Declaration of Independence

[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.

[Xan]

I guess for me the question is whether somebody can simply be wrong, or whether that person has to be guilty of thoughtcrime and debate completely shut down.

So the actual correctness of the particular claims are still beside the point.

[dualstow]

I guess for me the question is whether somebody can simply be wrong, or whether that person has to be guilty of thoughtcrime and debate completely shut down.

So the actual correctness of the particular claims are still beside the point.

I guess you'd have to define what you mean by thoughtcrime, because for me it connotes a science fictionally, Orwellian scenario in which you are not allowed to harbor private thoughts. I have occasionally racist thoughts that show up like uninvited knockers at my front door, and I shoo them away. But I also took the time to weigh the for-and-against that followed 'The Bell Curve'.

Charles Murray, obviously, is not silently thinking his racist thoughts, or we wouldn't know about it. He has published it, and continues to put out his theories despite the critical reviews. That's fine. He hasn't committed any crimes, hasn't called for violence, not even close. But he has written and said enough to warrant being on that list. Should he be on a separate list with a milder title that doesn't include the word "Hate"? Perhaps. It's not my list. It's not a perfect fit, nor is this a perfect world. He's certainly in my "book" of pseudoscience racists.

Should the debate be "completely shut down"? I refer you to what I said early on in this thread -- and now I can't find it!!! -- was there a server hiccup?

I wrote that the SPLC is one thing, but can't be held responsible for the morons who rioted at Middlebury. I wrote please don't lump me in with those Social Justice Warriors. I wrote that David Duke should be allowed to speak at universities as long as he is invited, and he should be protected going to and coming from that speech. Same for Murray.

Please, someone tell me that you saw this post. I saw it go through after I submitted it, and now I am unable to find it. Posted in other thread?
In any case, that's what I wrote, and that's how I feel.

I just don't know what to do with the word "thoughtcrime."
---
Edited: -->Changed 'help responsible' to held responsible.

[dualstow]

Re: missing post, it would have been between Xan's 9:32 post (with the four links) and my 9:52 post, both yesterday. (Obviously your time zone may vary). You can see me quoting myself saying

I did find one troubling line in that article

but my original post saying it is nowhere to be found. That post was the main rebuttal to the Geller page that Xan linked to.

[Libertarian666]

I guess for me the question is whether somebody can simply be wrong, or whether that person has to be guilty of thoughtcrime and debate completely shut down.

So the actual correctness of the particular claims are still beside the point.

Of course the debate must be shut down if someone commits a thoughtcrime. That's the whole reason behind the notion of thoughtcrime. If it were possible to discuss issues without that "safeguard", politically incorrect facts might be used to persuade people+

[Xan]

Dualstow, I only ever saw the post that's there now. I assumed that you had edited your original post, which included little other than "I did find one troubling line in that article", and then you expanded on that with the results of your digging.

Maybe you edited it by accident, deleting almost everything except the part you were quoting?

I don't really see any other reason for a "hate list" to exist apart from telling everyone who should be ignored. It's a blacklist. Its purpose is to keep people from listening to those who are on the list.

[dualstow]

Dualstow, I only ever saw the post that's there now. I assumed that you had edited your original post, which included little other than "I did find one troubling line in that article", and then you expanded on that with the results of your digging.

Maybe you edited it by accident, deleting almost everything except the part you were quoting?

That's exactly the theory I put in a PM to Tenn a few seconds ago. If it's not a hiccup, it's the only explanation I can think of.
Well, shit. That missing post was the long one, and the one that's there was just a tiny addendum. No wonder I felt like you weren't reading along with the class, asking about thoughtcrimes.

Well, you have my answer, and maybe it'll stick this time, even if the original timing would have been better.

I don't really see any other reason for a "hate list" to exist apart from telling everyone who should be ignored. It's a blacklist. Its purpose is to keep people from listening to those who are on the list.

For those who reject those members of the scientific community who claim to find significant errors with the way Murray collected and/or interpreted data, I'm sure they will similarly reject anything the SPLC has to say.

If the SPLC were ever to get to the level of Jesse Jackson shakedown status, or even the Better Business Bureau's pay-for-a-grade level, it would be time to reassess the. In the meantime, the FBI still uses them-

ahh, that reminds me, that was an important part of my missing post. It was a link to and excerpts from media matters. I guess I'll have to repost that. Here it comes... // No, that text is intact.

[dualstow]

While I can't recall everything I wrote in the main post after your 4 links, Xan, here's what I remember. I started out saying that I was reading your second link first because I had been reading about the Middlebury mob in the WSJ -- not SJW, WSJ -- of late.

That's when I said that the rioters were morons, that David Duke should be allowed to speak, etc. But, I also said that the SPLC is not responsible for those rioters, and I doubt that they even read things like the SPLC.

I also wrote, "Pamela Geller, really Xan?" and then posted this:

No, The FBI Hasn't Ditched The Southern Poverty Law Center
(Deleted excerpts, as it's all intact. Not part of missing post).

[Pointedstick]

Thanks to the first amendment--enabled by the declaration of independence (see what I did there? )--we have the freedom to argue over who's hateful, and none of it has any legal consequences. The SPLC's list is definitely an attempt at a blacklist, saying, "feel free to shun and ignore these people." That's fine. People have the right to ignore other people or groups with whom they disagree. And the controversy surrounding the SPLC's alleged bias makes the intended hate blacklist less effective; people who approve of them take it seriously, and people who think they're biased ignore them and their list.

The System Is Working As Intended™

[dualstow]

Yep.

[dualstow]

Well guys, I got accosted by the clipboard mafia asking for donations for SPLC both going into and coming out of CVS. "We fight the KKK!"
I just had to laugh as I walked on through, and thought of this thread.

EDIT: forgot to say it was specifically the SPLC.

[farjean2]

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.

Is there one honest person here who doesn't believe that blacks, on the average, have lower IQs than whites? Seriously?

I would suggest that the average black person is smart enough to know that is true whether they admit or not (and I'm just talking about the average, please).

I read somewhere that there is some kind of test that can measure innate intelligence by simply having someone stare at a dot on the wall but it isn't going any where due to the socio-political ramifications. Don't know if that is actually true but I respect the person who wrote it and his scientific acumen.

The standard pecking order today as far as intelligence goes from highest to lowest IQ seems to be Jews, Asians, Whites, Blacks (forget latinos, that's mostly made up and most are white or mixed).

I'm #3, the lower half of the totem poll myself. Does that bother me? Not at all. Seems about right to me (though Asian is WAY too broad a category based on my experience - probably the same holds true for other racial groups as well).

[dualstow]

Is there one honest person here who doesn't believe that blacks, on the average, have lower IQs than whites? Seriously?

The standard pecking order today as far as intelligence goes from highest to lowest IQ seems to be Jews, Asians, Whites, Blacks (forget latinos, that's mostly made up and most are white or mixed).

Is this in the States or in the world?