[Debate] Racial Theories of the Altright.

[Brady]

What a load of one sided hypocritical horseshit. You'd be better off doing your homework than posting shit on the internet.



Wich is exactly what you're doing.

You know damn well that the alt-right picks and chooses which white actions they want to identify themselves with.

 

[Multiply]

If youre looking for sources, Ive linked some under the first page of the thread.

They all disproved your theory that IQ is even an accurate way to measure intelligence. I also saw no evidence of intelligence thresholds based on race.

 

[Sagebee]

What saddens me the most is that because I'm black, I'm generalized with the rest of the bunch who commit crime and kill each other over dumb reasons.

You must be registered for see images

I have heard it all before. It's the same thing with the Italians being looked down at, because a small percentage of their population have a mafia gangster culture.

You must be registered for see images

It's dumb. You can't blame others or base anyone else's intelligence level or personality because of what race or ethinic background are.

Bro you shouldn't get offended especially from people that have no idea what they're talking about there's just some people you shouldn't care getting acceptance from.

Especially from there idiocy of the alt right is of the attention seeking kind.

 

[Narushima]

That's a strawman argument you know. And I gave the same reply to a leftist when he replied with that kind of wording - " oh that's a right wing historian". That was just one of the first source and in the end it only says :



Some criticism may be politically motivated but I find his point about it not being an academic book but self publishing theory pretty valid. This book is not an academic work and yet being used as such.

Both camps say they debunked others theory. So, have you actually checked out the details of the IQ samples and tried to determine validity of the assumptions made in this theory?

Jean Grey I don’t really have the time and patience to argue about the bell-curve these days but I doubt Lemann bothered to read any of the data presented in the bell-curve which comprises the majority of that book – at best he has read the few chapters in which Murray and Herrnstein broach policy, at worst he has parroted the age old canards about the bell-curve that his ilk have been peddling for decades (the bell-curve dedicates 2 out of 22 chapters to the subject of race yet these liars want us to believe this is a book about race). Besides, the facts of the bell-curve are old news as these days we approach cognitive ability from a genomics perspective based on GWAS studies, which are indeed consistent with the bell-curve.

Richard Lynn is simply a guy who pursues the truth, no matter how unpalatable it may be. His scientific work throughout his life has primarily been empirical – collecting data and letting it speak for itself. The consistency of the racial hierarchy in intelligence that he shows is breath-taking – from IQ tests to chess champions to TIMSS/PISA to scientific research to physician competence etc etc, the order of Ashkenazi Jews > East Asians > Whites > Browns > Blacks in cognitive ability is preserved.

Lynn was one of the first psychologists to find and report the fact that East Asians score higher than Whites on tests of cognitive ability, and he reported that truth in a time and society (1970s Britain) where White ethnocentrism was still a social and political force. It didn’t earn him any love from ‘racists’ back then and even today ‘racists’ view him with mixed feelings since he doesn’t show any bias in favour of Whites against East Asians and Jews. To call him a racist and even White supremacist as your sources of information probably do is ludicrous to anyone who has actually read his work and know of his reputation in so called racist circles.

 

[Fountain]

You know damn well that the alt-right picks and chooses which white actions they want to identify themselves with.

And you know damn well that you're giving me the perfect example of today's typical liberal.

 

[Avani 🥈]

Jean Grey I don’t really have the time and patience to argue about the bell-curve these days but I doubt Lemann.......................To call him a racist and even White supremacist as your sources of information probably do is ludicrous to anyone who has actually read his work and know of his reputation in so called racist circles.

What's even the point of arguing over these two men?

How about about a link to the IQ data samples Lynn used? The details of the sample population and it's background? How the data was collected and what was the purpose of that those tests? Like what if the IQ samples were collected to check out how the excess fluoride or other contamination in water affects brains ? Iodine deficiencies? Iron deficiencies? Or the likes? What was the economic and education level of the people in that group. Was there a standard test in each case or they were different?

 

[Sagebee]

That's a strawman argument you know. And I gave the same reply to a leftist when he replied with that kind of wording - " oh that's a right wing historian". That was just one of the first source and in the end it only says :



Some criticism may be politically motivated but I find his point about it not being an academic book but self publishing theory pretty valid. This book is not an academic work and yet being used as such.

Both camps say they debunked others theory. So, have you actually checked out the details of the IQ samples and tried to determine validity of the assumptions made in this theory?

What I will say about the bell curve

Is that it assumed results mean that intelligence is primarily genetic

And that intelligence is fixed, no where is that even suggested in their data.

 

[Brady]

And you know damn well that you're giving me the perfect example of today's typical liberal.

What, because I don't agree with everything the alt-right says, therefore I'm a typical liberal? I don't believe in affirmative action, feminism, and the other nonsense they spew but if I don't swallow alt-right hypocrisy hook-line and sinker all of a sudden I'm a liberal. Alright dude, you go on ahead.

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

What, because I don't agree with everything the alt-right says, therefore I'm a typical liberal? I don't believe in affirmative action, feminism, and the other nonsense they spew but if I don't swallow alt-right hypocrisy hook-line and sinker all of a sudden I'm a liberal. Alright dude, you go on ahead.

He has poor reading comprehension. Even if you agreed with him completely, he might argue with you not realizing that. Ignore him.

 

[kimb]

They all disproved your theory that IQ is even an accurate way to measure intelligence. I also saw no evidence of intelligence thresholds based on race.

Okay. No time for the disingenous. Keep believing what you believe.

 

[Lightbringer]

Jean Grey I don’t really have the time and patience to argue about the bell-curve these days but I doubt Lemann bothered to read any of the data presented in the bell-curve which comprises the majority of that book – at best he has read the few chapters in which Murray and Herrnstein broach policy, at worst he has parroted the age old canards about the bell-curve that his ilk have been peddling for decades (the bell-curve dedicates 2 out of 22 chapters to the subject of race yet these liars want us to believe this is a book about race). Besides, the facts of the bell-curve are old news as these days we approach cognitive ability from a genomics perspective based on GWAS studies, which are indeed consistent with the bell-curve.

Richard Lynn is simply a guy who pursues the truth, no matter how unpalatable it may be. His scientific work throughout his life has primarily been empirical – collecting data and letting it speak for itself. The consistency of the racial hierarchy in intelligence that he shows is breath-taking – from IQ tests to chess champions to TIMSS/PISA to scientific research to physician competence etc etc, the order of Ashkenazi Jews > East Asians > Whites > Browns > Blacks in cognitive ability is preserved.

Lynn was one of the first psychologists to find and report the fact that East Asians score higher than Whites on tests of cognitive ability, and he reported that truth in a time and society (1970s Britain) where White ethnocentrism was still a social and political force. It didn’t earn him any love from ‘racists’ back then and even today ‘racists’ view him with mixed feelings since he doesn’t show any bias in favour of Whites against East Asians and Jews. To call him a racist and even White supremacist as your sources of information probably do is ludicrous to anyone who has actually read his work and know of his reputation in so called racist circles.

You're still arguing the bell curve after that embarrassing debate you put up against me?

You must be registered for see links

 

[Multiply]

Okay. No time for the disingenous. Keep believing what you believe.

Well when your sources don't even agree with you, why would I believe you? Maybe you should go back and re-read them.

 

[Funky Tiger]

ya'll need some marx in your lives

 

[kimb]

That's a strawman argument you know. And I gave the same reply to a leftist when he replied with that kind of wording - " oh that's a right wing historian". That was just one of the first source and in the end it only says :



Some criticism may be politically motivated but I find his point about it not being an academic book but self publishing theory pretty valid. This book is not an academic work and yet being used as such.

Both camps say they debunked others theory. So, have you actually checked out the details of the IQ samples and tried to determine validity of the assumptions made in this theory?

I didnt reduce all his criticisms to being politically motivated, I acknowledged that some of his criticisms were apolitical (miscalculations/incorrect sources), and as far as too agree with the point about I.Q. not being an end all be all determinant of life sucess and that socioeconomic factors were ignored in the study. I only prefaced my response about Lemann's political bias because he shows it in his tone throughout his article in how he approaches TBC.

Now, I'd like to see the reassessment of Murrays data that Lemann referenced in his article, but it's not only unpublished, it's not sourced anywhere on the page outside of mentioning the participating parties. I tried googling for it, but only came up the link to Lemann's article, so I can't really weighout the scales between the two to sets of data to see if either one debunks the other. Instead, I'll work from common knowledge.

The general consensus on what percentage of I.Q. his attributable to genetics is around 50%. Taking all relevant figures into consideration, Murray claims that the percentage is no lower than 40% and no higher than 80% (which leaves a large margin of error) which can be averaged out to 60%, and Lemann's uncited, published research team found that the percentage was 30% to 50% hereditary. All three seem to overlap around the 50% mark with only Murrays' highball of 80% and Lemann's lowball of 30% being "outliers". I personally believe don't believe that the 80% mark doesn't fall too far out beyond the realm of possibility, but you may disagree. I also believe that if Lemann wants to criticize Murray's figures for having to wide of a margin of error, he has every reason to do so, but I don't believe Murray's figures is enough to discredit TBC as having miscalculations.

Well when your sources don't even agree with you, why would I believe you? Maybe you should go back and re-read them.

Im literally using information from thoses sources in literally all my arguments in every single post in this thread. You're either being disingenous or your reading and comprehension skills aren't up to scale. If you find that my sources are in complete contradiction to my arguments, ignore my comments as lunacy and keep believing what you believe. I don't have time for games.

 

[Multiply]

Im literally using information from thoses sources in literally all my arguments in every single post in this thread. You're either being disingenous or your reading and comprehension skills aren't up to scale. If you find that my sources are in complete contradiction to my arguments, ignore my comments as lunacy and keep believing what you believe. I don't have time for games.

Third, the significance of a given test score can be different for different people. A certain IQ score may indicate a higher level of intelligence for a person who grew up in poverty and attended an inadequate school than it would for a person who grew up in an upper-middle-class environment and was schooled in a productive learning environment. An IQ score on a test given in English also may indicate a higher level of intelligence for a person whose first language is not English than it would for a native English speaker. Another aspect that affects the significance of test scores is that some people are “test-anxious” and may do poorly on almost any standardized test. Because of these and similar drawbacks, it has come to be believed that scores should be interpreted carefully, on an individual basis.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/human-intelligence-psychology/Development-of-intelligence

You were saying?

 

[Sagebee]

Well when your sources don't even agree with you, why would I believe you? Maybe you should go back and re-read them.

It's never shown how iq tests can be used to make accurate genetic correlations

The only somewhat interesting source compared parents iq and compared it to their children's growth and it stating based on the high similarity in adulthood that this is a sign that genetics plays a high proportion to a child's intellect.

I did my own research and looked at studies comparing iq tests of children not raised with a parent showing a dramatic disparity highlighting how much environment plays. So none of these provide reasonable proof to suggest that intellect is mainly genetic based or if intellect is capped by genetics which my research has shown the opposites is actually true.

 

[Sagebee]

You were saying?

Its admitted that people from lower socio economic backgrounds are disproportionately represented in these studies and this is the scientist saying it but they still say race

 

[Brady]

They all disproved your theory that IQ is even an accurate way to measure intelligence. I also saw no evidence of intelligence thresholds based on race.

IQ is an accurate means, but whether someones completely moronic because their IQ is below 90 isn't guaranteed.

 

[kimb]

You were saying?

What does this refute? Do you think you just made a point?

 

[Edogawa]

What saddens me the most is that because I'm black, I'm generalized with the rest of the bunch who commit crime and kill each other over dumb reasons.

You must be registered for see images

I have heard it all before. It's the same thing with the Italians being looked down at, because a small percentage of their population have a mafia gangster culture.

You must be registered for see images

It's dumb. You can't blame others or base anyone else's intelligence level or personality because of what race or ethinic background are.

And I'm black as well but what is being said is that, on average, black people are likely to commit crime more than Hispanics or Caucasians speaking from statistical facts. Nobody is generalizing you or me.