Quote: (09-13-2016 10:15 AM)Delta Wrote:  

All I'm trying to do is present cold, hard logic.

No, you're not.

There was no logic whatsoever in your presentation.

You mentioned a specific threatening situation that could easily be implemented. And you were speaking about a US population of 320 million, and a world population of 7.2 billion people.

And yet you have no evidence that the specific incident has ever happened

What's the logic of using literally non-existent events to make a point about human behavior?

Quote:Quote:


If Variable A correlates with Variable B, but does not cause Variable B, then altering A by itself will have no impact on B.

That's literally all I was getting at.

Stated like this, now you're telling a bunch of scientifically well-educated people the mathematical equivalent of 2+2=4. It's true. But we already know it, and don't need to be reminded of it.

What's the logic in that?

None.

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.

You're implying that using the same TACTICS as your enemy turns you into your enemy. (This is echoed by the popular conclusion of the modern Star Wars movies, "If you strike down a Sith, you become a Sith."

But an ideology isn't defined by its tactics, but by its IDEOLOGY.

Liberals use identity politics to tear down the White race and promote globalism. Whites use identity politics to defend America against globalism. Since these are opposite conclusions, only one of them can be true - eventually, the truth will win.

-----

Lastly, if you are moderately familiar with the beginning of GamerGate, you know that conservatives used to refuse to use the liberal tactic of taking Tweets out of context to get people fired. They said what you said, that adopting this tactic is dishonorable and makes you the same as Liberals.

But GamerGate taught us that this tactic is extremely effective, making GamerGate the harbinger of both the rise of conservatism and of Donald Trump.

Oh goodness, enough with this thread already.

Damn it. Lets all just move on.

Quote: (09-13-2016 12:23 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Quote: (09-13-2016 10:15 AM)Delta Wrote:  

All I'm trying to do is present cold, hard logic.

No, you're not.

There was no logic whatsoever in your presentation.

You mentioned a specific threatening situation that could easily be implemented. And you were speaking about a US population of 320 million, and a world population of 7.2 billion people.

And yet you have no evidence that the specific incident has ever happened

What's the logic of using literally non-existent events to make a point about human behavior?

I thought it was clear from my last reply that I was never making a point about human behavior; I was making a simple point about the mathematical nature of correlation and causation. Nowhere did I ever imply that I was saying anything about human behavior, or that anyone has ever actually avoided sunscreen to reduce their risk of drowning.

Quote:Quote:

Quote:Quote:


If Variable A correlates with Variable B, but does not cause Variable B, then altering A by itself will have no impact on B.

That's literally all I was getting at.

Stated like this, now you're telling a bunch of scientifically well-educated people the mathematical equivalent of 2+2=4. It's true. But we already know it, and don't need to be reminded of it.

I'm making this point to contradict your initial assertion that correlation by itself is sufficient to use for decision making. It's not, because altering your behavior based on a non-causal correlation won't produce your desired result.

Honestly this is much easier to discuss in terms of an example, but you didn't like that, so here I am stuck talking in the abstract like a useless academic.

I thought the point that MMX was making is that it is rational to allow correlations to guide action, even when you are not certain about the causation. I first read this line of thought from Taleb.

Or: correlation does not imply causation, but it's a pretty big hint (I believe that was Tufte).

Quote: (09-13-2016 07:16 PM)ivansirko Wrote:  

You don't have to post if you don't plan to contribute to the discussion.

Quote: (09-13-2016 07:33 PM)Peregrine Wrote:  

You don't have to post if you don't plan to contribute to the discussion.

According to the OP this was supposed to be about banning a DNA scientist from NYU, not about "correctly said blacks score lower on IQ tests".

So effectively if we are discussing whether the science is correct we are "not contributing to the discussion"

Quote: (09-13-2016 07:59 PM)ivansirko Wrote:  

Quote: (09-13-2016 07:33 PM)Peregrine Wrote:  

You don't have to post if you don't plan to contribute to the discussion.

According to the OP this was supposed to be about banning a DNA scientist from NYU, not about "correctly said blacks score lower on IQ tests".

So effectively if we are discussing whether the science is correct we are "not contributing to the discussion"

"Thanks for your input, Percy.

You know why the thread ended up here? Because it's totally normal for the guy to have been banned. Y'all are acting like this is some new shocking revelation when it's been happening regularly for a decade or more. It's a dog bites man story. So we ended up talking about IQ instead.

What do you want us to say about his banning? Obviously it's ridiculous, obviously it's because of the PC culture. What are we supposed to do? Academia is fully converged. I'm glad OP posted this so I know about it, but what the fuck else am I going to say about it?

At least this is an interesting discussion." - weambulance, from earlier

Quote: (09-13-2016 08:27 PM)Peregrine Wrote:  

"Thanks for your input, Percy.

You know why the thread ended up here? Because it's totally normal for the guy to have been banned. Y'all are acting like this is some new shocking revelation when it's been happening regularly for a decade or more. It's a dog bites man story. So we ended up talking about IQ instead.

What do you want us to say about his banning? Obviously it's ridiculous, obviously it's because of the PC culture. What are we supposed to do? Academia is fully converged. I'm glad OP posted this so I know about it, but what the fuck else am I going to say about it?

At least this is an interesting discussion." - weambulance, from earlier

So effectively my meme is contributing as much as your rant of "staying on topic".

Censorship ( like censoring big genius DNA discoverer) is the opposite of true liberalism.

Quote:Quote:

I thought it was clear from my last reply that I was never making a point about human behavior;

I know. And my point is that refusing to make a point about human behavior is dumb.

Broadly speaking, there are two extremely different reasons to acquire knowledge.

The noble extreme begins with an understanding of your own mortality, and culminates in the acceptance of everyone else's mortality. We all have limited time on this earth, so the noble purpose of acquiring knowledge is to show people the best way to live, the best way to make decisions to maximize their life's purpose.

The anti-noble reason begins with a desire for attention and culminates in a "Fuck everyone else" attitude that produces non-helpful knowledge. Practically no one reads a scientific study detailing the high correlation between Vitamin D and testosterone and overdoses so much on Vit. D that he destroys his liver. Fuck, practically no one reads a scientific study detailing the high correlation between ANY VARIABLE A and ANY VARIABLE B, and overdoes it.

So there is no practical human danger in promoting the awesome usefulness of correlations. There are no victims. There is no danger. And if there were, you would be able to just point to them, rather than making them up from thin air.

So the only method left is attention seeking morondom, which you should stop engaging in.

^Just because I constructed an absurd hypothetical to illustrate the point doesn't mean that no practical scenarios exist. A simple googling of "spurious correlation" proves that. For example: http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008...rious.html

Quote:Quote:

Readers may be old enough to remember when, with great alarm, milk was linked to certain cancers, based on a correlation between higher cancers in New England, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Switzerland, where a lot of milk was produced and consumed, compared to Ceylon, where milk was scarce. As Mr. Huff explained, to add to the panic, it was pointed out that milk-drinking English women had 18 times the risk of certain cancers compared to Japanese women at the time, who seldom drank milk. Yikes, milk must be very bad for you, indeed. It turned out, of course, that at that time in history, the highest milk drinking regions also happened to be the longest lived, and cancers are primarily diseases that strike with age.

There you go, an actual example from history of people misinterpreting a correlation to their own detriment. Obviously there are more; that link alone presents a few others.

I maintain that correlation alone cannot inform rational decision-making, and causation must always be considered.

School grades 'linked to where you live'

Quote:Quote:

Where children grow up in England is more likely to determine success or failure at school than in previous generations, a study suggests.

The Social Market Foundation has examined test results of cohorts born in 1970 and 2000 and found regional differences have become much greater.

Pupils' results are highest in London and lowest in Yorkshire and Humber.

"Where you live has become much more important," said think tank director Emran Mian.

The comparisons between the generations, based on school tests in primary school and exams such as O-levels and GCSEs, indicate that geography has become a much more significant factor in how high pupils are likely to achieve.

For pupils born in 1970, the study says that location was much less of an influence, with a much a stronger link to factors such as social background.

Family background and income remain important, but the study says "the geographic area a child comes from has become a more powerful predictive factor".

The rise of London schools has been a key part of this, with some of the poorest areas of the country achieving relatively high results.

In the mid-1980s, areas such as the south-east and east of England had better results than London, but the most recent results show London outstripping the rest of the country.

This prompted Ofsted chief Sir Michael Wilshaw to warn of a "North-South divide" in schools. There were also concerns about coastal towns becoming pockets of underachievement.

The study from the Social Market Foundation suggests the achievement gap between the richest and the poorest pupils remains "persistently large".

And the gender gap has grown wider, with girls even more likely to achieve higher results.

There has been a substantial shift in the achievement of ethnic minority pupils.

For those born in 1970, who took O-levels in 1985-86, black and Asian pupils' results were considerably below average and behind their white counterparts.


The GCSE results for 2013-14 show a much more complex picture.

The black and Asian categories, broken down in more precise ethnic groups, indicated Indian pupils' results were above average, while Pakistani pupils were below average. Black African pupils were above average and black Caribbean were below.

White pupils were below average, with the weakest results from poor, white boys.

But Dr Alice Sullivan, director of the 1970 British Cohort Study, Centre for Longitudinal Studies, at the UCL Institute of Education, said that the numbers of ethnic minority pupils born in 1970 were too small to make such comparisons.

The Social Market Foundation is setting up a commission on inequalities in educational achievement, which will be chaired by Nick Clegg, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats.

"While parental income remains very important, this new research shows that where you live has become a much more important factor in determining educational achievement," said Mr Mian, director of the Social Market Foundation.

"Our new research also shows that the story around ethnic origin and education has become much more complex."

Professor Stephen Gorard, from Durham University's school of education, said it was wrong to attribute the differences in achievement to "the impact of location rather than pupil background".

He highlighted higher levels of poverty in areas such as the north east and midlands.

A Department for Education spokeswoman said: "In a recent report the Public Accounts Committee found the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers has fallen at both primary and secondary level.

"However we recognise that there is more to do - we are expanding the Teach First and Schools Direct programmes and launching the National Teaching Service, which will mean more great teachers in schools in every corner of the country, so that we can extend opportunity to every single child and ensure all schools can recruit the teachers they need.

"The pupil premium, worth £2.5bn this year, is providing vital support to disadvantaged children and helping ensure every child, regardless of their background, is given the opportunity to fulfil their potential."

From this article it seems that educational achievement is a combination of location, income and culture of the parents.

Indians are above average, Pakistanis are below average, but they are the same race - a lot of Pakistani parents don't give a shit about education, they're more interested in religion, whereas Indian parents are more about education.

Black Africans are above average, black Caribbeans are below average. A lot of black Africans in UK come from religious strong families, whereas a lot of black Caribbean kids come from broken homes.

Poor white boys do poorly, because their parents don't care about education and they go to shitty schools.

As you can see from these results, attainment is all over the place - I wouldn't link it to race...

People on the left hate reality.
Someone says blacks are dumber as a group and can't be ever be hoped to be on the level of Whites and Asians.
All hell breaks lose.
Not surprised. Left can't handle reality.

Quote: (09-14-2016 01:58 AM)Undercover Wrote:  

People on the left hate reality.
Someone says blacks are dumber as a group and can't be ever be hoped to be on the level of Whites and Asians.
All hell breaks lose.
Not surprised. Left can't handle reality.

[quote='WalterBlack' pid='1393182' dateline='1473832457']
School grades 'linked to where you live'

Quote:Quote:

Indians are above average, Pakistanis are below average, but they are the same race - a lot of Pakistani parents don't give a shit about education, they're more interested in religion, whereas Indian parents are more about education.

It's not "polite" to notice it, but inbreeding rates among Pakistani immigrants to the UK are sky high. Add that to the different cultural focus and you have a range of reasons why.

Quote: (09-14-2016 12:54 AM)WalterBlack Wrote:  

From this article it seems that educational achievement is a combination of location, income and culture of the parents.

Indians are above average, Pakistanis are below average, but they are the same race - a lot of Pakistani parents don't give a shit about education, they're more interested in religion, whereas Indian parents are more about education.

Black Africans are above average, black Caribbeans are below average. A lot of black Africans in UK come from religious strong families, whereas a lot of black Caribbean kids come from broken homes.

Poor white boys do poorly, because their parents don't care about education and they go to shitty schools.

As you can see from these results, attainment is all over the place - I wouldn't link it to race...

This study was conducted by the Social Market Foundation, a 'think tank' who's goal is to "champion ideas that marry a pro-market orientation with concern for social justice".

This peer-reviewed study was conducted earlier the same year by a team of geneticists. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article...ne.0080341

Both evaluated the same test in the same city, but the scientists found that scores were roughly 58% genes and 36% environment and gives detailed break downs of the data and scores.

The SMF's "Commission on Inequality in Education", headed by Labour Party politicians and no scientists, on the other hand doesn't really share any of their data.

For instance, what were the parents' scores? Were they more affluent because they were more intelligent?

Are there many low IQ, rich Africans, Indians, Haitians, Pakistanis, etc. immigrating to the UK? Or were they actually higher IQ individuals to begin with, and that was precisely why they were able to immigrate and thrive in one of the most expensive cities in the world?

Also, it says that whites went from above average to below average. But is that because the average changed, or the scores of whites went down? I'm assuming London saw fairly large population/demographic changes between 1970 and 2000.

I have no doubt that there's a large environmental factor to intelligence and success.

But the study you posted also doesn't seem to provide much evidence at all that there's not also a significant genetic factor.

What people seem to be missing on both sides of the argument is that genetics are not set in stone.

A group of people who were selective about who they had children with could eventually encourage or eliminate all kinds of genetics traits over a period of generations.

A group of lower IQ people can also still be successful without being geniuses.

The problem is that no one will actually admit genetic differences exist between groups of humans. They try to teach, govern, etc. everyone the same, whether you're a white woman or a Latino man.

It doesn't make sense, and it hurts everyone involved.

This is just a continuation of this thread now:

thread-57889.html

When I saw the title of this thread I knew this would end well.

Quote:Quote:

A simple googling of "spurious correlation" proves that. For example:

See? Now you're just helping me out.

You just proved that INSTEAD of using absolute absurdity in your very first post to this thread, you could've conducted a simple Googling of a term you knew the entire time. But you chose not to.

So you're a time-wasting attention-seeker. And you're not someone who uses knowledge to help people.

Quote:Quote:

As you can see from these results, attainment is all over the place - I wouldn't link it to race...

I would link it to race and culture, with the caveat that race often determines culture.

Jill Stein has a Black, American-born, Soldier as her vice presidential candidate. Last name is Baraka, first name is something weird which sounds African. He has spent extensive time advancing the interests of African people in America.

Promoting the interests of Africans in America in ways that may not benefit Americans at all is "treasonous" (forgive the hyperbole), but this is mostly because he's mixing two incompatible CULTURES at the expense of American culture. But right as you're about to say, "Okay, cool, so it's not a RACE thing.", I'm about to interrupt you by saying, "Even though this isn't a RACE thing, stark racial differences remain a strong indicator of cultural incompatibility."

Quote:Quote:

Both evaluated the same test in the same city, but the scientists found that scores were roughly 58% genes and 36% environment and gives detailed break downs of the data and scores.

Everyone should remember the acronym GOCEAN - General Intelligence, Openness to New Experiences, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. (Google "big five personify traits" for definitions.)

These traits are extremely important, because they are the most HERITABLE, meaning there's a very strong genetic component to them.

Since Low Agreeableness is a good definition for "My God, what an insufferable asshole.", the funny part is that Assholery has a very strong generic component. Since High General Intelligence is measured by IQ tests, the relevant part is that IQ has a very strong generic component.

Quote: (09-14-2016 12:06 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

A simple googling of "spurious correlation" proves that. For example:

See? Now you're just helping me out.

You just proved that INSTEAD of using absolute absurdity in your very first post to this thread, you could've conducted a simple Googling of a term you knew the entire time. But you chose not to.

So you're a time-wasting attention-seeker. And you're not someone who uses knowledge to help people.

So instead of being a reasonable person and admitting that my point is proven correct, you sidestep that fact and go after the way I initially presented it?

I'm pretty sure you're deliberately trolling at this point, so I'm finished with this discussion.

Quote: (09-12-2016 04:08 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

My point is that IQ is so lowly as a determinant of success, it is easily overcome with work.

Exactly. And if you really believe that, then you should have no problem going into a very low IQ country, and "easily overcoming with work". So when is your one-way flight to Cameroon?

Lmao hey man my parents are from Cameroon but very true. Fuck that place I wouldn't live there if I had to choose.

When I was a kid my parents focused on heavily on education. They would give me supplementary lessons after school and in the summer. Writing books reports, doing math problems, and science projects. This extra work and focus when I was young is probably why I'm a computer science major and not working at McDonalds. When you put in the effort early it really does make a difference, race doesn't matter when you're putting in hard work.