I don't know because I don't know what you mean by 'social cohesion'. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad.

OK so maybe stop typing, right here, right now. No more talking for you until you learn enough to at least correctly write the name of the group, which is in the title of the thread.

So like, just to be clear, you guys took ont he challenge of determining whether or not the wealthy support Trump and that the best way to do that is to find a poll that doesn't ask about income and another poll that takes aggregate state results. That's literally the best you guys could think of. Like with two of you working together your A guess was education crosstabs and your B guess was state rank by average household income.

White racial superiority is always disproved most effectively by its loudest proponents.

I think it's very telling how reactionaries and conservatives, while obviously exclusively advocating policies that benefit the wealthy, are very eager to deny that the wealthy are their ideological allies.They know. Even Trump knows, that's one of the biggest reasons he won but has had his approval fall, he ran a populist campaign so he did convince SOME working class people to come over. But the bulk of his support was Republicans voting for lower taxes, they are still with him after he's governed as a pretty typical Republican.

Kelhus what percentage of your posts in this thread are you refusing to answer a question, declaring that you're done responding to someone, or saying that a certain subject should no longer be discussed?

I wanted to ask the same question. How are you defining social cohesion? How well people get along? Levels of crime/violence? Surveys? Etc.

This is like a mirror image of climate change denial. First of all, the premise is absurd. If you have the most basic understanding of evolution you would realize that the concept of race is people evolving in different environments. People evolving in different environments will produce different results. This is obvious and everyone acknowledges it with things like hair and skin tone. The idea that people would evolve in different environments and then expect the same outcomes at the group level is a failure of elementary school level evolution. The same can be said about gender differences. Men and women are different on average. To then expect the same outcomes is just the failure of an IQ test.

This is clearly and obviously demonstrated in sports. Ethiopians destroy in distance running. They live at elevation and have a slight frame. Their performance is exceptional. It's not a social construct. West Africans from the Caribbean completely dominate sprinting events. They dominate sprinting events as a massive minority in countries like the USA, Canada, and across Europe. It's not a social construct or a statistical miracle. I know what you're thinking, I'm not a black supremacist. Because I believe IQ research, I'm not an Asian supremacist either.

Here is what is actually in the book

Harris & Murray

Here is where the relevant experts are at. Note the comparison to climate science. What is the consensus among the experts?


This thread and the Vox hit piece are a clear example as to why scientists can't have adult conversations about science. This is about as obvious as an example people choosing their religion over science. You're going to listen to a fidgety twerp with zero expertise on the subject matter who falsely paints a picture of Murray calling black people dumb 500 times (give or take) or an actual expert and highly respected in the field of intelligence?

The final point that should be crystal to everyone in which Murray makes. Differences within groups are larger than differences between groups. This means that judging people on the basis of race or gender is both statistically and morally idiotic. It's wrong and counterproductive in not just a moral sense but also a practical one

A bell curve relating to people should be easy to understand. A slight shift in averages leads to a huge difference in the tails. The average black runner isn't that much better than people from other races. Selecting someones athleticism based on race would be a terrible strategy in selecting a team. But because of the slight shift in averages leads to a huge difference at the tails, almost all the world records in running are held by black athletes. The same applies to the NBA. The same applies to Nobel prizes going to jewsish people and IQ research. The same applies to male vs female aggression. Men are only slightly more aggressive and violent than women on average. But when you go out to the most aggressive and violent people at the tails (end up in jail obv), It's almost all men.

You're welcome. I could have pulled a clovis and told you climate denial is too stupid to even engage in, but people here seem to be genuinely ignorant of where mainstream science is

https://www.newscientist.com/article...-intelligence/

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-conte...telligence.pdf

My way is better when trying to refer to the actual individuals who apparently comprise this group.
*"Intellectual Dark Webers
"Dark Web Intellectuals"
Try it.
The former makes it sound like some sort of group of barbecue enthusiasts.

"Webbers"

These are Dark Webers:

There is a tribe of indigenous in Mexico called either Raramuri or Tarahumara featured in the book Born to Run that have started to dominate ultra-marathons whereas the Kalenjin that have dominated more traditional distance events (marathons) are mostly Kenyans. There is a great anecdote I read about one of them who was attending college in the US and was going to lose his scholarship, he was overweight and out of shape and he started training and became an NCAA champion.
But it would be interesting to see how the Tarahumara would stack up against the Kalenjin.

I don’t know. But I appreciate you asking me a question I could answer if I checked (you of course could check too and answer the question yourself), as opposed to most of your questions which would require me to pretend I was part of a fictitious group of “you guys” and had thoughts I don’t have in order to answer.

This is way too much for a quick phone post on the way home from work. If anyone else wants to take this one go ahead. This isn’t a honey pot issue for me that I am particularly interested in, but I’ll tackle it as best I can later if no one else does.

I agree with most of the premises of your post, but if we accept a huge % of people don’t have the emotional capacity to deal with this subject honestly, it seems that is a reason in itself to maybe move on. I know Murray thinks this is a real important issue to get right, but i am not convinced the juice is worth the squeeze.

If we have to choose where the buck stops, it seems climate change denial is a more pressing concern.

Kelhaus, you don't have to be afraid to post what you actually believe here. Look at Juan Valdez, he posts full-on race science and no one bans him.

Fixed
As far as clinal variation in humans goes (I'm in the camp that says race as a biological concept is super shakey but most definitely does not exist in humans) what is the point of discussing it here? This isn't a biology forum it is a politics thread and Juan seems to agree that there isn't a political component to it. So all it will do is inflame people for no end. I'm fine inflaming people but there has to be a point to it.

If this is going to be a biology thread though ring species are super interesting to learn about. There is a complex of gulls that are this way.

Literally the next post, simply asking to define his use of a vague term:

Who else could possibly "take this"? You're the one using it as some sort of odd euphemism for whatever undefined social benefits of conservatism you think talking about colonialism undermines.

Also I dunno what you think "honey pot" means but you've used it twice, from context it appears to be when you think liberals have asked you direct questions where your answer is gonna be racist.

(this is also the second time you've tried repeating Sam Harris' "oh this isn't something I'm interested in" dodge, again, not an effective rhetorical technique)

Sartre on the rhetorical techniques of anti-semites continues to be the definitive take on the faux-intellectual reactionary:
See, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/colla...rture_b_855546

If you are describing the inspiration for your rhetorical techniques, I have to say you are doing a very admiral job. You hit pretty much all those check marks.

I'm definitely not trying to honeypot you but if you're going to talk about social cohesion then you have to be able to at least make some sort of inroads in defining it.
I think as a sociological concept it's been around as long as the discipline has been around--we talk about individualism vs collectivism in societies so why isn't it the case for example that collectivist societies are simply more cohesive than individualistic ones? Or is it?
It is sort of implied based on the meanings of collectivism and cohesion. And this has to do with the values that people have. But as an individualistic westerner I don't see collectivism as better or something that we should strive towards--perhaps it is--but I value my individualism and when put in those terms you might agree as well.

This is why it's hard not to find Murray's work damning. Why do scientific research into something pretty dubious that has minimal if any scientific value but has a huge political/social impact?

It's hard to believe anyone does that sort of research unless they have a significant bias and it's also the sort of research where the bias of the researchers is likely to have a significant impact on the findings. So in the end we have results that most likely simply reflect what the researcher was biased to find in the first place.

Ship-shape and Bristol fashion, Cap'n.

This isn't contradictjng you but I'll reiterate that Murray didn't actually do a lot of research into racial differences. The racial part in the book is very small part of the overall book. The larger part of the book is about how poors are dumb. When the poors are dumb didn't catch on (partly because it would have condemned some portion of conservatives as well), Murray promoted the book as a whole as saying blacks are less intelligent to take advantage of playing to conservative prejudices and to gin up liberal outrage, when in reality it's a small underesearched part of the whole.

All that's to say Murray isn't even a researcher whose research is because of his hidden bias and boldly did deep dive research to uncover the truth liberals don't want to admit, he was and is primary a political animal.

Htf do you know something is "dubious", whatever that means, and has no scientific value before you do it? His finding of a 15-point gap expanded the scientific knowledge, and was *actually replicated* by an APA study (this is in the thread). That much of what he did appears to be sound science (and proper functioning of the APA to do research itself and publishing when it confirmed Murray).

Second, assuming that the only impact of his work is fueling racists (even if you think that's literally what he intended to do) is just mindbogglingly blind. If you believe that the 15-point effect is almost entirely environmental, then his work tells you that the environment is INCREDIBLY ****ED and provides concrete evidence to point to, and provides it more clearly than, say, looking at SAT or GRE scores by race (is anybody who does *that* also a racist monster in chezville??) which are even more confounded measures that also show blacks way behind.

The collection of knowledge, including Murray, has informed my position that structural intervention to raise quality of life needs to start at or before birth because blacks are falling irreparably behind in childhood (or in utero), and that the effect is so strong that it actually warrants structural intervention. Without that kind of knowledge, measuring how ****ed blacks are, it's easy to target everything at adults and completely miss the most important years. It's impossible to "know" this, or to make policy with any degree of confidence that it's a strong use of resources, without doing research like Murray in some form or another.

I feel like I'm watching a master class in theatrical irony but I guess I'll just drop it.

It was just in news today how about how IQ is dropping across the West

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...de-ncna1008576
Nice Idiocracy reference in article.

I can't imagine how scary the internet is for some of the people in this thread. Its like the same ideology that North Korea holds.

Its very clear that stupid people are too stupid for some information and they need to be protected for their own good!