03 Jul, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 301st comment:
Votes: 0
This thread is officially legendary.
03 Jul, 2009, quixadhal wrote in the 303rd comment:
Scandumology.
*twitch*
*twitch*
03 Jul, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 304th comment:
Scandum said:
The Sahara is uninhabited
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara#Peop...
Well done, Scandum. How do you do it?
-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
03 Jul, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 305th comment:
Cratylus said:
My guess, and yes, it is a guess but I think I fair one, is
that his final solution involves policies so profane and
repellent to the modern conscience that uttering it makes
him de facto wrong.
that his final solution involves policies so profane and
repellent to the modern conscience that uttering it makes
him de facto wrong.
This is my preferred strategy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_eug...
Cratylus said:
The supposed cause of asian smartness is adverse conditions. However, aborigines also have had
adverse conditions, so claiming their iq is lower seems to undermine the whole asian smartness argument.
adverse conditions, so claiming their iq is lower seems to undermine the whole asian smartness argument.
Asians measure an IQ of 105, Aboriginals somewhere around 65. Real scientists will accept this data and try to come up with reasonable explanations, crack pots will claim Asians and Aboriginals really both have a genotypic IQ of 100 and that the 40 point difference is due to racism, blabla, culture, blibli, bias, and last but not least, bloblo.
03 Jul, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 306th comment:
I'm still amazed at how universally valid and powerful you think IQ tests are – you seem to accept them as gospel truth, without question, as a perfect measure of all things relating to intelligence.
03 Jul, 2009, Igabod wrote in the 307th comment:
When I said semi-decent debate I meant that at least enough people were paying attention to it to get it to over 300 posts. Though now that I do a quick scan over what I missed I see that most of the posts were either repeating things that were said and ignored earlier, or just complete nonsense. So I take back the semi-decent comment and now call this a waste of a thread.
Now, for me to add something useful to this (maybe). IQ tests are completely useless. I took an IQ test in highschool and it said I have an IQ of 191. Einstein had an estimated IQ of 212 (they estimate for anything higher than 200). That would make me only slightly less intelligent than Einstein… I'm sure most of you can agree that I'm nowhere near Einstein's intelligence. Therefore I'm prone to think the IQ test is flawed.
Another interesting bit of trivial knowledge… IQ stands for Intelligence Quotient. Meaning how smart you CAN BECOME, not how smart you ARE. So IQ really has no relevance anyway. It's like saying I COULD live to 108 years old without taking into account the fact that I've done every drug that is relatively easy to get ahold of on the streets. It also doesn't take into account the fact that I eat nothing but doritos and hot pockets nearly every day and on the days that I don't eat that it's fast food and ruffles.
Ok, that's enough out of me for now.
Now, for me to add something useful to this (maybe). IQ tests are completely useless. I took an IQ test in highschool and it said I have an IQ of 191. Einstein had an estimated IQ of 212 (they estimate for anything higher than 200). That would make me only slightly less intelligent than Einstein… I'm sure most of you can agree that I'm nowhere near Einstein's intelligence. Therefore I'm prone to think the IQ test is flawed.
Another interesting bit of trivial knowledge… IQ stands for Intelligence Quotient. Meaning how smart you CAN BECOME, not how smart you ARE. So IQ really has no relevance anyway. It's like saying I COULD live to 108 years old without taking into account the fact that I've done every drug that is relatively easy to get ahold of on the streets. It also doesn't take into account the fact that I eat nothing but doritos and hot pockets nearly every day and on the days that I don't eat that it's fast food and ruffles.
Ok, that's enough out of me for now.
03 Jul, 2009, Igabod wrote in the 308th comment:
Oh yeah, and I just wanna be like crat by posting 6 times in a row… but I'll only do it twice in a row since that's all that's needed to get my point across.
03 Jul, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 309th comment:
Scandum said:
This is my preferred strategy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_eug...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_eug...
Congratulations on promoting a social change policy less practical than communism.
Good luck averting the idiocracy future you morbidly fear with voluntary embryo selection.
Never mind that education, nutrition, and medicine stuff. That's for defectives who needed to be
selekted for disposal.
Scandum said:
Asians measure an IQ of 105, Aboriginals somewhere around 65. Real scientists will accept this data and try to come up with reasonable explanations, crack pots will claim Asians and Aboriginals really both have a genotypic IQ of 100 and that the 40 point difference is due to racism, blabla, culture, blibli, bias, and last but not least, bloblo.
Yknow what I like? You didn't even bother to dispute that you're a racist. Given your
willingness to quibble over words, I figured you might actually try to distort reality to
avoid the term. Instead you seem to accept that your statements here make you
fit the literal dictionary definition of a racist.
Bravo for facing up to that reality, at least.
As for the rest…there's not much that I can say that will reach you, since you're dug in
deep into your certifiable junk-science arcana. If you're professing belief in weak crud
like the citations you provided, it's obvious that you are the one operating on faith,
Dr. Science. When confronted with the consensus against your position, you fall back on
conspiracy explanations.
Scandum, think about this, for real. If we were talking about geology,
and someone was pulling out discredited citations to support a 6,000 year old
earth, and the scientific consensus did not support that…what do you say to that
person? If they insist that the scientific establishment is just against their idea
because of <insert conspiracy here>, what is the response? You are as unreachable
as a religious zealot. I don't think you'll give this a moment's thought, but in
case you do, consider how firm your grip is on a worldview rejected by proper
science. Ask yourself if the adverse opinion you receive is really unjustified.
You won't do any of that, of course. You have a deathgrip on an exclusivist
world view that ensures you understand how the world works. You're safe in that
little box, and you absolutely, positively will not come out, no matter how
scientifically unjustified your position actually is.
Often I mock you because your petty meanspiritedness makes it easy to laugh.
But really, sometimes, you just make me sad. :(
-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
03 Jul, 2009, Sandi wrote in the 310th comment:
Igabod said:
Now, for me to add something useful to this (maybe). IQ tests are completely useless. I took an IQ test in highschool and it said I have an IQ of 191. Einstein had an estimated IQ of 212 (they estimate for anything higher than 200). That would make me only slightly less intelligent than Einstein… I'm sure most of you can agree that I'm nowhere near Einstein's intelligence. Therefore I'm prone to think the IQ test is flawed.
Another interesting bit of trivial knowledge… IQ stands for Intelligence Quotient. Meaning how smart you CAN BECOME, not how smart you ARE. So IQ really has no relevance anyway.
Another interesting bit of trivial knowledge… IQ stands for Intelligence Quotient. Meaning how smart you CAN BECOME, not how smart you ARE. So IQ really has no relevance anyway.
"Quotient" is used in the mathematical sense - it's the result of division. What they're dividing is how much you know at your age by how much the average person knows. An age factor is included because it's obvious a 5 year old, due to lack of experience, hasn't been exposed to as much information as a 30 year old. This is where IQ tests fail for aborigines, and to a lesser extent, inner city kids. Neither group has as much information available to them as kids from the suburbs. IQ tests also fail for smart people, as IQ tests are all about averages, and by definition, really smart people aren't average.
03 Jul, 2009, Ssolvarain wrote in the 311th comment:
You know, you could consolidate those replies into one thread, thus causing less inflation in the cost of forum posts.
03 Jul, 2009, aidil wrote in the 312th comment:
Scandum said:
This is my preferred strategy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_eug...
Asians measure an IQ of 105, Aboriginals somewhere around 65. Real scientists will accept this data and try to come up with reasonable explanations, crack pots will claim Asians and Aboriginals really both have a genotypic IQ of 100 and that the 40 point difference is due to racism, blabla, culture, blibli, bias, and last but not least, bloblo.
Cratylus said:
My guess, and yes, it is a guess but I think I fair one, is
that his final solution involves policies so profane and
repellent to the modern conscience that uttering it makes
him de facto wrong.
that his final solution involves policies so profane and
repellent to the modern conscience that uttering it makes
him de facto wrong.
This is my preferred strategy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_eug...
Cratylus said:
The supposed cause of asian smartness is adverse conditions. However, aborigines also have had
adverse conditions, so claiming their iq is lower seems to undermine the whole asian smartness argument.
adverse conditions, so claiming their iq is lower seems to undermine the whole asian smartness argument.
Asians measure an IQ of 105, Aboriginals somewhere around 65. Real scientists will accept this data and try to come up with reasonable explanations, crack pots will claim Asians and Aboriginals really both have a genotypic IQ of 100 and that the 40 point difference is due to racism, blabla, culture, blibli, bias, and last but not least, bloblo.
Real scientists will not exclude possible, and even likely explanations beforehand, also they will not exclude the possibility that their data doesn't mean what they thought it means, or might be bad.
The data you are quoting actually exists, too bad you can't be bothered to answer people who ask for this data, but some searching will turn up data along the lines of what Scandum is claiming indeed.
The problem is that Scandum, and some others, blindly accept this data as truth, and then draw conclusions based on that data and the ideology they favor.
While doing so, a few clear mistakes are being made:
- confusing correlation with casuality.
Scandum argues that IQ is a function of race, but the data nowhere shows this, and one
could easily conclude that race is a function of IQ instead based on that same data.
- ignoring unwelcome data
The data Scandum is basing himself on limits itself to people living in their 'racial' habitat, ie,
it looks at Kenyans living in Kenya, but ignores those moved to a different country and society.
Knowing this, one can very well use the same data to argue that there is a clear correlation
between IQ and where one lives on the planet, and ignore race alltogether.
- ignoring how this data came to be in the first place.
There are well known flaws in the data, and only very little verification of that data.
Scandum, science requires certain methods to ensure you are working with useful data. It also requires that a sound argument is provided for a hypothesis, that that hypothesis is falsifiable and a bunch of other things.
None of the data you presented goes anywhere near being meaningful to scientific standards simply because it is totally unclear what has been measured.
The hypothesis you so happily defend has been falsified in a number of ways, including but not limited to:
- the predictions it makes about distribution resulting from r/k selection are the exact opposite of
what measurements in both the human and animal kingdoms show
- it fails to qualify what part of intelligence is inherited.
- (some of) the premises used in it have been proven wrong.
- the hypothesis is contradicted by the data it is based on.
What Sandi provides is a much simpler hypothesis that explains the same data, and has a very huge likelyhood of being closer to what we are really looking at.
Before calling on others to use science, you may want to look into what this thing called science is about.
03 Jul, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 313th comment:
I think your mistake was in believing that Scandum was actually interested in doing proper science in the first place. He believes something for whatever reason – maybe he initially made a good faith but ignorant/confused attempt at understanding the science – and now is grasping at whatever straws he can to defend it, cloaking it all in this veil of pseudo-science.
We've already seen in other threads that even after admitting he wasn't too good at something, he reacts with incredible stubbornness and dismissal toward people who correct mistakes he predicted himself that he'd make. It's unsurprising that at this point, he'll do anything to protect this idea that is unfortunately very near and dear to his heart.
Either that or he's just a vile troll who amuses himself by putting in just enough work to make people think he believes this stuff. I think he's a troll anyway, of course, in the sense that he says things he know people will react to, but I do think he believes at least some of this stuff – at least enough to be able to present a remarkably consistent persona over the years. Still, no matter how you look at it, it's not terribly pleasant.
We've already seen in other threads that even after admitting he wasn't too good at something, he reacts with incredible stubbornness and dismissal toward people who correct mistakes he predicted himself that he'd make. It's unsurprising that at this point, he'll do anything to protect this idea that is unfortunately very near and dear to his heart.
Either that or he's just a vile troll who amuses himself by putting in just enough work to make people think he believes this stuff. I think he's a troll anyway, of course, in the sense that he says things he know people will react to, but I do think he believes at least some of this stuff – at least enough to be able to present a remarkably consistent persona over the years. Still, no matter how you look at it, it's not terribly pleasant.
03 Jul, 2009, aidil wrote in the 314th comment:
David Haley said:
I think your mistake was in believing that Scandum was actually interested in doing proper science in the first place. He believes something for whatever reason – maybe he initially made a good faith but ignorant/confused attempt at understanding the science – and now is grasping at whatever straws he can to defend it, cloaking it all in this veil of pseudo-science.
The problem with this reasoning is that he is right about a number of things:
- There exists data showing clear differences between IQ measurements done all over the world
- This data is controversial and many people would like it to not exist.
People have this tendency to ignore things they don't want to know, which definitely also applies to Scandum, but not exclusively to him.
Dismissing things you don't like won't make them go away however, and good science would not ignore such data.
David Haley said:
We've already seen in other threads that even after admitting he wasn't too good at something, he reacts with incredible stubbornness and dismissal toward people who correct mistakes he predicted himself that he'd make. It's unsurprising that at this point, he'll do anything to protect this idea that is unfortunately very near and dear to his heart.
Either that or he's just a vile troll who amuses himself by putting in just enough work to make people think he believes this stuff. I think he's a troll anyway, of course, in the sense that he says things he know people will react to, but I do think he believes at least some of this stuff – at least enough to be able to present a remarkably consistent persona over the years. Still, no matter how you look at it, it's not terribly pleasant.
Either that or he's just a vile troll who amuses himself by putting in just enough work to make people think he believes this stuff. I think he's a troll anyway, of course, in the sense that he says things he know people will react to, but I do think he believes at least some of this stuff – at least enough to be able to present a remarkably consistent persona over the years. Still, no matter how you look at it, it's not terribly pleasant.
I have good reason to think that he actually believes a lot of the things he says.
Beyond that, I am actually curious as to why an otherwise smart person might believe such things (note that he is far from alone in this).
Typically, either the data is bad, the premises are bad or the reasoning is bad, but not all 3.
In this particular case, the data is real but processed in such a way that it becomes meaningless and some of the premises are bad. When you ignore those things however, the reasoning is sound. This is why this particular line of thought is still attractive to otherwise smart people, logically, it all makes sense.
Making the data meaningless, and using known bad premises makes the racial intelligence superiority hypothesis unworkable. That some people will find this difficult to accept is obvious. This situation is not being helped by ignoring the initial unprocessed data that the hypothesis is based on, as it just strengthens the 'suppression' argument.
03 Jul, 2009, flumpy wrote in the 315th comment:
Cratylus said:
Yknow what I like? You didn't even bother to dispute that you're a racist. Given your
willingness to quibble over words, I figured you might actually try to distort reality to
avoid the term. Instead you seem to accept that your statements here make you
fit the literal dictionary definition of a racist.
willingness to quibble over words, I figured you might actually try to distort reality to
avoid the term. Instead you seem to accept that your statements here make you
fit the literal dictionary definition of a racist.
Whoa there cratty boy… if he won't actually defend himself being called a racist* (and really I don't think I can believe I am actually doing this), I will:
Now I don't agree with Scandums views, but not once has he actually stated anything racist. He has linked to the article discussing the text about race and IQ, not the actual text its self. The article actually discusses the pros and cons of this evidence, and whilst I cannot draw the same conclusion that he does from it (because of the contention, and the bad data set) I don't think he has once said that race would be the deciding factor, just IQ.
Again, I cannot defend that, because of the points I have made prior in this thread, but neither can I sit by and actually watch someone being labelled racist when they never said anything particularly racist. I agree, the implication is there, but I do not think he has ever actually gone that far.
When I made my "that way raciscm lies" comments right at the beginning of this thread, this is exactly what I thought might happen. Discussing race related concepts, however tenuous, can get people in trouble these days and labeled racist. I don't believe he has actually written anything racist, and as you point out he has flat out refused to go that far. Then again, perhaps he doesn't think he needs to stoop, or maybe hes just on holiday at the present. Who knows? If he says nothing, he's done nothing wrong.
If you can find a post or he actually writes a post where he is flat out racist, of course, I will stand corrected.
[edit * and given the eugenics theme, labelling him part one of the definition of racist without going as far as part 2 is just dishonest IMHO]
03 Jul, 2009, Runter wrote in the 316th comment:
I took an IQ test in highschool and I scored 152 ba-zillion awesomeness-plex.
And that was right under This Guy.
He even had a virtual abacus in his brain.
And that was right under This Guy.
He even had a virtual abacus in his brain.
03 Jul, 2009, Ssolvarain wrote in the 317th comment:
I'm hearing nazis.
Did I hear nazis?
Hmm. Not yet. Ctrl-F, you have failed me for the last time!
Did I hear nazis?
Hmm. Not yet. Ctrl-F, you have failed me for the last time!
03 Jul, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 318th comment:
flumpy said:
Whoa there cratty boy… if he won't actually defend himself being called a racist* (and really I don't think I can believe I am actually doing this), I will:
Now I don't agree with Scandums views, but not once has he actually stated anything racist.
Now I don't agree with Scandums views, but not once has he actually stated anything racist.
Apparently you did not bother to read the link nor the definition. I will therefore quote the definition for you.
Merriam Webster said:
Main Entry:
rac·ism Listen to the pronunciation of racism
Pronunciation:
\ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function:
noun
Date:
1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
— rac·ist Listen to the pronunciation of racist \-sist also -shist\ noun or adjective
rac·ism Listen to the pronunciation of racism
Pronunciation:
\ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function:
noun
Date:
1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
— rac·ist Listen to the pronunciation of racist \-sist also -shist\ noun or adjective
It is not necessary for a person to declare themselves a racist for the definition to apply. Scandum
has been laboring hard for this entire thread to make it clear he's firmly within sense 1 of that
definition. Please don't make me do more of your homework. Read for yourself what he's written.
-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
03 Jul, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 319th comment:
aidil said:
Dismissing things you don't like won't make them go away however, and good science would not ignore such data.
Let me revise my earlier statement, then. I think your error is in taking Scandum too seriously and believing that he's actually interested in honest debate, let alone "good science".
I don't have to lay out my argument in full over several pages to have reason for dismissing Scandum's nonsense. There's no point wasting that much time on it. If you want to spend your own time that way, that's your prerogative, but I don't think you are quite entitled to insinuate that those of us who don't want to waste time with him are instead sticking our heads in the sand and dismissing things merely because we don't want to see them. :wink:
A simple analogy that should make the point is the following. Were a Holocaust revisionist to come along, I hardly think I would need to spend more than a sentence or two saying "crackpot alert" and moving on. You might want to spend all kinds of time citing all kinds of document and all kinds of reports saying that, in fact, it actually happened, and that's fine, but IMO it's an utter waste of time when the person in front of you isn't really worth taking seriously, certainly in a context such as this one……
flumpy said:
If you can find a post or he actually writes a post where he is flat out racist, of course, I will stand corrected.
Asserting that one race is necessarily less intelligent than another is kind of the poster child of textbook racism, most certainly in the literal sense.
And don't you worry, if Scandum wanted to contradict something, he would have done so himself, as he has often done in the past. :wink:
03 Jul, 2009, Ssolvarain wrote in the 320th comment:
He used to have a piny "My Little Pony" avatar. This does not make sense.
Pink is obviously not a sanctioned in the Redneck Handbook of Racism, as all white folks have these issued at birth and have memorized them by the age of 5.
Pink is obviously not a sanctioned in the Redneck Handbook of Racism, as all white folks have these issued at birth and have memorized them by the age of 5.
