Do you think all demographics are innately equal?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



The Ellimist
Do you think that among the major protected classes (race, gender, national identity, etc.) there is a 100% equal distribution of relevant innate cognitive traits that correlate with success in a market system? Why or why not?

ILS
Me and Einstein are totally comparable, just something something systemic oppression poor me

Rockydonovang
wait till zigg sees this

Flyattractor
Well according to some if you WANT Success in the Market System... that makes you LESS then others.

Beniboybling
no black ppl r inferiur.

Flyattractor
Black People don't like Money?

Emperordmb
In aggregate? No. You can chalk it up to geographic, historical, and perhaps cultural factors, but I'd be highly surprised if the distributions of these characteristics for all groups were identical just based on the statistical unlikelihood of that happening.

However you can't use the aggregate and pin it down to the level of the individual and judge someone based on their demographic because the aggregate statistic doesn't tell you jack shit about the individual characteristics of a specific constituent of said group, ergo judging someone on the basis of their identity group is disgusting, and policies giving different racial groups different treatments for example (such as Jim Crow, Affirmative Action, etc.) are disgusting and unjustified.

cdtm
There's a Youtube video of a single digit kid solving a Rubik's cube using algorithms. In the comments section, some people express amazement at how smart the kid is.

The father gets pissed. He says, If YOUR kid put in the work...!" As if being smart is an unfair advantage.

cdtm
And I think you can't win on this topic, so that is all I'll say..

Flyattractor
Originally posted by cdtm
There's a Youtube video of a single digit kid solving a Rubik's cube using algorithms. In the comments section, some people express amazement at how smart the kid is.

The father gets pissed. He says, If YOUR kid put in the work...!" As if being smart is an unfair advantage.

That is probably why the U.S Educational System is doing its best to make all of our kids into brain dead little shit heads.

Surtur
Wasn't there that study that showed men are both smarter and dumber than women? We are more likely to have above average intelligence, but also more likely to have below average. While women are likely to have average intelligence.

dadudemon
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Do you think that among the major protected classes (race, gender, national identity, etc.) there is a 100% equal distribution of relevant innate cognitive traits that correlate with success in a market system? Why or why not?

My beliefs mean shit on the topic because facts don't care about my feelings.


There are differences and we've known this for ages.

As for your last question, what exactly are you asking? Are you asking if smart people do better, socioeconomically?

shiv
http://www.g2mil.com/grenadecolor1.gif

Surtur
https://psmag.com/news/the-most-creative-people-are-men-so-are-the-least

https://qz.com/441905/men-are-both-dumber-and-smarter-than-women/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200901/why-men-are-more-intelligent-women

Folk can decide for themselves.

cdtm
Originally posted by Surtur
Wasn't there that study that showed men are both smarter and dumber than women? We are more likely to have above average intelligence, but also more likely to have below average. While women are likely to have average intelligence.

Basically, men are sharply all over the map, while women have more of an average curve.

Surtur
Originally posted by cdtm
Basically, men are sharply all over the map, while women have more of an average curve.

See, they need us. Both to be geniuses and accomplish shit and to be dumb and make them look better.

Beniboybling
Originally posted by dadudemon
There are differences and we've known this for ages.go on. tell us more. tell us about the whites and the brown people

Surtur
Lol, every time Beni challenges DDM it ends in hilarious tragedy for him.

eat

Beniboybling
Originally posted by Surtur
Lol, every time Beni challenges DDM it ends in hilarious tragedy for him. https://i.redd.it/ghlagtshmscz.gif

Surtur
Originally posted by Beniboybling
https://i.redd.it/ghlagtshmscz.gif

https://media.makeameme.org/created/its-true-and.jpg

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Beniboybling
go on. tell us more. tell us about the whites and the brown people

Lol I expected someone to show irrational moral outrage.

Rage.Of.Olympus
Money/resources, quality of education, and the individuals you are exposed to during your developmental years are the real advantages in a market system. Even on a personal/anecdotal note, I have studied across three different continents (Africa, North America, and Europe) and those categories continuously stick out to me.

No inherent traits cumulatively equals a single one of those categories. Clearly, different traits offer significant advantages in specific fields: stronger athletic ability in sports, affinity for memorization based learning for textbook based examination etc. but on such individual circumstances, I don't see how statistics can be useful for interpretation.

Surtur
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Lol I expected someone to show irrational moral outrage.

laughing

Beniboybling
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Lol I expected someone to show irrational moral outrage. https://media0.giphy.com/media/rngE31q0PTHbO/giphy.gif

The Ellimist
I feel like Beni secretly fears he can't defend a "100% equal distribution" position and is appealing to mockery to hide that. mmm

Beniboybling
I feel like Elm secretly fears voicing his race realism viewpoint so created a thread in which others can do it for him. http://images.killermovies.com/forums/icons/v2/icon5.gif

The Ellimist
I mean even if your strawman were accurate, that would have to do with social pressure, while yours has to do with a lack of rational arguments. But I've noticed that you think empirical data is less reflective of reality than your virtue signaling. A talk on how offensive something is means much more to you than graphs, data, math or logic.

It's not so much about answering the question with a "yes" or "no" as it is recognizing that on some level, statistical distributions are a question of empiricism and not offensiveness. We may have to pretend it's the latter for the sake of everyday life, of course, but that's not the same as actually thinking it's the arbiter of reality.

As illustrated, you immediately recognized the absurdity of assuming one position when you read the completely accurately phrased OP and realized that assuming a 100% equal distribution on no data but faith was dumb.

Patient_Leech
There is a very controversial book on this subject called The Bell Curve, by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein.

I think there are likely differences between races, but it's sort of irrelevant information in day to day interactions. You should still treat individuals as individuals. If an Asian man walks in for an interview his Asianness (and any statistical information relating to Asians) shouldn't be a factor in the interview.

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I think someone wrote a very controversial book on this subject called The Bell Curve.

I think there are likely differences between races, but it's sort of irrelevant information in day to day interactions. You should still treat individuals as individuals. If an Asian man walks in for an interview his Asianness (and any statistical information relating to Asians) shouldn't be a factor in the interview.

It's certainly the case that you usually shouldn't judge individuals by their group characteristics, though as a society we've learned to condemn discussion of group differences precisely because we think anyone talking about them is also judging individuals. It's a weird contradiction.

Beniboybling
Originally posted by The Ellimist
I mean even if your strawman were accurate, that would have to do with social pressure, while yours has to do with a lack of rational arguments. But I've noticed that you think empirical data is less reflective of reality than your virtue signaling. A talk on how offensive something is means much more to you than graphs, data, math or logic.

It's not so much about answering the question with a "yes" or "no" as it is recognizing that on some level, statistical distributions are a question of empiricism and not offensiveness. We may have to pretend it's the latter for the sake of everyday life, of course, but that's not the same as actually thinking it's the arbiter of reality.

As illustrated, you immediately recognized the absurdity of assuming one position when you read the completely accurately phrased OP and realized that assuming a 100% equal distribution on no data but faith was dumb. just say it, you think blacks are inferior. roll eyes (sarcastic)

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Beniboybling
just say it, you think blacks are inferior. roll eyes (sarcastic)

I never implied that, Beni. Do you actually have something substantive to say or shall we send you back to the shallow end of the pool?

Let's face it: whether I adopted "yes" or "no", you would get annihilated in a debate. I mean partially that's due to our differences in ability, but also because you have the least knowledge of the topic despite being the most certain person in this thread.

Nephthys
Personally I'm more interested in why someone would ask this question.

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Nephthys
Personally I'm more interested in why someone would ask this question.

Because part of the reason I've distanced myself from the left is that people ask questions like you just did when confronted with any question outside their boundaries of social harmony. One of the pillars of Liberalism used to be open discourse + scientific/ratioinal thinking, and nobody seems to care about that anymore.

Take you and Beni, for example. You both have a really consistent habit of appealing to mockery + virtue signaling whenever anyone mentions anything in topics you label "off limits". And yes, you do have to do this most of the time in real life, but it seems like you both take this as an arbiter of truth and not a social signal.

Nephthys
I think Dmb already answered the question. Obviously due to various factors as well as simple statistical variance making it impossible no demographic can be exactly equal. But its pointless to apply it on an individual level and any individual can be any thing making it a largely irrelevant question. The only benefit to this kind of question is "race realism" bigotry attempting to mask itself in intellectualism or some kind of petty "gotcha" attempt at liberals.

Which is so painfully transparent that there really isn't a need to seriously engage on it. Asking a question in bad faith gets you a bad faith answer in return.

Beniboybling
Originally posted by The Ellimist
I never implied that, Beni. Do you actually have something substantive to say or shall we send you back to the shallow end of the pool?
Just try it.

https://media.giphy.com/media/26u461AjcZOsx1Cww/giphy.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/3og0IvyL2AEpufTXuo/giphy.gif

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Nephthys
I think Dmb already answered the question. Obviously due to various factors as well as simple statistical variance making it impossible no demographic can be exactly equal. But its pointless to apply it on an individual level and any individual can be any thing making it a largely irrelevant question. The only benefit to this kind of question is "race realism" bigotry attempting to mask itself in intellectualism or some kind of petty "gotcha" attempt at liberals.

Which is so painfully transparent that there really isn't a need to seriously engage on it. Asking a question in bad faith gets you a bad faith answer in return.

Well it's easy to use that gotcha when people on the left accuse anyone who thinks there are differences of racial bigotry even when you just pointed out that you can think there are differences without actually being a bigot - I mean look, beni just implicitly accused dadudemon of that because he mildly said something of that sort, and me too despite getting into flame wars over my opposition to Trump's immigration policy. So to many people, it's not obvious and you would get called a bigot just for saying it is.

Granted, there is a point to knowing this information: it can be used to dispute false positives on discrimination (e.g. sometimes we think an unequal outcome is always do to discrimination).

Beniboybling
Originally posted by Nephthys
I think Dmb already answered the question. Obviously due to various factors as well as simple statistical variance making it impossible no demographic can be exactly equal. But its pointless to apply it on an individual level and any individual can be any thing making it a largely irrelevant question. The only benefit to this kind of question is "race realism" bigotry attempting to mask itself in intellectualism or some kind of petty "gotcha" attempt at liberals.

Which is so painfully transparent that there really isn't a need to seriously engage on it. Asking a question in bad faith gets you a bad faith answer in return. thumb up smile

Nephthys
So basically you admit you came in here looking for a fight and now you're whining that people aren't falling for your "cunning" trap.

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Beniboybling
thumb up smile

> thinks anyone who thinks there are differences is a bigot and a race realist, dadudemon included

> thinks there are differences...but that you can think that without being a bigot.

> doesn't notice contradiction at all

I mean come on now, you're better than this.

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Nephthys
So basically you admit you came in here looking for a fight and now you're whining that people aren't falling for your "cunning" trap.

No.

You realize that your position would get you destroyed if you were a politician just because you claimed differences exist, right?

And you also ignored my point about false positives.

Beniboybling
Originally posted by Nephthys
So basically you admit you came in here looking for a fight and now you're whining that people aren't falling for your "cunning" trap. seems it, yeah.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
> thinks anyone who thinks there are differences is a bigot and a race realist, dadudemon included

> thinks there are differences...but that you can think that without being a bigot.

> doesn't notice contradiction at all

I can't believe I used to have you on Ant's tier as a debater, KEK. haturs gonna hate. sad

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Beniboybling
seems it, yeah.

haturs gonna hate. sad

So you concede the double standard then? You, Beni, can believe differences exist without being a bigot, but nobody else can, not even someone who's been more vocally against racist practices (e.g. Trump's policies) on this board and is an actual minority than you. thumb up

quanchi112
Originally posted by Nephthys
So basically you admit you came in here looking for a fight and now you're whining that people aren't falling for your "cunning" trap. Ellimist isn't that smart when you break it down and he's a coward. He's upset people aren't upset by his baiting. Don't worry he will accept all kinds of debates and then flee for months again. He isn't to be taken seriously tbh.

The Ellimist
Just so you know quanchi is pretty far to the right and hates liberals like Neph, he's mad that I won't accept his Sidious vs. Snoke debate given that he's acknowledged to be the worst or second worst debater on KMC.

Beniboybling
Originally posted by The Ellimist
So you concede the double standard then? You, Beni, can believe differences exist without being a bigot, but nobody else can, not even someone who's been more vocally against racist practices (e.g. Trump's policies) on this board and is an actual minority than you. thumb up i concede nothing, coward.

Nephthys
Originally posted by The Ellimist
No.

You realize that your position would get you destroyed if you were a politician just because you claimed differences exist, right?

And you also ignored my point about false positives.

You did, bro.

I don't think so, no. Dmb brought up Affirmative Action, a policy that exists as an admittance that differences do exist and argues that its due to historical, economic, social and cultural factors that should be rectified.

Like I said, I'm under no obligation to act in good faith when you started the argument in bad faith to begin with.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Ellimist isn't that smart when you break it down and he's a coward. He's upset people aren't upset by his baiting. Don't worry he will accept all kinds of debates and then flee for months again. He isn't to be taken seriously tbh.

Damn, owned.

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Beniboybling
i concede nothing, coward.

"I concede nothing" isn't a substantive response. You refuse to say anything meaningful and call me a coward? laughing

quanchi112
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Just so you know quanchi is pretty far to the right and hates liberals like Neph, he's mad that I won't accept his Sidious vs. Snoke debate given that he's acknowledged to be the worst or second worst debater on KMC. Actually that's incorrect I'm an independent but you're too arrogant to actually pay attention and typically make up your mind in Trumpian fashion. You spend five minutes reading a few posts and foolishly believe you're all knowing with a subject. I also don't want that debate now that Azronger refused until the trilogy is over. You'd accept and then puss out. You've done this before. Opinions don't matter only the facts do. You'll never grasp this you high school girl. Only opinions matter to you. You should strive to be better and actually see something through for a change.

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Nephthys
I don't think so, no.

Sorry, but you're delusional then. In case if you didn't know, the much maligned The Bell Curve said the exact same thing you did and made no endorsement of racist policies and it's still widely despised. People are not as nuanced on this position as you think they are.



Well it's a self fulfilling prophecy because the only reason anyone thinks this question could possibly be in bad faith is because people like yourself have cast anyone who questions certain premises as bigots even when you admit you hold the exact same beliefs that I allegedly do.

And I notice that you still have ignored my false positive argument because you know you can't refute it. smile

Beniboybling
i'm with quanchi on this one. sad

Nephthys
No, people think the question is made in bad faith because those who ask it are either race realist bigots masking their racism in intellectualism or douchebags trying to gotcha liberals. Just like you actually are doing right now.

I already explained this man, keep up.

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Beniboybling
i'm with quanchi on this one. sad

All flaming aside, why don't you think it's important to have this information if we're trying to measure discrimination by looking at outcomes? You'd have to know to determine whether unequal outcomes are the result of discrimination or something else.

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Nephthys
No, people think the question is made in bad faith because those who ask it are either race realist bigots masking their racism in intellectualism or douchebags trying to gotcha liberals. Just like you actually are doing.

I already explained this man, keep up.

I love how you ignore the false positive argument again.

Nephthys
Yeah, I didn't even read it, lol.

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Nephthys
Yeah, I didn't even read it, lol.

How is it a bad faith argument to point out that unequal outcomes don't prove discrimination when you just admitted that there are other variables at play?

Do you think a fundamental statistical concept (adjusting for confounding variables) is "bad faith debating"? Or do you not have a response and are just appealing to mockery to avoid admitting it?

Lestov16
I think that everybody is born with an equal potential for prosperity, but environmental/cultural circumstances and/or personal ambition are responsible for whether that potential gets harvested or wasted.

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Lestov16
I think that everybody is born with an equal potential for prosperity, but environmental/cultural circumstances and/or personal ambition are responsible for whether that potential gets harvested or wasted.

Do you mean everybody as in each group, or everybody as in each individual? Presumably the former as the latter is clearly wrong (there is genetic variation for cognitive traits).

Surtur
eat

ILS
Trust Beni to press pause on his history of making fun of Neph to join him in arms and turn this thread into a display of hysterical moral cancer and virtue signalling.

Surtur
Originally posted by ILS
Trust Beni to press pause on his history of making fun of Neph to join him in arms and turn this thread into a display of hysterical moral cancer and virtue signalling.

The amusing thing is they are going all Admiral Ackbar with "it's a trap!" and they act like it is obvious and yet they still got hysterical anyways.

quanchi112
Originally posted by Nephthys
No, people think the question is made in bad faith because those who ask it are either race realist bigots masking their racism in intellectualism or douchebags trying to gotcha liberals. Just like you actually are doing right now.

I already explained this man, keep up. Ellimist doesn't really listen to your points he's already thinking about how he's going to respond.

Beniboybling
Originally posted by ILS
Trust Beni to press pause on his history of making fun of Neph to join him in arms and turn this thread into a display of hysterical moral cancer and virtue signalling. let me guess, another race realist. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Nephthys
Personally I've always felt that Beni and I would be pretty friendly if not for our clashing views on SW. I think he's a pretty cool guy and respect him fairly highly.

The Ellimist
By your own standards you and Neph just admitted to being race realists, kek:

Originally posted by Nephthys
Obviously due to various factors as well as simple statistical variance making it impossible no demographic can be exactly equal.

But I know you have no response to the fact that we need this data to measure discrimination due to simple statistics. Keep falling for the trap though. thumb up

quanchi112
Point proven.

laughing out loud

The Ellimist
Beni: everyone who thinks there are differences is a race realist!

Beni: Neph is right, differences exist but you don't have to be a bigot to believe that!

It's like you guys are just really well coded AI bots whose argumentative premises are randomized each shitpost.

quanchi112
Ellimist is triggered by his own thread.

|King Joker|

The Ellimist

Lestov16
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Do you mean everybody as in each group, or everybody as in each individual? Presumably the former as the latter is clearly wrong (there is genetic variation for cognitive traits).


Put it like this, even if genetic variations cause variable cognitive traits, there are no "superior" genetic variations. Every genetic variation would come with both cognitive advantages AND flaws that would make said individual/race both superior and inferior to the other individuals/races, as such putting them all on an "equal" scale. Another problem is that there are many ways to test intelligence, and one ethnicity's genotype is not going to dominate all tests. Also, humans have been migrating to different countries and copulating with different ethnicities since our species inception, so it would be difficult to find an individual who has ONLY the genotype of their base ethnicity.

Beniboybling

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Lestov16
Put it like this, even if genetic variations cause variable cognitive traits, there are no "superior" genetic variations. Every genetic variation would come with both cognitive advantages AND flaws that would make said individual/race both superior and inferior to the other individuals/races, as such putting them all on an "equal" scale. Another problem is that there are many ways to test intelligence, and one ethnicity's genotype is not going to dominate all tests. Also, humans have been migrating to different countries and copulating with different ethnicities since our species inception, so it would be difficult to find an individual who has ONLY the genotype of their base ethnicity.

Well I think it's a little sophistic to claim that there are no "superior" variations - unless if we're saying this in a really fundamental way (e.g. no objective morality to dictate it) there are certainly variations that are, on average, much better for modern society. I think we intuitively accept this when we judge people on a daily basis anyway.

Beniboybling
Originally posted by Nephthys
Personally I've always felt that Beni and I would be pretty friendly if not for our clashing views on SW. I think he's a pretty cool guy and respect him fairly highly. love

Lestov16
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Well I think it's a little sophistic to claim that there are no "superior" variations - unless if we're saying this in a really fundamental way (e.g. no objective morality to dictate it) there are certainly variations that are, on average, much better for modern society. I think we intuitively accept this when we judge people on a daily basis anyway.

Could you give some examples of these "superior variations" ? I mean, there certainly are cultural attitudes that would work better in a modern society, but that has nothing to do with genetics IMO.

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Lestov16
Could you give some examples of these "superior variations" ? I mean, there certainly are cultural attitudes that would work better in a modern society, but that has nothing to do with genetics IMO.

Genetic components to intelligence, work ethic, emotional stability, creativity, etc. Of course some of these in extreme or bad configurations can have their problems, but if you could choose whether your child was born predisposed to be moderately hard working or lazy af, you'd pick the former.

Surtur
Originally posted by The Ellimist
tbh there is evidence that people who identify as gay are more intelligent on average, though this may be selection bias in who is in a social context that they can come out.

What do you think about the reasons put forth in this article:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2013/09/30/ are_gay_people_smarter_than_straight_people_or_do_
they_just_work_harder.html

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Surtur
What do you think about the reasons put forth in this article:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2013/09/30/ are_gay_people_smarter_than_straight_people_or_do_
they_just_work_harder.html

Link broken

Surtur
Hmm, try this:

Are Gay People Smarter Than Straight People?

that does not work either. I don't know why lol.

quanchi112
Two trolls attempting to Voltron.

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Surtur
Hmm, try this:

Are Gay People Smarter Than Straight People?

that does not work either. I don't know why lol.

But it isn't implausible to me that the genetic variations that contribute to being gay also affect cognitive/personality traits. (Is that homophobic? smile )

Surtur

The Ellimist
Interesting.

If politics weren't an issue we would be able to test this with some statistics (e.g. look at their performance on different metrics and look at how genetic we know those metrics are).

Lestov16
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Genetic components to intelligence, work ethic, emotional stability, creativity, etc. Of course some of these in extreme or bad configurations can have their problems, but if you could choose whether your child was born predisposed to be moderately hard working or lazy af, you'd pick the former.

But once again, you would first have to select a parent that you knew 100% had the genes you want and ONLY the genes you want, without any of the negative ones that ethnicity may/will have. And again, due to our species history of ethnic interbreeding, practically everybody has genes from different ethnicities. Not to mention you would have to know which ethnicity has the desired gene, and there are hundreds of ethnicities.

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Lestov16
But once again, you would first have to select a parent that you knew 100% had the genes you want and ONLY the genes you want, without any of the negative ones that ethnicity may/will have. And again, due to our species history of ethnic interbreeding, practically everybody has genes from different ethnicities. Not to mention you would have to know which ethnicity has the desired gene, and there are hundreds of ethnicities.

Sure there are complications but that doesn't mean there aren't aggregate differences; indeed, you'd expect to find aggregate differences in successful genes by accident, let alone by different selection criteria. I mean, all I'm saying is that it isn't obvious to me that the answer is "it's a wash". You don't need to know "100%" for something to be a likelihood.

Lestov16
As far as gay people being more intelligent, I won't give any kind of absolute confirmation, but I will say that my older brother, who is gay, is a MASSSIVE bookworm who likes to read 5 or more novels a week. So make of that what you will.

Lestov16
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Sure there are complications but that doesn't mean there aren't aggregate differences; indeed, you'd expect to find aggregate differences in successful genes by accident, let alone by different selection criteria. I mean, all I'm saying is that it isn't obvious to me that the answer is "it's a wash". You don't need to know "100%" for something to be a likelihood.

All I'm saying is that there are a lot of variables when it comes to measuring the pros/cons of an ethnic genotype, primarily the variable that most people have a genotype based on multiple ethnicities and that most(If not all) ethnic genotypes have both good and bad traits. If you don't mind, could you give some direct in-depth examples of beneficial vs detrimental genetic variations?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Beniboybling
go on. tell us more. tell us about the whites and the brown people

Go on, enlighten me with your anti-scientific counterpoint after researching the Flynn Effect:


http://bfy.tw/Fpr4

The Ellimist
For those who took dadudemon's advice but don't know, the Flynn Effect can't explain demographic differences because the those score gains are statistically different from the gaps in question.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Granted, there is a point to knowing this information: it can be used to dispute false positives on discrimination (e.g. sometimes we think an unequal outcome is always do to discrimination).
thumb up thumb up thumb up thumb up thumb up

Kinda like the wage gap, if there's differences in aggregate between groups it's not useful to use to judge the individual, but it's useful in determining the causes or lackof behind group differences in outcome in aggregate.

lazybones
Yeah, I absolutely don't think you can use variations between groups to judge individuals, but there may be some use in investigating what exactly these variations are and what causes them, so that we can greater understand the discrepancies between certain groups in areas such as employment. I doubt simple discrimination is the cause of all these differences, and the better we understand the nature and causes of these variations, the better we will become in thinking up of real solutions or whether certain battles can actually be won. For instance, it would be foolish to enact policies to help Inuits enter athletics, because their makeup and environment just doesn't suit that at all. 50:50 divides are rarely always possible, and it would be genuinely useful to identify why these may not exist in certain areas.

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Emperordmb
thumb up thumb up thumb up thumb up thumb up

Kinda like the wage gap, if there's differences in aggregate between groups it's not useful to use to judge the individual, but it's useful in determining the causes or lackof behind group differences in outcome in aggregate.

Originally posted by lazybones
Yeah, I absolutely don't think you can use variations between groups to judge individuals, but there may be some use in investigating what exactly these variations are and what causes them, so that we can greater understand the discrepancies between certain groups in areas such as employment. I doubt simple discrimination is the cause of all these differences, and the better we understand the nature and causes of these variations, the better we will become in thinking up of real solutions or whether certain battles can actually be won. For instance, it would be foolish to enact policies to help Inuits enter athletics, because their makeup and environment just doesn't suit that at all. 50:50 divides are rarely always possible, and it would be genuinely useful to identify why these may not exist in certain areas.

thumb up

ILS
Originally posted by Beniboybling
let me guess, another race realist. roll eyes (sarcastic) do you ever say anything meaningful

Beniboybling
only if u send nudes.

The Ellimist
Reported for sexual harassment.

Beniboybling
embarrasment

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Emperordmb
thumb up thumb up thumb up thumb up thumb up

Kinda like the wage gap, if there's differences in aggregate between groups it's not useful to use to judge the individual, but it's useful in determining the causes or lackof behind group differences in outcome in aggregate.

I do love how Neph pretended to "troll" me by not answering this when his entire point was that there's no point to the OP, lmfao.

Surtur
They all got hysterical over this despite thinking it was meant to entrap them. It doesn't get any better than this.

Adam_PoE

Beniboybling
laughing out loud

Surtur
Originally posted by Beniboybling
laughing out loud

DDM did ask you to enlighten him, what you waiting for?

Beniboybling
please sir just give me one more week. i need to prepare my sources

D1ckSpl1tter
nope, some are just different but people like to be politically correct so they wont' admit it - sad!

Surtur
Originally posted by Beniboybling
please sir just give me one more week. i need to prepare my sources

I'd give you a year if I thought it would make any difference. But it won't sad

The Ellimist
Well it seems like every Beni vs. DDM debate starts with Beni making decently-substantive snark posts that devolve into pure trolling when he runs out of arguments.

(Funny thing is, I probably agree with Beni about as often as I do with DDM - so I know what arguments he could make and he just doesn't, lmao)

Surtur
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Well it seems like every Beni vs. DDM debate starts with Beni making decently-substantive snark posts that devolve into pure trolling when he runs out of arguments.

(Funny thing is, I probably agree with Beni about as often as I do with DDM - so I know what arguments he could make and he just doesn't, lmao)

I admit it is fascinating to watch. He will mix in snark and some facts and some smiley faces. Then DDM will come with a long post basically destroying every argument.

Come on Beni, you can do it.

Beniboybling
Originally posted by The Ellimist
decently-substantive snark postsstop it you.

Emperordmb
I mean this is Beni's kinda cunning and slippery strategy. When he gets backed into a corner he makes these trolly snide remarks with smiley faces next to them that are simultaneously mocking towards the person he's talking to, and at the same time cast enough levity and ambiguity onto his position in the conversation that makes it look like he's not taking it very seriously so he can dodge criticism by making it seem like he's just ****ing around or not really trying or what have you.

It's really sly and cunning but at the same time betrays a lack of actual substance in the argument.

Surtur
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I mean this is Beni's kinda cunning and slippery strategy. When he gets backed into a corner he makes these trolly snide remarks with smiley faces next to them that are simultaneously mocking towards the person he's talking to, and at the same time cast enough levity and ambiguity onto his position in the conversation that makes it look like he's not taking it very seriously so he can dodge criticism by making it seem like he's just ****ing around or not really trying or what have you.

It's really sly and cunning but at the same time betrays a lack of actual substance in the argument.

https://twitchy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/bingo_new.jpg

Robtard
Just skimmed the thread, seems Beni is doing god's work here. Kudos thumb up

ps you 'blacks and women and black women are inferior' type posters really need to get lives. Get on that.

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
Just skimmed the thread, seems Beni is doing god's work here. Kudos thumb up

ps you 'blacks and women and black women are inferior' type posters really need to get lives. Get on that.

I give this trolling response an 8.5 out of 10. It was originally 8, but the "gods work" thing tipped it to 8.5

The Ellimist
Lol you know it's bad when one side literally makes no arguments and just casts strawmen and ad hominems. thumb up

Surtur
At this point they have enough strawmen to form an army. Somebody get the torches.

Nephthys
Yeah, you guys sure love torches, huh?

Surtur
Originally posted by Nephthys
Yeah, you guys sure love torches, huh?

Ohh I get it, you see what he did? Because neo nazis carried torches. Top notch.

Hitler also wore pants. Do you wear pants?

Beniboybling
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I mean this is Beni's kinda cunning and slippery strategy. When he gets backed into a corner he makes these trolly snide remarks with smiley faces next to them that are simultaneously mocking towards the person he's talking to, and at the same time cast enough levity and ambiguity onto his position in the conversation that makes it look like he's not taking it very seriously so he can dodge criticism by making it seem like he's just ****ing around or not really trying or what have you.

It's really sly and cunning but at the same time betrays a lack of actual substance in the argument. https://i.imgur.com/Sey3IAy.gif

Nephthys
Originally posted by Surtur
Ohh I get it, you see what he did? Because neo nazis carried torches. Top notch.

Hitler also wore pants. Do you wear pants?

I'm not wearing any atm.

Are you?

Emperordmb
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/04/15/21/279BE41000000578-3040579-image-a-30_1429130715608.jpg

Robtard
DMB is trying to make all the Alt-Righties in here wet

Emperordmb
What Alt-Righties are you talking about? The only one I can think of is Dicksplitter, who made one post in here and already got banned.

I'm not really seeing the alt-right presence in this thread you speak of.

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Robtard
DMB is trying to make all the Alt-Righties in here wet

Your side doesn't look really good when it casts anyone who asks an empirical question an "alt-rightie" and then refuses to make a single actual argument. Like, in 6 pages I've seen two coherent points.

If you remember me from my activity a year ago, I'm pretty liberal myself. I literally made a thread calling conservatives stupid and almost got banned for trolling. But your friends here have this reality distortion field where empirical reality is dictated by calling people racist and not any actual logical structure. I know, it's what we have to do in the real world at times - but you guys seem to actually believe in it.

Robtard
My side? Lolz. WTF

I do remember you; I also was not referring to you in my post

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Robtard
My side? Lolz. WTF

I do remember you; I also was not referring to you in my post

I know you weren't, and I didn't refer to you personally either - it doesn't change my point.

(Well I guess I said "you guys" at the end)

Emperordmb
I mean I've seen like one post from some alt-right person in this entire thread, so casting aspersions that this thread has multiple alt-righters in it is disingenuous at best.

Even if you weren't referring to Ellimist, or me, it's just absurd.

Robtard
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I mean I've seen like one post from some alt-right person in this entire thread, so casting aspersions that this thread has multiple alt-righters in it is disingenuous at best.

Even if you weren't referring to Ellimist, or me, it's just absurd.


You got all that from my comment over your Hitler pic post? laughing out loud

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Robtard
You got all that from my comment over your Hitler pic post? laughing out loud

You also accused people of saying black people are inferior, lol. Once again, the only person here who actually said that was Ziggy.

Robtard
That's a theme in KMC now. You've been gone some time it seems

The Ellimist
tbh I return to see the libertarian/conservative side actually engaging in line-by-line debate while the liberal side just trolls and shitposts. (Usually) It's disappointing.

Surtur
Originally posted by The Ellimist
You also accused people of saying black people are inferior, lol. Once again, the only person here who actually said that was Ziggy.

Bingo. He's a shit starter, plain and simple. I don't care, I just want it admitted.

Robtard
Would you like some cheese to go with that whine, surt?

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
Would you like some cheese to go with that whine, surt?

Will it make you grow a sac and acknowledge your behavior? If so, sure.

The Ellimist
Lol Rob in every other discussion you have lines of argumentation to follow the snark, but in this one particular thread it's just the latter; why?

Robtard
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Lol Rob in every other discussion you have lines of argumentation to follow the snark, but in this one particular thread it's just the latter; why?

Full Disclosure: I was just pooping in here, I barely even read the responses, just got the gist of what was happening and added manure to the pile

Steve Zodiac
Originally posted by Robtard
You got all that from my comment over your Hitler pic post? laughing out loud

Did laugh too laughing

Rockydonovang
double d getting pissed over being called a racist is funny, given he regularly tries to brand those who disagree with him as racists.

That said, Beni's being dumb. Nothing said by Double D has been racist.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Robtard
Full Disclosure: I was just pooping in here, I barely even read the responses, just got the gist of what was happening and added manure to the pile
Why are you Surting?

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by The Ellimist
tbh I return to see the libertarian/conservative side actually engaging in line-by-line debate while the liberal side just trolls and shitposts. (Usually) It's disappointing.
You really need to read more of Surt's, Double D, and Squall X's posts then.

Mindship
Offhand, I don't think there are significant differences: the Bell curves tend to mostly overlap. I think demographic-cultural values may play more of a difference in functional cognitive abilities. Eg, those cultures that place a premium on education tend to "do better" overall in the modern world, especially in a context that values science and engineering.

OTOH, how would an MIT graduate engineer do in an Amazonian village that lives off the land?

Context is important, and generally, I believe we are all far, far more alike than we are different.

Afro Cheese
I read the first few pages of this thread and it was pretty frustrating. OP seemed on point to me and his detractors seemed determined to throw a wrench in the discussion rather than engage in it because "the only possible motivation is racism" or whatever.

That's a cop out. And its basically the same cop out that leftists seem to consistently use whenever there is an area of discussion that might have implications that they don't like. They just see where its headed and instinctively throw a wrench into the discussion to shut it down as soon as possible.

You know why its relevant to ask this question? Because of the debate over equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome. Like the OP said. You might mistake a discrepancy as discrimination if you don't allow for this kind of thought. And it's just sad as **** that its the left that has emerged as the new thought police in the modern era, when we were just getting over the thought police tactics the right used to use.

Beniboybling
:'(

Afro Cheese
Case in point:
Originally posted by Nephthys
The only benefit to this kind of question is "race realism" bigotry attempting to mask itself in intellectualism or some kind of petty "gotcha" attempt at liberals.

Which is so painfully transparent that there really isn't a need to seriously engage on it. Asking a question in bad faith gets you a bad faith answer in return.
The ironic thing about this objection is that it seemingly assumes that fleshing this discussion out will naturally lend credibility to the "race realists," which implicitly means you assume that they are actually correct about race. If you have a potent counter argument to their perspective, then this is a perfect opportunity to utilize it and shut them down through argument rather than through wielding weaponized stigma.

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Case in point:

The ironic thing about this objection is that it seemingly assumes that fleshing this discussion out will naturally lend credibility to the "race realists," which implicitly means you assume that they are actually correct about race. If you have a potent counter argument to their perspective, then this is a perfect opportunity to utilize it and shut them down through argument rather than through wielding weaponized stigma.

A minority of posters in this thread just aren't very statistically literate; the notion that you can have differential selection between groups befuddles them.

In reality, the idea that you have massively differential selection in physical characteristics but none in non-physical characteristics would be difficult to do even if you tried to match things up that way. Like zero non-physical selection at the same time as massive physical selection would be an argument for intelligent design tbh.

Afro Cheese
I've never taken a single statistic class so I can't claim to be statistically literate, but it just seems intuitively obvious to me that there will be statistical differences between groups. Even if the groups are seemingly arbitrary like left handed vs right handed people, I would be more surprised to see them match up perfectly than I would to see some sort of statistical difference in IQ etc.

But I notice you framed this question to deal almost exclusively with intelligence, which certainly isn't the only personality trait that correlates with success. What about something like work ethic or conscientiousness, etc? There would probably be a statistical difference between groups in this regard too.

And then there's just circumstance/luck/etc. Any number of variables that would cause a difference in outcome that we can't really expect to control for.

The Ellimist
Those are all really interesting empirical questions, I agree, but there's a limit to what we can discuss (as in the real world; obviously don't go running around talking about this to everyone) on an analytical level without certain posters here running on to scream ALT-RIGHT NEO-NAZI!

But you are right; you can measure people who prefer red to people who prefer blue and probably find some statistical differences in seemingly unrelated areas. It's actually difficult to find independent variables.

But what makes this even more intertwined is that we already know there are massive physical differences presumably as a result of differential selection pressures, and are supposed to believe that these selection pressures were magically calibrated to only select for physical traits and not for non-physical ones, as if nature were given some sort of sensitivity training.

Afro Cheese
Yes well I'm not an expert on that subject... but from what I understand the physical distinctions between "races" are somewhat superficial. Like genetically there is way more diversity within the group of people we consider "black" than any other race. The only reason they are all black is skin color. So the physical indicators that cause us to group people together could be less important than our tribal instincts would have us believe.

IQ_test
This is an important topic.

The average blackie scores 85 on an IQ test, which explains why they seldom thrive in the academics better than oppression ever did.

All attempts at equal outcomes, not equal opportunity, just mean means Whites, Asians and other intellectually better races are dispossessed. Again, it would be like needing a quota to give Asians equal opportunity on national basketball teams. There would be uproar if the incident ever occurred, so there should be uproar for discrimination based polices on the other end of the spectrum too.

Afro Cheese
^lol. 1 post, huh. I wonder which morally righteous SJW created this alt. Just shows you have zero principles since you are perfectly willing to race bait if it means shutting down discussion.

Emperordmb
No this is a legit alt-right guy as far as I can tell.

Afro Cheese
Based on what? He has 1 post which indicates to me the account was made just to post in this one thread.

Pessimystic
Originally posted by IQ_test
This is an important topic.

The average blackie scores 85 on an IQ test, which explains why they seldom thrive in the academics better than oppression ever did.

All attempts at equal outcomes, not equal opportunity, just mean means Whites, Asians and other intellectually better races are dispossessed. Again, it would be like needing a quota to give Asians equal opportunity on national basketball teams. There would be uproar if the incident ever occurred, so there should be uproar for discrimination based polices on the other end of the spectrum too.

thumb up

Sin I AM
Whoa the closeted racism is thick in this thread. Shame

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>