say that is trying to use relativism. Do you think Africans would like to have a cure for Aids?

Certainly, but perhaps (?) they wouldn't want to give up everything about their culture and become Westernized to obtain it.

- Warren

 

[BlackVision]

Silly question. It would depend on the motivation of that person.

BV - https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=38546

posts 21 & 25

Do you accept my challenge?

Motivation? I quite vividly stated "probability" Do believe there is a higher probability even if ever so slight, that a more intelligent person will have higher SES. But it seems you are admitting that you are incapable on answering that question correct? Hence completely debunking your article. *wipes hands* My work here is done. Thank you for playing. Better luck next time.

 

[Evo]

bobf, here is your post from #171

1. I quickly looked at that thread and it seems to be based on one study. Has the findings been repeated by others? One study hardly proves anything in science.

2. Supply evidence that the authors of the bell curve are racist and were convicted of burning crosses.

3. Provide evidence that asians were allowed to drink out of whites only fountains and enter whites only establishments.

4. Can you provide evidence that all races are equal, with the same abilites, etc?

#1, already responded to that

#2 That is VERY easy. It is a matter of record, is all over the internet and was previously posted here by another member.

#3 Since I only stated that coloreds could not drink from white fountains, the burden of proof that asians were also not considered white and not allowed to drink, is on you. I don’t have to prove anything I have not proposed, that’s ridiculous. You’re telling me that you think Asians weren’t allowed to drink from white fountains and you want me to prove your point? What are you smoking? No, you prove to ME that asians were barred from drinking from white fountains.

#4 What has that got to do with the study I posted? I suggest you read it.

 

[bobf]

There is some evidence, however, in that some African cultures do not value individually owned material possessions; objects belong to the entire village. They simply don't encourage greed, which ultimately is at heart of a LOT of modern technological progress.

Which tribes of Africa do you speak of? I have seen some tribes holding machine guns and some holding spears. How is greed ulitmately at the heart of a lot of modern technological progress?

Certainly, but perhaps (?) they wouldn't want to give up everything about their culture and become Westernized to obtain it.

- Warren

Why are they then quick to take our food and medication when offered?

 

[Dagenais]

Why are they then quick to take our food and medication when offered?

It's a totally different story and attitude for some people when the factor, "life or death", gets involved.

 

[Evo]

I happen to be gainfully employed, and while this has been fun, since BV is unable to disprove the study I have presented, there is nothing else to say.

BV, if you are ever able to accept my challenge, pm me and we will start a thread and post the study I referenced and the new study you reference and then go from there.

Until then, the new study disproves your assertions on genetic influences.