Ludicrous and predictable. A man, who has contributed more to the human race than perhaps everyone in that university combined, is banned from giving a lecture on his topic of expertise because he made a (verifiably true) statement that disrupts the worship of 'equality' as the fifth fundamental force of the universe. Except that's not the real reason he was silenced. The real reason is because, by asserting their hegemony, and hopefully forcing another apology out of this truly great man, they can further entrench their role as arbiters over the truth, and what can and can't be said. Ideology is only the tool, power is the objective.

But as for the drama on this thread:

Honestly, anyone who wants to pretend different human groups all have the same natural distribution of biologically determined characteristics, and it's just culture or some other "construct" that accounts for the difference, is living in a fantasy world of feel good bullshit. The same goes for people who think IQ doesn't measure anything important, or doesn't measure it accurately.

Furthermore, I expect the average IQ on this forum is around 130, so to anyone getting worked up: why does it matter whether you're in the top 0.3% not just the top 1% of your 'group' when these statistics are broken down by race? And if you're worried about people using these to unfairly profile blacks, or any other group: facts don't stop being true just because some white supremacists try to incorporate them into their ideology.

Quote: (09-12-2016 01:25 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

Even MENSA recognizes IQ differences by race. To get into Mensa, you need to be in the top 2% of the population, but that top 2% is by country. To get into Mensa in the US, you need, or at least you did the last time I looked, an IQ in the mid 130 range. To get into Japanese Mensa it has to be around 142 or so.

What's the requirement to get into Aboriginal Australian MENSA? 93?

But seriously, anyone still fostering comfy delusions about the distribution of human intelligence, even of the "well people who aren't good at one kind of thinking are bound to be good at another!" variety, go and study Aborigines and see how quickly they melt away.

This isn't a case of white-man-science being calibrated to measure what white people are good at - unless you calibrate the tests to measure petrol-huffing, or a proclivity for eating your own children, they're not coming out remarkably high in any areas, and it's for a reason.

It's surprising that these facts are causing so much consternation on a forum founded on the acceptance of uncomfortable truths. File under: "Not All Women Are Like That", "money doesn't bring you happiness" and "gays are just like you and me".

Quote: (09-12-2016 04:51 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Fun fact: Despite being considered by everyone to be very intelligent, I am terrible at IQ tests. If I fail to get a job anywhere that has standardized testing, you can bet that it's because of a low score on an IQ test.

Having mixed extensively with high-IQ groups where everyone's 'numbers' were known, I can't help feeling you've been short-sold by whoever did the tests with you. There's no way you're below 135 at the bare minimum, HCE. Your writing-style alone conveys that much. When were you tested? Did you do the Wechsler, or Stanford-Binet?

Quote: (09-12-2016 01:25 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

I have no problem admitting that my race (white) isn't the smartest, so I don't have a lot of patience for other people who don't want to admit the same thing for their own.

Safe space liberal pussies aside, I think what bothers people, black and otherwise, about the IQ argument is more of how it's often used to justify blacks as being viewed as sub-human/uncivilized. It's rarely, "Blacks on average have a lower IQ, but that's something that could be changed with more effort, more education, stable family lives and different approaches to child rearing, and so on." It's usually, "Blacks have lower IQs and are soley responsible fucking up our nice white civilization, therefore fuck all of them, all of them are barbarians, race war." It doesn't account for any individuality at all, so it tars me and all of my friends and fam, some of whom are smart as hell, as dumb.

This thread became a joke. The Beast1 shouldn't have had to create a separate "What does IQ really mean?" discussion for calmer heads to prevail here (even if I do thank him heartily for it).

Half, though thankfully not all, the people arguing for either "side" have absolutely gone off the rails, which is sad because I know they are otherwise exemplary posters.

It's also obvious that there's a crapload of lurkers rightfully eating popcorn and/or reluctant to join the fray.

FFS, guys, we have countless members on this forum who risk false rape accusations at colleges for almost every sexual interaction they have with women. Men both at university and in the workplace put their livelihoods at stake by even speaking their minds reasonably. Worst still, game itself is being gradually outlawed in the UK, paving the way for SJWs to try and bring about its extinction in the US and elsewhere:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016...-crackdown

All of this crap is connected to the kind of blacklisting Watson has faced from NYU.

Shake hands, make up and focus on the real issues facing us.

Thanks D Garrent. I ask my question again to the group:
I was taught that Watson and Crick stole results from Rosalind Franklin's findings and took credit over her.

I find this dubious to be fair and another one of those feminists trying to rewrite history.

Does anyone have any commentary on this? There may be more at play here than just punishing a racist.

As for getting banned, this is just proof that free spech is under attack. Disgusting for an institution like NYU. This libtard behavior will kill higher education.

^Thats nice guys. But if you look at the title:

"RE: NYU Bans Discoverer Of DNA Because He Correctly Said Blacks Score Lower On IQ Tests "

It screams "LETS VERIFY THIS TO SEE IF THIS IS TRUE!"

If you want a specific discussion the title is the clue.

Quote: (09-12-2016 08:02 AM)ivansirko Wrote:  

^Thats nice guys. But if you look at the title:

"RE: NYU Bans Discoverer Of DNA Because He Correctly Said Blacks Score Lower On IQ Tests "

It screams "LETS VERIFY THIS TO SEE IF THIS IS TRUE!"

If you want a specific discussion the title is the clue.

The discussin i was hoping to see come from this was:

1. a discussion on the attack of free speech in higher eduation and
2. a broader discussion on Watson and Cricks discovery of DNA .

There's a bit of claimed historical sexism against Watson and Crick too which i mentioned in the comment above. There may definitionely be some sour grapes in academia as well.

Quote:Quote:

It's rarely, "Blacks on average have a lower IQ, but that's something that could be changed with more effort, more education, stable family lives and different approaches to child rearing, and so on."

If I combine Stefan Molyneux, Vox Day, and Ramzpaul into a middle ground position, I would say, "Blacks on average have a lower IQ, which guarantees that pooring billions of dollars into large scale educational systems in guaranteed to fail. This is because the Blacks resent the intrusion, and the government is incompetent. So the United States shouldn't intervene in the lives of foreign Blacks, particularly not in Africa."

"As for American Blacks, we accept that most of them don't want to live in White communities, under White values. That doesn't mean they're inferior, just unsuitable. (Stefan has used the word "unsuitable" on multiple occasions, as a replacement for "inferior".) If American Blacks vote to live in their own communities, living under their own values, we respect their decision. But that would mean no White cops in Black neighborhoods. No White politicians in Black neighborhoods. No White lawyers in Black neighborhoods. And, perhaps, a Wall separating White and Black neighborhoods."

"While we hope that peaceful parenting methods and education will help Blacks become (what we define as) happier and more productive in time, it is not our job to impose these definitions on to anyone. And we reject all violence and insults towards Blacks who've decided to live their values as they see fit."

The problem with refusing to accept that intelligence (not IQ, but G) is 50-70% inheritable is that you end up hurting those you try to help. People with lower intelligence respond differently to teaching. They respond much better to clear goals, fixed routines and dicipline. Higher intelligence children respond better to more lax, curiosity driven learning. When you remove dicipline from schools, it hurts less intelligent students. Likewise, post-modern moral relativism is poison for less intelligent people, who are not allowed to use their generations old 'common sense' and 'moral codes'. All those sayings and phrases our grandparents used, they were street smarts that helped people make sense of a complex world.

Quote: (09-12-2016 12:03 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

It's rarely, "Blacks on average have a lower IQ, but that's something that could be changed with more effort, more education, stable family lives and different approaches to child rearing, and so on."

If I combine Stefan Molyneux, Vox Day, and Ramzpaul into a middle ground position, I would say, "Blacks on average have a lower IQ, which guarantees that pooring billions of dollars into large scale educational systems in guaranteed to fail. This is because the Blacks resent the intrusion, and the government is incompetent. So the United States shouldn't intervene in the lives of foreign Blacks, particularly not in Africa."

"As for American Blacks, we accept that most of them don't want to live in White communities, under White values. That doesn't mean they're inferior, just unsuitable. (Stefan has used the word "unsuitable" on multiple occasions, as a replacement for "inferior".) If American Blacks vote to live in their own communities, living under their own values, we respect their decision. But that would mean no White cops in Black neighborhoods. No White politicians in Black neighborhoods. No White lawyers in Black neighborhoods. And, perhaps, a Wall separating White and Black neighborhoods."

"While we hope that peaceful parenting methods and education will help Blacks become (what we define as) happier and more productive in time, it is not our job to impose these definitions on to anyone. And we reject all violence and insults towards Blacks who've decided to live their values as they see fit."

While this is much closer to a coherent argument, I still can't get on board.

This is where identify politics fails--whether the identity comes from a person projecting his whole beliefs onto his own group, or whether the identity comes from someone projecting their own beliefs onto someone else of another group.

Vox and others saying, "They're black and that's their most important trait" is just as much bullshit group politics as if I said, "I'm black, black power!" On this forum, we're not down with one, we really shouldn't be down with the other.

In other words, there are absolutely blacks who'd want to live separately from whites. But then there are plenty of those like me, and most likely every black person on this forum, who wouldn't. If the average IQ of black people is lower, that could be used for, to cite nomad's example, more regimented discipline in black schools. But then you're screwing over smart black people like myself--I would go crazy and absolutely fail in that kind of environment--because of an association beyond our control. I never see any acknowledgement of that individuality from the people who constantly harp on race IQ statistics.

Quote: (09-12-2016 12:26 PM)Sumanguru Wrote:  

Quote: (09-12-2016 12:03 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

It's rarely, "Blacks on average have a lower IQ, but that's something that could be changed with more effort, more education, stable family lives and different approaches to child rearing, and so on."

If I combine Stefan Molyneux, Vox Day, and Ramzpaul into a middle ground position, I would say, "Blacks on average have a lower IQ, which guarantees that pooring billions of dollars into large scale educational systems in guaranteed to fail. This is because the Blacks resent the intrusion, and the government is incompetent. So the United States shouldn't intervene in the lives of foreign Blacks, particularly not in Africa."

"As for American Blacks, we accept that most of them don't want to live in White communities, under White values. That doesn't mean they're inferior, just unsuitable. (Stefan has used the word "unsuitable" on multiple occasions, as a replacement for "inferior".) If American Blacks vote to live in their own communities, living under their own values, we respect their decision. But that would mean no White cops in Black neighborhoods. No White politicians in Black neighborhoods. No White lawyers in Black neighborhoods. And, perhaps, a Wall separating White and Black neighborhoods."

"While we hope that peaceful parenting methods and education will help Blacks become (what we define as) happier and more productive in time, it is not our job to impose these definitions on to anyone. And we reject all violence and insults towards Blacks who've decided to live their values as they see fit."

While this is much closer to a coherent argument, I still can't get on board.

This is where identify politics fails--whether the identity comes from a person projecting his whole beliefs onto his own group, or whether the identity comes from someone projecting their own beliefs onto someone else of another group.

Vox and others saying, "They're black and that's their most important trait" is just as much bullshit group politics as if I said, "I'm black, black power!" On this forum, we're not down with one, we really shouldn't be down with the other.

In other words, there are absolutely blacks who'd want to live separately from whites. But then there are plenty of those like me, and most likely every black person on this forum, who wouldn't. If the average IQ of black people is lower, that could be used for, to cite nomad's example, more regimented discipline in black schools. But then you're screwing over smart black people like myself--I would go crazy and absolutely fail in that kind of environment--because of an association beyond our control. I never see any acknowledgement of that individuality from the people who constantly harp on race IQ statistics.

Doesn't have to be based on race, just on behavior and standardized testing, just like it used to be in the past where you separated students after grade 5/6.

Nomad,

sorry, I didnt articulate myself well. I knew you meant that. I was talking about the (very nicely summarized) opinions of Vox etc who dont make such distinctions.

Quote:Quote:

Likewise, post-modern moral relativism is poison for less intelligent people, who are not allowed to use their generations old 'common sense' and 'moral codes'. All those sayings and phrases our grandparents used, they were street smarts that helped people make sense of a complex world.

I've no faith that those sayings and phrases were used equally by White American people 200 years ago, as by Black American people 200 years ago. If there were research indicating that those phrases were equally used, I'd accept it. But I'm not going to make that assumption of equality.

Quote:Quote:

Doesn't have to be based on race, just on behavior and standardized testing, just like it used to be in the past where you separated students after grade 5/6.

If it's based on behavior and standardized testing, the separation will be highly correlated to the race of the person behaving and/or taking the test. This will empower the uncontrollable El Padrone to scream "racism!", and I'm not sure I can rely on you and Sumanguru to shout down El Padrone.

If I can't rely on you both, then I can only rely on people who look like me to shout him down, leading me to adopt Racial and Tribal politics over Idealistic politics.

Quote: (09-12-2016 01:41 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

Likewise, post-modern moral relativism is poison for less intelligent people, who are not allowed to use their generations old 'common sense' and 'moral codes'. All those sayings and phrases our grandparents used, they were street smarts that helped people make sense of a complex world.

I've no faith that those sayings and phrases were used equally by White American people 200 years ago, as by Black American people 200 years ago. If there were research indicating that those phrases were equally used, I'd accept it. But I'm not going to make that assumption of equality.

Quote:Quote:

Doesn't have to be based on race, just on behavior and standardized testing, just like it used to be in the past where you separated students after grade 5/6.

If it's based on behavior and standardized testing, the separation will be highly correlated to the race of the person behaving and/or taking the test. This will empower the uncontrollable El Padrone to scream "racism!", and I'm not sure I can rely on you and Sumanguru to shout down El Padrone.

If I can't rely on you both, then I can only rely on people who look like me to shout him down, leading me to adopt Racial and Tribal politics over Idealistic politics.

That would be the most likely result yes, but I'm not sure what we're discussing here anymore.

Quote: (09-12-2016 01:41 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

If I can't rely on you both, then I can only rely on people who look like me to shout him down, leading me to adopt Racial and Tribal politics over Idealistic politics.

But then you're doing the exact same bullshit that this board hates the left for doing.

Quote:Quote:

That would be the most likely result yes, but I'm not sure what we're discussing here anymore.

Your natural response was to soften the language of science so that El Padrone would calm down. That didn't work. And now you're proposing standardized testing and behavioral separation, which will trigger El Padrone again. And I don't know what you're going to do when he gets triggered.

Quote: (09-12-2016 02:16 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

That would be the most likely result yes, but I'm not sure what we're discussing here anymore.

Your natural response was to soften the language of science so that El Padrone would calm down. That didn't work. And now you're proposing standardized testing and behavioral separation, which will trigger El Padrone again. And I don't know what you're going to do when he gets triggered.

I get your point, but I am not downplaying the FACT that there are differences in average IQ by race.

I'm commenting on what a practical, meritocratic, application of this knowledge would be like.

As for El Padrones triggering, let him be triggered, I don't think his arguments so far even merits a shouting down.

Quote: (09-12-2016 02:16 PM)Sumanguru Wrote:  

Quote: (09-12-2016 01:41 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

If I can't rely on you both, then I can only rely on people who look like me to shout him down, leading me to adopt Racial and Tribal politics over Idealistic politics.

But then you're doing the exact same bullshit that this board hates the left for doing.

As I said in another thread, it doesn't matter if I want to treat people as individuals if everyone else--or even just a large portion of everyone else--wants to play identity politics. Ultimately I'll have to play identity politics too out of self defense.

Anyway, you're never going to stop tribalism. It's inherent in human nature. It's just unfortunate that so often tribalism falls along racial lines. I care much more that someone shares my culture and ideology than my skin color, but that's not true for huge swaths of the American population.

MMX2010, you and those who look like you to shout me down?

Why?

My will and actions are mine to direct.
I believe in the inherent ability of a man to create his life. You believe IQ and race does this for a man. Therein is our divergence.

My position is unchanged. 80 years of David Duke's 'scientific study' or not, the ultimate test is our success in the world.

Paz.

Quote:Quote:

As I said in another thread, it doesn't matter if I want to treat people as individuals if everyone else--or even just a large portion of everyone else--wants to play identity politics. Ultimately I'll have to play identity politics too out of self defense.

Agree with you.

I don't know whether my images of the Old South are accurate (they're probably not), but Sumanguru"s proposition (and nomadbruh's defense of it) sound exactly like the Old South.

The majority of Blacks were poor and unintelligent, but were polite and knew their place. The aggressive, criminal, impolite Blacks were readily identifiable because of their mannerisms, and so the poor non-criminal Blacks took pride in their politeness and good manners. And the exceptional Blacks that Sumamguru wants to protect wore suits all the time, were extremely well-spoken and polite, and looked exactly like Morgan Freeman.

(I imagine a White man asking a Black man who owns a deli, "What do you think about the fact that a large chunk of Whites refuse to hire any Blacks, not even the smartest and most polite ones?" Answer, "That doesn't affect me, sir." or 'As sad as some think it is, it's their right as Americans, sir.")

Somewhere along the way, some Al Sharpton ancestors convinced the majority of Blacks that politeness and good-manners were a scam, because Blacks weren't being equally respected as Whites. This turned the majority of Blacks into the agitators who banned James Watson from speaking the truth.

So, seriously, if anyone wants to propose a meritocracy, but isn't willing to shout down the El Padrones, we can't have a meritocracy. (And we have to shout down El Padrone thoroughly and consistently: No Fucks Given, No Softer Approaches.) We can only have race-based tribalism.

"MMX2010, you and those who look like you to shout me down?

Why?"

Because you're trying to make an abstract discussion into one about you and your personal feelings. You're a feminist, just with a different ox to gore. You don't make points, you just throw up garbage platitudes from Saturday morning cartoon shows and self-help books and act as if we're all supposed to be impressed.

Also good LORD is it fun to poke you. I spent a lot of time trolling people when I was younger, and I'd never actually gotten someone to admit that they were triggered. It feels like a real accomplishment, and even though it's only 1:00 PM or so I may have a beer to celebrate.

Quote:Quote:

My will and actions are mine to direct.
I believe in the inherent ability of a man to create his life. You believe IQ and race does this for a man. Therein is our divergence.

No. Our divergence is that you want to live in a society that was created by high IQ Whites, coupled with the consistent application of the scientific method. But you want to tell us, based on your feelings alone, that high IQ doesn't matter.

But, dude, if High IQ doesn't matter, why aren't you living in one of the five lowest IQ countries? Sudan? Niger? Yemen?

@ david.garrett

Exactly. This thread is not about IQ. It's about censorship motivated by misandry and political correctness run amok.

THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT IQ. But it's been hijacked and that's fucked up. Because apparently anything at all about race and IQ is like waving a red flag in front of a bull for some guys. And all while the forum moderation seems to be out to lunch.

I'm beginning to understand why some guys avoid this section of the forum.

MMX, if I want to learn about flyfishing, I'd go to the best flyfisher, not a professor of fishing.

My point is that IQ is so lowly as a determinant of success, it is easily overcome with work. Emotional Quotient EQ is more useful. Commitment Quotient CQ is more useful. Diligence in your job requirements is more useful. If you execute well on your KPI's, nobody will be looking at your IQ. After as little as 4 years of work experience, with work, you could be more sought for and valued than an Harvard grad because the ONLY thing that counts in the real world is RESULTS.

So then we must conclude that RESULTS= WORK. Does results = IQ?

I was speaking with a major company's CEO the other day (no bragging, this is an anonymous forum so boasts will be pointless) who I connected with on LinkedIn. I was looking at segueing my experiences into a new career in his industry. He told me skills are pointless as they can be easily taught. He just wanted to know how well truthful I was as a person.

As you're in Education yourself, you must know that technical skills are a deciding factor only at the lowest and middle levels. At the top levels, we are looking at a different skill set that IQ doesn't know exists anywhere.

Why am I not living in the five lowest IQ countries? I wasn't born there. Would I choose to live there? Sure, money talks. Check out how many Americans live in Saudi Arabia. Money talks mano.

You don't need Einstein's IQ to read a bank statement.

Samuel B Roberts, abstract discussions that pour scorn on people living in the real world, living real lives, sets me off. Yeah, so go ahead and have that beer.

Garbage platitudes? Haha. I'd say the same thing to empty words.