Should hereditarians and race realists be allowed to express their opinions? (1 Viewer)

[SmartCat]

Well, I do disagree on that point. Serial killers generally have very high IQ's. That does nothing to impart morality to them.

Gary Gilmore had a tested IQ of 136. That does happen, but it is exceptional.

Generally speaking, the more intelligent a criminal is the less likely he is to be a violent criminal.

 

[ataraxia]

Being exploited is a matter of circumstance but also of ability. The societies which have advanced knowledge the furthest, technically and otherwise, have lorded it over the others. That may not be a pleasant fact but it is one nonetheless.

The ancient Egyptians and Babylonians both enslaved the ancient Israelites. Does that mean that the Israelites had innately less ability than those others?

 

[ataraxia]

Gary Gilmore had a tested IQ of 136. That does happen, but it is exceptional.

Generally speaking, the more intelligent a criminal is the less likely he is to be a violent criminal.

Many pschopaths have IQs in the genius range. Some of them are violent. Others just do their thing in corporate boardrooms. It doesn't make what they do any less hurtful.

 

[SmartCat]

Not according to the poster of the OP. He feels they are linked. If yo disagree, you should talk to him.

Low intelligence and crime correlate, but the correlation is one of probability, not certainty.

 

[veritas1]

Gary Gilmore had a tested IQ of 136. That does happen, but it is exceptional.

Generally speaking, the more intelligent a criminal is the less likely he is to be a violent criminal.

Not sure about that.

Leopold (from Leopold and Loeb) had an IQ of 210.
Loeb's was 169.
Ted Kaczynski- 167
Charlene Williams- 160
Andrew Cunanan- 147
Jeffrey Dahmer- 145
Ted Bundy- 136
Rodney Alcala- 135
John Wayne Gacy- 118
David Berkowitz- 118
Kenneth Bianchi- 118

 

[SmartCat]

The ancient Egyptians and Babylonians both enslaved the ancient Israelites. Does that mean that the Israelites had innately less ability than those others?

They were certainly less numerous. The superior average intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews seems to have evolved during the past two thousand years. Jews in Christian Europe were not allowed to own land. They were excluded from most professions. They were allowed to be money lenders. Christians were excluded from money lending. Money lending required learning complex skills. Male Jews who could not learn the skills either did not get married and have children, or they left the faith.

 

[veritas1]

The ancient Egyptians and Babylonians both enslaved the ancient Israelites. Does that mean that the Israelites had innately less ability than those others?

Not necessarily. Sometimes simple force of numbers is all that is required.

 

[bearpoker]

That is simply not true at all. Despite the sanctions and taboos against looking for them alleles for intelligence and crime are being discovered.

----------

BBC 28 October 2014

Those with the genes were 13 times more likely to have a history of repeated violent behaviour.

The authors of the study, published in the journal Molecular Psychiatry, said at least 5-10% of all violent crime in Finland could be attributed to individuals with these genotypes.
Two genes linked with violent crime - BBC News

----------

Science Alert, 25 JUN 2018

Researchers have identified over 1,016 specific genes associated with intelligence, the vast majority of which are unknown to science.

An international team conducted a large-scale genetic association study of intelligence and discovered 190 new genomic loci and 939 new genes linked with intelligence, significantly expanding our understanding of the genetic bases of cognitive function.

Led by statistical geneticist Danielle Posthuma from Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam in the Netherlands, the researchers performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of almost 270,000 people from 14 independent cohorts of European ancestry.

All these people took part in neurocognitive tests that measured their intelligence, and when researchers contrast their scores with variations in the participants' DNA – called single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) – you can see which mutations are associated with high intelligence.

From over 9 million mutations detected in the sample, Posthuma's team identified 205 regions in DNA code linked with intelligence (only 15 of which had been isolated before), and 1,016 specific genes (77 of which had already been discovered).
Scientists Just Found Almost 1,000 New Genes Associated With Intelligence

----------

Quite apart from the growing body of genetic evidence for hereditarianism and race realism, it has long been known that intelligence runs in families. Teachers have long known that some students learn faster and with less effort than other students, and that those in the first group can learn what those int he second group cannot learn.

Head Start and No Child Left Behind have failed to close or even narrow the race group in academic performance.

No one has ever devised a method for significantly and permanently rising IQ scores.

People with these genes commit 5-10% of the crimes in Finland. People without the genes commit the other 85-90% of the crimes. I'm not seeing this as a real game changer in the fight against crime.

 

[ultmd]

During most of history criminals in civilized countries were killed at the scene of the crime, they died in custody, or they were executed. The few children some of them may have had were unlikely to live to adult hood. By those methods crime alleles were removed from the white and Oriental genomes. That is why we have lower crime rates than races that have been more recently introduced to civilization.

And this is some truly absurd white supremacist pseudoscience, here.

Lemme guess...you don't have much of an educational background in Science, right?

 

[bearpoker]

The average IQ in China is 105. The average IQ for Arabs is about 90. Cold weather also seems to breed for higher intelligence.

Did anyone ever tell you about the Post Hoc Fallacy?

 

[ultmd]

No, we shouldn't put black people in special education classes because of their skin color and neither should we put them in universities because of it.

Classic white grievance argument.

Of course, the FACT is that more white students are admitted to colleges through legacy admissions and other so-called "preference" programs than African-Americans via so-called "Affirmative Action". But that's not important to white grievance types, because it doesn't affirm their white grievance.

The point the OP is making is simply a factual one and assigning a moral component to it is only designed to stifle unpleasant realities by inferring some character flaw to the person pointing it out.

There were no "facts" in the OP, only opinions.

I also find it a bit ironic that the same people who regularly strive to divide and categorize people by race, ethnicity and gender would complain about "using science to divide humanity by color". Dividing humanity by color is one of their prime occupations.

:lamo
Your ignorance is the "irony" here, because (unfortunately for you and other white grievance/victim types) your entire premise is misguided. The FACT is that "Science" does NOT "divide humanity by color". You and the OP aren't using Science, you're expressing PERSONAL OPINIONS and pretending they are "science" and "facts".

I'm sorry, but there is very little that is LESS worthy of respect than ignorant bigotry disguised (rather poorly) as pseudo-intellectualism.

 

[veritas1]

Classic white grievance argument.

Of course, the FACT is that more white students are admitted to colleges through legacy admissions and other so-called "preference" programs than African-Americans via so-called "Affirmative Action". But that's not important to white grievance types, because it doesn't affirm their white grievance.


There were no "facts" in the OP, only opinions.


:lamo
Your ignorance is the "irony" here, because (unfortunately for you and other white grievance/victim types) your entire premise is misguided. The FACT is that "Science" does NOT "divide humanity by color". You and the OP aren't using Science, you're expressing PERSONAL OPINIONS and pretending they are "science" and "facts".

I'm sorry, but there is very little that is LESS worthy of respect than ignorant bigotry disguised (rather poorly) as pseudo-intellectualism.

More of your misguided blubbering and personal attacks. What a surprise! First off, I never addressed white legacy admissions nor indicated any support for them. In fact, in an earlier thread (which you also polluted) I specifically said that admissions should be based solely on merit and nothing else.

Secondly, I also never said anything about science dividing humanity by color. I referred to the claim of another poster that the OP was using science in such a fashion. You seem not to be able to read for comprehension when your eagerness to post your latest snide attack takes precedence.

 

[D_NATURED]

No, we shouldn't put black people in special education classes because of their skin color and neither should we put them in universities because of it. The point the OP is making is simply a factual one and assigning a moral component to it is only designed to stifle unpleasant realities by inferring some character flaw to the person pointing it out. I also find it a bit ironic that the same people who regularly strive to divide and categorize people by race, ethnicity and gender would complain about "using science to divide humanity by color". Dividing humanity by color is one of their prime occupations.

Well, universities are not meant to be only for those on the right end of the bell curve. We can ALL benefit from education. That is, all but the most resigned to their own superiority.

 

[veritas1]

Well, universities are not meant to be only for those on the right end of the bell curve. We can ALL benefit from education. That is, all but the most resigned to their own superiority.

Yes, but that does not mean being placed where you are unqualified to be placed. That does you no favors. One can be very well educated without attending Harvard or Yale.

 

[bearpoker]

WHY is "oriental" now considered offensive??? It just means EASTERN for god's sake.

I don't know for sure, but I suspect that Asians associate the word with the history of their interactions with Europeans and Americans in the 19th and and early 20th centuries. China and other Asian countries were dominated and ruthlessly exploited by the West in those years.

 

[Napoleon]

Civilization got introduced to western Europe only about 2000 years ago with the Romans. He didn’t get up to the Scandinavian countries up until only 1000 years ago. It existed in the Middle East and North Africa long before that.

The Romans didn’t introduce civilization. Their own was largely appropriated from the Etruscans and later the Greeks.

 

[bearpoker]

Well, there IS one change that I absolutely refuse to go along with.

I WILL say/write "Everyone should bring his or her book tomorrow," but I have enough guts to REFUSE to say/write "Everyone should bring their book tomorrow" or even worse "Everyone should bring her book tomorrow [when the class contains both male and female students]."

Needless to say, I would not dare say "Everyone must bring his book tomorrow."

Good for you! I hate the convention of using "their" as well.

 

[ultmd]

More of your misguided blubbering and personal attacks. What a surprise! First off, I never addressed white legacy admissions nor indicated any support for them.

Please stop dissembling. I neither stated, nor implied, that you previously addressed or supported legacy admissions. I merely pointed out that you (and other white grievance types like you) consistently complain about AA, but NEVER point out the FAR MORE PREVALENT practices/policies of Legacy Admissions in your contrived, transparent calls for "merit based" access to higher education.

You people do this, over and over...consistently in every discussion of this issue...because you REAL issue isn't "merit", it's race. You are as transparent as you are "aggrieved".

In fact, in an earlier thread (which you also polluted) I specifically said that admissions should be based solely on merit and nothing else.

...and yet, you've NEVER (not ONCE) focused complaint or concern about the PRIMARY source of "affirmative action", Legacy Admissions, which FAR outnumber admissions granted on the basis of race in this country.

So, while you whine about being fact-checked by people like me, you real problem is with those FACTS, not people like me who consistently "check" you with them.

Secondly, I also never said anything about science dividing humanity by color. I referred to the claim of another poster that the OP was using science in such a fashion.

And I pointed out the FACT that the OP was a lie. Science does NOT "divide humanity by race". Period. That premise is false...a lie. And that FACT is not arguable.

 

[ultmd]

I do use the word "Negro" a lot, and I am going to continue to use it. I am aware that the politically correct term has become "African American." I have never heard a Negro use that term in conversation.

This would be a statement of rank ignorance.

This only illuminates that you CLEARLY do not know many African-Americans, much less call many "friend". That's not surprising, at all. It's predictable, in fact. As an African-American male, I can't tell you the last time an "aggreived" white guy like you had the stones to call me a "Negro". That's the kind of stuff you white grievance types use on anonymous message boards. You people are cowards by nature. But, I digress....the reality here is that you don't get to establish the terms by which other groups chose to self-identify.

That aside, your recalcitrant attitude toward the use of "Oriental" and "African-American", etc is reflective of your entitlement issues...which is not uncommon among older white conservative males in our society. You people are angry and fearful because you see "your" America giving way to diversity, tolerance and inclusiveness. Everyone understands that.

 

[Dittohead not!]

That is a widespread misconception that persists because people want to believe it. Since it was introduced a century ago IQ testing has demonstrated its ability to accurately predict academic and economic performance, as well as other desirable outcomes in life.

I don't think you can back up that statement.

Actually, grades are a better predictor of success in future academic pursuits.

and lots of students do well in college, but never seem to be able to make a decent living in the real world.

There are different sorts of intelligence.

 

[ataraxia]

The Romans didn’t introduce civilization. Their own was largely appropriated from the Etruscans and later the Greeks.

True. And those, in turn, ultimately came from the Middle East.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The United States has a high crime rate because we have high populations of blacks and Hispanics.

Minorities are not treated the same as whites in our justice system. Therefore, there are more minorities in prison. Therefore, people believe what you just said.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Gary Gilmore had a tested IQ of 136. That does happen, but it is exceptional.

Generally speaking, the more intelligent a criminal is the less likely he is to be a violent criminal.

and the more intelligent a criminal is, the less likely he is to be caught.

 

[veritas1]

Please stop dissembling. I neither stated, nor implied, that you previously addressed or supported legacy admissions. I merely pointed out that you (and other white grievance types like you) consistently complain about AA, but NEVER point out the FAR MORE PREVALENT practices/policies of Legacy Admissions in your contrived, transparent calls for "merit based" access to higher education.

You people do this, over and over...consistently in every discussion of this issue...because you REAL issue isn't "merit", it's race. You are as transparent as you are "aggrieved".


...and yet, you've NEVER (not ONCE) focused complaint or concern about the PRIMARY source of "affirmative action", Legacy Admissions, which FAR outnumber admissions granted on the basis of race in this country.

So, while you whine about being fact-checked by people like me, you real problem is with those FACTS, not people like me who consistently "check" you with them.



And I pointed out the FACT that the OP was a lie. Science does NOT "divide humanity by race". Period. That premise is false...a lie. And that FACT is not arguable.

Hey, go start a thread on legacy admissions if you like. They are no more fair than those made on the basis of race or ethnicity. Your claims that my concern is solely race are also nonsense. The earlier thread was on that specific topic if I recall so that's what was discussed. Oh, and it's not whites who are the overwhelming victims of racial preferences but Asians.

 

[iguanaman]

I did provide two links in comment #7. I could provide many more.

Keep in mind that looking for genetic reasons for individual and racial differences in intelligence and criminal behavior can be dangerous to an academic career. The Chinese lack Western squeamishness about these matters. If political correctness continues to impede scientific research in the West, it will continue in China.

Keep in mind that the outcome of such research could very well lead to genetic manipulation of the human genome with very uncertain results. What other purpose would such research have? Do you believe we should use science to create the "perfect" human or just create classes in society based on genetic make-up?