This is True Conservatism

[Dachshund]

A pregnant women is jailed for having been shot so the fetus got killed... she didn't fire the gun, someone else committed the crime against her/the fetus. Yet, the woman is jailed.

That's Conservatism for you, right there!

Conservatives are monsters



Are you seriously asking why not to judge her for the MURDER of a fetus, simply because she didn't take precautions because of her skin color?

Well, let's take another case to demonstrate why I find your entire question stupid:

There are millions of car-crashes every day. Surely according to your logic, the victims of a car crash - despite driving according to the law - should be jailed for being "so foolish as to drive a car when everybody knows it is dangerous to drive a car".

According to your logic we shouldn't only punish the mad drivers responsible for the accidents. We should be jailing the victims as well, according to your "logic".

Philosopher,



No, I think you have misunderstood me, either that or I have not explained the query I wished to put to you clearly enough.



This shooting incident involved two young African-American women (I will hereafter use the term "black" for "African - American). It took place within the City Limits of Birmingham, Alabama, where the population was almost entirely black.



Birmingham has the 2nd highest rate of gun-shot homicides in America, the overwhelming majority of gun homicides in the city occur in the course of arguments/disputes between young black males. More broadly speaking the national statistics for gun -shot homicides in the US in 2018, show that 82.6% of these (gun-shot) deaths involve blacks aged between 19 and 34 years of age and that both the victim of the crime and the perpetrator were black. The race relationship for gun shot homicide in the US is so strong that it spills over to black women (as in the case of the pregnant Marshae Jones and Ebony Jemison, the black woman who shot shot and killed Jones' 5 month old foetus).



Consider this. Over the first 15 years of the 21st century almost 124,000 black Americans lost their lives to homicides (gun-shot being the most frequent cause of death). That translates to a homicide death rate for the African American population as a whole of around 20 per 100,000 people. For white (non-Hispanic) Americans the rate is about 2.7 per 100,000. That means over the first decade and a half of this century the overall homicide rate for white (non-Hispanic) Americans has averaged around one seventh of that for black Americans.



In the US it is young men who are most likely to die by violence (esp gun-shot). Just how likely they are to die depends overwhelmingly on RACE. For instance, in 2014, the homicide death rate among African-American 21 -year- olds was roughly 83 per 100,000, which is a rate of violent death higher than that of any country in the world except Honduras. The rate for white (non-Hispanic) American aged 21 was under 5 per 100,000 - roughly ONE SEVENTEENTH the black rate. Not one half, not a quarter the black rate, BUT ONE SEVENTEENTH the black rate !



The shooting of Marshae Jones by Ebony Jemieson in Birmingham, referenced in your OP, is merely one example of a black-on-black gunshot homicide (the victim being Jones' 5-month-old foetus). Jemison clearly intended to kill Jones' unborn baby as the shot she fired at Jones was to her (visibly pregnant) abdomen. Both Jones and Jemison are examples of human low-life, lacking any basic modicum of moral conscience.



In order to understand the causes of the Jones/Jemison incident you first need to understand why it is that African-Americans in the USE are violently killing each other with lethal weapons like guns and knives, etc; at such a relatively astronomic rate with respect to white Americans. There must be an elementary reason/s because the pattern has been so very consistent over time (i.e; from at least the 1960's).



So what do you think is the reason for the strong correlation between blacks and homicide in the US. Why do they continue to blow each other away with guns at such a staggering rate relative to whites? What do you think is the reason for this black bloodbath, old sport ?



Regards


Dachshund (Der Uberweiner) WOOF !! WOOF !!............................................(Beware the dog)

[philosopher]

So what do you think is the reason for the strong correlation between blacks and homicide in the US. Why do they continue to blow each other away with guns at such a staggering rate relative to whites? What do you think is the reason for this black bloodbath, old sport ?

Black people are more often poor people, for various reasons. In the U.S. black people are poor because of social inheritance.
If your parents were rich, you are more likely to be rich too, because they pass on their wealth.
If your parents were poor, you are more likely to be poor too, for example if your parents could not afford to give you a proper education.

In the U.S. black Americans have traditionally and systematically been oppressed, even long after the end of slavery. They don't get the same opportunities as the majority of white Americans.

Some few black Americans (relatively) are given equal opportunities as white Americans.
They perform equally well with white Americans in education, on work and social life.

Poverty often, but not always, leads to increased crime rate such as violence, shootings etc.
The reason is that if you are poor and you have no way what-so-ever of escaping this poverty and you have little to not opportunities in life, you will say "fuck society, fuck the government, fuck other people who're not like me!"

It's basic human psychology.

Americans can end this poverty-related violence, and they don't even have to ban guns:

Provide some basic income, regardless of race or work. Give each American citizen $2000/month tax-free.
Those who earn ANY money will have their Basic Income reduced by 30 dollars for every 100 dollars they earn, regardless of how they earn it.

They still increased their revenue by $70 anyway, and so still provides incentive to work.

Some people may choose not to work at all, but then it's their choice. They will remain in "poverty".
However, some of those who don't work, may still have access to the internet = cheap online educations. They can educate themselves.

Then they will eventually know how to make some more money through starting their own company, sell stuff and earn more to get an even better education.

You see, regardless of their skin color or race, this will embetter the lives for MILLIONS of poor Americans.
It also puts an end to Wage Slavery and introduce REAL liberty.

Of course this should not be implemented for illegal immigrants, or immigrants at all.
Only citizenship and permanent residence in the country (ie. US) will give you this right to Basic Income.

End poverty = end crime.

[Immanuel Can]

So what do you think is the reason for the strong correlation between blacks and homicide in the US. Why do they continue to blow each other away with guns at such a staggering rate relative to whites? What do you think is the reason for this black bloodbath, old sport ?

Black people are more often poor people, for various reasons.
End poverty = end crime.

But poverty, too, has a cause. And it's not race. Because white and hispanic folks that are subject to the same influences as black folks have statistically the same social pathologies. They end up in the same holes, living the same kind of way, regardless of race.

It's not "race." It's behaviour.

Three things that black intellectuals themselves identify as the key problems in their own communities:

1. Single motherhood.
2. Not finishing basic education (to end of high school, at least).
3. Not getting a job.

We might add a fourth:

4. Involvement with addictive substances.

In the US, that's all you've got to do to stay out of poverty. Don't be single-mothered, or cause any pregnancies you become responsible for; finish public schooling; get any job. With those things done right, your chances of being poor are statistically very, very remote, and your chances of being "Third World" poor are zero, regardless of what "race" you call yourself.

[henry quirk]

nope

yes, there's racism, but no institutional racism

we've had a (mediocre) black president, had and have any number of black congress folk, black supreme court justices, black governors, black state legislators, black state supreme court justices, black mayors, black city council folk, black city court judges, black sheriffs, black police chiefs, black business owners, black millionaires, black doctors, black scientists, black leaders, black generals, and on and on

with a few notable exceptions: blacks pretty much have the same access, the same opportunities, as white folks (and, nowadays, those notable exceptions, those deplorable circumstances, exist for whites too)

so: you'll have to cobble together some other reason for black poverty (cuz 'social inheritance' ain't it).

[Age]

Age,

It's not that interesting in the sense that every ordinary, rational white (Oooops, I said it - the "W" word !) person in the US, knows full well why black-majority American cities, like Birmingham and Detroit etc; are riddled with serious ,violent crime; it's just that no one is allowed to say it.

Ignoring the fact that you could NOT even logically AND rationally describe nor define what a 'white person' IS, do you REALLY BELIEVE that " EVERY, so called 'ordinary white person', in some particular parcel of land, KNOWS full well WHY" what the rest of your ridiculous comment here infers?

If yes, then WHAT is the reason WHY? And, after you answer that, then WHY is NO one allowed to say it? Or, answer the second one first if you like because you are to afraid to answer the first.

If no, to my first question, then okay.

[Dachshund]

Black people are more often poor people, for various reasons. In the U.S. black people are poor because of social inheritance.
If your parents were rich, you are more likely to be rich too, because they pass on their wealth.
If your parents were poor, you are more likely to be poor too, for example if your parents could not afford to give you a proper education.

In the U.S. black Americans have traditionally and systematically been oppressed, even long after the end of slavery. They don't get the same opportunities as the majority of white Americans.

Some few black Americans (relatively) are given equal opportunities[/b] as white Americans.
They perform equally well with white Americans in education, on work and social life.

Poverty often, but not always, leads to increased crime rate such as violence, shootings etc.
The reason is that if you are poor and you have no way what-so-ever of escaping this poverty and you have little to not opportunities in life, you will say "fuck society, fuck the government, fuck other people who're not like me!"

It's basic human psychology.

Americans can end this poverty-related violence, and they don't even have to ban guns:

Provide some basic income, regardless of race or work. Give each American citizen $2000/month tax-free.
Those who earn ANY money will have their Basic Income reduced by 30 dollars for every 100 dollars they earn, regardless of how they earn it.

They still increased their revenue by $70 anyway, and so still provides incentive to work.

Some people may choose not to work at all, but then it's their choice. They will remain in "poverty".
However, some of those who don't work, may still have[b] access to the internet = cheap online educations. They can educate themselves.

Then they will eventually know how to make some more money through starting their own company, sell stuff and earn more to get an even better education.

You see, regardless of their skin color or race, this will embetter the lives for MILLIONS of poor Americans.
It also puts an end to Wage Slavery and introduce REAL liberty.

Of course this should not be implemented for illegal immigrants, or immigrants at all.
Only citizenship and permanent residence in the country (ie. US) will give you this right to Basic Income.

End poverty = end crime.

Dear Philosopher, Age, Immanuel,




For nearly 100 years the average mean score on intelligence tests in the US has been about 18 points (1.2 Standard Deviations) lower for African - Americans than for white (non-Hispanic) Americans. Reviews of numerous studies report an average IQ of 85 for African-Americans, 15 points (or one Standard Deviation) lower than the average score for white Americans.




So, what is "intelligence" ? It has been broadly defined as the ability to learn, reason and solve problems. "Intelligence" is a latent trait, but it can be inferred from a battery of diverse cognitive tests which differ quite widely in form and content. But despite these differences, cognitive test scores are positively inter-correlated. In other words, a person who scores high on one type of cognitive test relative to other people will also do comparatively well on other cognitive tests. This phenomenon is known as "g" - the "general factor" of intelligence.




Intelligence is strongly linked, as well, to what are called Executive Functions, these are mediated by the prefrontal cortex of the brain - its most recently evolved region. The Executive Function are the most highly advanced and sophisticated human cognitive processes, and they include: the inhibition of behavioural impulsivity, emotional regulation, planning, complex problem solving, verbal and non-verbal Working Memory, sustained effortful attention, amongst others. These individual Executive Functions each contribute to global Executive Functioning, which is basically technical neuropsychological term for competent self-control/self regulation. Or, if you like, it's the ability to "keep your shit together" in a responsible and respectable manner as you make your way through life. When you have normal, healthy, Executive Functioning, then you have the ability to behave in such a way that you don't continually "fuck up" the big, important decisions in your life, or screw up anyone else's life by acting like a dickhead. It means learn to "look before you leap, learn to be wise and prudent; don't be the kind of man who goes off "half-cocked" or charges at life "like a bull at a gate", because that's guaranteed to bring you lots of grief.





How intelligent you are is determined by an interaction between your innate "nature" (your inherited genes/DNA) and nurture (the external,environmental factors you are subjected to). If you are on the political left, like Philosopher, you will tend to argue that a person or group's (e.g. an ethnic/racial group) is predominantly determined by environmental factors like: poverty/wealth; disadvantage or privilege; quality of education; unjust discrimination or abuse (like the Jim Crow laws in the South of the US); exposure to infectious disease; sub-standard housing; being raised in a single-parent family; long-term unemployment and so on. The political left argues this because all of the external social and other environmental factors that they claim (taken together) play the largest and most influential role in the development of intelligence are CHANGEABLE. That is, it is possible for environmental ("nurture") factors that are inequitable and have a harmful impact on the development of intelligence can be changed by government social policies so that racial groups with deficiencies in general cognitive functioning (and Executive Functions) can have their intelligence boosted up to a higher level. On example of this was the "Head Start" program implemented in the 1960's by (I think) Lyndon Johnson's administration; its purpose was to improve the education achievement of African -American school children by providing extra learning resources, more teacher time, etc; for them. "HEAD START" was a total failure. I forget how much - how many TRILLIONS of dollars - it ultimately cost the taxpayer, but the bill for this abortive attempt at social engineering was ASTRONOMICAL. Another example of leftist, (equalitarian) social engineering , based on the (false) assumption that intelligence is determined by environmental factors is AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION was originally intended to redress (racial) discrimination in the offering of places to young people applying to enter Universities, in particular prestigious schools like Harvard, Yale and Stanford where there was stiff competition for a place in any degree course. Forty years after its introduction the policy of Affirmative Action has totally failed to redress racial discrimination, in fact, it has exacerbated it. There are a number of reason that Affirmative Action is a failed and unjust leftist disaster. One is this, imagine you are a poor white kid who has worked his butt off to qualify for a place a MIT and you got yourself a good SAT . You're feeling confident , but you get a letter from MIT that says, "Sorry Buddy, we had to give your place to a black doctor's son who scored 170 points less on his SAT than you. Sorry, but that's Affirmative Action, our hands were tied." Obviously no one would ever receive such a letter, but this is precisely the kind of thing that happens with AA. Imagine how TOTALLY pissed off you would be if you were the white kid in this scenario. And that is indeed what AA has breed, a tremendous amount of bitterness and resentment; which is hardly surprising because the whole concept is simply "reverse racism." If America had a racist past, then the idea that it can be undone through more racism isn't very logical is it?




Over the past few years there have been some major breakthroughs in the field of genetics. One of them is the finding that genetic ("nature") influences on Executive Functions are very high and global Executive Functioning has a strong genetically - mediated association with intelligence (general cognitive functioning, of the kind that IQ tests measure). In short, genetic influences on general intelligence are highly overlapping with with those on Executive Functions/Executive functioning.




Cf: Englebert et al; "The Strong Genetic Overlap between Executive Function and Intelligence" J. Exp Psychol, Gen; 2016: Sept, 145 (9), 1141-1159.





So, low IQ is strongly correlated with poor Executive Functions and the relationship is strongly genetically-mediated. That's very interesting indeed ! (And) I think what we need to look at now is the extent to which general intelligence is the result of innate, genetic factors ("nature"), or external, environmental factors ("nurture").




One of the important breakthroughs in research into the genetics of intelligence occurred in 2017, and many scientists working in this field now believe that it is LARGELY genes that shape our personalities and the latest research evidence is too compelling to ignore. Robert Plomin is one of these scientists and he finds that genetic heritability accounts for 50% of the psychological differences between us, from personality traits to mental abilities. But this leaves 50% that should be accounted for by the environment. However, research shows that most of THAT 50% is not attributable to the kind of environmental influences that can be planned for or readily affected. And of the environmental influences that CAN be moderated, much of it is really an expression of genetics.




CF: Nature Reviews/Genetics; "The New Genetics of Intelligence"; Robert Plomin and Sophie van Strumm; Published online 8 Jan 2018>



Plomin writes...



"We now know that DNA differences are the major systematic source of psychological differences between us. Environmental effects are important but what we have learned in recent years is that they are mostly random - unsystematic and unstable - which means we cannot do much about them.




Let's return now to the mean streets of Birmingham, Alabama, inside the official City Limits. Here, all (100%) of the residents are African-American and the average mean IQ of the population is 85, which is 15 points (one Standard Deviation) below the average mean IQ score for white Anglo-European American (IQ = 100). One Standard deviation represents a substantial deficit in cognitive ability relative to a white American, it also means that both general intelligence and the Executive Functions will be impaired relative to whites; remember, as well, How I pointed out earlier that general intelligence (what IQ tests measure) AND Executive Functions ( the most advanced, recently evolved, cognitive processes in the human brain) are interrelated and PREDOMINANTLY GENETICALLY DETERMINED.





What I am saying , Philosopher, is that (with the exception of extreme circumstances such as: malnourishment/starvation, exposure to extreme abuse in the form of chronic physical/psychological trauma) the development of general intelligence and the Executive Functions are NOT chiefly/strongly affected by external, environmental factors ("nurture") like: poverty/low standard of living; growing up in a single parent family; attending segregated or poor-quality public schools; economic exploitation/capitalism; police violence; racist discrimination/oppression; conservative political administrations; deficits in equality of opportunity.




Lets conclude by returning the the issue of gun-shot homicide in a city like Birmingham where there is a population that is predominantly (75%) African American. As I mentioned in a previous post on this thread, the rate of gun-shot homicide in Birmingham is the second highest in the US. The majority of these deaths involve one young (19-35 y.o) Black man shooting another. These shootings mostly take place in the context of an argument/disagreement between the two men. (Both the perpetrator and the victim know each other).




It is likely that the Black males involved in these shooting incidents will almost certainly have a lower IQ of 85 (or more likely below 85); thus they will almost certainly have material deficiencies in their Executive Functioning.




* Poor behavioural inhibition, which manifests as cognitive and behavioural IMPULSIVITY and an inability to defer immediate gratification.

* Diminished ability to regulate EMOTION; i.e; they will be emotionally labile.

* Deficient PROBLEM - SOLVING SKILLS

* Lack of FORESIGHT regarding the consequences of their behaviour.

* Diminished capacity to maintain SUSTAINED ATTENTION/concentration





So, here is my take on what happens. Two young Black guys, - lets call them Louis and Martin -, arrange to meet up at Martin's apartment in the West End district of Birmingham. The purpose of the meeting is for Louis to sell some cannabis resin - (quite a lot of it, 50 capsules) - to Martin. Louis always carries a handgun - a Colt .45 pistol - just because he like the idea of "packin' heat". He thinks it makes him cool; a "heavy" dude who's not to be fucked with.



When the two meet at Martin's apartment, before long there is a dispute taking place between them regarding the agreed price of the drugs, Louis explains that he has had to raise the agreed price by $100 for a number of reasons. Martin is skeptical about what Lois has to say and before long the argument escalates and the two men are shouting and jabbing accusatory fingers at each other (poor emotional regulation AND problem-solving skills). Then Lois shouts right up close in Martin's face: "FUCK YOU, MOTHERFUCKER" , and shoots him the bird. "I'll show you who's FUCKED", screams Martin, then he whips the .32 out of his jacket lightening-fast, points the muzzle at Louis' face, squeezes the trigger and puts a .45 slug through forehead ( poor impulse control, deficient behavioural inhibition). Louis drops to the floor, dead; a glob of brain tissue has fallen on the carpet and a slow ooze of claret-red blood is leaking out from the back of his head. Martin looks down at Louis, and see his eyes fixed in the unmistakable frozen stare of death. Then it dawns on him - "OMG, what the FUCK have I done !" (this evinces a lack of foresight respecting the consequences of his action) Martin was unable to concentrate and formulate an effective plan to covering up his crime. He quickly decided he should try to burn Lois' body by dousing it in gasoline and setting him alight ( to get rid of the evidence) , but this ended up quickly setting his small apartment on fire. When the fire brigade arrived they soon discovered the partly-cremated remains of a fresh human corpse and called the police. In the end, Martin was charged with 2nd degree homicide, convicted, and is now incarcerated in Jefferson County jail serving a 15- year, no-parole sentence.




I not saying, of course, that this is EXACTLY why (and how) there is such an extraordinary high homicide -rate among young young Black men in the US, but I think the core causes of the problem are relatively low general intelligence and deficient Executive functioning. (And) tragically, the operation of both of these cognitive domains are predominantly determined by innate genetic factors, not by environmental factors. This, at least, is what the science is (increasingly) saying is the case.



Regards




Dachshund (Der Uberweiner) WOOF !! WOOF !!...........................................................(Beware the dog)

[philosopher]

Dachshund:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/m ... ce-science

Although race science has been repeatedly debunked by scholarly research, in recent years it has made a comeback. Many of the keenest promoters of race science today are stars of the “alt-right”, who like to use pseudoscience to lend intellectual justification to ethno-nationalist politics. If you believe that poor people are poor because they are inherently less intelligent, then it is easy to leap to the conclusion that liberal remedies, such as affirmative action or foreign aid, are doomed to fail.

There are scores of recent examples of rightwingers banging the drum for race science. In July 2016, for example, Steve Bannon, who was then Breitbart boss and would go on to be Donald Trump’s chief strategist, wrote an article in which he suggested that some black people who had been shot by the police might have deserved it. “There are, after all, in this world, some people who are naturally aggressive and violent,” Bannon wrote, evoking one of scientific racism’s ugliest contentions: that black people are more genetically predisposed to violence than others.

[Immanuel Can]

(And) tragically, the operation of both of these cognitive domains are predominantly determined by innate genetic factors, not by environmental factors. This, at least, is what the science is (increasingly) saying is the case.

Supposing your research tells you the truth, your conclusions are still unwarranted. At most, they would indicate that IQ in large populations, not in individuals, is somewhat related to the rates of violence and antisocial behaviour -- which would be no surprise to anyone. But it would not indicate that a slightly lower average of IQ, in a particular population, is the direct cause of violent and antisocial behaviour.

In fact, your suggestion that "genetic factors" would simply make environmental and sociological factors unimportant is an incorrect interpretation of your data. More plausibly, whatever weak differential in genetic elements you could identify, if your studies were right, would be likely exacerbate ,or make worse, the effects of already bad environmental and sociological factors, NOT to eliminate their importance, as you suggest. The circumstances and decisions of the particular population group in question would still be the primary factor causing the social problems; the slightly-lower average IQ score would only indicate that susceptibility to the bad effects of those circumstances and decisions would be slightly higher, or slightly less mitigated by IQ-dependent problem-solving skills among the people on the lower end of the broad population groups.

Interestingly, the kind of studies you're citing find that the average of "whites" rates lower on the scale than the average of "Orientals." I wonder if you think that makes "Orientals" more psychologically healthy and less prone to violence than "whites." Likewise, if IQ were a direct and sufficient cause for increased violence and criminality, then we should expect, say, Downs Syndrome sufferers to be the most violent and criminal of all groups...and I think you can see that that's a bit implausible.

However, your analysis fails to deal with the observable sociological fact that populations of "white" folks who experience the same social pathologies and bad decision making characteristic of the other group experience essentially the same outcomes. Single motherhood, as a social pattern, is just toxic to all populations. So is failing to educate oneself. So is refusal to get a job. Add in poverty, and maybe substance involvement, and the chances of misery are pretty much certain.

This isn't rocket science; be a good person, and in America, you have every opportunity to be successful. Behave badly, and you are almost certain to end up in poverty or be a victim of violence and crime. That's on average, how it works.

There will be exceptions, of course: but the rule will hold when we consider the large population groups.

[Dachshund]

Supposing your research tells you the truth, your conclusions are still unwarranted. At most, they would indicate that IQ in large populations, not in individuals, is somewhat related to the rates of violence and antisocial behaviour -- which would be no surprise to anyone. But it would not indicate that a slightly lower average of IQ, in a particular population, is the direct cause of violent and antisocial behaviour.

Immanuel, I am determined to educate you on this issue, (at present, you are, I'm afraid, a "lost sheep") and with your permission I will proceed to do so, though I warn you that it may take me a number of posts to explain the facts ? I also warn that this truth is a very harsh one. I sincerely wish it were not the case, and it saddens me profoundly, but it IS the case, and life goes on. On a positive note, if one is faced with a serious/dangerous problem (whatever it may be) unless one makes a concerted attempt to use their God-given reason to determine the fundamental causes of the problem and remediate them, then the problem will never be resolved. Worse still, LYING about the causes of the problem in order to avoid injuring anyone else's feelings, is a sure and certain way not only to not solve the problem, but for the problem to grow uglier and nastier.



Here are just a couple of very quick points. (If you are happy to receive additional, thorough and systematic instruction from me on this question of race in America, as I say, just let me know !).



It depends how you quantity the term "large." Detroit, Michigan has a population of 717,777 of which 82.7% is Black African-American, Jackson, Mississippi, has a population of 173,514 and is 79.4% Black African-American, Miami Garden, Florida, has a population of 107,167 and is 76.3 % Black African-American and Birmingham, Alabama has a population of 212,237 and is 73.4% Black African-American. The White (European) populations of these cities segregate themselves from Black districts, and as a result the central city zones (the residential areas inside the official "City Limits") of these cities are effectively 100% Black. So, in the case of these four US cities we are talking about large (at least what I would call large) populations of Black African-Americans. In these four cities the rates of violent crime (homicide/murder, assault, rape, arson, etc) committed by Blacks are shockingly high relative to the national average.The average IQ of the blacks in these city centres would be 85 points at the very most (probably lower, as those Blacks with higher IQs than 85 would tend to have migrated to the suburbs where most of the Whites live). In any case, 85 points is a full 1 Standard Deviation below the white average (mean) of 100 points, and that is a substantial disparity.



Finally, even though I am prepared to put up the arguments and evidence necessary to demonstrate that the problem of antisocial/violent criminal Black African-American behaviour in the US is, in fact, predominantly driven by innate genetic factors - (the so-called "inegalitarian" position) - I must say it seems to me that the burden of proof which is almost always shouldered by inegalitarians should actually be placed on egalitarians. Quite apart from any psychometric testing, Blacks seem less intelligent than whites. Black African-American children do far less well in school than White-(European) or Asian children; the Black adults seen in ordinary life and on television news commit more crimes, parent more illegitimate children, have lower-paying jobs and boast less regular work histories. Indeed, the very absence of evidence for racial parity in intelligence, given that evidence WOULD exist (and be publicized by the egalitarians) were the races equally able, is evidence AGAINST it. The question is not why anyone thinks whites are more intelligent than Blacks, But why anyone would think otherwise (!!)


Kindest Regards


Dachshund (Der Uberweiner)

[Immanuel Can]

Supposing your research tells you the truth, your conclusions are still unwarranted. At most, they would indicate that IQ in large populations, not in individuals, is somewhat related to the rates of violence and antisocial behaviour -- which would be no surprise to anyone. But it would not indicate that a slightly lower average of IQ, in a particular population, is the direct cause of violent and antisocial behaviour.

Immanuel, I am determined to educate you on this issue, (at present, you are, I'm afraid, a "lost sheep") and with your permission I will proceed to do so, though I warn you that it may take me a number of posts to explain the facts ? I also warn that this truth is a very harsh one. ...

Well, I appreciate the attempt to educate me. But I may not be quite so thick about this as you imagine. I'll see if I can convince you of that.

It depends how you quantity the term "large."

Not at all. I was only speaking of the greater masses in general. I was suggesting that when one makes a statement about a large group, one is not thereby making a statement about the individual. And that's just very obvious.

IQ scores produce bell curves. There are few true geniuses, and few complete dullards in any population. The middle is the majority. And IQ scores calculated from the studies to which you refer produce overlapping bell curves, some slightly higher and others slightly lower, but the majority of people in the demographic falling into the overlapping range.

Non-overlapping bell curves, spaced out between very low IQ and very high IQ would plausibly let us make racially-based comments, perhaps. But that is not what we find.

But more importantly, your analysis does not show causality. Let me clarify.

Let us suppose that some demographic falls into a bell curve slightly lower on the scale than some other -- say, that the Chinese are higher than the "whites," which these studies suggest is so. That does not tell you that a lower "white" IQ is the cause of anything. It might well only be a catalyst or contributor, with external factors being the primary causes of a social pathology; or even less, it might simply indicate the lack of a mitigating factor, and no more.

So, for example, perhaps "whites" score below the Chinese on the IQ scale. But when Chinese people or "whites" are subjected to factors like malnutrition, poverty, under education, substance addiction and gangs, both groups behave in antisocial ways -- the Chinese being only slightly less prone to do so, because they have the mitigating influence of a marginally-higher IQ, and the "whites" being slightly more likely to behave pathologically. Likewise, when both groups are privileged, only the low-end of their bell curves produce any anti-social or self-destructive behavior.

In that case, what has your study really shown? Not much. It hasn't contained any calculation that shows that IQ is the cause of the antisocial behaviour. In fact, it's not. It's the external factors that are the real cause, and IQ is, at best, a merely mitigating influence on how those external influences are played out in practice.

The upshot: it's easy to jump to racial explanations every time one sees any kind of disparity between groups on any kind of scale. But this is an example of false-cause fallacy. The scale can be showing you disparities that are not the real root cause of the situation you're examining, especially if your study or scale declined to take such factors into account from the beginning. So, for example, an IQ scale does not show any other factors, such as lack of nutrition, community self-image, addiction, education level, and single motherhood. Thus IT SHOWS NO CORRELATIONS...not because correlating factors don't exist, but because IQ studies are narrowly focused on IQ, or even because the researchers themselves just assumed IQ would be the answer, and gratuitously dismissed all other factors from their consideration.

That's bad science. Multiple-causality is an ostensible fact of life: and sophisticated analyses have to at least make some place to consider multiple causality. Single-factor IQ studies do not. IQ may have some role in social pathologies -- I suspect that it would be likely to -- but it is not the determinative role, and has not been shown to be such merely by the existence of IQ studies.

[Dachshund]

Supposing your research tells you the truth, your conclusions are still unwarranted. At most, they would indicate that IQ in large populations, not in individuals, is somewhat related to the rates of violence and antisocial behaviour -- which would be no surprise to anyone. But it would not indicate that a slightly lower average of IQ, in a particular population, is the direct cause of violent and antisocial behaviour.

Immanuel, I am determined to educate you on this issue, (at present, you are, I'm afraid, a "lost sheep") and with your permission I will proceed to do so, though I warn you that it may take me a number of posts to explain the facts ? I also warn that this truth is a very harsh one. ...[/quote]

Well, I appreciate the attempt to educate me. But I may not be quite so thick about this as you imagine. I'll see if I can convince you of that.

It depends how you quantity the term "large."

Not at all. I was only speaking of the greater masses in general. I was suggesting that when one makes a statement about a large group, one is not thereby making a statement about the individual. And that's just very obvious.

IQ scores produce bell curves. There are few true geniuses, and few complete dullards in any population. The middle is the majority. And IQ scores calculated from the studies to which you refer produce overlapping bell curves, some slightly higher and others slightly lower, but the majority of people in the demographic falling into the overlapping range.

Non-overlapping bell curves, spaced out between very low IQ and very high IQ would plausibly let us make racially-based comments, perhaps. But that is not what we find.

But more importantly, your analysis does not show causality. Let me clarify.

Let us suppose that some demographic falls into a bell curve slightly lower on the scale than some other -- say, that the Chinese are higher than the "whites," which these studies suggest is so. That does not tell you that a lower "white" IQ is the cause of anything. It might well only be a catalyst or contributor, with external factors being the primary causes of a social pathology; or even less, it might simply indicate the lack of a mitigating factor, and no more.

So, for example, perhaps "whites" score below the Chinese on the IQ scale. But when Chinese people or "whites" are subjected to factors like malnutrition, poverty, under education, substance addiction and gangs, both groups behave in antisocial ways -- the Chinese being only slightly less prone to do so, because they have the mitigating influence of a marginally-higher IQ, and the "whites" being slightly more likely to behave pathologically. Likewise, when both groups are privileged, only the low-end of their bell curves produce any anti-social or self-destructive behavior.

In that case, what has your study really shown? Not much. It hasn't contained any calculation that shows that IQ is the cause of the antisocial behaviour. In fact, it's not. It's the external factors that are the real cause, and IQ is, at best, a merely mitigating influence on how those external influences are played out in practice.

The upshot: it's easy to jump to racial explanations every time one sees any kind of disparity between groups on any kind of scale. But this is an example of false-cause fallacy. The scale can be showing you disparities that are not the real root cause of the situation you're examining, especially if your study or scale declined to take such factors into account from the beginning. So, for example, an IQ scale does not show any other factors, such as lack of nutrition, community self-image, addiction, education level, and single motherhood. Thus IT SHOWS NO CORRELATIONS...not because correlating factors don't exist, but because IQ studies are narrowly focused on IQ, or even because the researchers themselves just assumed IQ would be the answer, and gratuitously dismissed all other factors from their consideration.

That's bad science. Multiple-causality is an ostensible fact of life: and sophisticated analyses have to at least make some place to consider multiple causality. Single-factor IQ studies do not. IQ may have some role in social pathologies -- I suspect that it would be likely to -- but it is not the determinative role, and has not been shown to be such merely by the existence of IQ studies.
[/quote]


Dear IMMANUEL



I finally have chance to get back to you.


Let start with point you made regarding the area of overlap in the overlapping Bell Curve distribution for White Europen Americans and Black Arican-Americans. So that we're reading from the same "hymn sheet" could you tap the following code into your google search engine: "libertarianrealist:blogspot.com/2012/05/iq-distributions.html" This should bring up an image of the overlapping Black and White Bell Curve distributions for Blacks and Whites in America. As you can see, the majority of individuals do not fall into the zone of overlap.


While we are on the topic of these Bell Curves, could I say that the implications of Black - White IQ differences actually seem most troubling when we turn from the average differences and focus instead on the differences at the extreme - when you contrast the two overlapping Bell Curve distributions and look at the proportions in each group scoring above and below certain levels. For instance, if we suppose that the top professional and managerial jobs in the US require an IQ of at least 115 or thereabouts, then we have to accept that only about 2.5% of Blacks appear to be able to compete for these jobs. The comparable figure for Whites would be about 16% The total Black population with IQs over 115 is 800,000. The comparable figure for Whites is about 30 million.. If Blacks had the same IQ distribution as Whites, the Black total would be over 5 million.


The data are even more depressing on the downside. An IQ in the range of 70 - 75 (NB: Western psychiatrists currently view an IQ score of 70 as being diagnostic of mild mental retardation, or, to be politically correct, of mild Intellectual Deficit Disorder, IDD) implies a life that is guaranteed to be short of opportunities. Very few students in the 70 - 75 IQ range will absorb much of what elementary schools teach, and virtually none will graduate from high school; few will succeed in finding and keeping a good job>none will be admitted into the armed forces (required by law to screen out the lowest 10% of the population). The bad news is that a substantial minority - approximately 1 in 5 of American Blacks have IQ scores below 75. Around 1 in 20 Whites have IQ scores below 75.


Unfortunately social pathology in America: delinquency, crime, incarceration rates, drug abuse, prostitution, illegitimacy, child abuse/neglect, permanent welfare dependency, unemployment - is disproportionately correlated (for both Blacks and Whites) in that segment of the population with IQs below 75. And, as I mentioned at least one quarter of the Black population (compared to one twentieth of the White population) falls below that critical IQ point in the Bell Curve. Because the smaller percentage of White people with IQs below 75 are fairly well scattered throughout the population, many are guided by their abler families, friends and neighbours whose IQs are closer to 100. Relatively few are liable to be concentrated in poor neighbourhoods and housing projects that harbour the "critical mass" of very low IQs which generated an inordinate quantity of social pathology. The "critical mass" effect exists mostly in the inner cities, which have been abandoned by Whites (e.g. Detroit, Birmingham, Gary, Miami Gardens and so on).


You say that the real cause of antisocial behaviour are "external" (i.e. environmental factors - "nurture") and "IQ is, at best, merely a mitigating influence on how those external influences are played out in practice." My dear fellow (!) you couldn't be more mistaken. Let me explain... There is absolutely no questioning the fact that the average IQ of Black African Americans is 1 Standard Deviation (15 points) below the average for White Anglo-European-descended Americans. This represents a substantial deficit. Thus, we can say that Blacks in the US TEND to have lower general intelligence than Whites. As long ago as 1994 the authors of "The Bell Curve" (Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein) concluded from their research that low IQ was a better predictor of low socioeconomic status and the associated problems of: poverty; teenage pregnancy; welfare dependency; criminality and drug abuse/addiction THAN ANY COMPETING VARIABLE including parental socioeconomic status." Murray and Herrnstein argue that people with low IQ find it hard to understand why criminal behaviour like robbing someone is wrong, and find it harder to appreciate the values of civil and cooperative social life. According to their analysis someone with an IQ of 130 has a less than 2% chance of living in poverty, whereas someone with an IQ of 70 has a 26% chance. I would say that, without the support of mentally competent family and friends, someone with an IQ of 70 - (which is the threshold in the West for a psychiatric diagnosis of mild mental retardation) - is highly likely to find themselves living in poverty, and Murray and Herrnstein's figure of 26% is extremely conservative.


IQ (general intelligence/ general cognitive ability) is, quite simply, the OMNIPOTENT VARIABLE in human life. Life is an IQ test ! An individual's IQ STRONGLY predicts: their mastery of the curriculum at school; this, in turn, predominantly informs prospects for future education at university; which, in turn, leads to social and economic opportunities such as those related to occupation and income. In the world of work, intelligence matters more than educational attainment because it involves the ability to adapt to novel challenges and tasks that describe the different levels of complexity of occupation. Intelligence also spills over into multiple aspects of daily life, such as the choice of a romantic partner and choices about health care.


General intelligence (or cognitive ability) as measured by IQ is known as the omnipotent variable, it predicts educational outcomes, occupational and financial outcomes, health outcomes BETTER THAN ANY OTHER TRAIT. It is also the most stable psychological trait with a high 0.54 correlation coefficient from 11 to 90 years of age.


In recent years genetic association studies have confirmed a century of quantitative genetic research showing that inherited DNA differences are responsible for SUBSTANTIAL individual differences in intelligence test scores. Until 2016 Genome-Wide Polygenetic Scores (GWPS) could predict only 1% of the variance in intelligence. Since then progress has been very rapid and at present behavioural geneticists have the ability to predict 10% of the variance in intelligence (that is, more than 20% of the 50% (average) heritability factor derived from identical twin studies and more than 40% of the 25% Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) heritability of intelligence. This is an important milestone for the new genetics of intelligence because effect sizes of this magnitude are large enough to be "perceptible to the naked eye" of a reasonably sensitive observer.



I predict that in the not too distant future, evidence from the new genetics of intelligence will confirm that genetic factors play a far greater role in determining variation in intelligence than environmental factors. This is certainly what the research results to date are suggesting. So hopefully it will not be long now before the "dinosaurs" and "Flat-Earthers" of the intellectual left, will finally be forced to abandon their pernicious tabula rasa" doctrines of environmental determinism in theories of human intelligence published in the literature. Roll on that day !!



Regards


Dachshund (Der Uberweiner)...........................(Beware the dog)

[Immanuel Can]

IQ (general intelligence/ general cognitive ability) is, quite simply, the OMNIPOTENT VARIABLE in human life. Life is an IQ test ! An individual's IQ STRONGLY predicts: their mastery of the curriculum at school; this, in turn, predominantly informs prospects for future education at university; which, in turn, leads to social and economic opportunities such as those related to occupation and income. In the world of work, intelligence matters more than educational attainment because it involves the ability to adapt to novel challenges and tasks that describe the different levels of complexity of occupation. Intelligence also spills over into multiple aspects of daily life, such as the choice of a romantic partner and choices about health care.

No one is saying IQ is not important for many things.

What I'm suggesting is that morality is not one of them. You will find very wicked people of very high IQ, and very wonderful people of less IQ. The variables are unrelated, and do not reveal causality.

Moreover, your analysis treats IQ in isolation. You don't deal with what happens when IQ is combined with other factors, such as nutrition, social advantage, economics, single-parenting, addiction to substances, gang behaviour, education, welfare, or propaganda. As you say, you think IQ is an "omnipotent variable." Your words. But a "variable" is just that: something that "varies" in combination with other things. Your analysis is bad, because it goes straight from IQ, in isolation, to broad conclusions about race and social behaviour. So again, it fails to show causality.

A better analysis would include the variables which interact with IQ to produce the sociological outcomes you are indicting.

Think of it this way. You have two sons. One comes home and says, "Dad, I got an 85 in school today." The second one comes home and says, "Dad, I got a 95." As you say, school performance is one of the variables that seems most straightforwardly and directly correlated to IQ numbers.

Which is the brighter and harder-working student?

But I should also reveal that your first son goes to a top private school, and your second to a "special needs" academy. So now, which one is smartest?

But which one is harder working? Your first son finds school very easy. Your second finds even rudimentary tasks very hard to grasp, and spends late nights pouring over his very limited books. Now which is the best student, the one you should praise most?

You see, you can't really sort out your analysis on the single variable of "marks." And 85 and a 95 are not on an equal scale in all situations. So you need all the variables in place before you can rightly judge the situation.

The upshot: IQ is important, but it is only revealing in combination with a lot of other information that makes sense of what IQ reveals, and how it is to be interpreted when placed in the presence of other variables. You need a multi-variable analysis, not a single-variable one.

No variable, including !Q is "omnipotent." The very coinage is a contradiction. All variables are combinative, or they're not variables. They're absolutes.

I'm recommending we don't mistake IQ for an absolute, or imagine it's "omnipotent."

[Sculptor]

The governor ain't black though.
The whites still control all the resources; get the best schools; have the best protection; get most public resources spent in their direction; and send white people to the senate.

Governor Kay Ivey, signed a bill in May banning abortion in almost every circumstance – including rape and incest.
OLD WHITE WITCH.