Re: Every knee shall, every tongue confess
Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2020 12:44 pm
I don't think that explains why people at different latitudes had different technological innovation rates, but maybe I'm slow.
Permanent Portfolio Forum
https://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/
https://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=10793
Here's a youtube video. You might think this is exceptional, but it's not - the masses I went to were all just like this.stuper1 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 12:35 pmIn Kenya, they have a strong family structure, so things work fine.
Here, they don't have a strong family structure, and things aren't working fine.
As a physician, do you agree with me that blacks on average are more muscular than whites, that muscle comes from testosterone, and that testosterone influences impulse control? I'm glad to be proven wrong.
I'm not aware of any racial differences in testosterone. Also not sure about the more muscular part. There are some anatomical differences thought.
I think it's a well-known stereotype around the world among almost every non-black culture that blacks are impulsive as a generalization. Does this stereotype have a physiological basis?
I don't buy either of these assumptions. There is a black resident who I have worked closely with (on research & clinical) for the past 3 years. Impulsive is about the last word I would use to describe him. There are also black faculty members of my acquaintance who, similarly, could not possibly be consistent with that stereotype.
Isn't Africa known as the cradle of civilization? And yet, there's little history of great technological achievements from Africa. Is it racist to think that some groups are more short-term oriented than long-term oriented?
That's an interesting point. I've thought about that one though...it seems like technological achievements have a lot to do with environment. In cold weather you have to be more innovative just to survive. In Africa there is much less to drive you to make technical advances.
Not proof or anything, just a thought. I will also venture to say that there does seem to be a wholly different mindset. Very socially focused and less focused on things/achievements. Living in a rural village and attending Mass was truly an amazing experience - the cohesiveness was something way beyond my experience.
That might be indisputable using the NFL and the NBA was key pieces of evidence?stuper1 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 12:35 pmIn Kenya, they have a strong family structure, so things work fine.
Here, they don't have a strong family structure, and things aren't working fine.
As a physician, do you agree with me that blacks on average are more muscular than whites, that muscle comes from testosterone, and that testosterone influences impulse control? I'm glad to be proven wrong.
I think it's a well-known stereotype around the world among almost every non-black culture that blacks are impulsive as a generalization. Does this stereotype have a physiological basis?
Isn't Africa known as the cradle of civilization? And yet, there's little history of great technological achievements from Africa. Is it racist to think that some groups are more short-term oriented than long-term oriented?
To repeat my point, as a percentage of the American NBA players I'm sure that the black portion would be much higher than 70%.stuper1 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 5:13 pmGotcha . . . I know it's not a fun or popular thing to talk about.
When 70% of the NFL players are made up of a race that makes up 13% of the population, I would have thought it's pretty well established that that race is more muscular than the other. But I'm just a crazy guy on the internet, so what do I know.
I certainly believe you about the social focus and cohesion. I'm not trying to denigrate any race. I'm sure every race has its strong and weak points. I also don't think it's wrong to talk about differences between races, but a lot of people disagree, and maybe they're right, at least in this country, given our shameful history where whites took brutal advantage of blacks. I think in some other countries people talk much more openly about racial differences and basically they just acknowledge them, laugh at them, and people just get along with each other while acknowledging their differences.
Simonjester wrote:
stuper1 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 5:13 pm
Gotcha . . . I know it's not a fun or popular thing to talk about.
When 70% of the NFL players are made up of a race that makes up 13% of the population, I would have thought it's pretty well established that that race is more muscular than the other. But I'm just a crazy guy on the internet, so what do I know.
I certainly believe you about the social focus and cohesion. I'm not trying to denigrate any race. I'm sure every race has its strong and weak points. I also don't think it's wrong to talk about differences between races, but a lot of people disagree, and maybe they're right, at least in this country, given our shameful history where whites took brutal advantage of blacks. I think in some other countries people talk much more openly about racial differences and basically they just acknowledge them, laugh at them, and people just get along with each other while acknowledging their differences.
you might need to consider as a possibility that American blacks vs africans have been changed by slavery, they were bred and killed based on characteristics, a willful and thinking slave, short life less breeding.... big strong slave life longer life, more kids
Simonjester wrote:
well i am not even remotely a geneticist so "i don't know"... but i suspect that unless there is a large influx of new genetic material, (mixing with non slave Africans and with other races) that after 8 generations you might still see strong signs of predominant characteristics. the number of pro athletes and a comparison of America to Africa might hint at the answer...
Don't you think that could be due to a cultural bias? In other words, black society generally values a football player more than, say, a physician or lawyer. The opposite is true among other societies e.g. Jewish communities.
Basketball used to be dominated by... Jews!WiseOne wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:03 amDon't you think that could be due to a cultural bias? In other words, black society generally values a football player more than, say, a physician or lawyer. The opposite is true among other societies e.g. Jewish communities.
Traditionally, Irish Catholics have made up the majority of the NYPD - but that's not so true anymore, as the force is now dominated by Hispanics. Does that somehow tell you about physical attributes of Irish Catholics? Or of Hispanics? And wouldn't the change argue against genetics as the primary driver?
Similarly, pro baseball used to be almost exclusively white. It's now largely Hispanic. Black players are very much a minority. How would you reconcile this with the football/baseball statistics, while relying on a genetic explanation?
The one instance where you could maybe argue a case for genetics: marathon running. Kenyan runners manage to win the NYC marathon every time. It's not muscle though, it's about their build (long legs) and the fact that track is very popular in Kenya.
Many scientists don't apply the scientific approach to the world in anything but their own field.WiseOne wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 10:14 am#shutdownSTEM
A one-day "strike" by researchers in STEM fields. Even prestigious journals have gotten into the act:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586- ... f%20racism.
This has seriously gone too far. How can you be a scientist and not understand how bogus the complaints are? I found out about it when a research group meeting was cancelled today because of it. I decided to honor the day by listening to a Candace Owens youtube video. Now back to work with me!
What about IQ? Going there can be very dangerous as Charles Murray learned the hard way. That there are clear variations in IQ that can be broken down statistically by race I think he showed very effectively no matter how much people want to deny it. I've only read summaries of his work so I'm not sure whether he even posited that it was due to genetics but he is now a pariah for simply observing the obvious. I suspect that if Caucasians had come out on the bottom of the scale instead of just behind Jews and Asians that would probably be easily accepted but unfortunately it was blacks. So obviously this has to be due to "systemic racism" (translation - evil white people).WiseOne wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:03 amDon't you think that could be due to a cultural bias? In other words, black society generally values a football player more than, say, a physician or lawyer. The opposite is true among other societies e.g. Jewish communities.
Traditionally, Irish Catholics have made up the majority of the NYPD - but that's not so true anymore, as the force is now dominated by Hispanics. Does that somehow tell you about physical attributes of Irish Catholics? Or of Hispanics? And wouldn't the change argue against genetics as the primary driver?
Similarly, pro baseball used to be almost exclusively white. It's now largely Hispanic. Black players are very much a minority. How would you reconcile this with the football/baseball statistics, while relying on a genetic explanation?
The one instance where you could maybe argue a case for genetics: marathon running. Kenyan runners manage to win the NYC marathon every time. It's not muscle though, it's about their build (long legs) and the fact that track is very popular in Kenya.
+1.stuper1 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 12:52 pmRegarding helping disadvantaged people, everybody always says that we need to fix the education system. Of course, that doesn't work if the family structure is broken. We can keep pouring boatloads of money into education, but if there aren't parents at home to encourage the kids, then it will make little to no difference. The policies that should be adopted are ones designed to strengthen the family, but I'm not holding my breath expecting that to happen, because those policies are not politically useful.
Stossel's "Stupid in America" special (which is fantastic, by the way) pretty well illustrates that the problem with education is not lack of money. He followed a number of small schools (I think they were charter schools) operating on an absolute shoestring which were achieving better outcomes in every way than the crummy public school which spent many times the amount of money per student. I remember one of them that couldn't afford a full-time janitor, and so the kids were responsible for cleaning up the cafeteria, setting up chairs, and a number of other things. These tasks helped the kids to have some skin in the game in their school.stuper1 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 12:52 pmRegarding helping disadvantaged people, everybody always says that we need to fix the education system. Of course, that doesn't work if the family structure is broken. We can keep pouring boatloads of money into education, but if there aren't parents at home to encourage the kids, then it will make little to no difference. The policies that should be adopted are ones designed to strengthen the family, but I'm not holding my breath expecting that to happen, because those policies are not politically useful.
(thumbs up to the Candace Owens watching, not the canceling).WiseOne wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 10:14 am#shutdownSTEM
A one-day "strike" by researchers in STEM fields. Even prestigious journals have gotten into the act:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586- ... f%20racism.
This has seriously gone too far. How can you be a scientist and not understand how bogus the complaints are? I found out about it when a research group meeting was cancelled today because of it. I decided to honor the day by listening to a Candace Owens youtube video. Now back to work with me!
Two other huge contributors to the destruction of working-class families:
I think It also doesn't work if you start by assuming that every one is equal in terms of IQ, or at least an IQ that we have correlated with success in life. because it simply isn't true, racial disparities notwithstanding. It just sets some people up for failure which they will have to deal with for the rest of their lives whether they be black, white or any other race.
Right. The "War on Poverty", the "War on Drugs", and the "War on Men" have all contributed mightily.Tortoise wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 2:54 pmTwo other huge contributors to the destruction of working-class families:
- The welfare state, which allows and encourages mothers to have kids without a husband/father to help support them
- Marriage laws, which are now heavily biased in favor of women, thus strongly discouraging men from getting married
When my kid started high school, I was very thankful that an acquaintance told me to sign her up for all of the Honors and AP classes that are available. Anyone can sign up for them, but in practice only the motivated students do so, or the students like my daughter who are told they have to by their parents. Apparently, the non-Honors/AP classes can be a disaster because of all the troublemakers. I truly am not sure that we would have learned about this system unless the acquaintance had told me, because the school system is so disorganized that even things that are very important are hardly communicated. I talked to other parents who didn't even know they had a choice about which level of classes to pick. It's basically a self-segregated system. Frankly I'm surprised that it has been allowed to survive. Maybe it survives because they do such a poor job of communicating about it. Maybe that's on purpose. I don't know.pp4me wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 3:52 pmI think It also doesn't work if you start by assuming that every one is equal in terms of IQ, or at least an IQ that we have correlated with success in life. because it simply isn't true, racial disparities notwithstanding. It just sets some people up for failure which they will have to deal with for the rest of their lives whether they be black, white or any other race.
If you don't accept IQ measurements as valid, then you have to throw out all the other quantitative results of psychology too. IQ is by far the best validated psychological measurement.stuper1 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 12:52 pmYou can have smart people and dumb people from every race, so nothing that can be said would apply to any one individual. It certainly seems possible to me that the average IQs of different races could vary. But then again it may not be the case. It seems a very hard thing to measure in an unbiased manner.
Exactly.stuper1 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 12:52 pmI'm not sure what we would do with that information anyway in terms of setting social policies. To me, we have what we have, and we need to do the best with it, and set social policies to encourage every person to do the best with what they've got.
Regarding helping disadvantaged people, everybody always says that we need to fix the education system. Of course, that doesn't work if the family structure is broken. We can keep pouring boatloads of money into education, but if there aren't parents at home to encourage the kids, then it will make little to no difference. The policies that should be adopted are ones designed to strengthen the family, but I'm not holding my breath expecting that to happen, because those policies are not politically useful.
IQ is interesting. It is a valuable number. For a lot of different reasons. It is also a heavily abused statistic by folks who don't understand math.Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:32 pmIf you don't accept IQ measurements as valid, then you have to throw out all the other quantitative results of psychology too. IQ is by far the best validated psychological measurement.
And no one in psychology actually doubts that there are significant IQ differences between races. They just don't want to talk about it because it is politically incorrect.
There's a reason that about 20% of all Nobel Prizes, even including the non-science prizes that represent political posturing rather than merit, have been awarded to less than 0.2% of the world population. Even the extremely PC Wikipedia acknowledges this: "Nobel Prizes have been awarded to over 900 individuals,[1] of whom at least 20% were Jews although the Jewish population comprises less than 0.2% of the world's population." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_J ... _laureates.
I'm pretty sure the over-representation is even more complete in the actual science prizes.
Exactly.stuper1 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 12:52 pmI'm not sure what we would do with that information anyway in terms of setting social policies. To me, we have what we have, and we need to do the best with it, and set social policies to encourage every person to do the best with what they've got.
Regarding helping disadvantaged people, everybody always says that we need to fix the education system. Of course, that doesn't work if the family structure is broken. We can keep pouring boatloads of money into education, but if there aren't parents at home to encourage the kids, then it will make little to no difference. The policies that should be adopted are ones designed to strengthen the family, but I'm not holding my breath expecting that to happen, because those policies are not politically useful.
If you mean antiracism, I’ve posted it plenty of times and am happy to post it again.