Free speech is censorship!

[HoreTore]

The racist right has been most Orwellian in their terms this fall.

The blogger Fjordman has been given access in all three national newspapers, and has had several chronicles published. Many more than any other person could ask for. And yet, he sees himself as censored, as this blog post on not-racist gates of vienna is an example of.

You see, if Fjordman is not given unrestricted and immediate access with whatever he writes, he is censored. In his mind, it is the responsibility and duty of any newspaper to immediately publish any and all drivel he comes up with. The stupidity boggles the mind.

He is not alone though. Christian Tybring-Gjedde published a chronicle in Aftenposten, where he claimed to be an "oppressed dissident". Tybring-Gjedde is a member of parliament for the Progress Party. Not a random member either, he is one of the most prominent. Before that, he was a leading politician in the capitol, Oslo. he is a member of the select group of people with near unrestricted access to the media. The media are drooling for his comments, all he needs to do to get a front page is to pick up the phone and call a reporter. And yet, he sees himself as censored, oppressed and hunted, thus proving that bottomless stupidity isn't restricted to random bloggers.

Has the racist right lost its grip on reality completely?

[CountArach]

Has the racist right lost its grip on reality completely?

Did they ever have it?

[Kralizec]

It's fashionable nowadays for the more... "driven" right-wingers to portray and to think of themselves as victims. Look at Newt Gingrich' reaction to a question about his martial infidelity ("I'm appalled...I'm sick of the liberal media protecting Obama!") and how well that turned out for him in the primaries.

Or in the Netherlands: a majority in our "house of commons" wants to introduce legislation that will force political parties to publicize financial gifts that exceed 4500 euros. The PVV (Wilders) is against this, and not only comes up with a load of contrived excuses of why they're against it, but also proclaim that the measure is only intented as an attack on them.

[HoreTore]

Haha!

"Openness - the primary weapon of tyrants!"

[Fragony]

Again, show me how Fjordman is racist. You won't find him shaking hands with the fatah-jugend on a certain island like your PM, that much is true

[HoreTore]

Again, show me how Fjordman is racist.

When you buy into the pseudo-science of racial IQ-levels, defines roles for ethnic groups based on their presumed average IQ level and claim that culture is genetic, I find it hard to class him as anything else.

Plus a bunch of other stuff, but I don't really feel like rambling on and on, I leave the rambling to Little Chubby Curlyhair.

EDIT: His racism is trumped by his hatred of women though.

[Subotan]

Not directly linked to the topic at hand, but very relevant.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Not directly linked to the topic at hand, but very relevant.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

That cartoon doesn't recognise the fact that any supposed disadvantages that the lower-IQ ethnic group has have been accounted for in plenty of studies. The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study gave white and black children the exact same conditions in their upbringing and still found the white children to have IQ's that were high enough to be statistically significant. The nature of that study meant that any educational or cultural factors were made redundant.

What I see in everyday life tells me that there are not huge differences in the mental capabilities of white and black people. But when you are talking about races that have lived in isolation from each other for thousands of years and begin from a very limited gene pool, then the way in which they develop certain racial characteristics over the generations is simply an extension of the same principle where children tend to take on their parents features. That's why Mongoloids have epicanthic folds, Northern Europeans have fair hair, Africans don't have crowns on the tops of their heads, native Americans can't grow facial hair, Ashkenazi Jews are particularly prone to certain genetic defects etc. These are not evolutionary traits that were selected for in some sort of Darwinian survival of the fittest enviroment. They are just hereditary traits passed down from parent to child, but magnified over many generations, as is the way of things. I don't think it is therefore outrageous to suggest that mental differences will complement these physical ones, in fact common sense says that is is impossible for them not to not exist at all (no matter how insignificantly).

Although at the same time using white and black as the categories to base the study of intelligence and everything else on is not ideal. 'Race' isn't something clear cut, different races aren't billiard balls (to use the political comparison with nation states) that never interact. Different races or peoples or whatever you want to call them have never been completely isolated, and thats why for example even though Somalians have black skin, they tend to have more Semitic facial features.

But just because race isn't something as simple as being black or white doesn't mean that it can be dismissed entirely, I think that is just wishful thinking and ignoring common sense and reality.

And although I don't think that racial differences are anywhere near significant enough to trump what all of humanity has in common, I've got to say I find the prospect of a world where everyone has brown skin, brown eyes and black hair to be pretty terrifying.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Since when has IQ ever been a relevant measure of anything, except what tack the trick cyclist is going to try with you next?

[Fragony]

Since when has IQ ever been a relevant measure of anything

You see any reason to dismiss it's importance?

[Tuuvi]

That cartoon doesn't recognise the fact that any supposed disadvantages that the lower-IQ ethnic group has have been accounted for in plenty of studies. The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study gave white and black children the exact same conditions in their upbringing and still found the white children to have IQ's that were high enough to be statistically significant. The nature of that study meant that any educational or cultural factors were made redundant.

What I see in everyday life tells me that there are not huge differences in the mental capabilities of white and black people. But when you are talking about races that have lived in isolation from each other for thousands of years and begin from a very limited gene pool, then the way in which they develop certain racial characteristics over the generations is simply an extension of the same principle where children tend to take on their parents features. That's why Mongoloids have epicanthic folds, Northern Europeans have fair hair, Africans don't have crowns on the tops of their heads, native Americans can't grow facial hair, Ashkenazi Jews are particularly prone to certain genetic defects etc. These are not evolutionary traits that were selected for in some sort of Darwinian survival of the fittest enviroment. They are just hereditary traits passed down from parent to child, but magnified over many generations, as is the way of things. I don't think it is therefore outrageous to suggest that mental differences will complement these physical ones, in fact common sense says that is is impossible for them not to not exist at all (no matter how insignificantly).

Although at the same time using white and black as the categories to base the study of intelligence and everything else on is not ideal. 'Race' isn't something clear cut, different races aren't billiard balls (to use the political comparison with nation states) that never interact. Different races or peoples or whatever you want to call them have never been completely isolated, and thats why for example even though Somalians have black skin, they tend to have more Semitic facial features.

But just because race isn't something as simple as being black or white doesn't mean that it can be dismissed entirely, I think that is just wishful thinking and ignoring common sense and reality.

And although I don't think that racial differences are anywhere near significant enough to trump what all of humanity has in common, I've got to say I find the prospect of a world where everyone has brown skin, brown eyes and black hair to be pretty terrifying.

I've heard that Africa is the most genetically diverse continent. So your argument that it's possible for blacks to have a lower average IQ because of relative genetic isolation is false, imo.

Also, not that it matters, but Native Americans can grow facial hair. Just throwing that out there.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I've heard that Africa is the most genetically diverse continent. So your argument that it's possible for blacks to have a lower average IQ because of relative genetic isolation is false, imo.

Africa's genetic diversity does nothing to prove my claim false. Africa's genetic diversity stems from the fact that modern day Africans can trace their lineage back to a number of different isolated population that all originated in Africa - they are not diverse in the sense that they have mixed with the human populations outside of Africa that modern day non-Africans are all descended from.

According to the out of Africa theory the rest of the human population (in my understanding) left before they could mix with many of these ancient African population groups, and are instead descended from the most ancient human population groups that sprang up in Africa and hence their lack of genetic diversity. But the limited genetic variation of these humans that left Africa means there would be an obvious potential for the traits of their ancestors to be magnified in their descendents - whether that is increased/decreased intelligence, increased/descreased strength etc.

But then talking about white and black here is too simplistic and can be misleading. Skin colour is superficial. Of itself it doesn't necessarily have to carry other attributes whether they be physical or mental. From my understanding of evolution the original humans would have almost certainly have been white, and the darkening of their skin would have been a response to losing their body hair (and only then if Africa had a similar climate then as it does now, whis is IIRC another point of contention).

As a white person, there might have been a point in my ancestry where my ancestors would have had black skin. But then that doesn't mean that they had the other features associated with black people today. All of humanity outside of Africa today is descended from a very small ancestor group that sprang out of Africa, while all Africans and their diaspora are descended from a whole host of ancestor groups that the rest of humanity has no connection to whatsoever. These groups would have made a huge contribution to the genetic traits of modern Africans.

So if anything I would think all this reinforces the possibility of IQ differences.

Also, not that it matters, but Native Americans can grow facial hair. Just throwing that out there.

Well it is at least a lot less prevalent than it is with those of European descent.

[rory_20_uk]

Not directly linked to the topic at hand, but very relevant.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It would be better to have "get a bunch of whites to enslave other whites and sell them to black traders". Or would that muddy the waters of one lot utterly guilty and one lot utterly innocent?

[The Stranger]

also, dont forget the part where you are make sure that they understand in every possible way that they are not human.

or would forgetting that just turn it into 'common slavery'...?

[InsaneApache]

It would be better to have "get a bunch of whites to enslave other whites and sell them to black traders". Or would that muddy the waters of one lot utterly guilty and one lot utterly innocent?

Right on the money rory_20_uk, right on the money.

[Strike For The South]

Science, no one here is doing it right

[a completely inoffensive name]

Strike's knowledge of this subject, and other's ignorance of it, creates a nice juxtaposition.

[The Stranger]

what subject? its like 3 topics in one...

[a completely inoffensive name]

what subject? its like 3 topics in one...

Everything, Strike is God.

[classical_hero]

what subject? its like 3 topics in one...

That is the problem when you have an OP that is not focused on one subject and wanders into other topics. Confusion reigns. The title says something about Free Speech, but that does not seem to reflect the OP. We are talking aboutt QI, when I don't see too much intelligence in this thread to begin with.

[Fragony]

Does't mean it isn't there , as you said you don't see it

[Strike For The South]

If we're not going to utilize whatever sort of demonstrable results we get from these studies for policy what is the point of talking about this?

Unless someone argues to the contrary, I feel like race and intellegence has about as much merit as does a comparison of long and short muscle fibers between the same people

I have grown weary of this topic, you may all go home now

[Rhyfelwyr]

Strike's knowledge of this subject, and other's ignorance of it, creates a nice juxtaposition.

So far all my points have been met with is three statements that were presented as facts but were in fact nothing more than conjecture, followed by a chorus of "hallelujah".

[The Stranger]

i dont think he was being serious

[Strike For The South]

I can find citations if you wish....

"Race" and intellegence is such a murky subject. As evidenced by this thread we can't even agree what exactly race is and all of us have been taught in the same Western European style. We are a small, common sample group and we can't even define our question!

As a matter of utilizing race/intellegence to make public policy decisons....it wouldn't even crack my top ten. If there was ever any evidence that intellegence is somewhat hereditary (which some scientists think there may be) it still ranks much lower in making up what we conceive to be intellegence.

They may be facts but they all have enough complications within themselves for us to question if they are really more reliable variables than race.

That's like your opinion man

About the first point, I think that can be largely attributed to people getting more 'fly' for tests, and apprently this trend has now more or less levelled off. It also doesn't explain how those of different races that went through the same education system would have significantly different results. There have been studies that address this point in relation to race.

Damn, that's allot of Jensen citations. I know the man is considerd the godfather of "non-racist" hereidtary intellegence but damn. I would also point out in Jensens watershed reasearch he does concede one of the problems was how black children are conditioned by society. Immigrants from Africa socre much higher, now granted many of the immigrants are professionals but if there is such a statistically significgant gap we should see something. There are so many more layers to this before we even breach race, and even if we concede a 20 point IQ differential we have to ask if IQ is even a valid way to measure itellegence.

Now the second point about Koreans in Japan. It is a good point but it raises even more questions. If a Korean in Korea normally scores as well as a Japanese person in Japan, then it would seem likely that a Korean in Japan scoring more lowly might be due to culture/education, presuming they went over as immigrants taking the poorer jobs. In that scenario, to see how important education was you would have to compare the results of the low class Koreans in Japan with the lower-class Koreans in Korea.

But as east Asians they should be scoring around the same, shouldn't they? They are marginalized as a group and there culture shows it

I wouldn't be surprised if education accounted for that difference, but it just doesn't compare to the differences in IQ seen between blacks and whites in America. Since having been integrated into America's white-created education system, black peoples' IQ has increased, although remains lagging quite significantly. You then have to wonder why this gap remains - if someone were to point out that these black Americans have roots in countries with extremely low average IQs, that's a valid point. We are still left wondering how far race, culture and education each contribute to these differences.

The American school system is more segragated than it has ever been and the lions share of black children go to underfunded, overcrowded, piss poor public schools. Couple that with generations of people who have no history of education with a society that has a set defnition of how you should act (esp. if you are a male) and we have so much more to think about before we get to race. I'm willing to bet dollars to doughnuts the above factors matter exponentially more than some flimsy, western construct of race.

And as for the final point, it doesn't address the issue of causation. A culture that does not value education could very well be a product of the frustration that a group of people have had as a result of their failure in the education system. Or their culture could simply reflect their own natural aversion to pursuing education.

No human has a natural aversion to learning, if we did we'd by dead. Now certain cultures in Western society may have an aversion to our style of education (which I don't think for a second is biologicaly ingrained but I digress) but that brings us back to the question of what is intellgence and how do we measure it.

Of course culture is something that is heavily conflated with race. However when the two are separated as individual variables, I've already provided an example of a study which showed that race proved the factor which caused variations in results.

The adoption study?

I know I am taking the unpopular position here but people on the other side just seem to be too complacent, whether by dismissing IQ tests completely or refusing to acknowledge the possibility of any sort of racial differences just because things might not be as simple as some people imagine them to be.

And you haven't set your parameters or defined your variables. Are we looking at intellegence differences between White Americans and black Americans based on IQ tests? Or have we defined these massively broad topics?

[Rhyfelwyr]

First off, sorry for taking so long after I said I would reply.

"Race" and intellegence is such a murky subject. As evidenced by this thread we can't even agree what exactly race is and all of us have been taught in the same Western European style. We are a small, common sample group and we can't even define our question!

I think we have all agreed that race is something quite fluid, and not, well... all black and white. While this means we might each define the term 'race' differently, we can still debate the points tha have been brought up without talking past each other. What one person calls a racial difference, another person might view as just the standard process of traits being passed on hereditarily through generations. We can agree on the facts, while still having semantic differences.

As a matter of utilizing race/intellegence to make public policy decisons....it wouldn't even crack my top ten. If there was ever any evidence that intellegence is somewhat hereditary (which some scientists think there may be) it still ranks much lower in making up what we conceive to be intellegence.

This I would agree with and in in particular the prospect of any race/intelligence relationship being used in policy making seems horrific to me.

That's like your opinion man

Well, it is a fact that correlation does not always equal causation. When somebody wishes to present a causational relationship as a fact, the burden of proof lies with them to say why the relationship must be causational, and not merely complementary.

Damn, that's allot of Jensen citations. I know the man is considerd the godfather of "non-racist" hereidtary intellegence but damn. I would also point out in Jensens watershed reasearch he does concede one of the problems was how black children are conditioned by society. Immigrants from Africa socre much higher, now granted many of the immigrants are professionals but if there is such a statistically significgant gap we should see something. There are so many more layers to this before we even breach race, and even if we concede a 20 point IQ differential we have to ask if IQ is even a valid way to measure itellegen

I'll admit that I don't have the knowledge to get into the nitty-gritty of all of this, I simply wished to point out the possibility of a racial factor still being on the cards. I'm just going to fling my hands in the air and concede that this is all still an ongoing debate in academic circles.

But as east Asians they should be scoring around the same, shouldn't they? They are marginalized as a group and there culture shows it

Certainly, education/culture seems the most likely factor in this case. Although I would like to point out that I always said that education would most likely be an important factor, of which race would simply be another. Crucially, do you know how big the IQ gap is in this Korean example, and how it compares to the cases where the divide is racial?

The American school system is more segragated than it has ever been and the lions share of black children go to underfunded, overcrowded, piss poor public schools. Couple that with generations of people who have no history of education with a society that has a set defnition of how you should act (esp. if you are a male) and we have so much more to think about before we get to race. I'm willing to bet dollars to doughnuts the above factors matter exponentially more than some flimsy, western construct of race.

These are all valid points. But just as with the points I raised, we are only hypothesising until we look at some solid studies that isolate these variables and their impact on IQ.

And while defining your terms and parameters is important, I think maybe we can be a bit too strict sometimes. Obviously, when these things can be set in stone, they should be. But the fact that some concepts may be a bit too abstract to place into such a rigid framework doesn't mean we should abandon studying them entirely. Indeed, finding an agreeable definition for a term can be the very purpose of a debate, and IMO that is at least part of what is going on here.

I mean, I could ask what on earth a "western" construct is supposed to mean, and why it is automatically assumed that I'm advocating it. But I know what you are getting at, so I roll with it.

No human has a natural aversion to learning, if we did we'd by dead. Now certain cultures in Western society may have an aversion to our style of education (which I don't think for a second is biologicaly ingrained but I digress) but that brings us back to the question of what is intellgence and how do we measure it.

I should have been clearer, I meant western style education, rather than any sort of learning per se. I will grant that IQ may be far from the only kind of intelligence there is, but if there were to be racial differences in different kinds of intelligence, then that would be no less worth considering that intelligence in general.

The adoption study?

That's the one I was referring to, yes.

And you haven't set your parameters or defined your variables. Are we looking at intellegence differences between White Americans and black Americans based on IQ tests? Or have we defined these massively broad topics?

We're looking at what we're looking at. IQ may well not be the be all and end all of intelligence, but if IQ differences exist I'm going to ask why. Likewise skin colour isn't the be all and end all of race, but if differences in skin colour coincide with differences in intelligence, I'm going to ask why. As I said earlier, this debate may be less about rigidly categorising 'races' and then studying the facts in that framework; and more about improving our understanding of what race means by studying the facts beforehand.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So far all my points have been met with is three statements that were presented as facts but were in fact nothing more than conjecture, followed by a chorus of "hallelujah".

People generally don't care about how good their arguments are in a case like this because they are mainly winning a little moral victory for themselves over the enemy. Some people prefer to do little else because they find it reassuring. But I would just let them...I don't think racial IQ is worth researching, not even to debunk the silly things said about it.

[Strike For The South]

People generally don't care about how good their arguments are in a case like this because they are mainly winning a little moral victory for themselves over the enemy. Some people prefer to do little else because they find it reassuring. But I would just let them...I don't think racial IQ is worth researching, not even to debunk the silly things said about it.

That hurts my feelings

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That hurts my feelings

lol, rather than name anyone specifically I chose to insult everyone I guess. Seemed like a good idea at the time.

[Rhyfelwyr]

People generally don't care about how good their arguments are in a case like this because they are mainly winning a little moral victory for themselves over the enemy. Some people prefer to do little else because they find it reassuring. But I would just let them...I don't think racial IQ is worth researching, not even to debunk the silly things said about it.

Yeah I've found the attitudes of some of the 'freethinkers' in this thread to be a bit uninspiring.

But Strike gave a good reply above, I'll get round to replying later.