Declaration of Independence

[Libertarian666]

I think that's true that it depends on where you get your news, but the SLPC is really fact-based. It's not the ACLU, whose mail goes right in the trash after entering my home.

I haven't looked at each and every group in the SLPC's hate map -- there are hundreds -- but I don't think they casually put someone on that list. https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map

The splc makes snopes look fair and balanced, which is saying a lot. They are the epitome of sjw insanity.

[dualstow]

That's an unsubstantiated charge, tech.
The rioters, including students, professors and outside agitators are the epitome of SJW insanity, in my opinion.
There's no shortage of insanity of both sides. On your side there was Pizzagate.
But, the SLPC, with its Hate Map, reprints its members own words. And it does not in any way incite violence.

[Libertarian666]

That's an unsubstantiated charge, tech.
The rioters, including students, professors and outside agitators are the epitome of SJW insanity, in my opinion.
There's no shortage of insanity of both sides. On your side there was Pizzagate.
But, the SLPC, with its Hate Map, reprints its members own words. And it does not in any way incite violence.

I don't know what you mean by "my side". I'm an anarcho-capitalist.

As for documentation for the bias of the splc, I'll get some for you when I get home tonight. It's not hard to find but I'm on my phone right now, which makes the research clumsy.

[dualstow]

Sorry, I just meant tending to rely on conservative-leaning news sources.

I look forward to reading your linked texts later, no matter where they come from.

[Libertarian666]

Sorry, I just meant tending to rely on conservative-leaning news sources.

I look forward to reading your linked texts later, no matter where they come from.

The splc says that Charles Murray is a white nationalist extremist because he (correctly) points out that the primary cause of the underperformance of blacks is caused by their lower average iq. Is that enough evidence for you to see that they are ideologues, not unbiased researchers or whatever it is that they claim they are?

[Xan]

Sorry, I just meant tending to rely on conservative-leaning news sources.

I look forward to reading your linked texts later, no matter where they come from.

The splc says that Charles Murray is a white nationalist extremist because he (correctly) points out that the primary cause of the underperformance of blacks is caused by their lower average iq. Is that enough evidence for you to see that they are ideologues, not unbiased researchers or whatever it is that they claim they are?

I believe it's already been determined here that asserting that anything is suboptimal about anybody qualifies as "hate".

[dualstow]

The splc says that Charles Murray is a white nationalist extremist because he (correctly) points out that the primary cause of the underperformance of blacks is caused by their lower average iq. Is that enough evidence for you to see that they are ideologues, not unbiased researchers or whatever it is that they claim they are?

Heh. It's a false premise. I think they call him a white nationalist because of this part

According to Murray, the relative differences between the white and black populations of the United States, as well as those between men and women, have nothing to do with discrimination or historical and structural disadvantages, but rather stem from genetic differences between the groups.

Isn't that kind of the definition of white supremacy? If he had said they have lower IQs because we effectively bred slaves for their brawn but that this could be fixed with better testing or educational advantages, it would be an uncomfortable but possibly true assertion that "the underperformance of blacks is caused by their lower average iq."

I haven't read the Bell Curve. I take it you have. Is this really what he says? That Blacks have lower IQs because they just do? And that this is the cause of their underperformance? I would think that there would be a multitude of factors. A lot of blacks have been incarcerated -- let's simplify and say that they earned that incarceration. It's harder to perform once you've been an ex-con. Harder to get a higher level job.

Does Murray think that these lower IQs are going to stay down or what?

I'm just asking these questions because I'm curious. I already agree that the quoted paragraph at the top and his connection to Nazi sympathizers (also mentioned in the Murray entry) pretty much fit the bill for white nationalism.

[dualstow]

I believe it's already been determined here that asserting that anything is suboptimal about anybody qualifies as "hate".

Oh, c'mon now Xan.
The devil is in the details.

[farjean2]

According to Murray, the relative differences between the white and black populations of the United States, as well as those between men and women, have nothing to do with discrimination or historical and structural disadvantages, but rather stem from genetic differences between the groups.

Do you not think there are genetic differences between men and women?

[dualstow]

I do think there are genetic differences between men and women.

[farjean2]

I do think there are genetic differences between men and women.

Yeah, me too and I love them. But it's not possible there could be genetic differences between races?

[dualstow]

I do think there are genetic differences between men and women.

Yeah, me too and I love them. But it's not possible there could be genetic differences between races?

Maybe I've been too terse with my responses. When I said that tech's premise was false, I meant that he said this was all based on the underperformance of blacks being linked to their lower IQs. They may very well have lower IQs on average, I don't know. They might. But the SPLC quote I pasted was that Murray said differences between groups had "nothing to do with discrimination or historical and structural disadvantages."

If that's not what Murray said, than the SPLC is putting words in his mouth and they are biased, like Libertarian666 said (though not for the reason he said so).
If it is what he said, than he does not appear to believe in -- I'll steal a phrase from the wiki pages -- the malleability of intelligence.

This is the crux of the matter, the malleability of intelligence.

I'm not some bleeding heart, saying that black kids who shoot up a Korean corner store should be given a pass because they were economically disadvantaged. But, I *am* saying that if they have lower IQs, maybe it has something to do with external factors. Factors that could be changed.

Do you believe in the malleability of intelligence and that blacks given the same upbringing and educational advantages will eventually have IQs and performance levels comparable to whites OR that they're you know, dumb niggers. And they always will be. Which one? Because it's got to be one or the other.

Now, before I started typing this, I was peeking into the wiki page on 'The Bell Curve'. Poor substitute, I know, but it's there, it's free, and I'm curious. What I see is that Murray does in fact mention external factors. This is a strike against the SPLC and a plus for Murray, but I want to hear tech's thoughts on that.

There is also a lot of criticism of and support of the way the book's authors read their data.

More later. My cat wants me to throw her toy around for a bit.

[farjean2]

I do think there are genetic differences between men and women.

This is the crux of the matter, the malleability of intelligence.

Count me a believer in the malleability of intelligence. At age 67 I don't think I will be getting any smarter but I'm fascinated by the subject of neuroplasticity which says your brain isn't actually set in stone after a certain age like people used to believe.

Did blacks, whites, Asians, Jews follow different evolutionary patterns that either left them overall worse or better as a group to compete and survive in the 21st Century? Of course they did. Did they all guess the same? Of course not, They all depended on the input available to them. Some lost and some won. It's called "Life is a Bitch and then we die".

[dualstow]

Count me a believer in the malleability of intelligence. At age 67 I don't think I will be getting any smarter but I'm fascinated by the subject of neuroplasticity which says your brain isn't actually set in stone after a certain age like people used to believe.

Did blacks, whites, Asians, Jews follow different evolutionary patterns that either left them overall worse or better as a group to compete and survive in the 21st Century? Of course they did. Did they all guess the same? Of course not, They all depended on the input available to them. Some lost and some won.

Yes, yes, I agree. And even if there are limits to that neuroplasticity, your children and grandchildren may have higher IQs, for many reasons. It's not that I believe in this malleability because it's comfy, I believe in it because we have bred wolves into shih-tzus and into mastiffs! So there's the plasticity, and there's what happens over a few generations.

--- From the wiki page on the book, Race and Intelligence section --

In an article praising the book, economist Thomas Sowell criticized some of its aspects, including some of its arguments about race and the malleability of IQ:

When European immigrant groups in the United States scored below the national average on mental tests, they scored lowest on the abstract parts of those tests. So did white mountaineer children in the United States tested back in the early 1930s. ... Strangely, Herrnstein and Murray refer to "folklore" that "Jews and other immigrant groups were thought to be below average in intelligence." It was neither folklore nor anything as subjective as thoughts. It was based on hard data, as hard as any data in The Bell Curve. These groups repeatedly tested below average on the mental tests of the World War I era, both in the army and in civilian life. For Jews, it is clear that later tests showed radically different results—during an era when there was very little intermarriage to change the genetic makeup of American Jews.[30]

[Xan]

The question at hand here isn't whether blacks have lower IQs (I have no idea), or whether that's malleable (I assume it would be), or whether even if true it can or should affect anybody's interaction with any individual (it certainly shouldn't).

Is it a thought crime (aka "hate") to suggest the idea? That's the question here.

[dualstow]

To suggest what?

[Libertarian666]

The splc says that Charles Murray is a white nationalist extremist because he (correctly) points out that the primary cause of the underperformance of blacks is caused by their lower average iq. Is that enough evidence for you to see that they are ideologues, not unbiased researchers or whatever it is that they claim they are?

Heh. It's a false premise. I think they call him a white nationalist because of this part

According to Murray, the relative differences between the white and black populations of the United States, as well as those between men and women, have nothing to do with discrimination or historical and structural disadvantages, but rather stem from genetic differences between the groups.

Isn't that kind of the definition of white supremacy? If he had said they have lower IQs because we effectively bred slaves for their brawn but that this could be fixed with better testing or educational advantages, it would be an uncomfortable but possibly true assertion that "the underperformance of blacks is caused by their lower average iq."

I haven't read the Bell Curve. I take it you have. Is this really what he says? That Blacks have lower IQs because they just do? And that this is the cause of their underperformance?

I would think that there would be a multitude of factors. A lot of blacks have been incarcerated -- let's simplify and say that they earned that incarceration. It's harder to perform once you've been an ex-con. Harder to get a higher level job.

Does Murray think that these lower IQs are going to stay down or what?

I'm just asking these questions because I'm curious. I already agree that the quoted paragraph at the top and his connection to Nazi sympathizers (also mentioned in the Murray entry) pretty much fit the bill for white nationalism.

The Bell Curve is mostly not about race at all, but the effects of IQ on social success. However, the most controversial parts of the Bell Curve have to do with ethnic and racial groups, namely the Ashkenazi Jews, who have an average IQ about 1 SD above that of the general population, and blacks, who have an average IQ about 1 SD below that of the general population. I haven't read the book for some time, but to the best of my recollection, he says that IQ is largely genetically determined (which is a scientific fact) and also that the reason that some groups have substantially underperformed (or overperformed) other groups is due largely (but not entirely) to these IQ differences. The only step in this analysis that is in any way subject to dispute by any knowledgeable observer is the last one, that the differences in group performance are (largely) due to the average IQs of the groups in question. However, even if you control for all other differences, including incarceration rates, there is still no other known explanation that fits the known facts. In fact, children of upper-middle-class black parents have far lower IQ scores than those of white parents in the same socioeconomic class. I think it is certainly absurd to call someone an extremist for making such apparently true, although highly non-politically correct, statements.

Let's assume for the moment that these statements are in fact true. Is he a "white nationalist" for making true statements that put blacks in a negative light? If so, is everyone supposed to ignore facts in order not to be tarred as "white nationalists"?

If this is your position, let me just say that I cannot agree, and in fact cannot discuss anything with someone who wants others to avoid factual discussions due to political correctness.

[dualstow]

I think that Xan has been trying to frame this as a PC argument, too, hence "thought crime."
I'm exasperated. It's as if no one read what I wrote.
I'll try again in the morning.

[Libertarian666]

duplicate

[Libertarian666]

I think that Xan has been trying to frame this as a PC argument, too, hence "thought crime."
I'm exasperated. It's as if no one read what I wrote.
I'll try again in the morning.

Good luck, because that is exactly what it is. See the SPLC's definition of a hate group:
"All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics. "
https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map

[dualstow]

In the meantime, have a nice sleep, on either your mattress or the king-sized straw man being built here.

[dualstow]

Here's what I'm NOT saying:

"The idea that whites in American currently have higher IQs than blacks is just too uncomfortable to think about, and it's not nice, so we should quietly forget about it regardless of whether it's true, the same way people found out that the Dead Sea Scrolls show evidence of Christianity before Christ and swept that under the rug."

I'm not saying that. For those of you who think there's a PC argument here and that political correctness is the problem, sorry but you're swinging at a target that doesn't exist in this thread.

1. The SPLC is not the only entity charging Murray with racism. Even if they were, the reason Libertarian666 said Murray is on their Hate Map is succinct to a fault. It is not that simple statement about IQs and performance that got him there.

2. I think an earlier quote in this thread has been overlooked, the one stamped at 7:11 pm.

Economist Thomas Sowell wrote:
When European immigrant groups in the United States scored below the national average on mental tests, they scored lowest on the abstract parts of those tests. So did white mountaineer children in the United States tested back in the early 1930s. ... Strangely, Herrnstein and Murray refer to "folklore" that "Jews and other immigrant groups were thought to be below average in intelligence." It was neither folklore nor anything as subjective as thoughts. It was based on hard data, as hard as any data in The Bell Curve. These groups repeatedly tested below average on the mental tests of the World War I era, both in the army and in civilian life. For Jews, it is clear that later tests showed radically different results—during an era when there was very little intermarriage to change the genetic makeup of American Jews.

What does this mean? It means that recently arrived Europeans, including Jews, used to score low on intelligence tests. They had low "IQs", even if it wasn't called an intelligence quotient back then. That's what the data says, and it's not hateful to say it aloud.

What did Murray do with this information? Did he accept that some groups of people are temporarily, for some generations, going to have lower IQs than others? No, he brushed it off as "folklore." For Murray, the data only counts when whites are superior and blacks are inferior.

3. SPLC aside, there are enough scientists refuting Murray's and his co-author's findings that they are inconclusive at best. You may as well take up a career in phrenology.

One example, from the APA's Board of Scientific Affairs"

Regarding Murray and Herrnstein's claims about racial differences and genetics, the APA task force stated:

There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation...It is sometimes suggested that the Black/White differential in psychometric intelligence is partly due to genetic differences (Jensen, 1972). There is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis.

4. 'The Bell Curve' was not peer reviewed before publication. It was funded by the Pioneer Fund, "which aims to advance the scientific study of heredity and human differences, and has been accused of promoting scientific racism." (Sources and quotes at the wiki page for 'The Bell Curve').

5. Just as we can take wolves and breed them into shih-tzus, I can see where if we drag people here from Africa and select them to work from sunup to sundown and not for their chess playing abilities, that we could very well improve their physical characteristics and lower their IQs. It is no surprise, also, that lower IQs may bring lower performance (but again, tech, that is not the premise under attack by the SPLC).

{By the way, in an old thread I wrote this:

For what it's worth, I think a lot of the Jewish IQ stuff comes from a book called "The Jewish Mystique." It argued that once a upon a time, priests and rabbis were the smartest members of their respective communities. Priests were not allowed to marry -- this was before the Reformation -- and rabbis were encouraged to have as many children as possible. So, the legend goes, they bred high IQs. I have no idea if it's true.

I am not one of those people who say race doesn't exist. Researches of Tay-Sachs disease know better. My problem is with the suggestion that free men in Nigeria must have lower IQs than, say, Danish-Americans, because they're black. And my problem is with the idea that blacks will never see a rise in IQ levels even after many generations, that they will always have lower IQs, for all time, because they are black. That suggests they are not changeable and leads to #6.

6. For those you worried that a simple Hate Map put out by the SPLC led to the mob at Middlebury (which it did not), you should be more concerned about racist pseudoscience. I don't think the founding fathers brought much science into it when they owned slaves and simultaneously wrote that all men are created equal. However, the willful promulgation of pseudoscience that suggests that one race will always be better to another, that leads to genocide. And 'The Bell Curve' is racist pseudoscience. Don't take my word for it. Read the experts' criticisms.

7. I had a chance last night to listen to Murray defend himself in his own words in an old video interview at archive.org. He's a nice, soft-spoken guy who said, "I thought it would be enough for the left to say [to black people] 'It's ok. It's not your fault [that you're sub-intelligent].' Yes, he's a mild-mannered guy. That doesn't make him right. He's a soft-spoken racist.

8. The only thing I can say in favor of Murray and his co-author is their Flynn effect and this statement:

"If the reader is now convinced that either the genetic or environmental explanation has won out to the exclusion of the other, we have not done a sufficiently good job of presenting one side or the other. It seems highly likely to us that both genes and environment have something to do with racial differences. What might the mix be? We are resolutely agnostic on that issue; as far as we can determine, the evidence does not yet justify an estimate."

[dualstow]

Forgot one thing:

#9 Studies have shown that elementary-aged black girls do as well in math and science as white boys of the same age. At a certain older age, they begin to underperform. What do you make of that?

[Libertarian666]

The SPLC is a hate group, and Murray is correct.

Have a nice millennium.

[dualstow]

Wow, great rebuttal. I can see you put a lot of thought and effort into it, as usual.