Mon journal politique

William_the_Bloody · 03-21-2016, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goofle

That article seemed to be in upside down land. And a typical left wing propaganda piece that we have come to expect. I'd argue Trump is as popular as he is because of authoritarians on the left. Who ultimately created Trump in the first place.

Sure, he also has regular old right wing support, and the 0.5% of crazy nut jobs, but he doesn't get where he is now without that reaction to the authoritarian left.

I do mention the article is heavily biased, but it is an excellent article nonetheless.

I would expand more on this but I don't want my journal getting transformed into a debate about Donald Trump, so I will simply say that I acknowledge your statement that Trump is a reaction to the authoritarian left, this is also true.

Trump is simply filling a vacuum that exists on specific policy issues that are important to the working class. (free trade, immigration & border control ect)

We are seeing this throughout much of the western world with the rise of right wing populist parties, that are courting the working class, by pushing back on trans nationalism and globalization.

(Ie UKIP in the UK, National Front in France, Party for Freedom the Netherlands, the AFD in Germany ect, ect.)

William_the_Bloody · 10-20-2016, 10:49 PM

I feel my entries on examining intelligence...are well...a fly by research attempt..

This is partially because my career doesn't afford me the time for in depth studies, (which is why I stopped this) and when I'm not at a University, I do not have access to scholarly articles...just news reports.

So if anyone wants to add to debate on the validity of pychometrics to quantify intelligence. Please do so.

**Frownland** · 10-20-2016, 11:32 PM

I'll copy and paste it into a word document so I can read it. The font makes it pretty difficult man. Occasional bolding or italicizing of words/phrases/really key or conclusive paragraphs is really effective, but this is not.

Sincerely,
A drunk guy

William_the_Bloody · 10-21-2016, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

I'll copy and paste it into a word document so I can read it. The font makes it pretty difficult man. Occasional bolding or italicizing of words/phrases/really key or conclusive paragraphs is really effective, but this is not.

Sincerely,
A drunk guy

Well be careful in your own research. If there is a strong enough correlation to show that IQ's are related to hereditary genes (Genetic more so than environment/culture) , and that IQ's are a reliable method of quantifying intelligence.....you may not like what you find when you open pandora's box.

William_the_Bloody · 10-21-2016, 03:10 AM

Actually I'm fine with my research on second thought, as far as a limited time drive by goes, I think I did a fair job on retrospect.

I had stumbled across a bunch of videos by ideological zealot Stefan Molyneux (who I find repugnant, and I'm embarrassed he's Canadian)

He had a series of thinkers on, and a lot of it came back to race and IQ. If you don't know, IQ adherents believe that genetic differentiation has led to different intelligent norms of races in the world. (Asians, followed by Caucasians, Hispanics, and then at the bottom Blacks) https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country

They therefore believe IQ is largely inherent and biological not environmental. Why is this important, from their perspective, or at least Molyneux's

1. Different IQ's of races lead to greater standards of livings for nations. So immigration of people (Say from Mexico or the Middle East) will inevitably drop the IQ of a the United States or European countries, and hence, also the countries quality of life, life expectancy , and culture. This was argued by at least two of his guests. Helmuth Nyborg and Garett Jones.

2. Trying to cure the inequality gap with social programs "affirmative action" ect. is a waste of resources, because if black Americans have generally lower IQ scores than whites and Asians, than their upward mobility will be generally limited, because there is a strong correlation between IQ and income.

(Apologies if this sounds like its out of a KKK playbook)

All of the people he interviewed are professors from Universities, and with the exception of Charles Murray (Who wrote the Bell Curve) I'm unfamiliar with most of them, of course some of them are psychologists (the field where IQ's are relevant)but I find it curious that none of them are actually neuroscientists or specialists of the brain. They are all however, seem somewhat politically motivated, not by racism, but rather conservative convictions on human nature.

Charles Murray - Political Scientist
Linda Gottfredson - educational psychologist
Helmuth Nyborg - psychologist
Garett Jones - economist
Jason Richwine- Political Scientist

Okay, these scholars are not people who consider themselves to be racists, but rather professors who are simply following scientific inquiry that happens to be controversial, and have been persecuted by left wing academia for their inquiries.

Question:

I was familiar with Charles Murray and the bell curve before I wrote my little fly by, but I didn't include it, primarily because I think political science, sociology, and to some extent psychology are bull$hit sciences, so I wanted to keep my research to the hard sciences like neurology. However these guys aren't stupid and they read up on the field so.....

either they are outsiders in the academic community being persecuted for their non leftist views on a taboo topic, or their analysis is flawed and can be debunked.

I guess it all comes down to the validity of psychometric testing to be able to measure IQ, so guys...debunk!

**Frownland** · 10-21-2016, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by William_the_Bloody

Well be careful in your own research. If there is a strong enough correlation to show that IQ's are related to hereditary genes (Genetic more so than environment/culture) , and that IQ's are a reliable method of quantifying intelligence.....you may not like what you find when you open pandora's box.

There's a genetic predisposition to certain level of intelligence that changes from person to person. I think that environment shapes the final product out of that preset.

William_the_Bloody · 10-21-2016, 01:01 PM

Well I agree but I would like the philosophy or science given above refuted if possible...I realize this is probably not the right website to do this...just got use to being on here.

I guess the two big questions for me are....

1) Has anybody been able to pinpoint the correlation between IQ and intelligence. How strong is it?

2) What percentage of IQ is considered hereditary within the scientific community. What is the current general consensus?

The Batlord · 10-21-2016, 01:42 PM

I have no idea what the correlation of IQ to race actually is, but theoretically I imagine that different climates and environments would lead to different challenges, which would lead to differences in problem solving, which would lead to differences in IQ (or whatever"). Whether those differences would be in any way significant, or whether the separate races evolved in their specific areas long and isolated enough to develop significant differences in brain **** I have zero idea. And since different climate = different challenges and not necessarily less challenges, or challenges that would produce more mental sophistication, then it's all just a mental exercise as far as I know.

But it's still interesting to think about. I know I'm smarter than whatever race Frownland is though.

grindy · 10-21-2016, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

I have no idea what the correlation of IQ to race actually is, but theoretically I imagine that different climates and environments would lead to different challenges, which would lead to differences in problem solving, which would lead to differences in IQ (or whatever"). Whether those differences would be in any way significant, or whether the separate races evolved in their specific areas long and isolated enough to develop significant differences in brain **** I have zero idea. And since different climate = different challenges and not necessarily less challenges, or challenges that would produce more mental sophistication, then it's all just a mental exercise as far as I know.

But it's still interesting to think about. I know I'm smarter than whatever race Frownland is though.

French?

The Batlord · 10-21-2016, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grindy

French?

Definitely smarter than the French.

10-20-2016, 11:32 PM	#43 (permalink)
Frownland SOPHIE FOREVER Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: East of the Southern North American West Posts: 35,541	I'll copy and paste it into a word document so I can read it. The font makes it pretty difficult man. Occasional bolding or italicizing of words/phrases/really key or conclusive paragraphs is really effective, but this is not. Sincerely, A drunk guy __________________ Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth. d e a f b o x

10-20-2016, 10:49 PM	#42 (permalink)
William_the_Bloody Music Addict Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Sunnydale Cemetary Posts: 2,093	I feel my entries on examining intelligence...are well...a fly by research attempt.. This is partially because my career doesn't afford me the time for in depth studies, (which is why I stopped this) and when I'm not at a University, I do not have access to scholarly articles...just news reports. So if anyone wants to add to debate on the validity of pychometrics to quantify intelligence. Please do so.

10-21-2016, 03:10 AM	#45 (permalink)
William_the_Bloody Music Addict Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Sunnydale Cemetary Posts: 2,093	Actually I'm fine with my research on second thought, as far as a limited time drive by goes, I think I did a fair job on retrospect. I had stumbled across a bunch of videos by ideological zealot Stefan Molyneux (who I find repugnant, and I'm embarrassed he's Canadian) He had a series of thinkers on, and a lot of it came back to race and IQ. If you don't know, IQ adherents believe that genetic differentiation has led to different intelligent norms of races in the world. (Asians, followed by Caucasians, Hispanics, and then at the bottom Blacks) https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country They therefore believe IQ is largely inherent and biological not environmental. Why is this important, from their perspective, or at least Molyneux's 1. Different IQ's of races lead to greater standards of livings for nations. So immigration of people (Say from Mexico or the Middle East) will inevitably drop the IQ of a the United States or European countries, and hence, also the countries quality of life, life expectancy , and culture. This was argued by at least two of his guests. Helmuth Nyborg and Garett Jones. 2. Trying to cure the inequality gap with social programs "affirmative action" ect. is a waste of resources, because if black Americans have generally lower IQ scores than whites and Asians, than their upward mobility will be generally limited, because there is a strong correlation between IQ and income. (Apologies if this sounds like its out of a KKK playbook) All of the people he interviewed are professors from Universities, and with the exception of Charles Murray (Who wrote the Bell Curve) I'm unfamiliar with most of them, of course some of them are psychologists (the field where IQ's are relevant)but I find it curious that none of them are actually neuroscientists or specialists of the brain. They are all however, seem somewhat politically motivated, not by racism, but rather conservative convictions on human nature. Charles Murray - Political Scientist Linda Gottfredson - educational psychologist Helmuth Nyborg - psychologist Garett Jones - economist Jason Richwine- Political Scientist Okay, these scholars are not people who consider themselves to be racists, but rather professors who are simply following scientific inquiry that happens to be controversial, and have been persecuted by left wing academia for their inquiries. Question: I was familiar with Charles Murray and the bell curve before I wrote my little fly by, but I didn't include it, primarily because I think political science, sociology, and to some extent psychology are bull$hit sciences, so I wanted to keep my research to the hard sciences like neurology. However these guys aren't stupid and they read up on the field so..... either they are outsiders in the academic community being persecuted for their non leftist views on a taboo topic, or their analysis is flawed and can be debunked. I guess it all comes down to the validity of psychometric testing to be able to measure IQ, so guys...debunk!

10-21-2016, 01:01 PM	#47 (permalink)
William_the_Bloody Music Addict Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Sunnydale Cemetary Posts: 2,093	Well I agree but I would like the philosophy or science given above refuted if possible...I realize this is probably not the right website to do this...just got use to being on here. I guess the two big questions for me are.... 1) Has anybody been able to pinpoint the correlation between IQ and intelligence. How strong is it? 2) What percentage of IQ is considered hereditary within the scientific community. What is the current general consensus?