I apologize to everyone.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Over this next quarter, I will have to read the entire book, "The New Jim Crow" by Michelle Alexander. So if all my arguments are straight regurgitation from the book, it's because I will be spending my time writing a paper every week on a different aspect of the books arguments.

I promise I will do better when I am not force fed this book after my quarter is over.

[Major Robert Dump]

Is that a new kind of bourbon or something?

[HopAlongBunny]

Force-fed whiskey? doesn't sound all bad but keep your regurgitation to yourself please.

[a completely inoffensive name]

If I was force fed whiskey I would die easily, since I don't drink.

I live and act like a devout Mormon in many ways, even though I am an atheist (I go out of my way to not drink coffee because I don't want to become reliant on the caffeine). My alcohol tolerance is approximately 0%.

[Montmorency]

Liquor tastes like soap to me. :confused:

[jirisys]

I live and act like a devout Mormon in many ways

Magical underwear nonwithstanding?

~Jirisys ()

[HopAlongBunny]

Magical underwear nonwithstanding?

~Jirisys ()

For those like me who wondered what that was about:

:on_gwow:


http://youtu.be/6cbfgmorIGE

[Conradus]

Liquor tastes like soap to me. :confused:

I suggest changing the labels of your booze.

[HopAlongBunny]

I looked at the book on Amazon. Looks like a good one; if it had been on Kindle I would have bought it.

The intro sound like heavy conformation bias for me, so I don't know how much help I will be in any discussion, but I look forward to hearing about your exploration of the book :)

[Greyblades]

What's the book about?

[Beskar]

Liquor tastes like soap to me. :confused:

I always thought of alcohol tasting more as like Nail-varnish remover (Which has alcohol in it, go figure).

[johnhughthom]

You guys are aware that Johnson and Johnson is not a Bourbon brand?

[HopAlongBunny]

What's the book about?

Simplistically (from my scan of the intro): race/caste and how to keep everyone in their proper place.

[Strike For The South]

I have read the book in university setting.

PM me if you need anything

Or want noodz

[a completely inoffensive name]

The book is about the socioeconomic effects of the war on drugs on the african american community in America. Essentially, the double standards towards middle class white drug users and lower class black drug users is in effect a New Jim Crow that represses African Americans relative to whites and other ethnicities in that the longer jail times and tougher penalties given to blacks mean a relatively more unstable family life back home as black children go fatherless or longer periods of time, if they even get to have quality time with a father. This further perpetuates the state of poverty many blacks find themselves in, since the white father gets to stick around and care for his child, usually only paying a heavy fee or a small amount of jail time while the black father is locked away for most the of the child's upbringing.

I'm sure I am completely lacking the details that actually brings the argument together, but like I said, I have not actually read the book. I have only seen interviews the author has done.

I recall PanzerJeager wrote a lengthy post on his opposition to the claims the book makes somewhere a few months back. But **** me if I am going to find it in the pages of Backroom threads.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Magical underwear nonwithstanding?

~Jirisys ()

lol, no lucky underwear. But I do have a lucky shirt I have worn since middle school.

[Kadagar_AV]

I dare you to fact study how IQ between the races play a part, not to mention hormonal, adrenaline (aso) levels... Also throw in a meme argument or two "This is how green surroundings have told off kids for generations, this is how purple people have told off kids for generations).

If half the population is green coloured, more prone to rage, and generally more stupid, it also have a snowball effect... Someone green not prone to rage and quite smart will be shorthanded on the open market, where others see him/her just as "green". This makes the cultural bias larger than the actual physical difference.

But yeah... I'm not sure if that road of science is acceptable in your university settings ;)

[a completely inoffensive name]

I dare you to fact study how IQ between the races play a part, not to mention hormonal, adrenaline (aso) levels... Also throw in a meme argument or two "This is how green surroundings have told off kids for generations, this is how purple people have told off kids for generations).

If half the population is green coloured, more prone to rage, and generally more stupid, it also have a snowball effect... Someone green not prone to rage and quite smart will be shorthanded on the open market, where others see him/her just as "green". This makes the cultural bias larger than the actual physical difference.

But yeah... I'm not sure if that road of science is acceptable in your university settings ;)

Glad to see the spirit of Cecil Rhodes still hasn't died. And America is apparently the racist country.

[Major Robert Dump]

The book is about the socioeconomic effects of the war on drugs on the african american community in America. Essentially, the double standards towards middle class white drug users and lower class black drug users is in effect a New Jim Crow that represses African Americans relative to whites and other ethnicities in that the longer jail times and tougher penalties given to blacks mean a relatively more unstable family life back home as black children go fatherless or longer periods of time, if they even get to have quality time with a father. This further perpetuates the state of poverty many blacks find themselves in, since the white father gets to stick around and care for his child, usually only paying a heavy fee or a small amount of jail time while the black father is locked away for most the of the child's upbringing.

I'm sure I am completely lacking the details that actually brings the argument together, but like I said, I have not actually read the book. I have only seen interviews the author has done.

I recall PanzerJeager wrote a lengthy post on his opposition to the claims the book makes somewhere a few months back. But **** me if I am going to find it in the pages of Backroom threads.

I am curious why it would not compare middle class whites with middle class blacks, and lower class whites with lower class blacks.

I understand full well that money tends to get people off when in court, and that designer drugs are more indicative of the middle class, etc..... but this Jim Crow talk hints of some national conspiracy. While I certainly believe marijuana and heroin laws very much started out in that spirit in the early 1900s, I find it hard to swallow any more, particularly with the number of minority judges we have these days

However, I would be curious to know if the incarceration rates between poor white trailer trash meth users is really that much different than the rates of poor black crack users. Same with poor white weed convictions vs poor black weed convictions.

Assuming this is still an epidemic, how do we fix it? Do we implement the reverse of mandatory sentencing, and say anyone of race X must receive a prison sentence -30% as harsh as whitey gets for the same crime. Is that not the spirit of quotas, and of the reasoning that the oppressed cannot truly become equal until the former oppressors suffer as bad as the formerly oppressed did?

[Kadagar_AV]

Glad to see the spirit of Cecil Rhodes still hasn't died. And America is apparently the racist country.

Elaborate?




EDIT: As an example, I for one - if I had two equal candidates to join my sprint team or marathon team - would go with a black guy before a white guy.

Why?

Because the odds are with me on the negroe progressing more.

[Fragony]

I dare you to fact study how IQ between the races play a part, not to mention hormonal, adrenaline (aso) levels... Also throw in a meme argument or two "This is how green surroundings have told off kids for generations, this is how purple people have told off kids for generations).

If half the population is green coloured, more prone to rage, and generally more stupid, it also have a snowball effect... Someone green not prone to rage and quite smart will be shorthanded on the open market, where others see him/her just as "green". This makes the cultural bias larger than the actual physical difference.

But yeah... I'm not sure if that road of science is acceptable in your university settings ;)

It's rather controversial for obvious reasons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Global_Bell_Curve

I haven't read it mind you

[jirisys]

Because the odds are with me on the negroe progressing more.

El negro quiere bailar.

http://journals.witpress.com/paperinfo.asp?pID=454&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=400&width=600

~Jirisys ()

[Kadagar_AV]

El negro quiere bailar.

http://journals.witpress.com/paperinfo.asp?pID=454&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=400&width=600

~Jirisys ()


Thanks for the link pointing at the physical side of things, and the quote on the cultural factor :)

[a completely inoffensive name]

Elaborate?

EDIT: As an example, I for one - if I had two equal candidates to join my sprint team or marathon team - would go with a black guy before a white guy.

Why?

Because the odds are with me on the negroe progressing more.

The minute you brought up IQ scores with a serious face was when I really stopped taking your argument for anything other than racism. Why did you even bother substituting black with green in your original analogy? Just say what you are thinking.

[Fragony]

The minute you brought up IQ scores with a serious face was when I really stopped taking your argument for anything other than racism. Why did you even bother substituting black with green in your original analogy? Just say what you are thinking.

Bringing up IQ is of course racism as it suggests differences between races, but what if that is simply true. Why wouldn't it be true for humans if it's true for dogs

[Kadagar_AV]

The minute you brought up IQ scores with a serious face was when I really stopped taking your argument for anything other than racism. Why did you even bother substituting black with green in your original analogy? Just say what you are thinking.

Why I substituted black with green? To show the cultural factor, You for one immediately assume I talk about blacks when I mention a human subgroup prone to anger and stupidity.

Why are we pretending like these physical and cultural differences doesn't exist? Am I in todays world supposed to BOTH consider myself intellectual AND think all human races are equal in every regard, all actual facts aside?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Bringing up IQ is of course racism as it suggests differences between races, but what if that is simply true. Why wouldn't it be true for humans if it's true for dogs

Different breeds of dogs have been experiencing very strong artificial selection by humans for different traits for thousands of years. No one has been doing the same for humans.

[Hax]

Define "race".

[a completely inoffensive name]

Why I substituted black with green? To show the cultural factor, You for one immediately assume I talk about blacks when I mention a human subgroup prone to anger and stupidity.

Why are we pretending like these physical and cultural differences doesn't exist? Am I in todays world supposed to BOTH consider myself intellectual AND think all human races are equal in every regard, all actual facts aside?

No one is pretending these cultural differences don't exist. That's the point of the book is to try and show why these cultural differences exist. What's incredibly perplexing is how eager people are to start calling the blacks and the browns naturally dumb when books like The New Jim Crow make it a point to show just how much the physical differences we may perceive are in fact a result of cultural oppression and chains that whites continue to support.

It's racist white Europeans that try to pass the buck on why Africa is so fucked up. When you abandon a continent with arbitrary drawn lines that run right through multiple tribal lands and say "here's democracy! Now it's all on you if you fuck up!", you should not be surprised if 50 years later, there is still violence and power struggles.

It's racist americans that try to pass the buck on why so many African Americans are in jail. When you finally dismantle a system of active segregation and suppression but neglect to actually you know, change the tone of entire of body laws that still exist besides the Civil Rights Act and then say, "Look we let you vote now! Any problems you have is your fault now!"...yeah you should not be surprised when 50 years later there are still systemic issues within the african american community. And no, idealistic liberal laws that tried to force blacks and whites to be buddy-buddy did nothing to change the tone of the general body of laws that we all live by. Blacks were actively repressed socioeconomically up until 50 years ago and the laws have always punished the poor the hardest. So even though you are now no longer kicking a man while he is down, you are still sitting on his head and asking him why he is struggling so hard to stand up.

[Fragony]

Define "race".

Easy, in general whites, blacks, asians and arabs.

The world IQ-map shows the obvious differences. Asians are the smartest and blacks the dumbest. You don't have to like that but it's true

[Hax]

The problem is that the word Arab doesn't mean anything​.

[HopAlongBunny]

Most "race" terminology papers over a huge amount of diversity; part of its power. Its easier to demonize/extol "classes" that bear no real relation to facts.

I'm curious about how the book deals with cause/effect relations.

[Fragony]

The problem is that the word Arab doesn't mean anything​.

There is such a thing as Arab, they live in northern-africa and the middle-east, and it's impossible to deny that the average IQ is lower there. Also here they perform poorly in general, you will hardly find them in the top-tiers of education, much unlike Asians who outdo us whiteboys in just about every way, especially with Starcraft. It's not a matter of judgement but acceptance of the fact that there are differences. Being more intelligent isn't necesarily a good thing anyway, in Japan where they have the highest IQ they also have some deeply social problems

[Hax]

Yeah, why don't you tell me what exactly constitutes an Arab. Because I'm sure you know exactly what you're talking about.

Let me put it differently: in many countries that are part of the Arab League, the nomer "Arab" is put on everyone that speaks Arabic as their mother language, regardless of their "ethnic" origins. This is the single thing that seperates "Arabs" from "Berbers", for example. Interestingly, the Aramaic-speaking communities of Syria and Iraq are often called Arabs as well, even though there has been a trend amongst these communities to self-identify as Chaldaeans or Assyrians. Do you have any idea about how arbitrary these terms are?

Let me give an example. Maltese is defined by many linguists as an Arabic language. Do you think the Maltese are generally less intelligent than other European communities? How about the Maronite Cypriots, who speak their own dialect of Arabic? The Arabic-speaking communities of Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and Turkey? How do they fit into your neat list of idiotic people?

In other words, these so-called "ethnic" terms are completely arbitrary and more often than not (especially in history) refer to the place where somebody was born, rather than their actual ethnic background.

[Fragony]

This is as much as I need http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&authuser=0&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&q=iq+world+map&oq=iq+world+map&gs_l=img.3..0i24.5869.18107.0.18758.14.8.1.5.5.0.127.915.0j8.8.0...0.0...1ac.1.7.img.MnzhoyYo_Lk&biw=1024&bih=644&sei=jjZYUfC2M6mL0AX91IHYAg#biv=i%7C0%3Bd%7C6hN7EW_cTNSzCM%3A

Wrong about Australia by the way, but you can find others, this one is better http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&authuser=0&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&q=iq+world+map&oq=iq+world+map&gs_l=img.3..0i24.5869.18107.0.18758.14.8.1.5.5.0.127.915.0j8.8.0...0.0...1ac.1.7.img.MnzhoyYo_Lk&biw=1024&bih=644&sei=jjZYUfC2M6mL0AX91IHYAg#biv=i%7C6%3Bd%7CynXiJxTX6yPWpM%3A

[Greyblades]

It's racist white Europeans that try to pass the buck on why Africa is so fucked up. When you abandon a continent with arbitrary drawn lines that run right through multiple tribal lands and say "here's democracy! Now it's all on you if you fuck up!", you should not be surprised if 50 years later, there is still violence and power struggles.

That would be the fault of American anti colonialism pressure making us leave too quickly to sort out any of the borders properly.

Personally I think we should have incorperated them into our own democracy, stayed together in a reforged federation of equals instead of just breaking up, but that's just me, pointing out that national self determination isnt the cure all end all you guys attest it is.


This is as much as I need http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&authuser=0&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&q=iq+world+map&oq=iq+world+map&gs_l=img.3..0i24.5869.18107.0.18758.14.8.1.5.5.0.127.915.0j8.8.0...0.0...1ac.1.7.img.MnzhoyYo_Lk&biw=1024&bih=644&sei=jjZYUfC2M6mL0AX91IHYAg#biv=i%7C0%3Bd%7C6hN7EW_cTNSzCM%3A
Yes because iq is the perfect intelligence indicator and totally takes into account the lack of educational capabilities causing it instead of "natural stupidity"

[Fragony]

If we would consider that as well it only gets worse, because by our standards most that were born here and that did an education here are retarded as well

[Hax]

But then again, that goes for Dutch people too, as you aptly demonstrate with each post in this thread.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yeah, why don't you tell me what exactly constitutes an Arab. Because I'm sure you know exactly what you're talking about.

Nitpicking over the particulars doesn't really take away anything from the general point. OK, Arab nationalists love to argue over who is the 'purest' Arabs, and maybe some people living in what is generally considered the Arab-world are in fact from other minorites. Yeah, maybe a tiny island in the Mediterranean Sea which has been politically and culturally removed from the rest of that world for centuries might offer a conundrum, but there's no need to get bogged down in atypical cases.

*****

As for the main thread topic, racial differences are simply an extension of the principle behind family differences. They are not only possible - they are a necessary consequence of the way we reproduce.

However, the War on Drugs has had a crippling effect on black communities, and does a lot more to explain their problems than racial differences themselves. I think people underestimate the extent of the problems people have in staying out of trouble when they are brought up in an environment of gangs, drugs, violence and a sense of opposition to anything seen as being part of the 'establishment'. Combine that with a poor/troubled upbringing and no hope of achieving anything through education, then what are they supposed to do? They're human so they are going to start dealing drugs or doing what they can to improve their lives and keep a tough/respected image in what is a very violent environment. I've seen this in the UK in white communities, from what I've seen in documentaries or read online its much the same in the USA, it just happens to be that most poor people there are black.

At the same time, while the War of Drugs does affect black communities more than white ones, as MRD points out, their vulnerability in this respect is at least largely due to their socioeconomic rather than ethnic status. Poor communities suffer disproportionate legal and social costs as a result of it - black communities tend to be poor so they are more likely to be affected. But don't forget there is a white underclass too. It would be more helpful to talk about the problems in social rather than racial terms.

[Montmorency]

In fact, breaking up the human species (which here we take to exist in fact) into anything fewer than some thousands of distinct races is nothing short of irresponsible.

[Ironside]

Elaborate?

EDIT: As an example, I for one - if I had two equal candidates to join my sprint team or marathon team - would go with a black guy before a white guy.

Why?

Because the odds are with me on the negroe progressing more.

You should also pick the Swedish hockey player and the Norweigian skiier, because the success of the group identity will influence their results. And it's around there things get really messy.

[HoreTore]

Easy, in general whites, blacks, asians and arabs.

The world IQ-map shows the obvious differences. Asians are the smartest and blacks the dumbest. You don't have to like that but it's true

Swing and a miss.

There's a lot of nonsense posted in the Backroom, but your claims on world IQ-scores is definitely the worst. Not only is your point rubbish - even worse is it that the data you back your claims on doesn't even exist.

I'm not sure whether to laugh or to cry, it's just so pathetic I simply do not know where to begin.

[Fragony]

Sorry about that pick any you want http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&authuser=0&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&q=iq+world+map&oq=iq+world+map&gs_l=img.3..0i24.4429.16671.0.17738.12.7.0.5.5.0.130.817.0j7.7.0...0.0...1ac.1.7.img.7vpAKqHZqog&biw=1024&bih=644&sei=h3RYUbKpCOHW0QXoxIGICw

[Hax]

Nitpicking over the particulars doesn't really take away anything from the general point. OK, Arab nationalists love to argue over who is the 'purest' Arabs, and maybe some people living in what is generally considered the Arab-world are in fact from other minorites. Yeah, maybe a tiny island in the Mediterranean Sea which has been politically and culturally removed from the rest of that world for centuries might offer a conundrum, but there's no need to get bogged down in atypical cases.

...no, it's not, and you have no idea what you're talking about.

The point I'm trying to make here is that there is no such thing as "the purest Arab", hell, there's not really anything such as an "Arab" anyway. Compare and contrast the province of Arabia Petraea back in Roman time with the southern-most tip of the Arabian peninsula (Yemen). Do you honestly believe the exact same people were living there? We only call it Arabia because the Greek and Roman writers referred to everything behind the ante-Lebanon as "Arabia". They don't speak the same language and they don't look like one another.

[Major Robert Dump]

Someone please explain to me the justification for comparing lower class blacks with middle class whites, and not lower vs lower and middle vs middle.

[Rhyfelwyr]

...no, it's not, and you have no idea what you're talking about.

The point I'm trying to make here is that there is no such thing as "the purest Arab", hell, there's not really anything such as an "Arab" anyway. Compare and contrast the province of Arabia Petraea back in Roman time with the southern-most tip of the Arabian peninsula (Yemen). Do you honestly believe the exact same people were living there? We only call it Arabia because the Greek and Roman writers referred to everything behind the ante-Lebanon as "Arabia". They don't speak the same language and they don't look like one another.

I know enough to know that you are trying to muddy the waters by deliberately using the most controversial examples. First Malta, and now you mention Yemen, where I am aware there is controversy over their ethnic origins because of their history as a more urbanised society in ancient times, and their connections to Ethiopia.

Yeah, I get that the geographic landmass of Arabia and the Arabs as a distinct ethnic group are two different things. Terminology changes. But when we are talking about Arabs in this thread, it is a reference to a collection of bedouin tribes from 6-7th century Arabian peninsula that spread their culture and to varying extents their gene pool across parts of North Africa and the Middle-East over the next few centuries, and in doing so created a cultural and genetic legacy that still exists today. For all the variations, the common langauge, cultural, and religious roots are evidence of this.

[HopAlongBunny]

deleted post; ooops

[Rhyfelwyr]

Someone please explain to me the justification for comparing lower class blacks with middle class whites, and not lower vs lower and middle vs middle.

I've noticed this with America - social problems tend to be expressed as race issues rather than social issues. It could be because there is a lot of racial awareness and idenfication, but far less (for want of a better word) 'class' awareness.

[HopAlongBunny]

Someone please explain to me the justification for comparing lower class blacks with middle class whites, and not lower vs lower and middle vs middle.

If that is how the book breaks down populations for comparison, it could be a serious flaw. Since I have not read the book I'll have to wait for ACIN to clarify what's going on.

[HoreTore]

Sorry about that pick any you want http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&authuser=0&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&q=iq+world+map&oq=iq+world+map&gs_l=img.3..0i24.4429.16671.0.17738.12.7.0.5.5.0.130.817.0j7.7.0...0.0...1ac.1.7.img.7vpAKqHZqog&biw=1024&bih=644&sei=h3RYUbKpCOHW0QXoxIGICw

....and not a single one of those have any academic merit whatsoever. That was the point, Frags.

If you had any clue as to what you're talking about, you would've known those maps to be absolute rubbish.

[Hax]

I know enough to know that you are trying to muddy the waters by deliberately using the most controversial examples. First Malta, and now you mention Yemen, where I am aware there is controversy over their ethnic origins because of their history as a more urbanised society in ancient times, and their connections to Ethiopia.

Yeah, I get that the geographic landmass of Arabia and the Arabs as a distinct ethnic group are two different things. Terminology changes. But when we are talking about Arabs in this thread, it is a reference to a collection of bedouin tribes from 6-7th century Arabian peninsula that spread their culture and to varying extents their gene pool across parts of North Africa and the Middle-East over the next few centuries, and in doing so created a cultural and genetic legacy that still exists today. For all the variations, the common langauge, cultural, and religious roots are evidence of this.

Right, and how much do we know about this particular period? I'm not deliberately picking this example to muddy the waters, it's because this is a subject I know a lot about.

Whatever, Yemen/Malta. Could have picked Morocco or Algeria, where self-identification as an Arab still has much more to do with the language people speak at home, rather than haplogroups or whatever. The cultural legacy I can *sort of* understand, but you don't honestly believe that all the Arabic-speaking inhabitants of Egypt (the largest Arabic country in the world) were imported from the Arabian peninsula? The same goes for the inhabitants of Iraq, large parts of the Levant and the entirety of North Africa, up to Sudan and Niger. Additionally, there are more Arabic-speakers in Africa than there are in Asia. Have you ever looked at a Somali? You of all people, would you go along gladly if you were identified as "English" because you speak English?

I chose the example of Arabs and Arabic to demonstrate that the notion of a ethno-linguistic notion doesn't really make any sense.

[The Lurker Below]

I've noticed this with America - social problems tend to be expressed as race issues rather than social issues. It could be because there is a lot of racial awareness and idenfication, but far less (for want of a better word) 'class' awareness.

Here would we prefer to be called a racist or a communist? kidding? Or perhaps an author is trying to make a point that doesn't exist if a valid comparison were made? Have not read this book.


In fact, breaking up the human species (which here we take to exist in fact) into anything fewer than some thousands of distinct races is nothing short of irresponsible.

This seems very reasonable and would go a long way to explaining the nonsense that is Kansans.

[HoreTore]

No, no, no, no.... First of all, why would you think an IQ test is a good way to tell which part of the world is smartest? Obviously you're going to have lower scores in countries with lower educational standards (or none at all) like you might see in parts of Africa or the Middle-East. No real science has ever proven that skin color is an indicator of mental faculties. And if skin color is not your identifier for "race" than what is? You can't use location, because you can't track migrations back far enough. Your entire world-view is intentionally or unintentionally racist here.

The first problem is that we don't have a good/satisfactory way to measure intelligence. The second problem is that we don't know the nature of intelligence, ie. "born or developed". The third problem is that even if IQ-tests is a good way to measure intelligence, noone has done any large-scale IQ-testing of the world, thus we have no data.

[HoreTore]

Double post..

[Kadagar_AV]

No, no, no, no.... First of all, why would you think an IQ test is a good way to tell which part of the world is smartest? Obviously you're going to have lower scores in countries with lower educational standards (or none at all) like you might see in parts of Africa or the Middle-East. No real science has ever proven that skin color is an indicator of mental faculties. And if skin color is not your identifier for "race" than what is? You can't use location, because you can't track migrations back far enough. Your entire world-view is intentionally or unintentionally racist here.

IQ tests are what we use to sort the IQ intelligence :shrug:

As to the bolded part - please prove it. It seems like a VERY big statement.

From what I have read, skin colour do affect the roll of the dice at birth.


Also, I for one claim that the CULTURAL difference is a way bigger indicator of different abilities than race. That's why I don't want people from (what I perceive as) sub-standard cultures to influence mine.

[HoreTore]

That was my point. Frags is quickly jumping on bunk science (or perhaps just listening to something someone made up) because it suits his confirmation bias.

Indeed, I was agreeing with you, GC ~;)

IQ "science" is the definition of pseudoscience in our times, just as skull measuring was the definition of pseudoscience around 1900. It's simply a field respectable academics just will not touch(for better or worse, that's the reality), leaving the field in the hands of the hacks.

[HoreTore]

*@ Kad: What? No, I don't have to prove a damned thing. Bring me a peer-reviewed study that says skin color influences your intelligence directly and I'll fly to Sweden so you can watch me eat my shoe. Otherwise, I'm not even going to dignify that.

The roll of the dice at birth is socio-economic, and physical. People are born dumb and smart all over the world, and in all colors. People are born in countries with schools, and people are born in countries without schools. People are born able to afford the security that affords a learning disposition, or they are not. An IQ test measures your ability to relate to the intelligence standards that exist in academia (at whatever level). They are not a basic indicator of raw intelligence, largely because of exactly what HoreTore said: Scientists are still arguing over what exactly intelligence is.

For example: I'm a pretty smart guy. Book-Smart, at least. When I was in the Army I was usually the most book-smart person around. I scored quite high on the Army version of the IQ test. On the other hand, I had very little practical intelligence at 18, having never really worked a difficult job of any sort. So, in this example, lets say Drill Sgt. Hands me a mop and says "Clean the floor." I'm going to over-think it. I might ask for specific clarification. Certainly I'm not going to hop to it. Now let's say Drill Dgt. Hands that mop off to a guy who has no book-smarts and just got out of prison, and says "Clean the floor." Dude's gonna clean the floor, and he's gonna do it fast. So how much was my 'intelligence' worth there?

Humans trying to contemplate their own 'intelligence', and categorize other humans based on their alleged 'intelligence', is the worst kind of arrogance there is. It is the root of all other arrogance.

....and I think this explains perfectly why almost everyone defines themselves at "above average intelligence".

[Kadagar_AV]

*@ Kad: What? No, I don't have to prove a damned thing. Bring me a peer-reviewed study that says skin color influences your intelligence directly and I'll fly to Sweden so you can watch me eat my shoe. Otherwise, I'm not even going to dignify that.

The roll of the dice at birth is socio-economic, and physical. People are born dumb and smart all over the world, and in all colors. People are born in countries with schools, and people are born in countries without schools. People are born able to afford the security that affords a learning disposition, or they are not. An IQ test measures your ability to relate to the intelligence standards that exist in academia (at whatever level). They are not a basic indicator of raw intelligence, largely because of exactly what HoreTore said: Scientists are still arguing over what exactly intelligence is.

For example: I'm a pretty smart guy. Book-Smart, at least. When I was in the Army I was usually the most book-smart person around. I scored quite high on the Army version of the IQ test. On the other hand, I had very little practical intelligence at 18, having never really worked a difficult job of any sort. So, in this example, lets say Drill Sgt. Hands me a mop and says "Clean the floor." I'm going to over-think it. I might ask for specific clarification. Certainly I'm not going to hop to it. Now let's say Drill Sgt. Hands that mop off to a guy who has no book-smarts and just got out of prison, and says "Clean the floor." Dude's gonna clean the floor, and he's gonna do it fast. So how much was my 'intelligence' worth there?

Humans trying to contemplate their own 'intelligence', and categorize other humans based on their alleged 'intelligence', is the worst kind of arrogance there is. It is the root of all other arrogance.

Challenge accepted.

[Kadagar_AV]

Re-reading, I might have made a mistake...

Do you expect me to show how actual SKIN COLOUR affects intelligence (and what intelligence?).



I read the question as "Yo, can you prove them negroes bein stupider than whities".

To directly link the effects of skin colour to intelligence is of course impossible (An albino negroid will still be a negroid).

If, however, you would allow me to use data to compare nations divided by skin colour on an intellectual level, or would let me show how certain groups of people prosper/don't prosper irrelevant of settings, than I could very easily prove you wrong.

Take asians, they ARE smarter than us whities. No racism about it, with equal BNP% in schooling they beat us.

Sure there are as well environmental factors, but hey, Asians beat the rest in intelligence in - guess what - every environment we have yet tested.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Take asians, they ARE smarter than us whities. No racism about it, with equal BNP% in schooling they beat us.

Gonna bang my head against the wall.

Dem smart Asians that somehow fell behind Europe technologically in the 1500s and 1600s.

Dem smart Japanese that saw no problem raping entire Chinese cities (Nanking).

Dem smart Chinese that lived in poverty under a Communistic dictatorship for 30-40 years until they finally adopted free markets.

Dem smart Asians that still live off of meager wages in sweatshops, even though they could easily triple their wages and still remain competitive against US workers getting payed minimum wage.

Hold the phones guys, China, Korea and Japan do so much better than us on tests. Guess we should acknowledge our intellectual superiors. It can't be a culture that emphasizes very strongly on performing well on tests could it? Noooo, Japan and Korea have much higher student suicide rates than us because they're so intelligent that they already have internships lined up for their afterlife.

How many Asians have you even talked to bro?

[Greyblades]

Asia is a living cautionary tale of what happens when a society tries to skip a few steps in becoming a modern pseudo-european nation from a medeval society and ends up missing out on the lessons learned by doing it the long way.

[Fragony]

....and not a single one of those have any academic merit whatsoever. That was the point, Frags.

If you had any clue as to what you're talking about, you would've known those maps to be absolute rubbish.

Sure mia muca

[Papewaio]

Asia is a living cautionary tale of what happens when a society tries to skip a few steps in becoming a modern pseudo-european nation from a medeval society and ends up missing out on the lessons learned by doing it the long way.

Which Asia is that? Everything from Asia Minor to the Far East is fairly broad.

You've got Israel, Singapore, India, Japan and South Korea within that definition. As well as Syria, Afghanistan, North Korea and Iraq.

Might as well say that Greece is socially and economically the same as Norway.

[Greyblades]

Ah... Sometimes I forget I'm not only talking to americans and clueless north west europeans. When I said asia I mean eastern Asia: China, Korea, Japan.

[HoreTore]

with equal BNP% in schooling

Why on earth is the percentage important...? If you want to make your point, wouldn't it be less stupid to use the absolute numbers?

[Fragony]

Which Asia is that? Everything from Asia Minor to the Far East is fairly broad.

You've got Israel, Singapore, India, Japan and South Korea within that definition. As well as Syria, Afghanistan, North Korea and Iraq.

Might as well say that Greece is socially and economically the same as Norway.

China, South-Korea, Japan, they all got us whiteboys beaten. The Germans and the Dutch come close but must still accept defeat

[Papewaio]

Ah... Sometimes I forget I'm not only talking to americans and clueless north west europeans. When I said asia I mean eastern Asia: China, Korea, Japan.

North Korea certainly is medieval in its attitude.

China really isn't following a European Enlightenment or UK Westminister program to bootstrap itself. It has many issues to overcome from European colonialism.

Japan and South Korea are hardly basket case economies. Yes Japan seems to have peaked... It has an aging population and some of the longest lived people to look after... A cautionary tale for other economies.

South Korea has a lot of pros and cons. One of the obvious problems is North Korea. The less known one is that it is essentially a corporate run state.

[Fragony]

Maybe helpfull (and where your map with no science backing it whatsoever comes from Horetore)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations

[HoreTore]

Maybe helpfull (and where your map with no science backing it whatsoever comes from Horetore)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations

This is exactly what I mean.

Lynn has been discredited by just about everyone. He's a hack.

[Fragony]

This is exactly what I mean.

Lynn has been discredited by just about everyone. He's a hack.

No he wasn't, can't just decide things like that, it really has to be true; classical leftist mistake.

[HoreTore]

No he wasn't, can't just decide things like that, it really has to be true; classical leftist mistake.

You're using discredited science to back up your claim. Who's "just deciding things" now, eh?

Lynn is accused of both confirmation bias and methodological errors. In scientific terms, that's a death sentence. I can understand that you desperately want such things to be true, as it would fit your political views perfectly. Sadly, there is no science to back it up.

Kinda like how Stalin went with Lamarckism, another discredited theory, because it fit with his political aims. Lamarck was a hack, just as Lynn is.

EDIT: your wiki article contains a quote which sums up the scientific community's view on Lynn pretty well:


"(the book's) sweeping conclusions based on relatively weak statistical evidence and dubious presumptions seem misguided at best and quite dangerous if taken seriously. It is therefore difficult to find much to recommend in this book."

[Fragony]

You're using discredited science to back up your claim. Who's "just deciding things" now, eh?

Lynn is accused of both confirmation bias and methodological errors. In scientific terms, that's a death sentence. I can understand that you desperately want such things to be true, as it would fit your political views perfectly. Sadly, there is no science to back it up.

Kinda like how Stalin went with Lamarckism, another discredited theory, because it fit with his political aims. Lamarck was a hack, just as Lynn is.

Of course he is accused of both comfirmation errors and methodological errors, that's normal, did you ever spend a day in university. Where they have occured isn't left out, it is perfectly obvious to the writers that their calculations aren't set in stone but merely a statistical probability

[HopAlongBunny]

To paraphrase a psyc prof I had: IQ tests accurately and reliably measure how well people score on IQ tests. So the question becomes what exactly does that prove?

[HoreTore]

Of course he is accused of both comfirmation errors and methodological errors, that's normal, did you ever spend a day in university. Where they have occured isn't left out, it is perfectly obvious for the writers that their calculations aren't set in stone but merely a statistical probability

Nah, I went to a university college, as they have a much higher focus on didactics than the university does.

Lynn's theories simply aren't accepted by the scientific community, and thus becomes junk science. A theory isn't fact when only supported by a few, it needs to be supported by many. Lynn's theories just aren't. They're hardly accepted by anyone outside white supremacist groups.


To paraphrase a psyc prof I had: IQ tests accurately and reliably measure how well people score on IQ tests. So the question becomes what exactly does that prove?

Indeed.

[Fragony]

Lynn's theories simply aren't accepted by the scientific community, and thus becomes junk science. A theory isn't fact when only supported by a few, it needs to be supported by many. Lynn's theories just aren't. They're hardly accepted by anyone outside white supremacist groups.

Leftist reflex, mistaking how you want things to be and how things are. The authors even have good intentions on how to improve things, that white-supremacy groups use it, well sure they do. But I doubt they read it.

[HoreTore]

Leftist reflex, mistaking how you want things to be and how things are. The authors even have good intentions on how to improve things, that white-supremacy groups use it, well sure they do. But I doubt they read it.

I'm not commenting on whether his theory is true or not. My point is that his theory isn't accepted by the scientific community, and is thus invalid.

Stalin wanted Lamarckism to be true because it fits with his political views. You want Lynn's theory to be true because it fits your political views. Both of you disregard the fact that it's not accepted by other scientists. I see little difference between the brains of you and Stalin.

EDIT: Here (http://www.edrev.info/essays/v14n12.pdf) is a short paper which highlights many of the criticisms other scientists have on Lynn's "research". If you have access to jstor(or similar), I can give you much more.

[Fragony]

I read that. It remains a chicken and egg story. But of what use is it to dismiss statistically sound results? You should really be happy with the conclusions as the aim is on development, not a genetical defect even if it might look like that at first. But it is a pretty solid examination on IQ-differences and wealth, making it more of a question rather than statement

[HoreTore]

I read that. It remains a chicken and egg story. But of what use is it to dismiss statistically sound results? You should really be happy with the conclusions as the aim is on development, not a genetical defect even if it might look like that at first. But it is a pretty solid examination on IQ-differences and wealth, making it more of a question rather than statement

The bolded part is completely irrelevant.

It's pseudoscience, and one cannot be "happy" with pseudoscience. Until a proper scientific theory comes along, any possible IQ differences will remain a black spot. We simply don't have any knowledge of it.

[Fragony]

Until a proper scientific theory comes along, any possible IQ differences will remain a black spot. We simply don't have any knowledge of it.

That much I can agree with

[Montmorency]

Asians...

Of course, the so-called "Arabs" will often be included in that classification.

Is it really surprising that East Asians - and East Asian immigrants - perform well academically? As surprising as the fact that they are quite accomplished cheaters?

Note that Southeast Asian immigrants chronically underperform.

And note that even Han Chinese is not so genetically or even culturally homogeneous to be counted as a race.

What is the sense, Kadagar, in trying to organize a universe that is built up out of certain fundamental particles into molecules or cells?

While it's certainly nice to think of the world as a simple place, it is most certainly not simple. Not nearly simple enough to dismiss a broad abstraction on the basis of other abstractions no-less-broad.

That there are differences between groups is obvious - an extension of the fact that there are differences between individuals. This broad principle, however, does not at all license you to declare, 'All the darkies are just stupid'.

There is more basis to legitimate groupings than sheer aesthetic distaste. Come back when every single human's genome has been sequenced and catalogued as only then may we begin to discuss these matters.

[Major Robert Dump]

East Asians aren't necessarily smarter, they just have far harder work ethics.

But it is funny that in the USA they are pretty much wholesale excluded from talks of race, quotas, affirmative action, etc because the left does not consider them a true minority even though, by definition, they are, and they most certainly suffer from discrimination. It is also funny that racism against non muslim Asians is often ignored and brushed under the rug, especially when the racism is levied by a black or Hispanic person.

[Tuuvi]

Some people have already hinted at this but I'll put it more bluntly: race is not a valid biological concept. There are more differences among groups of people than there are between them, and there is no easy way classify people into different races because there is no feature that's exclusive to one group. Take for example black skin and curly hair. Africans as well as Melanesians and Australian Aborigines share these traits, but there are also traits they don't share, so you can't lump them into one racial category. Africans don't have prominent brow ridges, but Aborigines do. In Africa there are differences in skin color, hair texture, stature, build, facial features, etc. between various groups.

[Hax]

Of course, the so-called "Arabs" will often be included in that classification.

Classified as Caucasian in the United States, interestingly.

[Kadagar_AV]

Asians...

Of course, the so-called "Arabs" will often be included in that classification.

Is it really surprising that East Asians - and East Asian immigrants - perform well academically? As surprising as the fact that they are quite accomplished cheaters?

Note that Southeast Asian immigrants chronically underperform.

And note that even Han Chinese is not so genetically or even culturally homogeneous to be counted as a race.

What is the sense, Kadagar, in trying to organize a universe that is built up out of certain fundamental particles into molecules or cells?

While it's certainly nice to think of the world as a simple place, it is most certainly not simple. Not nearly simple enough to dismiss a broad abstraction on the basis of other abstractions no-less-broad.

That there are differences between groups is obvious - an extension of the fact that there are differences between individuals. This broad principle, however, does not at all license you to declare, 'All the darkies are just stupid.

There is more basis to legitimate groupings than sheer aesthetic distaste. Come back when every single human's genome has been sequenced and catalogued as only then may we begin to discuss these matters.

Because I have declared that all darkies are stupid?

It's a hard topic to debate, as people put way to much emotion into it, often to the degree where they shut of their analytic part of the mind. Heck, even in some cases doing extremely stupid things like completely making up statements from the opposition.



Will get back when I have more time, just wanted to put some sort of a dampener on the more... special ways to interpret me.

[Major Robert Dump]

Hispanic/Latino was also classified as White for most of our Beaurocratic history. :yes:

Racial Divides are invented because humans have an innate desire to turn everything into an Us vs. Them scenario. Its science. Its fact. People will always find a way to be prejudiced if given the opportunity, and especially if given any kind of fuel for their confirmation bias. It is telling of our times that people spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to be more racist when by all rights its something that should have gone away with the Enlightenment in western culture. Object Lesson? You can't kill ignorance with words. People turn to Us vs. Them scenarios when they feel under pressure. A liberal democracy should spend almost all of its resources trying to relieve that pressure and create an environment of liberty and prosperity, so people have no good reason for that mentality. And even then, it will never go away, because it is a habit that probably evolved over time to help us survive. Quite a pickle.

Kind of hard to do when brutal double standards that existed for generations are replaced with more subtle double standards that turn the tables. People in this country cannot have legitimate discussions about race. "Racist" is the new N-Word

[Papewaio]

Us vs them. We as a society go out of our way to maximize that emphasis.

It's called sports. We give young people heaps of cash to play games in which we glorify them as heroes and set about to chest thump how our team is better then your team.

Yeah us, our team of spoilt brats from around the country beat your spoilt brats from around the country therefore I'm a better person.

[HopAlongBunny]

and in the end, it's only 'round and 'round:


http://youtu.be/0pbso85eeNo

careful GC you're beginning to sound like Mark Twain :p

[Major Robert Dump]

Classism, yes, but greed probably more so. Or maybe they are a bit of the same. Funny you mention a race screwing its own race. I can think of a few Indian Tribes in Oklahoma like that, and a couple in New England who are asking for bailouts because the leaders pissed away all their profits instead of using them to build their communities.

Race is just a discussion diversion to deflect attention from who is really screwing who, and it is not always just about class. A lot of people are in the dumps because they put themselves there or didn't crawl out when given the opportunity. Classism goes both ways, as evident from the profession victim mentality.

In the end, the leaders and puppeteers want us to tune out to what they are doing, except come time to vote, then back under the rug the issues are swept. I recall Lemur predicting the voter ID issue going away after the election, and it largely has, which is sad because a legitimate compromise would be easy to reach, but hey that doesn't get votes like good old fashioned sabre rattling

[HopAlongBunny]

You want to see race on race, go to a political nomination rally. The mud really begins to fly.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't agree with racism in the sense of "negroes = dumb" at all, but I think there is a lot of laziness and double standards shown by certain people who like to claim the high ground in those respects.

Firstly - this idea that racists are bogged down by human frailties such as the 'us v them' mentality, while those who oppose racism somehow transcend all form of bias or social influence. The reality is they do not. As a social species, it is a natural reaction to want to live in a hormonious society, and racial equality is obviously essential to that. At the more individual level, it is natural to want to avoid confrontation or awkward social situations that would naturally arise from a society that recognised racial differences when different races live side by side every day. Hence why regardless of the truth of the matter, many people will lazily say that they don't believe in racial differences, just.... because they don't.

Secondly - the old gem that since race is not something clear cut by visible indicators such as skin colour; but instead, a fluid transition from groups and sub-groups down to the family and then individual level - we should because of this avoid speaking of race at all and point blank refuse to assess human capability differences beyond the individual level. Of course, refusing to do this is purely willful ignorance, what more can I say about it?

And thirdly - the claim any racial differences observed in terms of IQ performance or other indicators of development are irrelevant since they are the result of differing levels of education or differing work ethics. Now, first of, let me say that I completely agree with what these people say about the inadequacies of IQ tests and supposed controls put in place to account for educational/cultural differences. However, where I think they take liberties is when they simply proclaim that if IQ differences are acknowledged, then the causation must be entirely from education -> IQ, and not the reverse. If a correlation is recognised, then you have to question if there is causation, and if so, in which direction. You can't just decide based on nothing.


Right, and how much do we know about this particular period? I'm not deliberately picking this example to muddy the waters, it's because this is a subject I know a lot about.

Whatever, Yemen/Malta. Could have picked Morocco or Algeria, where self-identification as an Arab still has much more to do with the language people speak at home, rather than haplogroups or whatever. The cultural legacy I can *sort of* understand, but you don't honestly believe that all the Arabic-speaking inhabitants of Egypt (the largest Arabic country in the world) were imported from the Arabian peninsula? The same goes for the inhabitants of Iraq, large parts of the Levant and the entirety of North Africa, up to Sudan and Niger. Additionally, there are more Arabic-speakers in Africa than there are in Asia. Have you ever looked at a Somali? You of all people, would you go along gladly if you were identified as "English" because you speak English?

I chose the example of Arabs and Arabic to demonstrate that the notion of a ethno-linguistic notion doesn't really make any sense.

Of course ethnic and liguistic groups are not synonymous, but we all can agree that their historic roots have tended to be interconnected on some level - the question is to what degree. As far as I am aware, actual population displacement is often regarded as necessary for one linguistic group to replace another in a particular geographic area, as happened across North Africa and the Middle East with Arab language, culture and religion - thus giving credence to the idea of a modern Arab ethnic identity.

Yes, I realise that analysing population movements and their impact on culture, language, and modern racial identification is a complicated and murky business, especially from a time period we have little information on. But that is precisely why I think it is so inadequate on your part to simply declare that the concept of an 'Arab' means nothing, or has no historical foundation. Or for you to declare that cultural and linguistic developments were entirely independent of population movements. In doing so without any foundation (other than "its not clear cut!), I think you are being every bit as ideologically motivated as you accuse Fragony of being.

Also, the example you give with English in reference to me as a Scot is a great example - the English language is thought to have originated in southern Scotland and Northumbria, as Angles displaced the native Celts in southern Scotland and brought their language roots with them. So even though national identity remains different on either side of the border, the linguistic ties are rooted in a shared ethnic history.

[Montmorency]

it is so inadequate on your part to simply declare that the concept of an 'Arab' means nothing, or has no historical foundation.

And yet, don't you need some support for your tacit claim that "Arab" is a distinct and clear-cut genetic identity applicable uniformly across millions of individuals?

[Montmorency]

Intelligence is a much thornier issue than race: race is as I've described, but to begin to individuate intelligence(s), we must first determine the functions of every single neuron in at least one human's brain.

And we'd better do it before we begin to precisely modify those neurons and their functions in multitudes of humans...

[Rhyfelwyr]

In trying to eliminate racism we are obligated to bring it [the us v them mentaility] up as an issue, because you are asking a society to fight against evolutionary tendencies (which your second is in agreement with, in my opinion). Perhaps some day we'll live in such a peaceful world that all the violent and bigoted genes have been bred out of everyone, but I doubt it.

I completely agree that it is a relevant issue to bring up. Obviously, while scientific enquiry is perfectly legitimate regardless of motivation, it is equally legitimate to question if the lines of scientific enquiry that we choose to pursue are being constrained by underlying biases. My concern was that with the racism issue, the awareness of these innate biases only existed on one side of the debate.

As for whether bigot or violent genes can be bread out, I have no idea how much such things could be attributed to a particular gene or group of genes, or whether they are much broader traits that reflect wider personalities or social influences.


My point was that there is no good measurement of practical intelligence (which is the only kind that you could try and objectively measure as a representative of the whole 'intelligence' of a person--in my opinion). Academic intelligence proves nothing beyond your aptitude for abstract thinking, and your background as living in a situation that allows you to think like that.

Again I agree completely, acedemic intelligence is fairly small part of the brain function that determines our capabilities, and the sorts of tests used to measure academic intelligence really only measure an even narrower form of intelligence (the ability to perform well on pretty rigid and manipulative/easy to manipulate tests).

btw I was never attacking you in particular, more a general attitude. Everything you have said is valid and need to be said - it's more what is never said that led me to post what I did.

[HopAlongBunny]

I would like to re-spin the concept of Us vs Them.

If we are destined to make that division, then it matters very much the basis on which we come to make the division.

God must have loved the poor because he made so many of them; God forbid that they should make common cause on that basis, so how convenient to further separate Them on the basis of race. What makes Huckleberry Finn a dangerous book is not its liberal use of the "N" word, rather it is its clear case for the common cause/condition of the poor as poor whether black or white. The fact that the book is set as a youthful adventure just makes it that much more noxious because it could shape the opinions of children.

Which in a long winded way brings me to my point: does the New Jim Crowe accentuate/perpetuate a "useful" division or bring the focus more clearly on the problem of poverty.

[Rhyfelwyr]

And yet, don't you need some support for your tacit claim that "Arab" is a distinct and clear-cut genetic identity applicable uniformly across millions of individuals?

I never claimed it was true, or even tacitly implied such - I only ever said it was a possibility. Hax outright stated it to be untrue, but IMO didn't back his position up. I gave the reasons why I think it is possible.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Nice! I forgot we were talking about a book. What's ACIN think?

Guys, I am reading chapter 1 right now. I got ochem and thermodynamics riding my ass as well. Give me a few days and I will post a summary and my thoughts on each chapter as I read it throughout the next ten weeks.

[Montmorency]

Or, you know, the species could actively engineer itself out of existence...

[Montmorency]

I have a devastating confession to make.


For many years I have confirmed, to any who may hear, that:


Knife rhymes with life, wife, rife, and strife.

Slave rhymes with knave and non-brave.

Weed rhymes with greed, speed, and Rasheed.

Drug rhymes with bug, slug, and thug.

Welfare rhymes with Bel-Air.

Ape rhymes with rape.

Black rhymes with crack, smack, and attack.

****** rhymes with cigger, trigger, and ditch-digger.


I am indeed the True and Perfect embodiment of the Form of Racism.

I am near, brothers. I am here, brothers.

Sing the agonies of writhing eons and slain gods with me.

Can you see the Meaning?!

:disappointed:

:hanged:

[Hax]

Of course ethnic and liguistic groups are not synonymous, but we all can agree that their historic roots have tended to be interconnected on some level - the question is to what degree. As far as I am aware, actual population displacement is often regarded as necessary for one linguistic group to replace another in a particular geographic area, as happened across North Africa and the Middle East with Arab language, culture and religion - thus giving credence to the idea of a modern Arab ethnic identity.

Yes, but strangely this did not occur at all with Arabic: although some form of Arabic-speaking communities settled in several locations throughout the Middle-East, it took hundreds of years for a language such as Coptic to disappear (as a spoken language), whereas the Berber languages were never displaced by Arabic at all, and in Khorasan and Transoxiana, Arabic was either spoken very shortly or not at all, as Sogdian, Bactrian and (New) Persian remained the dominant languages for trade and culture, the latter displacing the aforementioned languages.

Then why did Arabic displace Aramaic and Coptic, but didn't displace Persian? To be honest, I have no idea, but it likely has very little to do with national pride or whatever. I think it has much more to do with the fact that Iran was ruled relatively shortly by an Arabic-speaking elite, which was quickly displaced by Persianate rulers and Persian-speaking officials.

[QUOTE]Yes, I realise that analysing population movements and their impact on culture, language, and modern racial identification is a complicated and murky business, especially from a time period we have little information on. But that is precisely why I think it is so inadequate on your part to simply declare that the concept of an 'Arab' means nothing, or has no historical foundation.

It is not just complicated, it also makes very little sense when you approach this problem historically. In order to understand the meaning the word Arab, it is necessary to understand the way how people used it: the Qur'an refers to the "Arabs of the desert to be the greatest in disbelief"; the Turks who came to the Middle-East were refered to in historical documents as "Arabs" as well. The actual use of the word probably meant something like "nomad", but to be honest, I have no idea what this means. Perhaps Moros has an idea.

The point I'm trying to make is that the word Arab wasn't used in the ethnical sense for a very long time, and to a large degree, it still isn't. Compare the situation to that in Algeria, Morocco, or Tunisia, where people self-identify on the basis of their (supposed) cultural background. Bringing up the case of Yemen is interesting, as Yemenite soldiers constituted a large part of the early Arabo-Muslim armies (although these people probably didn't speak Arabic), although these people may have very well defined themselves as Arabs, or were called Arabs by others. Or not.

So while there may be a historical foundation for the "ethnicity" of the Arabs, it was more-or-less appropriated by the Arabic-speaking philosophers of the Nahda period, whom I suppose used quite a bit of confirmation bias in order to establish a shared notion of Arabness. Thus, reaching the same conclusion: we have to understand this concept in context of 19th century nationalism.​


Or for you to declare that cultural and linguistic developments were entirely independent of population movements.

Yeah, but what? That doesn't make any sense. Of course there are correlations, but we shouldn't overestimate the size of the Arabic-speaking community, especially not in the period after the initial conquest. There are hints that Aramaic was very widely spoken across the Levant up to the 19th century, so it's not unlikely to think there was a sizeable bilingual community of Arabic- and Aramaic-speakers, and that Arabic only fully displaced Aramaic (not counting the pockets of Aramaeophone villages in Syria and Iraq) about a hundred and fifty years ago.


In doing so without any foundation (other than "its not clear cut!), I think you are being every bit as ideologically motivated as you accuseFragony of being.

Yes, but no. I study Arabic. It's what I do for a living (more-or-less).

You may be right, but in that case it's because I very strongly disapprove of this concept of a very ill-defined Arabness which is more often that not abused, especially when it comes to anti-Israeli rhetoric.

[Kadagar_AV]

I have a devastating confession to make.


For many years I have confirmed, to any who may hear, that:




I am indeed the True and Perfect embodiment of the Form of Racism.

I am near, brothers. I am here, brothers.

Sing the agonies of writhing eons and slain gods with me.

Can you see the Meaning?!

:disappointed:

:hanged:

You rhyme real well!!

Rape is indeed a big influencing factor as to why one would think twice before letting people of more rapist cultures into a functional western system of living your life.

As all data show :)

[Montmorency]

You rhyme real well!!

Telling.

:no:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprolalia

[a completely inoffensive name]

Introduction

Full audio of it found here: Removed

I actually don't know if the Youtube audiobook uploads are legal. So I will not post the links here.


Jarvious Cotton cannot vote. Like his father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and great-great-grandfather, he has been denied the right to participate in our electoral democracy. Cotton's family tree tells the story of several generations of black men who were born in the United States but who were denied the most basic freedom that democracy promises-the freedom to vote for those who will make the rules and laws that govern one's life. Cotton's great-great-grandfather could not vote as a slave. His great-grandfather was beaten to death by the Ku Klux Klan for attempting to vote. His grandfather was prevented from voting by Klan intimidation. His father was barred from voting by poll taxes and literacy tests. Today, Jarvious Cotton cannot vote because he, like many black men in the United States, has been labeled a felon and is currently on parole.

First class was today. According to the syllabus we will not be reading the chapters consecutively but instead diving into chapters 2 and 4 first which is the meaty details on what the New Jim Crow is. Later, we will go back to chapters 1 and 3 for the historical timeline and perspective that highlight parallels between the Old and the New.

Since this is just the introduction, which was basically Michelle Alexander talking about how she started writing about the criminal justice system and what each chapter goes into detail about, I will clarify why I plan on doing a brief summary on each chapter along with some of my thoughts. One reason is that some people in this forum had some questions I could not answer. I do not plan on completely answering them, for a full resolution, you must read the book for yourself. Another is that this semi-joking thread has actually prompted a lengthy discussion that I did not anticipate. Perhaps this thread will die soon, but I hope that by doing these occasional posts, I can bring up points from the book that spur continuing conversations about this topic which seems to defy all attempts (by Americans) at putting to rest. Some members of the forum have already read the book and understand it to a far greater extent than I ever will (SFTS), some are quite distanced from the issue at hand and regard the race aspect of the problem to be a red herring that Americans continue to chase. Either way, I will be eager to read what you all have to say.

I will admit this class I am taking is an intensive research based writing class, I am very interested in hearing what you all have to say in comparison to what a class of ~30 students roughly my age (AKA "my generation") have to say. But I do not plan on taking any of your ideas or discussions as a basis for my writings. In fact our professor explicitly wants us to pursue topics that are tangentially related to the book but capture the spirit of what the issue is (discrimination, exclusion and differentiation between groups). I plan on choosing something a bit distanced from what has been talked about here. I say all this to emphasize what I will say now bluntly, I am not crowd sourcing ideas for me to write about.

With that being said, some interesting things from my class discussion:

* One individual said she wasn't that impressed with the introduction and is skeptical of it all. But she did have the courage to admit that she has a relative in the LAPD so she has conflict of interest in what she thinks.
* One person talked about how he was shocked at how little he was surprised by the main thesis presented by the introduction. Kind of weird to have a reaction towards your own reaction. I was skeptical of his genuineness.
* Most of the class seems to acknowledge being "aware" of active discrimination in society but were unaware of the extent being talked about in the book.

There are bullet points to be made from the intro but without the substance provided in the full chapters it is pointless or even counterproductive to mention them now. I kind of hope this maybe becomes a more successful version of that thread someone made long ago where we were all going to read Aristotle and talk about it like a book club. That was my inspiration anyway.

EDIT: If you guys think this is dumb you can just say so here or in a PM. Many members here are European so perhaps you guys don't really care for paying attention to a very US centered legal/social issue.

[HopAlongBunny]

Ok. I see that the book then is not a continuation of the dialogue I attribute to Twain.

Might it be closer to Foucault's discussion of the justice system as primarily a method for supplying and maintaining an underclass useful to the dominant culture; with the focus on its affect on a particular demographic ie: black Americans.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Ok. I see that the book then is not a continuation of the dialogue I attribute to Twain.

Might it be closer to Foucault's discussion of the justice system as primarily a method for supplying and maintaining an underclass useful to the dominant culture; with the focus on its affect on a particular demographic ie: black Americans.

From what I have read, I would agree with you. In fact she does use the word "underclass" often in the intro. She even goes as far as to call the whole structure a caste system.

[Fragony]

Just because I am not American doesn't mean I mind reading about it.

[HopAlongBunny]

So, "engineering" on a societal scale using the justice system.

The beauty of it is, by targeting a specific class the system generates the data that justifies both its existence and the targeting of a criminal class. It might fall apart on close inspection but really its all 95% of the population will ever see.

[Greyblades]

Caste, class, either way there's always someone at the very bottom so the people just above them have someone to piss on so they can feel better about their inability to avoid the streams of the upper levels.

That and to forget that they're aware of the soul crushing knowledge that the human condition is predisposed to this sort of thing and that any attempts to change it will ultimately change nothing beyond the decorations we place around the living urinal that is civilization.

And even more soul crushing is the knowledge of the nigh impossible cost of energy and lives it took/would take to merely find out you can only change the decorations.

Dang, I'm cynical today.

[Major Robert Dump]

Why is the scope limited only to drugs, why not include other crimes?

MURDER LAWS THE NEW JIM CROWE

[Papewaio]

How many average Roman Emperors did the following:

Lived seventy years.
Ate chocolate.
Traveled at 100 km/h and survived.
Drank coffee.
Flew and survived.
Used a computer.
Watched a movie.
Read a printed novel.
Surfed the Internet.
Had access to antibiotics.

Yeah, no progress at all.

[HopAlongBunny]

Why is the scope limited only to drugs, why not include other crimes?

MURDER LAWS THE NEW JIM CROWE


I haven't read the book. If it relies on statistical analysis then you run into the problem of all statistical studies: cohort choice; cohort size; representative?; ...etc. You can criticize the study on a number of grounds and charge bias, but after looking at the criticisms you still have to assess whether the study makes the case it set out to make. ACIN needs to read faster :whip:

[HoreTore]

The big question I have is:

Since when did people start actually reading the literature given while studying...? I mean, apart from the last 3 days before the exams? Don't ACIN have beers to drink and women to fondle?

[HopAlongBunny]

Apparently I was too quick to accept the demise of the "divide and conquer" thesis:


http://youtu.be/P75cbEdNo2U

[Kadagar_AV]

The big question I have is:

Since when did people start actually reading the literature given while studying...? I mean, apart from the last 3 days before the exams? Don't ACIN have beers to drink and women to fondle?

HoreTore, as a socialist Scandinavian, thinking You belong on some sort of intellectual scene after a few years of the socialist "University" everyone should attend after their state ordered studies - I can SO see Your argument.

But see, then I left the socialist university world, and joined one where academical progress counts.

Of course, that has made it more or less impossible for me to go on with my work as teacher, as I quite frankly deem those who have studied on the level You have to be absolute morons in pedagogical questions. Not to mention many other questions.

I wouldn't trust You to teach even math without adding on some feminist propaganda and socialistic overtones.

Frankly, I see You as one of the teachers who would write his own math tests just because the examples given in the book didn't correspond to Your world view. You would use as many foreign names as you could in the math examples, to teach the kids that foreign names are not foreign, but normal. You would make sure the examples mentioned boys and girls 50/50... Just joking.

Of course it wouldn't just be 50/50, You would also make sure to put the genders in cross-gender situations to try and diminish the oh so horrible historical social gender roles.

I might be wrong, but it is the impression I got. And what truly saddens me is that I think You are proud of it.

[jirisys]

I wouldn't trust You to teach even math without adding on some feminist propaganda and socialistic overtones.

I seriously hope you are joking.

~Jirisys ()

[HoreTore]

I seriously hope you are joking.

~Jirisys ()

Kadagar doesn't seem to get irony in text format... Or I'm just bad at making jokes, I guess. I got a good chuckle out of his though.

[Fragony]

Kadagar doesn't seem to get irony in text format... Or I'm just bad at making jokes, I guess. I got a good chuckle out of his though.

No irony in religion, and you are deeply religious. Kadagar nails you

[Hax]

Yeah brah, you got nailed bad there. srsly.

[HoreTore]

Yeah brah, you got nailed bad there. srsly.

So did Jesus.

So... I'm your messiah now, right?

[Kadagar_AV]

I seriously hope you are joking.

~Jirisys ()

Ask him? As I said, I think HT is proud of the fact that he is a good enough teacher to be able to BOTH teach math AND help the kids into the politically correct thinking at the same time.

HT, amIrite?

[Fragony]

So did Jesus.

So... I'm your messiah now, right?

It's called the leftist church for a reason, Jezus, you see him, everywhere. The Nobel peace-price peace commision is always a good place to start looking for who is the Messias of the leftist church, it's blissfuly obvious every time

[HoreTore]

HT, amIrite?

No, dead wrong.

Did I honestly have to state that....?

EDIT: Though you are right that I usually make(or rather made, since I don't teach maths this year) my own math problems instead of using those in the textbook. You are, however, as wrong as you can be on the reason why I do that.

[Kadagar_AV]

No, dead wrong.

Did I honestly have to state that....?

EDIT: Though you are right that I usually make(or rather made, since I don't teach maths this year) my own math problems instead of using those in the textbook. You are, however, as wrong as you can be on the reason why I do that.


So when giving math problems, You didn't add extra immigrant names to the examples or put the persons in stereotypical cross gender situations? I have no idea, of course. I have just seen enough Norwegian (and Swedish) teachers think this practise normal, for me to kind of suspect You, given they generally hold and defend the same world view as You.

[HoreTore]

So when giving math problems, You didn't add extra immigrant names to the examples or put the persons in stereotypical cross gender situations? I have no idea, of course. I have just seen enough Norwegian (and Swedish) teachers think this practise normal, for me to kind of suspect You, given they generally hold and defend the same world view as You.

I see no reason to respond to such ridiculous statements.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Sometimes, what one person regards as a standard social interaction, another person will see as being charged with political or ideological currents. This can be far more sutble than whether or not HoreTore goes out of his way to make examples where his students have to tell him how many apples Ahmed has. To observe this isn't ludicrous - language has always reflected the societies it develops in. The very way we address someone can reveal the social expectations that are imposed on them.

For example, are we socially engineering and indoctrinating kids when we refer to them either as 'boy' or 'girl'?

IIRC, it was a Scandinavian school or nursery that was in the news a few months back for banning such a practice. To us it seems like they are the ones bringing politics into everyday language, but in their minds they are removing it. Maybe in a couple of hundred years our descendants will look at us as bigots and wonder how we could ever think it was right to refer to people differently based purely on their gender.

Regardless of who is right, political and social ideas will be expressed in everyday things.

Indeed, the fact that Kadagar is Scandinavian probably explains his concern with these trends - he is on the front link of these developments.*

*Although the Scandivanians weren't the first in this regard, the Quakers once abandoned gender-based references such as him or her in favour of thee, thou and the like.

[HopAlongBunny]

The discussion of education as indoctrination belongs to another thread; simply put, teaching is almost by definition indoctrination: learn this, this is important, you will be tested on this; the very act of assigning importance and meaning to subjects is indoctrination.

[Montmorency]

objectively examining all the facts of the world

That's impossible and you know it.

It will remain impossible even after we deploy technologies for the downloading of declarative memories.

[Montmorency]

Alright. How about:


There is a standard of objectivity that we could probably all agree on.

Delusion.


If you aren't actively questioning every source of information you get, you're a sheep.

And no one is - because that's not physiologically possible for humans.


you're probably going to be more objective than someone who isn't.

Please explain your understanding of "objectivity".

[HopAlongBunny]

I come at the question from the PoV of my second degree. Education at the primary level is indoctrination: meaning and value is assigned to academic subjects quite independent of the value the students put on them. Every social interaction is a case of modeling whether you acknowledge it or not. "Taking turns", listening to a speaker, politeness, inquisitiveness...etc. Everything(!) is to some extent indoctrination: the basics of "how to act" primarily in an institution, and also as a social being.

It's not evil; it's how we learn to become human.

[HoreTore]

I come at the question from the PoV of my second degree. Education at the primary level is indoctrination: meaning and value is assigned to academic subjects quite independent of the value the students put on them. Every social interaction is a case of modeling whether you acknowledge it or not. "Taking turns", listening to a speaker, politeness, inquisitiveness...etc. Everything(!) is to some extent indoctrination: the basics of "how to act" primarily in an institution, and also as a social being.

It's not evil; it's how we learn to become human.

You need to make a major distinction here.

The first, which you described now, is the classroom learning environment.

The second, described by GC, is the subject(s) being taught.

Two very different standards apply to those. For the first, I demand the right to be Absolute Dictator For Life. For example, you may feel that certain persons or certain things should not be said. I don't give a crap, I will decide who may speak and what may be said. I will base my decision on my own education, by keeping up with current research and cooperaton with my colleagues and my boss(es).

For the second, you can believe whatever the hell you like, and I have no interest in what that may be apart from general curiosity. They'll be measured by how well they fulfill these (http://www.udir.no/Upload/larerplaner/Fastsatte_lareplaner_for_Kunnskapsloeftet/english/5/Social_studies_subject_curriculum.doc) criteria.

[Rhyfelwyr]

"Taking turns", listening to a speaker, politeness, inquisitiveness...etc. Everything(!) is to some extent indoctrination: the basics of "how to act" primarily in an institution, and also as a social being.

It's not evil; it's how we learn to become human.

I disagree. Humanity is by nature innate. If that part of our humanity that makes us social beings leads us to join together in common institutions, then that is great and a pure reflection of our humanity.

On the other hand, if our concept of humanity is being conditioned by institutions through indoctrination, then the institutions cease to be an expression of an independent force (our innate humanity), and become an independent force in their own right - as such the institutions themselves actually shape our very concept of humanity and social interaction. When this happens, this is something undesirable, if not quite evil.

I dislike a lot of things about the modern world because of this, and not just the sort of things old people grumble about. One thing I particularly hate is the modern education system. Apart from being an extremely unhealthy environment for children, the education system is the prime means of maintaning social division and economic oppression. In terms of its counterintuitiveness it is second only to the prison system.

[Montmorency]

There is simply no such thing as unbiasedness.

Let me be more forceful: it is metaphysically impossible.

To think is to be biased.

To act is to be biased.

Only the dead are unbiased, if only because the collective function of billions of neurons, which we abstract upwards and ascribe something called "intention" to, no longer function as anything other than food.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well, no, he's got a point. Look at any of the documented cases where a child was abandoned in the wilderness and never knew human contact. They acted like animals, and had less in common with a human than your average chimpanzee, at first. Humans learn how to be human from other humans. Humans learn everything from other humans. Which is why when we learn about politics, we're working on the Honor System. If you can't trust the people who are supposed to be objective to be objective then that Honor System isn't doing so well.

The condition of feral children is I believe less down to their lacking the chance to 'learn' to be human, and more down to the fact that their humanity is suppressed by an unnatural environment. If we are kept in an unnatural environment our mindset and our behaviour will as a result become unnatural.

Take for example, government. One the one hand, government can be a pure reflection of society so long as it has strong grassroots connections. On the other hand, when it becomes removed from these organic roots and becomes something artificial, then involvement in that artificial situation actually alters who we are as people (for example, North Korea). When this happens, the very fact that the conditions are not natural is a bad thing - because what motivates us and makes us happy is the pursuit and expression of what is natural to our human condition. And it is that way because that is how we are biologically wired as humans

[HopAlongBunny]

Actually I would go further. The human is a learning machine; first and foremost it will learn any behaviour that is rewarded by fulfilling the 3F's of survival; anything beyond that is, as Greyblades said earlier: "rearranging the decorations"

[Montmorency]

But everyone is also capable of comprehending the idea of being unbiased.

Yes - this is wrong. What's not to get?

You can't strive toward an ill-defined imaginary abstraction.

[Montmorency]

Let me put this another way.

Would you say that everything that occurs within the universe is possible within the universe?

Yes, you would. This is by definition.

And would you agree that what is impossible to occur in the universe, does not occur in the universe?

I think you would. This is merely the other side of the definition.

So, with the above in mind, wouldn't it be rather silly to assert that possibility is a gradient and that it is possible to approach impossibility?

Allowing that one can not attain impossibility and witness or perform an impossible thing does not get you out of it. You must see that one possible thing is no more or less possible than another.

Divorce this thought from any notion of stochasticity, which is something entirely distinct.

All things are merely either possible, or impossible.


In the eyes of society, a raving madman who sees only what he wants to see is not as desirable as a rational and considerate person who views things from many angles before acting. This is, like, common sense.

What you describe is not a difference in degree of bias, but a different flavor of bias. The "madman" is only mad because his frame of reference irreconcilably contradicts "society's"; both are equally biased.


What's your angle?

I'm pushing my epistemology. In terms of my epistemology, what you're saying is no more than self-indulgent gibberish. :shrug:


Every last aspect of civilization that could be considered good or convenient is against nature in some fashion.

Of course, everything that is possible is natural. Therefore, everything that exists is natural. More of my philosophy.

[Montmorency]

But how do you apply that to the issue of political bias in the classroom?

That's not really my concern here.

If you want an opinion: the parents can go ahead and work to discern whichever academic "party line" the teachers are delivering to their students; how much you like this will vary depending on which "party lines" are most prominent in your chosen geographic region

But my opinion will be change if I don my Statist hat...


If I'm self-indulgent, what are you?

A ventriloquist?

[Ironside]

So, with the above in mind, wouldn't it be rather silly to assert that possibility is a gradient and that it is possible to approach impossibility?


That's called math.
lim -> 0 --> sinx/x=1. Or integrals for that matter.

[Major Robert Dump]

MATH THE NEW JIM CROW

[Husar]

Don't take me so literally. There is a standard of objectivity that we could probably all agree on. My point was that you should develop your own politics through experience and learning, not from your school, parents, favorite TV show, or any of that. If you aren't actively questioning every source of information you get, you're a sheep. If you are, you're probably going to be more objective than someone who isn't.
But your experience and learning includes what your parents, teachers and others say and think. Add to this that so many people work all day to earn their food and roof that they don't feel like actively questioning everything in their free time because to them it's even more work and they just had >= 8 hours of that. It's also hard to form your own opinion through learning and experience when it comes to the universe for example. How many people have their own large hadron collider or radio telescope to get their own experiences with that? The results from those scientists are never objective even if they try. Their interpretations etc. are shaped by their world view, their knowledge and their own experiences and learning, even from other non-objective sources.
Even Einstein had a religious side and didn't feel comfortable with the view that science could or would disprove the existance of a god IIRC.


And no one is - because that's not physiologically possible for humans.
~D


Bull. Everyone has bias, yes. Everyone has perspective tailored to experience that overrides objectivity in some way or another, yes. But everyone is also capable of comprehending the idea of being unbiased. Everyone is capable of striving for that. And I think we can all agree that that's a good thing to strive for, yes?
I disagree, a man who is not able to form an opinion and stand by it in the face of adversity has no backbone and is not a real man.
Not necessarily my view but I read statements of that sort elsewhere. So I'm pretty sure we don't all agree that striving to be objective is a good thing. ~;)
I've mentioned this before, but in an experiment people were given the choice of either both getting 200$ or the person asked gets 150 and the other person gets only 100. Even though option 1 is better for both, most people chose option 2, proving that they care more about the relative value and the comparison with others than what is good for everyone or even rationally better for themselves. I got that from a TV show, which is probably not unbiased (for example, if they were the only two people in the world, option 2 would make more sense, but I doubt that was the scenario), but I can see how the world often works like this. To expect everyone to try to be unbiased, objective and rational seems like an exercise in futility. When you fall in love, do you exclusively consult unbiased sources to get to an objective conclusion about your relationship?

[Tellos Athenaios]

That's called math.
lim -> 0 --> sinx/x=1. Or integrals for that matter.

lim x --> 0, that is. Thanks to Mr L'Hopital's discovery of using differentiation to get around pesky division by 0.


MATH THE NEW JIM CROW

Yes, quite. If only established elites learned to do Math they might be able to run a budget and Jim Crow would not see his standard of living get cut 'cause the big guys spent it all in advance on more and bigger guns, shiny Ponzi schemes and robocall companies. ~;)

Or, on the other hand, what if Jim Crow learned to do Math ...

[Tellos Athenaios]

I come at the question from the PoV of my second degree. Education at the primary level is indoctrination: meaning and value is assigned to academic subjects quite independent of the value the students put on them. Every social interaction is a case of modeling whether you acknowledge it or not. "Taking turns", listening to a speaker, politeness, inquisitiveness...etc. Everything(!) is to some extent indoctrination: the basics of "how to act" primarily in an institution, and also as a social being.

It's not evil; it's how we learn to become human.

Ironically this part of indoctrination makes us objectively better at being human and surviving for longer.

[HopAlongBunny]

I think the issue goes more like this (someone correct me if I'm out to lunch): An objective point of view is a delusion. As biological beings fitted with the sensory capability we have, the only PoV accessible to us is the PoV that our limited capabilities allow us to perceive. An objective PoV would not be intelligible (period) We can conceive beyond the realms of gross perception; extending the sense through sophisticated devices; creating artificial systems; but still it is as the old saw goes: not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is likely stranger than we can imagine.

I don't think you were trying to make that claim in your discussion of "objective PoV" but taken literally and w/o qualification it is what you were saying.

[Kadagar_AV]

Sorry for starting a hornets nest and then withdrawing...

May I start with saying I was rude towards HT. I have ABSOLUTELY no evidence that he in any way would treat his children wrong in the classroom.

However, working as a Scandinavian teacher, quitting my job as a scandinavian teacher, I have seen so many people (a VERY VERY VERY vast majority) absolutely throw clear thinking aside to go with a multicultural and feminist agenda, as they hit a classroom full of kids.

For THEM, it's the liberating and correct thing to do.

And in a way, I cant argue against them.

YES INDEED the world would be a better place if we were one happy big collective.
YES INDEED the world would be a better place if men and women were all the same.

And here comes the kicker... We might, or might not, one day reach there!

But on the way there, why are we trying to skip all the steps?

No, some Somali-negroe family will not anytime soon be a good investment as a tax base in a Scandinavian country.
No girls won't anytime soon fit the criteria for hunter (jaegaer/rangers) anytime soon.

My problem with teaching in Sweden (specifically) was that we had one blueprint of how the world looked, and one blueprint of how the world should be. Unfortunately, the worlds had nothing in common, and there were no directions as to how to bridge the gap.

And HELL YEAH, I had to try not to puke as I saw these socialistic state trained teachers go on their daily day to day working life.

I can't speak for Norway now, but in Sweden the BIG thing in school is "Every human beings equal value".

Equal value in what?

No really, I can respect some general right for moderate respect for other human beings... But IMAGINE the shipload of logical fallacies when You try to adhere to "everyones equal value" in a classroom setting.

Again, HT might be the best teacher ever. But as said, the ideas and views he holds in dogma there, so for me it's just another sheep.


With that said, I am still sure he is better than 95% of his colleagues as he actually do an honest attempt to have political discussions, like on this board.

[Husar]

But is there seriously a one among you who thinks that trying to be unbiased is a waste of time? If there is, please, tell me why.
I don't know about us, but you guys obviously are horribly biased. ~;)


In the words of one of my favorite people: Its good to come to a compromise in a situation, but its another thing entirely to compromise yourself in a situation. There's a line between being having a backbone and being an obstinate douche, and I don't think that line needs explaining to most people. Even the ones who know they're being douches.
But even the whole backbone thing may make you horribly biased already.

People actively choose to be biased one way or another very often, goes along with building groups IMHO. The cohesion of the group is then strengthened by a choice to defend that group against "the others", be they individuals or other groups. It happens in sports, on the school playground, in companies and elsewhere. People will defend their group members sometimes even though they know they are wrong, simply because their lizard brain or the wolf brain or whatever tells them not to "betray" someone from their herd. All competitive sports is created to a certain degree to create antagony where there was none so we can indulge in more "us vs them" behaviour. Capitalism is based on the human need to place yourself on top of others instead of finding a rational compromise and people always say that's exactly why it works so well.

That's why I'm not sure about your point that everybody strives to be unbiased, maybe people even delude themselves to think their own bias is the "unbiased" position to take but in the end they often create a bias where no bias was before. I'm not a studied expert on that subject but to me it seems like a relatively human trait, probably related to the monkeysphere and general human social tendencies that do not extend very far considering the amount of inhabitants the planet has today.

[Greyblades]

My goodness this is pointlessly off topic.

[Kadagar_AV]

My goodness this is pointlessly off topic.

This is the backroom! Skip the first pages and go straight for a personal punch!! The topic is what we decide it to be, and the new one is "Does bananas bend left or right?"

[HopAlongBunny]

Yea, our guiding light has abandoned us. Without ACIN we are doomed to wander through the dark back-alleys of epistemology and whatever else strikes our fancy.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yea, our guiding light has abandoned us. Without ACIN we are doomed to wander through the dark back-alleys of epistemology and whatever else strikes our fancy.

I said I had a busy schedule, my due date to read chapter 2 is a week from Tuesday, so I'm sorry if I choose to spend my time doing ochem or thermo. The conversation has been quite interesting anyway.

[Jolt]

For those like me who wondered what that was about:

:on_gwow:


http://youtu.be/6cbfgmorIGE

Now imagine if some Mormons had the idea of covering Mormon tanks with this magical garnment and attacked the Federal Government with them. It would be the end of the US.

[HopAlongBunny]

I was reading one review of this book which basically asserts the book is "historically blind". It jumps from the "Jim Crow" era to its modern manifestation and essentially ignores the intervening period.

It would seem a convenient oversight to ignore the civil rights movement, black panthers, the numerous leaders and movements that mobilized (and disappeared/transformed) over a large span of history. One might be tempted to charge that it "cooks" the data.