• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump has the Wise and Higher Incomes kn HIS SIDE

Is this forum degenerating under the witless influence of Trump or is something else dumbing it down?
 
JasperL said:
It wasn't a hard question. You said this: "Though, I tend to agree that Trump is hard to support for an intellectual, you should not exclude the Black population from your listing. That weakens the argument and seems racist to those, who wanted to be malicious."

I'm asking how including blacks affects the analysis, or, alternatively, how does including blacks strengthen someone's 'argument'?

And, who wanted to be malicious, and why/how does including blacks seem racist?

If you're saying that the vast majority of blacks voting for democrats is somehow an argument that "low IQ" voters tend to go for democrats, them be explicit, and explain your argument. How many "low IQ" whites vote for republicans? There are far more "low IQ" whites than "low IQ" blacks - it's just a numbers thing, roughly 224 million whites, and 39 million blacks.
Click to expand...

Just use Google with "iq blacks". There are hundreds of article about Blacks and IQ. So, if one put one candidate down for support by voters of lower intelligence, then the IQ of a major portion of the electorate supporting the other party should not go unmentioned. Both seem to me interesting as academic matters. But the attack on Trump was tasteless, as it did not use the same argument on Democrats and didn't presumably, because the writer knew it was politically incorrect to answer the attack with this unpleasant point.
 
joG said:
Just use Google with "iq blacks". There are hundreds of article about Blacks and IQ. So, if one put one candidate down for support by voters of lower intelligence, then the IQ of a major portion of the electorate supporting the other party should not go unmentioned.
Click to expand...

The research on race and IQ, at best, shows that there are small differences in IQ between the races and sexes. So let's assume that the median IQ for blacks is 5 points lower than that of whites, and that of whites is 5 point lower than for Asians. That does not mean that all blacks are stupid, or that all whites are smart, and all Asians are smarter than all whites and blacks. In fact, obviously, the IQ of the black population like that of whites and every other demographic group runs the gamut from well below the median to well above, and therefore WILL include a small percentage of extremely smart people, a bigger group above average, the bulk right around average, and those below.

Also, by definition, half the black population will be above the average IQ for blacks, and in that population will be perhaps 45% of blacks who are smarter than the median and below white population. And, as I mentioned, there are a lot more whites (224 million) than blacks (39 million), and so just as a function of numbers, lots more dumb whites than dumb blacks.

So including the black population with IQs that range the gamut from the lowest to well above median won't actually tell us much about the IQ of those voting for a candidate X unless we also know the IQs of whites, Asians (who on average have higher IQs than whites according to some research and also skew democratic), etc. who are voting for that candidate and the opposing candidate. And, to your unstated point that blacks are stupid and therefore if you include them you will skew the IQ of Democratic voters to the dumb side, that could be true or not, but the fact is (because numbers) there are MANY more dumb whites than dumb blacks so who they vote for will go much further in determining the IQ of the voting base by party than a population 1/5th their size.

Both seem to me interesting as academic matters. But the attack on Trump was tasteless, as it did not use the same argument on Democrats and didn't presumably, because the writer knew it was politically incorrect to answer the attack with this unpleasant point.
Click to expand...

I think it more likely the writer didn't make frankly ignorant assumptions about how including the black population in the analysis would change the results, which is what you did.
 
JasperL said:
The research on race and IQ, at best, shows that there are small differences in IQ between the races and sexes. So let's assume that the median IQ for blacks is 5 points lower than that of whites, and that of whites is 5 point lower than for Asians. That does not mean that all blacks are stupid, or that all whites are smart, and all Asians are smarter than all whites and blacks. In fact, obviously, the IQ of the black population like that of whites and every other demographic group runs the gamut from well below the median to well above, and therefore WILL include a small percentage of extremely smart people, a bigger group above average, the bulk right around average, and those below.

Also, by definition, half the black population will be above the average IQ for blacks, and in that population will be perhaps 45% of blacks who are smarter than the median and below white population. And, as I mentioned, there are a lot more whites (224 million) than blacks (39 million), and so just as a function of numbers, lots more dumb whites than dumb blacks.

So including the black population with IQs that range the gamut from the lowest to well above median won't actually tell us much about the IQ of those voting for a candidate X unless we also know the IQs of whites, Asians (who on average have higher IQs than whites according to some research and also skew democratic), etc. who are voting for that candidate and the opposing candidate. And, to your unstated point that blacks are stupid and therefore if you include them you will skew the IQ of Democratic voters to the dumb side, that could be true or not, but the fact is (because numbers) there are MANY more dumb whites than dumb blacks so who they vote for will go much further in determining the IQ of the voting base by party than a population 1/5th their size.

I think it more likely the writer didn't make frankly ignorant assumptions about how including the black population in the analysis would change the results, which is what you did.
Click to expand...

I know all that, frankly. But it does not falsify the original statement. As a matter of fact, there would be an easy argument structure combined with a short analysis that could show that there was no relevance to the black is beautiful theory. But, you chose to use one that shows nothing of the sort.

PS: I will be interested in seeing your next attempt. ;)
 
joG said:
I know all that, frankly. But it does not falsify the original statement. As a matter of fact, there would be an easy argument structure combined with a short analysis that could show that there was no relevance to the black is beautiful theory. But, you chose to use one that shows nothing of the sort.

PS: I will be interested in seeing your next attempt. ;)
Click to expand...

What original statement? Yours or someone else's? And if it doesn't "falsify" it then explain why not.

And I'm done with any attempt unless you have more than "Blacks is dumb, they votes for the democrat party, so you iffen you puts them in teh analysis it proves high IQs vote republican like real americans" which is about all you've said so far.
 
Actually, he has the people who think they can sell nonsense if they type in CAPS.

He also has the people who believe a man who is famous, or infamous, as a liar, a huckster, a deadbeat, and a liberal. Sad, isn't it.
 
Another silly RAH RAH TRUMP IS GREAT! thread
Getting kind of repetitive isn't it?
 
Manc Skipper said:
They've not got anything substantive, so they go with all they do have.
Click to expand...

Seriously though, posting more and more ridiculous nonsense will only drive people away from Trump based on how ludicrous his supports behave. Dont they realize this is counter-productive?
 
Quag said:
Seriously though, posting more and more ridiculous nonsense will only drive people away from Trump based on how ludicrous his supports behave. Dont they realize this is counter-productive?
Click to expand...

You and I would think so, but then they don't. Much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom