@BlinkingSpirit there are differences in IQ/Intelligence between regions of the world. And there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the differences are much more genetic than they are environmental. Watch Stefan Molyneux's videos on the topic for more info. Also here is a website of IQs by country- https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country#
This is the sort of stuff that Trump supporters believe in. The table lists Equatorial Guinea as having an average IQ of 59, which is well below the cutoff for mental retardation. Think this through for a second - is there really a country where everyone is mentally disabled?
Any thinking person would be able to tell that's obviously not the case. And in fact we know it's not the case:
The majority of the data points were based upon convenience rather than representative samples. Some points were not even based on residents of the country. For instance, the “data point” for Suriname was based on tests given to Surinamese who had migrated to the Netherlands, and the “data point” for Ethiopia was based on the IQ scores of a highly selected group that had emigrated to Israel and, for cultural and historical reasons, was hardly representative of the Ethiopian population. The data point for Mexico was based upon a weighted averaging of the results of a study of “Native American and Mestizo children in southern Mexico” with result of a study of residents of Argentina. Upon reading the original reference, we found that the “data point” that Lynn and Vanhanen used for the lowest IQ estimate, Equatorial Guinea, was actually the mean IQ of a group of Spanish children in a home for the developmentally disabled in Spain.
there are differences in IQ/Intelligence between regions of the world.
Most of these IQ differences are linked to the lower rates of education in these areas and worse nutrition. Pretending that they are inherent in certain people is lunacy and textbook racism.
Edit: I suggest reading this thread on reddit. It has a lot of sources on why the racist arguments about genetics are bunk.
@BlinkingSpirit there are differences in IQ/Intelligence between regions of the world. And there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the differences are much more genetic than they are environmental. Watch Stefan Molyneux's videos on the topic for more info. Also here is a website of IQs by country- https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country#
Since this is the only point of mine you even attempted to rebut, may we assume you are conceding the rest? Trump is a serial liar, a sociopath, and a corrupt businessman who is peddling harmful immigration and tax policy that is based on factually incorrect information, rolling over for a dangerous foreign autocrat for personal gain, and proposing obtrusive expansions and misuses of government power -- all that you accept, it's just racial differences in IQ you want to take a stand on?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
This is the sort of stuff that Trump supporters believe in. The table lists Equatorial Guinea as having an average IQ of 59, which is well below the cutoff for mental retardation. Think this through for a second - is there really a country where everyone is mentally disabled?
Any thinking person would be able to tell that's obviously not the case.
Indeed - especially as this is the *average*. Given these things tend to be a bell curve, if the average was 59, you'd have a lot of people in the 30-45 range - which is to say about as smart as chimps - and a non-trivial number in the 'cannot dress or feed self' range.
I mean, frankly it's pretty insulting to Australia to claim our average is lower than the world average, but suggesting that every africa country that doesn't border the med is full of mildly to severely mentally handicaped people is mind-boggling racist and seems self evidently false.
(I mean, yes, the average person in most countries in africa is going to be less well educated than the average in a western country, but education != intelligence)
Here is the problem with your reasoning. In countries with higher average IQs, IQs that are near 60 are very unlikely, so when they do occur there are other problems that usually occur along with the low IQ, giving you the impression those other problems are a symptom of the low IQ, when they are the effect of another genetic problem. Think of it as these low average IQs around 70 are like intelligences of young people(probably around 12 yrs to give you some perspective) in places with higher average IQs.
The research finds that Northeast Asian countries have the highest average IQs around a 106, then Northern European countries at 100, then Southern European countries at 90-100, then most latin american countries and middle eastern and Northern African countries at 80-90, and lastly Non-Northern African countries ranging from about 60-80. You see a pattern here? The regions farther from the equator seem to have higher averages, this leads people to believe the disparities in IQ have to do with colder climates requiring higher intelligence. I could continue writing but you'd be better off listening to this video about IQ differences between regions- https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CZPsXYo7gpc
Just because one has the intelligence of a child doesnt mean they have the social skills or experience of a child. Intelligence isnt everything... Bottom line is that humans live in very different places, and evolutionarily, different environments lead to different outcomes.
Just because one has the intelligence of a child doesnt mean they have the social skills or experience of a child. Intelligence isnt everything... Bottom line is that humans live in very different places, and evolutionarily, different environments lead to different outcomes.
We all understand what intelligence means. That doesn't make it any more plausible. Not to mention that the data in question is completely fraudulent. But even if we didn't know that, no one in their right mind would think these numbers are reasonable - it's bait for racists who will believe anything as long as it makes them come out near the top.
Here is the problem with your reasoning. In countries with higher average IQs, IQs that are near 60 are very unlikely, so when they do occur there are other problems that usually occur along with the low IQ, giving you the impression those other problems are a symptom of the low IQ, when they are the effect of another genetic problem. Think of it as these low average IQs around 70 are like intelligences of young people(probably around 12 yrs to give you some perspective) in places with higher average IQs.
Except that isn't what IQ measures. Or how it works.
The key sentence, in case clicking links is hard, is "The average IQ of a 13-year-old, or person of any other age, is 100."
In any reasonable sized population, the average IQ of any group not specifically selected for mental issues is 100. Any group with an average IQ of sixty is *significantly* mentally incapacitated.
edit: Further, if you understood what IQ represented, you'd understand that - over a population exceeding a million - a difference of *one or two* points from the average (which is, by definition, 100) is implausible; a difference exceeding two standard deviations is just insane. (It should be *as likely* to have a country with an average IQ of 140 as to have one of 60.) (Indeed, slightly more likely, because their is a minimum IQ a human can have, which should be demonstrably no less than zero and probably higher, but there is no theoretical maximum and there are and have been people with IQ over 200)
The research finds that Northeast Asian countries have the highest average IQs around a 106, then Northern European countries at 100, then Southern European countries at 90-100, then most latin american countries and middle eastern and Northern African countries at 80-90, and lastly Non-Northern African countries ranging from about 60-80. You see a pattern here? The regions farther from the equator seem to have higher averages, this leads people to believe the disparities in IQ have to do with colder climates requiring higher intelligence.
This might be among the dumbest things I've ever heard. And is trivially disprovable using the map you linked to.
Look at australia. Average IQ apparently 98 (which is false, but!)
if it's about 'distance to equator' then we should be ballpark the same as china (our northernmost tip is somewhat closer but 95% of the population lives south of Brisbane - more than half in or south of Sydney).
We also cover the area equivalent to niger, roughly, yet are ranked much higher. And indeed china is closer to the equator than the UK, but somehow smarter. (and indeed all of europe). And china goes further south than niger.
Basically, this theory is racist as hell and smoothed over with garbage science.
Australia doesnt have harsh winters and short summers so you arent seeing the big picture.
Also your first point doesnt make sense because by following your logic one group has the same average IQ as any other group because according to you all average iqs must be 100.
Australia doesnt have harsh winters and short summers so you arent seeing the big picture.
um, ok? What about china, then?
Also your first point doesnt make sense because by following your logic one group has the same average IQ as any other group because according to you all average iqs must be 100.
Well, one of us isn't getting the point. Yes, for any sufficiently large group, it is *extremely* unlikely that their average IQ does not approximate 100. This is because BY DEFINITION IQ is a standardised score - the average is 100, and it bell curves away in both directions. I'm not sure about US schools or universities, but it's quite common in schools as well - in those cases, they tend to curve with the centre somewhere in the mid 60s.
Whoops, looks like I missed one in the counter-gish-gallop. That's always the problem with the gish-gallop. So thanks.
No worries. That was one I looked up, because I found it even more difficult to believe than the rest of the screed. The irony of Trump actually going to court for something similar was just the icing on the cake.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
So now trump is claiming that H will allow 650 Million immigrants to enter the US...in a week.
How does anyone believe a word this man says? I assume someone told him the total number of refugees in with world (65 million) and he's gone from there, maybe?
I mean you could barely move 6.5 million people into the US in a week; 650 million would require every plane in the world to make about 10 return trips a day.
Ugh.
Anyway, race appears to have tightened a little. hopefully it doesn't swing further.
It is probably also worth noting that Trump will be appearing in court to face charges of child sexual assault in December.
I'm surprised nobody picked up on this, but, Trump is not facing charges of child sexual assault.
He is facing accusations of it, and it's a civil case, not a criminal case. "Charges" would refer to a criminal trial. Which is a huge difference - in part because of the potential results, and in part because of the bar to bringing a case. Literally anybody can file a civil lawsuit with any allegations in it. I'm not taking a position on whether the accusations are true or not (I have no clue, and don't really care since I'm not in the Trump -OR- Clinton camp), but the fact is facing a civil lawsuit is largely meaningless until more facts come out in the suit.
It is probably also worth noting that Trump will be appearing in court to face charges of child sexual assault in December.
I'm surprised nobody picked up on this, but, Trump is not facing charges of child sexual assault.
He is facing accusations of it, and it's a civil case, not a criminal case. "Charges" would refer to a criminal trial. Which is a huge difference - in part because of the potential results, and in part because of the bar to bringing a case. Literally anybody can file a civil lawsuit with any allegations in it. I'm not taking a position on whether the accusations are true or not (I have no clue, and don't really care since I'm not in the Trump -OR- Clinton camp), but the fact is facing a civil lawsuit is largely meaningless until more facts come out in the suit.
Mea culpa. I didn't look hard enough to determine whether it was a civil or criminal case (and might not have known to use 'accusations' over 'charges' if I had).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
So, I mean, I can't ignore this issue. I can't say it happened, but the evidence is pretty convincing to me that there's a good chance it did happen. And if that's the case, I can't vote for the man regardless of political stance. Regardless of whether charges exist or not, the accusation and the appearance of validity are enough for me. Just as the appearance that Hillary is a corrupt individual who probably did something awful involving "e-mail" is enough for the right.
Not asking you, or anyone else for that matter, to ignore it. Just noting that it is not a criminal charge, and should not be framed as such. You're perfectly within your rights to say "I think trump is a racist, sexist, scumbag, and that's why I'm not voting for him". That's why I'm not voting for him either. But, it's important to remember that if he actually is a racist sexist scumbag, we don't need to "exaggerate" these characteristics just to vilify him. He already vilifies himself enough.
As for Clinton... that's a whole other issue for a whole other thread (specifically, not one dedicated to Donald Trump).
]Mea culpa. I didn't look hard enough to determine whether it was a civil or criminal case (and might not have known to use 'accusations' over 'charges' if I had).
No harm, no foul :). Mostly, I just wanted to make sure it was understood what was actually happening.
Frankly, I'm surprised at just how effective the "It's from Russia" handwave has worked on the Wikileaks documents. In any other election, either one of these candidates would be so far behind it would be laughable.
I'm really glad you all covered the Gish Gallop for me, because reading those claims actually hurt my brain.
Y'all know how the Republicans have been trying to rile people up against Clinton because of the E-Mail server thing? Check this ***** out.
Over the course of decades, Donald Trump’s companies have systematically destroyed or hidden thousands of emails, digital records and paper documents demanded in official proceedings, often in defiance of court orders. These tactics—exposed by a Newsweek review of thousands of pages of court filings, judicial orders and affidavits from an array of court cases—have enraged judges, prosecutors, opposing lawyers and the many ordinary citizens entangled in litigation with Trump. In each instance, Trump and entities he controlled also erected numerous hurdles that made lawsuits drag on for years, forcing courtroom opponents to spend huge sums of money in legal fees as they struggled—sometimes in vain—to obtain records.This behavior is of particular import given Trump’s frequent condemnations of Hillary Clinton, his Democratic opponent, for having deleted more than 30,000 emails from a server she used during her time as secretary of state. While Clinton and her lawyers have said all of those emails were personal, Trump has suggested repeatedly on the campaign trail that they were government documents Clinton was trying to hide and that destroying them constituted a crime. The allegation—which the FBI concluded was not supported by any evidence—is a crowd-pleaser at Trump rallies, often greeted by supporters chanting, “Lock her up!"
The tldr is that Trump's family have been destroying evidence since the 70s, and it's a major part of Trump corporate culture which continues to this day. It's part of how they escape legal trouble, alongside frankly bull***** redirection strategies.
The basic idea is to waste so much time and money that the people seeking legal redress give up because they can't afford to fight for as long as the Trump camp.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
All of this is circumstantial. On every point you can draw the line and say this isn't proof. But, it points in a direction all the same, one which says the argument that he did this is not outside of his potential nature. And that speculation is warranted, but that perhaps it's not true. It'd be a pretty easy avenue to "swift-boat" him on, but for all we know it's like Cosby and he really is just horrible underneath it all.
This is similar to the rationale that leads many conservatives to detest Bill and Hillary Clinton.
It's not just the e-mails. Its the stuff that they've been accused of for close to 30 years.
Innocent until proven guilty IS innocent until proven guilty.
Trump has proven that a firm grasp of the truth is not required for a >40% support in an election. He villifies himself, but it doesn't matter in the eyes of the public. And the simple, if perhaps not completely truthful, arguments are the ones that seem to work against him the best. It seems to me that any one in the commentariate who has ever logic-ed themselves to a conclusion writes off Trump as unelectable regardless of which side of the aisle they sit on. The space where he succeeds is the space where sound bites and emotional platitudes win, where substance is not required to sway.
Trump has the support he does simply because he is the nominee of a major party. Let me put that into context:
- Barry Goldwater got 38.5% of the vote in 1964.
- George McGovern got 37.5% of the vote in 1972.
- Walter Mondale got 40.6% of the vote in 1984.
All three of these people lost in some of the most catastrophic blowouts in US presidential election history. Yet they were still able to get around 37-40% of the vote simply because they represented a major party.
If you want to blame people for supporting Trump, blame the first-past-the-post system. I have argued previously that Trump has represented its complete institutional failure.
Clinton didn't want to defend the child rapist, she was appointed to the task; she laughed at the idea that her client was innocent - and her client pleaded guilty.
It is probably also worth noting that Trump will be appearing in court to face charges of child sexual assault in December.
You do realise that like publishing your tax returns, being asked if you would use nuclear weapons is a standard part of the Campaign process.
There is only one presidential candidate that has flunked both tests. That candidate is currently running for president and it isn't the Democrat one.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Any thinking person would be able to tell that's obviously not the case. And in fact we know it's not the case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_Differences_in_Intelligence_(book)
Most of these IQ differences are linked to the lower rates of education in these areas and worse nutrition. Pretending that they are inherent in certain people is lunacy and textbook racism.
Edit: I suggest reading this thread on reddit. It has a lot of sources on why the racist arguments about genetics are bunk.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Indeed - especially as this is the *average*. Given these things tend to be a bell curve, if the average was 59, you'd have a lot of people in the 30-45 range - which is to say about as smart as chimps - and a non-trivial number in the 'cannot dress or feed self' range.
I mean, frankly it's pretty insulting to Australia to claim our average is lower than the world average, but suggesting that every africa country that doesn't border the med is full of mildly to severely mentally handicaped people is mind-boggling racist and seems self evidently false.
(I mean, yes, the average person in most countries in africa is going to be less well educated than the average in a western country, but education != intelligence)
The research finds that Northeast Asian countries have the highest average IQs around a 106, then Northern European countries at 100, then Southern European countries at 90-100, then most latin american countries and middle eastern and Northern African countries at 80-90, and lastly Non-Northern African countries ranging from about 60-80. You see a pattern here? The regions farther from the equator seem to have higher averages, this leads people to believe the disparities in IQ have to do with colder climates requiring higher intelligence. I could continue writing but you'd be better off listening to this video about IQ differences between regions- https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CZPsXYo7gpc
Maybe you've been spending too much time in the tropics.
We all understand what intelligence means. That doesn't make it any more plausible. Not to mention that the data in question is completely fraudulent. But even if we didn't know that, no one in their right mind would think these numbers are reasonable - it's bait for racists who will believe anything as long as it makes them come out near the top.
Except that isn't what IQ measures. Or how it works.
https://www.reference.com/world-view/average-iq-13-year-old-c87b821e6b9be194#
The key sentence, in case clicking links is hard, is "The average IQ of a 13-year-old, or person of any other age, is 100."
In any reasonable sized population, the average IQ of any group not specifically selected for mental issues is 100. Any group with an average IQ of sixty is *significantly* mentally incapacitated.
edit: Further, if you understood what IQ represented, you'd understand that - over a population exceeding a million - a difference of *one or two* points from the average (which is, by definition, 100) is implausible; a difference exceeding two standard deviations is just insane. (It should be *as likely* to have a country with an average IQ of 140 as to have one of 60.) (Indeed, slightly more likely, because their is a minimum IQ a human can have, which should be demonstrably no less than zero and probably higher, but there is no theoretical maximum and there are and have been people with IQ over 200)
This might be among the dumbest things I've ever heard. And is trivially disprovable using the map you linked to.
Look at australia. Average IQ apparently 98 (which is false, but!)
if it's about 'distance to equator' then we should be ballpark the same as china (our northernmost tip is somewhat closer but 95% of the population lives south of Brisbane - more than half in or south of Sydney).
We also cover the area equivalent to niger, roughly, yet are ranked much higher. And indeed china is closer to the equator than the UK, but somehow smarter. (and indeed all of europe). And china goes further south than niger.
Basically, this theory is racist as hell and smoothed over with garbage science.
Also your first point doesnt make sense because by following your logic one group has the same average IQ as any other group because according to you all average iqs must be 100.
um, ok? What about china, then?
Well, one of us isn't getting the point. Yes, for any sufficiently large group, it is *extremely* unlikely that their average IQ does not approximate 100. This is because BY DEFINITION IQ is a standardised score - the average is 100, and it bell curves away in both directions. I'm not sure about US schools or universities, but it's quite common in schools as well - in those cases, they tend to curve with the centre somewhere in the mid 60s.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
How does anyone believe a word this man says? I assume someone told him the total number of refugees in with world (65 million) and he's gone from there, maybe?
I mean you could barely move 6.5 million people into the US in a week; 650 million would require every plane in the world to make about 10 return trips a day.
Ugh.
Anyway, race appears to have tightened a little. hopefully it doesn't swing further.
I'm surprised nobody picked up on this, but, Trump is not facing charges of child sexual assault.
He is facing accusations of it, and it's a civil case, not a criminal case. "Charges" would refer to a criminal trial. Which is a huge difference - in part because of the potential results, and in part because of the bar to bringing a case. Literally anybody can file a civil lawsuit with any allegations in it. I'm not taking a position on whether the accusations are true or not (I have no clue, and don't really care since I'm not in the Trump -OR- Clinton camp), but the fact is facing a civil lawsuit is largely meaningless until more facts come out in the suit.
http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/
Not asking you, or anyone else for that matter, to ignore it. Just noting that it is not a criminal charge, and should not be framed as such. You're perfectly within your rights to say "I think trump is a racist, sexist, scumbag, and that's why I'm not voting for him". That's why I'm not voting for him either. But, it's important to remember that if he actually is a racist sexist scumbag, we don't need to "exaggerate" these characteristics just to vilify him. He already vilifies himself enough.
As for Clinton... that's a whole other issue for a whole other thread (specifically, not one dedicated to Donald Trump).
No harm, no foul :). Mostly, I just wanted to make sure it was understood what was actually happening.
Frankly, I'm surprised at just how effective the "It's from Russia" handwave has worked on the Wikileaks documents. In any other election, either one of these candidates would be so far behind it would be laughable.
Y'all know how the Republicans have been trying to rile people up against Clinton because of the E-Mail server thing? Check this ***** out.
[link]
The tldr is that Trump's family have been destroying evidence since the 70s, and it's a major part of Trump corporate culture which continues to this day. It's part of how they escape legal trouble, alongside frankly bull***** redirection strategies.
The basic idea is to waste so much time and money that the people seeking legal redress give up because they can't afford to fight for as long as the Trump camp.
Art is life itself.
This is similar to the rationale that leads many conservatives to detest Bill and Hillary Clinton.
It's not just the e-mails. Its the stuff that they've been accused of for close to 30 years.
Innocent until proven guilty IS innocent until proven guilty.
Trump has the support he does simply because he is the nominee of a major party. Let me put that into context:
- Barry Goldwater got 38.5% of the vote in 1964.
- George McGovern got 37.5% of the vote in 1972.
- Walter Mondale got 40.6% of the vote in 1984.
All three of these people lost in some of the most catastrophic blowouts in US presidential election history. Yet they were still able to get around 37-40% of the vote simply because they represented a major party.
If you want to blame people for supporting Trump, blame the first-past-the-post system. I have argued previously that Trump has represented its complete institutional failure.