Ableton Forum

Fuck this talking shit.

Lets break out the maths problems and settle this like real men.

Funk N. Furter wrote:First you need to address my point about black immigrants out-performing whites.

Secondly, your quote from wiki is a cherry-pick, even within the context of the next few paragraphs. How do you explain the fact that the gap has been closing?

Do you discount poverty and environment from the test results? Are you sure that IQ tests do not favour white middle class people?

First, these statistics are meaningless as the conditions for entry into the USA are very different for European-born and Africa-born immigrants. Were you to select random Africans and random Europeans, you would find that ON AVERAGE Europeans score better on IQ tests. Your article is invalid.

Secondly, the gap ranges from insignificant to huge, depending on race. For example, the difference between whites and asians is 5 points, whereas 35 points separate whites and aborigines. Ever since these figures were reported, the left has been going ape-shit trying to rationalise that a people whose most advanced technology is the throwing of the twig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomerang) are the intellectual equals of the creators of the Legend of Zelda. Now one of the ways that the left can combat this allegedly "racist" science is to argue that IQ is irrelevant. But since it has been shown to correlate with academic achievement, another solution would be to simply change the test (http://blog.lib.umn.edu/meyer769/sectio ... anged.html). Hence, I could speculate that IF the gap is truly closing, it could well be a symptom of the politicisation of science.

Thirdly, IQ tests may well favour white middle class people, but since my initial claim was that whites have a higher IQ than blacks, this is completely irrelevant. I did not say that whites are BETTER, SMARTER, or have LARGER PENISES, than blacks, I simply said that they score better on IQ tests. And that's a fact.

It would seem that once again you completely missed the point. The reason I mentioned IQ testing was to make a point about your comment about culture. But true to form, you ducked the challenge and tore off in yet another, ideology-driven tangent.

And that's all I have to say on the subject.

IQ tests are supposed to be independent of culture and upbringing.

They also shouldn't be the kind of test that you can study for, although I think that's bollocks. I'm sure practicing these things will make you better at them.

They certainly test a very specific part of your reasoning. You can have a very high IQ but be clueless about many things, or have a low IQ and actually be very smart in other ways.

jesus funken, why?

this is exactly the sort of shit that should be completely ignored, not given its own thread....

ffs

*insert facepalm image here*

not a modicum of that in the title.

Troll bait, plain and simple.

^^ your post before this.

Title is troll bait. Explanation no where near.

Re-title please....

again: the man of cheese here is a rich far-right guy, his friends here are loo(p)station, sturm-I-believe-in-nothing-lebowsky-truppen and the others. I guess they all come from KVR forum or smth. I wouldn't be such serious about their "pearls of truth"

Oh, and they all want me to be banned, of course. Guess why...

Funk N. Furter wrote:

knotkranky wrote:^^ your post before this.

Title is troll bait. Explanation no where near.

I have no idea what you are on about.

lol, no shit

Funk N. Furter wrote:I'll just mention that it's been shown in studies, being adopted by high socio-economic families raises IQ by 12-16 points.

Indeed, nurture plays its part, but 16 points doesn't make up even half the different between US whites and aborigines. Meanwhile, you completely ignored my rebuttal to your initial comments. If you change your line of argumentation every time I shut one down, you just end up looking desperate—which suits you.

Incidentally, I never said you quoted me out of context, simply that you failed to understand what I was saying. I was illustrating how non-racist comments can easily be construed as racist, and you, missing the point, chose to call me a racist.

There really are multiple disputes here:

1. Do blacks have lower IQs than whites? (introduced by funken, confirmed by McOck, and tacitly confirmed by funken)
2. If so why so? (introduced by funken, unresolved at this point)
3. Why the hell are we talking about this? (introduced by me)

So far, if this thread is supposed to be "whipping my butt", I am underwhelmed.

Let the record show that 2 pages into "whipping my butt", funken has been reduced to politely asking what it is we are talking about.

Let the record also show that, contrary to funken's definition, this is what winning looks like: Engaging the challenges in good faith, shutting down every attack, keeping the discussion focused, and leaving your opponent befuddled and asking for a bail-out.

My work here is done.

Cock out.

Jack McOck wrote: Indeed, nurture plays its part, but 16 points doesn't make up even half the different between US whites and aborigines.

unrelated histories. Look into IQ points from reservation dwelling Native Americans, Inuits in Canada etc. and you would very likely see a correlation to Aborigines. Conquered people forced into larger "advanced" civilizations tend to assimilate at a lower rate, suffer from poverty, lack of education, drug addiction etc. etc.

Regardless of statistical averages, racial makeup is relatively a new phenomena genetically and for the most part the only differences in gene pools are that blacks have a larger pool that all the other races. Beyond that genetically there is more in common cross racial boundaries than in a single race. Meaning your particular genetics have more in common with other races than with a random sample of your own race.

The conclusion one can draw from this is that it's all nurture, that cultural differences are far more important than race, which holds little real value. That people still hold onto any of these Bell Curve findings says more about the people holding on to it than it does about the relevence of the findings.


OK back to you and fucken doing your mating ritual. ---->

I have a suggestion in order to solve this clever and interesting dispute started by JackMcock. This:



It always works with people like JackmCock and such.
(we call it "kick the fa")

andydes wrote:IQ tests are supposed to be independent of culture and upbringing.

they are not, and cannot and will not ever be.

actually the first tests were developed as a very broad brush method to identify school kids that needed extra help, they were not designed or envisaged to map people's mental performance on some kind of 'continuum'. nowadays of course that is mostly what they are used for (especially in the US), with dubious value.