Denial of reality is a form of psychological manipulation used to control others. Narcissists and psychopaths deliberately deny and distort reality in order to maintain dominance and avoid accountability. What used to be relatively hidden in individual relationships is being writ large across a societal spectrum.
Most people - white and black - are aware of the racial differences and have been for a long time but don't say it out loud. What those people do, though, while virtue-signaling that "I'm not racist" is to still avoid heavily black areas of town, where they know crime is rampant.
However, whatever you think about picking your own cotton, we are all here and we all have to, somehow, live together.
Now getting to be an old man, I try to be honest with myself. Yes, there are clearly racial differences in multiple areas; denying that different varieties of humans differ is equivalent to saying different varieties of dogs have the same capabilities - and most importantly, the same temperament. They don't and neither do humans.
So what do I do? First, it's a dead end to beat the drum about crime statistics; we all know what they say, and rubbing everybody's nose in it gets us nowhere. I treat everyone with respect, but I'm not blind. To my eye, at least, the Very Best Path - and it's not perfect - is to enforce the law equally. Acknowledge where crime lives and police it accordingly. Secondly, I avoid interaction with blacks I don't know, especially young men, and VERY especially if they are in a group. We've all seen the pack-of-dogs attacks, and you just might not survive that. Thirdly, when I must travel to unfamiliar areas, I am armed, I am very aware of my surroundings, and I don't take my family.
So simply put, the State must enforce the law and individuals must protect themselves - by vigilance always and by force if necessary. And in the meantime we need to stop the State's playing Daddy to single mothers and require sperm donors to step up to the plate and support their offspring - black, white, other. It has been well established that the strongest deterrence to crime is an adult male in the home; since Johnson's Great Society experiment in the 'sixties, this is becoming in all races increasingly rare. Yes, Pogo, we have met the enemy and he is our own government.
Faith & Family. Saying these words has a real nice ring to it. Almost like they were meant to be. I wonder if the real fight is over preventing those of us who weren’t exposed to this growing up from returning to humankind’s baseline.?
I have a black neighbor/farmer - good guy and good friend - and I live in a majority-black county. It is quite pleasant. The difference here, I believe, is that people are quite religious and families are intact. I don't go into inner Richmond, though.
In the late 1970s, when the US was trying to arm a certain Muslim-dominant country with technology to fight another Muslim-dominant country, it became (very) clear, (very) quickly to the US trainers that Muslims had a very, very (add a few more if you like) hard time "learing" how to fly this technology. And it was downright scary and impossible to teach them to fly this technology at night. This is because of something, let's call, "brain power." As it turns out, these trainers observed that increased rates of cousin-f*cking have a high negative correlation to this thing called "brain power" and made training even the best of these people (on this $40MM per hit, piece of technology) an absurd and idiotic waste of time and resources.
Precisely pertinent to my thoughts when reading today’s missive.
There is an underlying problem in today’s society—we in the West, as a people, are getting stupider!
I understand and do not dispute the point being made in today’s hypothetical, but it perhaps skips over the underlying basis of the problem (IMHO). People (in the main) can no longer rationally think and deduce as they once did. Yes, there are other contributing factors as well, but the decrease in intelligence of folk cannot be denied. The “Smart Fraction” is being strained. AI will not save us.
Cousin marriage is an obvious example of genetic deterioration. A not so obvious example is the more gradual increase in what Woodley calls “Spiteful Mutants”. Strict Darwinian selection stopped with the Industrial Revolution and a century or two later we are experiencing the result.
I'm not certain of that - which isn't to say I disagree (quite) - it's just to say that I could make an equally compelling argument that the education system is making us "seem" dumber on the whole. For example, the same time period you describe is when Fisher's p-values and the Popperian notion of falsification - the denial of induction - came to predominate, and then Solvay happened and we reified ignorance (to paraphrase Jaynes) by "consensus". We decided that the Universe was indeterminate and so we stopped looking for cause in physics. Those things in combination with our food poisoning system (also over the same period) may very well make us look "stupider" when in reality it's been a series of choices to simply give up on the accumulation of objective knowledge - i.e. science - and also stop demanding that people become better. Add in the CRA in the 60s and suddenly what looks statistically like "WE R DUMB" may not really be true. Again, that's not quite a refutation of your underlying point, but it at least provides a pathway to some fixes that could make a marked difference in a single generation. Cheers.
Of course. Those are the contributing factors of which I mentioned. A long monograph could be written describing such factors. I cannot improve upon your insights. Let me add a couple of points.
1) I emphasize the term intelligence, but the reality is that with intelligence are often inherent behavioral aspects important to the discussion. Those I’ve not mentioned. They deserve higher emphasis than I give them. A good, productive life is not simply “book smarts”.
2) An anecdote wrt education. I am not saying that we have declined in 1 generation. The measured “decline” in IQ goes back 100 years (4-5 generations). Such is not in dispute. Examinations and original IQ test administered a century ago have been re-administered to current generations. The results do not match prior test takers. Hard to go back that far and blame every aspect of intelligence decline upon environment, which by the way is not shown for some of our racial divisions.
Three generations ago when I applied for university entry, there were admission standards than needed to be met. My University required the ACT College Entry Exam as well as HS transcripts. If your score was deficient in one or more areas, or in total, you simply were not admitted. Rather you were told to consider an alternative—say Community College. A few years ago, this *same* university boasted that they had record minority enrollment and that 40% (!) of the student population were enrolled in remedial coursework! Primarily, Maths, English, and Writing.
So which came first. A decline in student ability or a decrease in standards? I’d say student ability first.
I’m flattered. Agreement is not necessary, only exchange of considered opinion. My major professor once said to me, “If you are the smartest guy in the room—you’re in the wrong room!”. Fortunately I’ve not had such problem in my academic career and in this comment group in particular. ;-)
Frimer should stand tall. He was right. There is a difference in IQs between blacks and whites and, just for a change of pace, black skulls are thicker than white skulls. Blacks are about 13% of the population, but in areas across the country, they commit 50% of the crimes.
I don't have to walk back the truth. I'm self-employed.
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth's centre. With the feeling that he was speaking to O'Brien, and also that he was setting forth an important axiom, he wrote:
“‘Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.’”
— From “1984” by George Orwell. This is more apt with every passing day.
Reality wins in the end, so it is said, but fantasy is on a nearly century-long roll right now. People (especially the young) are less afraid to discuss reality in public, which is good, but the chokepoints in our culture are firmly in the hands of the effeminate. And our judges, with a few exceptions, seem uninterested in doing anything to hinder their chances of getting invited to fashionable cocktail parties
'“Shorter life expectancy among men in general, if likely avoidable, would clearly be an issue of public health importance based on the magnitude of potential population impact. However, men as a group have more wealth, influence, and prestige, so this difference would not be a social injustice and, therefore, not a health disparity or equity issue.”
That statement was written in a paper published in the American Journal of Public Health in 2011. The title of the paper is “Health Disparities and Health Equity: The Issue Is Justice,” and it has been downloaded over 97,000 times according to the publisher’s website and cited over 1,400 times according to Google Scholar. The lead author of the paper is Paula Braveman, who is currently a professor emeritus at the University of California – San Francisco.
But at least the Southern Poverty Law Center have been found out fabricating bs so that they it could pay the leadership. The business of alleged racism:
Director Patel Announces Federal Charges Against SPLC
I know that it took many, many years to get this corrupt, and that it will take a while to root it out, but unless these crooks get tossed into prison for a very long time, revelation of wrong-doing without serious consequences for the transgreasors are exercises in demoralization.
Unlike height, most people believe that smarter is better. The flip side of that is dumber is worse, so any argument that says one group is smarter than another implies that one group is better than another. Such an implication is intolerable to the egalitarian mindset.
On the other hand reproduction rates suggest smarter is worse. Biology is a numbers game, just look at the population projections for this century. You lose.
That might come down to setting up a quiet eugenics program that makes available "family planning" equally to all people. If you assume that everyone is equally responsible (in the sense of having a view of their own situation and future needs) it makes sense that poor people who, on average, are dumber, will choose to have fewer children, while wealthier people who can afford it will have more.
IRL it turns out duller people are less good at thinking about the future and so use these services less than expected, while smarter people see potential advantage over their peers and better early life yields, and use them more. So the eugenics program ends up selecting for low intelligence, the opposite of what was anticipated, and birthrates collapse among higher achievers.
But what do you do about it? End the program? Nah, the yuppies will have a cow. Let's learn things the hard way.
Low IQ poor people have as many children as they can on the principle that one or more of them will look after them in their old age. Low IQ poor live hand to mouth, day to day, so calculations of economic factors don’t really play a part. The only effective brakes on low IQ reproduction rates are food and water availability but restrictions need to be to the point of starvation and death to have any significant effect. Remember the pictures of emaciated African women and starving babies.
I don't think the lowest do it “so that” anything. Lower intelligence doesn't look toward the future. Those same africans don't plan for tomorrow, let alone retirement. Once heard an african bragging that her culture doesn't have a word for “the future” as if this was some profound philosophical stance. But, the outcome is the same.
Thing is smarter, more successful people used to have tons of kids too. And more of them survived to adulthood and thrived in turn. But once given the option not to, without resorting to abstinence, many took it.
Anyway in worst case scenario the trend will reverse on its own due to collapse. Without the means to produce excess resources for consumption by nonproductive people, let alone complex pharmaceuticals and medical procedures, the masses of helplessly dull people will starve and the fitter ones won't have the option to avoid reproduction. Things will come back into balance on their own, though it will take a long time and many horrors. Question is do we have to get there the hard way, and all signs presently point to yes.
Try living in a "developing" country in SE Asia and talking to people. Theory guides but experiment decides. In the edge cases yes, they're animals with a lower IQ than an Orang Utan which is the case in parts of Sub-Saharan Africa.
If you have watched The Sopranos you saw the Italian-American community begin to distance itself from the crime ridden Mafia. When does the apparent tolerance for crime within the black community along with the acceptance by black school administrators of the disruption of classrooms by out of control individuals begin to end? When will black fathers who fail to care for and love their children and especially their boy children be openly censured by black leadership? The young Chris Rock joked about these issues but he clearly now censors himself.
On X, now without censorship thanks to Elon Musk, out of control violence has become standard fodder for ridicule with blacks typically being the most violent group depicted. Unfortunately, the stereotype of black violence is rooted in reality.
Where white people decide to live, shop, vacation and even if they are willing to use public transit (especially women) has been for decades largely based on avoiding large groups of black people because of their perceived and actual tendency to engage in violence. The term white flight has always been used as a slur when, in truth, it means white common sense.
Why do the Democrats always appear to be on their back foot on the issue of black violent crime? Why do they allow Trump to take the lead on this issue while they hem and haw? Why not make fighting murderers, car jackers and rapists a top priority of the Democratic Party and especially of Democratic mayors? There is simply no political logic to being seen as soft on crime when the majority of crime victims are the very minorities the Democrats are supposed to champion. The single most important thing Democrats could do to save the lives of young black men would be to reinstitute the police policy of “stop and frisk” in black neighborhoods to stop the carrying of illegal guns. This would stem the tide of murders of blacks that fill the nightly news in every major city in America and yet is hidden in plain sight. These kids would quickly get the message and quit carrying illegally. Young black men (15-34) are just 2% of the population and yet commit about half of the nation’s homicides. A rate an astounding 50 times higher than the average American. They are the nation’s gun violence problem. They are also the primary victims of these murders with about 6,000 killed every year. We need to save their lives in spite of the insane ACLU and its bullshit niceties.
J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen’s work (notably 2005, 2010) argues that racial differences in average IQ scores are significantly influenced by genetics. They suggested an 80% genetic and 20% environmental model to explain a 15-point Black-White IQ gap, placing East Asians higher and Africans lower.
Key Aspects of the Rushton & Jensen Study
Race and IQ Review: Rushton and Jensen (2005) argued that the mean IQ scores show a consistent pattern across different populations: East Asians (106), Whites (100), and African Americans/Sub-Saharan Africans (85/70).
Heritability Claim: They argued that the Black–White IQ difference is about 80% heritable and that race differences are most pronounced on g (general factor) loaded tests.
Biological Traits: They proposed that racial differences in brain size and other life-history traits (e.g., speed of maturation) correlate with IQ differences.
Methodological Basis: Their review covered 14 topics, including within-race heritability, cross-racial adoption, and racial admixture studies.
- My understanding is that the average percent of Neanderthal DNA in the race, the higher the average IQ score for that race.
You assume that the race of the sampled murderers in your survey must be the causative factor, that there can be no other. That's not science. That's an ideologue finding a convenient fact.
Were these Black men under the already ridiculously low poverty line? What kind of environments did they grow up in? What were they taught, by both the people who raised them and by society as a whole? Were they arrested as a juvenile for some petty crime that I would have received a slap on the wrist and maybe a fine for?
Sorry, but I don't believe there's much of a difference in intellectual capacity between people with different melanin levels and shapes of eyes and noses. The white race didn't even exist until the 17th Century, when English planters invented it in order to create a "yeoman" class to protect them from their slaves.
What can I say? We've been lied to all our lives, man.
Unfortunately even controlling for socioeconomic background and adverse childhood experiences, the differences persist. These and other objections have been tested and found inadequate to explain the disparity.
You may not want to believe this or that, but after 60 years now of pretending otherwise and building policies around playing pretend, the outcome did not improve.
If you desire better outcomes more than you desire to play pretend, it might be time to come up with policies that at least tentatively accept apparent reality and try those instead. Who is helped by delaying this change, and how? Will the feelings of east asians be spared if we refuse to notice they're shorter on average, while making a moral virtue out of tallness and building everything four inches higher than is comfortable for the average Chinese person? That seems like it would breed resentment and conspiracy theory. If so, why not intelligence, or violence, or whatever else?
Denial of reality is a form of psychological manipulation used to control others. Narcissists and psychopaths deliberately deny and distort reality in order to maintain dominance and avoid accountability. What used to be relatively hidden in individual relationships is being writ large across a societal spectrum.
See the SPLC indictment.
If he throws on a dress and calls himself Sally, he can claim to be a Jewish trans, a double whammy!
So Flippin poetic, Jersey! <3
Most people - white and black - are aware of the racial differences and have been for a long time but don't say it out loud. What those people do, though, while virtue-signaling that "I'm not racist" is to still avoid heavily black areas of town, where they know crime is rampant.
However, whatever you think about picking your own cotton, we are all here and we all have to, somehow, live together.
Now getting to be an old man, I try to be honest with myself. Yes, there are clearly racial differences in multiple areas; denying that different varieties of humans differ is equivalent to saying different varieties of dogs have the same capabilities - and most importantly, the same temperament. They don't and neither do humans.
So what do I do? First, it's a dead end to beat the drum about crime statistics; we all know what they say, and rubbing everybody's nose in it gets us nowhere. I treat everyone with respect, but I'm not blind. To my eye, at least, the Very Best Path - and it's not perfect - is to enforce the law equally. Acknowledge where crime lives and police it accordingly. Secondly, I avoid interaction with blacks I don't know, especially young men, and VERY especially if they are in a group. We've all seen the pack-of-dogs attacks, and you just might not survive that. Thirdly, when I must travel to unfamiliar areas, I am armed, I am very aware of my surroundings, and I don't take my family.
So simply put, the State must enforce the law and individuals must protect themselves - by vigilance always and by force if necessary. And in the meantime we need to stop the State's playing Daddy to single mothers and require sperm donors to step up to the plate and support their offspring - black, white, other. It has been well established that the strongest deterrence to crime is an adult male in the home; since Johnson's Great Society experiment in the 'sixties, this is becoming in all races increasingly rare. Yes, Pogo, we have met the enemy and he is our own government.
Faith & Family. Saying these words has a real nice ring to it. Almost like they were meant to be. I wonder if the real fight is over preventing those of us who weren’t exposed to this growing up from returning to humankind’s baseline.?
I get along way better with a black farmer whose family has farmed the same land for generations than ANY white person from a city.
I have a black neighbor/farmer - good guy and good friend - and I live in a majority-black county. It is quite pleasant. The difference here, I believe, is that people are quite religious and families are intact. I don't go into inner Richmond, though.
In the late 1970s, when the US was trying to arm a certain Muslim-dominant country with technology to fight another Muslim-dominant country, it became (very) clear, (very) quickly to the US trainers that Muslims had a very, very (add a few more if you like) hard time "learing" how to fly this technology. And it was downright scary and impossible to teach them to fly this technology at night. This is because of something, let's call, "brain power." As it turns out, these trainers observed that increased rates of cousin-f*cking have a high negative correlation to this thing called "brain power" and made training even the best of these people (on this $40MM per hit, piece of technology) an absurd and idiotic waste of time and resources.
I feel confident this was just racismz.
Precisely pertinent to my thoughts when reading today’s missive.
There is an underlying problem in today’s society—we in the West, as a people, are getting stupider!
I understand and do not dispute the point being made in today’s hypothetical, but it perhaps skips over the underlying basis of the problem (IMHO). People (in the main) can no longer rationally think and deduce as they once did. Yes, there are other contributing factors as well, but the decrease in intelligence of folk cannot be denied. The “Smart Fraction” is being strained. AI will not save us.
Cousin marriage is an obvious example of genetic deterioration. A not so obvious example is the more gradual increase in what Woodley calls “Spiteful Mutants”. Strict Darwinian selection stopped with the Industrial Revolution and a century or two later we are experiencing the result.
I'm not certain of that - which isn't to say I disagree (quite) - it's just to say that I could make an equally compelling argument that the education system is making us "seem" dumber on the whole. For example, the same time period you describe is when Fisher's p-values and the Popperian notion of falsification - the denial of induction - came to predominate, and then Solvay happened and we reified ignorance (to paraphrase Jaynes) by "consensus". We decided that the Universe was indeterminate and so we stopped looking for cause in physics. Those things in combination with our food poisoning system (also over the same period) may very well make us look "stupider" when in reality it's been a series of choices to simply give up on the accumulation of objective knowledge - i.e. science - and also stop demanding that people become better. Add in the CRA in the 60s and suddenly what looks statistically like "WE R DUMB" may not really be true. Again, that's not quite a refutation of your underlying point, but it at least provides a pathway to some fixes that could make a marked difference in a single generation. Cheers.
Of course. Those are the contributing factors of which I mentioned. A long monograph could be written describing such factors. I cannot improve upon your insights. Let me add a couple of points.
1) I emphasize the term intelligence, but the reality is that with intelligence are often inherent behavioral aspects important to the discussion. Those I’ve not mentioned. They deserve higher emphasis than I give them. A good, productive life is not simply “book smarts”.
2) An anecdote wrt education. I am not saying that we have declined in 1 generation. The measured “decline” in IQ goes back 100 years (4-5 generations). Such is not in dispute. Examinations and original IQ test administered a century ago have been re-administered to current generations. The results do not match prior test takers. Hard to go back that far and blame every aspect of intelligence decline upon environment, which by the way is not shown for some of our racial divisions.
Three generations ago when I applied for university entry, there were admission standards than needed to be met. My University required the ACT College Entry Exam as well as HS transcripts. If your score was deficient in one or more areas, or in total, you simply were not admitted. Rather you were told to consider an alternative—say Community College. A few years ago, this *same* university boasted that they had record minority enrollment and that 40% (!) of the student population were enrolled in remedial coursework! Primarily, Maths, English, and Writing.
So which came first. A decline in student ability or a decrease in standards? I’d say student ability first.
I believe we are in violent agreement. ;-)
I’m flattered. Agreement is not necessary, only exchange of considered opinion. My major professor once said to me, “If you are the smartest guy in the room—you’re in the wrong room!”. Fortunately I’ve not had such problem in my academic career and in this comment group in particular. ;-)
Frimer should stand tall. He was right. There is a difference in IQs between blacks and whites and, just for a change of pace, black skulls are thicker than white skulls. Blacks are about 13% of the population, but in areas across the country, they commit 50% of the crimes.
I don't have to walk back the truth. I'm self-employed.
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth's centre. With the feeling that he was speaking to O'Brien, and also that he was setting forth an important axiom, he wrote:
“‘Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.’”
— From “1984” by George Orwell. This is more apt with every passing day.
Reality wins in the end, so it is said, but fantasy is on a nearly century-long roll right now. People (especially the young) are less afraid to discuss reality in public, which is good, but the chokepoints in our culture are firmly in the hands of the effeminate. And our judges, with a few exceptions, seem uninterested in doing anything to hinder their chances of getting invited to fashionable cocktail parties
Two and a halfish centuries if you count from the French revolution, longer if you count from "the reformation"
Contrast with:
'“Shorter life expectancy among men in general, if likely avoidable, would clearly be an issue of public health importance based on the magnitude of potential population impact. However, men as a group have more wealth, influence, and prestige, so this difference would not be a social injustice and, therefore, not a health disparity or equity issue.”
That statement was written in a paper published in the American Journal of Public Health in 2011. The title of the paper is “Health Disparities and Health Equity: The Issue Is Justice,” and it has been downloaded over 97,000 times according to the publisher’s website and cited over 1,400 times according to Google Scholar. The lead author of the paper is Paula Braveman, who is currently a professor emeritus at the University of California – San Francisco.
https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/mens-health-prejudice?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1071344&post_id=191553755&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=6mos7&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
But at least the Southern Poverty Law Center have been found out fabricating bs so that they it could pay the leadership. The business of alleged racism:
Director Patel Announces Federal Charges Against SPLC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z762c8Dlqus
I know that it took many, many years to get this corrupt, and that it will take a while to root it out, but unless these crooks get tossed into prison for a very long time, revelation of wrong-doing without serious consequences for the transgreasors are exercises in demoralization.
Often put more directly as, anything bad that happens to women is the fault of men while anything bad that happens to a man is his own stupid fault.
Unlike height, most people believe that smarter is better. The flip side of that is dumber is worse, so any argument that says one group is smarter than another implies that one group is better than another. Such an implication is intolerable to the egalitarian mindset.
And this is their key error. Their own sense of moral superiority.
On the other hand reproduction rates suggest smarter is worse. Biology is a numbers game, just look at the population projections for this century. You lose.
That might come down to setting up a quiet eugenics program that makes available "family planning" equally to all people. If you assume that everyone is equally responsible (in the sense of having a view of their own situation and future needs) it makes sense that poor people who, on average, are dumber, will choose to have fewer children, while wealthier people who can afford it will have more.
IRL it turns out duller people are less good at thinking about the future and so use these services less than expected, while smarter people see potential advantage over their peers and better early life yields, and use them more. So the eugenics program ends up selecting for low intelligence, the opposite of what was anticipated, and birthrates collapse among higher achievers.
But what do you do about it? End the program? Nah, the yuppies will have a cow. Let's learn things the hard way.
Low IQ poor people have as many children as they can on the principle that one or more of them will look after them in their old age. Low IQ poor live hand to mouth, day to day, so calculations of economic factors don’t really play a part. The only effective brakes on low IQ reproduction rates are food and water availability but restrictions need to be to the point of starvation and death to have any significant effect. Remember the pictures of emaciated African women and starving babies.
I don't think the lowest do it “so that” anything. Lower intelligence doesn't look toward the future. Those same africans don't plan for tomorrow, let alone retirement. Once heard an african bragging that her culture doesn't have a word for “the future” as if this was some profound philosophical stance. But, the outcome is the same.
Thing is smarter, more successful people used to have tons of kids too. And more of them survived to adulthood and thrived in turn. But once given the option not to, without resorting to abstinence, many took it.
Anyway in worst case scenario the trend will reverse on its own due to collapse. Without the means to produce excess resources for consumption by nonproductive people, let alone complex pharmaceuticals and medical procedures, the masses of helplessly dull people will starve and the fitter ones won't have the option to avoid reproduction. Things will come back into balance on their own, though it will take a long time and many horrors. Question is do we have to get there the hard way, and all signs presently point to yes.
Try living in a "developing" country in SE Asia and talking to people. Theory guides but experiment decides. In the edge cases yes, they're animals with a lower IQ than an Orang Utan which is the case in parts of Sub-Saharan Africa.
Idiocracy?
“Crying Victim is not a bad move, but I think it will fail because blacks outrank Jews in the Victim Calculus.”
I’m sure Claudine Gay would disagree with you on this.
As I do.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away" - Phillip K. Dick
If you have watched The Sopranos you saw the Italian-American community begin to distance itself from the crime ridden Mafia. When does the apparent tolerance for crime within the black community along with the acceptance by black school administrators of the disruption of classrooms by out of control individuals begin to end? When will black fathers who fail to care for and love their children and especially their boy children be openly censured by black leadership? The young Chris Rock joked about these issues but he clearly now censors himself.
On X, now without censorship thanks to Elon Musk, out of control violence has become standard fodder for ridicule with blacks typically being the most violent group depicted. Unfortunately, the stereotype of black violence is rooted in reality.
Where white people decide to live, shop, vacation and even if they are willing to use public transit (especially women) has been for decades largely based on avoiding large groups of black people because of their perceived and actual tendency to engage in violence. The term white flight has always been used as a slur when, in truth, it means white common sense.
Why do the Democrats always appear to be on their back foot on the issue of black violent crime? Why do they allow Trump to take the lead on this issue while they hem and haw? Why not make fighting murderers, car jackers and rapists a top priority of the Democratic Party and especially of Democratic mayors? There is simply no political logic to being seen as soft on crime when the majority of crime victims are the very minorities the Democrats are supposed to champion. The single most important thing Democrats could do to save the lives of young black men would be to reinstitute the police policy of “stop and frisk” in black neighborhoods to stop the carrying of illegal guns. This would stem the tide of murders of blacks that fill the nightly news in every major city in America and yet is hidden in plain sight. These kids would quickly get the message and quit carrying illegally. Young black men (15-34) are just 2% of the population and yet commit about half of the nation’s homicides. A rate an astounding 50 times higher than the average American. They are the nation’s gun violence problem. They are also the primary victims of these murders with about 6,000 killed every year. We need to save their lives in spite of the insane ACLU and its bullshit niceties.
When I was growing up, the rare existence of a woman who was as tall as a man was described as the exception that proved the rule. Makes sense to me.
J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen’s work (notably 2005, 2010) argues that racial differences in average IQ scores are significantly influenced by genetics. They suggested an 80% genetic and 20% environmental model to explain a 15-point Black-White IQ gap, placing East Asians higher and Africans lower.
Key Aspects of the Rushton & Jensen Study
Race and IQ Review: Rushton and Jensen (2005) argued that the mean IQ scores show a consistent pattern across different populations: East Asians (106), Whites (100), and African Americans/Sub-Saharan Africans (85/70).
Heritability Claim: They argued that the Black–White IQ difference is about 80% heritable and that race differences are most pronounced on g (general factor) loaded tests.
Biological Traits: They proposed that racial differences in brain size and other life-history traits (e.g., speed of maturation) correlate with IQ differences.
Methodological Basis: Their review covered 14 topics, including within-race heritability, cross-racial adoption, and racial admixture studies.
- My understanding is that the average percent of Neanderthal DNA in the race, the higher the average IQ score for that race.
You assume that the race of the sampled murderers in your survey must be the causative factor, that there can be no other. That's not science. That's an ideologue finding a convenient fact.
Were these Black men under the already ridiculously low poverty line? What kind of environments did they grow up in? What were they taught, by both the people who raised them and by society as a whole? Were they arrested as a juvenile for some petty crime that I would have received a slap on the wrist and maybe a fine for?
Sorry, but I don't believe there's much of a difference in intellectual capacity between people with different melanin levels and shapes of eyes and noses. The white race didn't even exist until the 17th Century, when English planters invented it in order to create a "yeoman" class to protect them from their slaves.
What can I say? We've been lied to all our lives, man.
Unfortunately even controlling for socioeconomic background and adverse childhood experiences, the differences persist. These and other objections have been tested and found inadequate to explain the disparity.
You may not want to believe this or that, but after 60 years now of pretending otherwise and building policies around playing pretend, the outcome did not improve.
If you desire better outcomes more than you desire to play pretend, it might be time to come up with policies that at least tentatively accept apparent reality and try those instead. Who is helped by delaying this change, and how? Will the feelings of east asians be spared if we refuse to notice they're shorter on average, while making a moral virtue out of tallness and building everything four inches higher than is comfortable for the average Chinese person? That seems like it would breed resentment and conspiracy theory. If so, why not intelligence, or violence, or whatever else?
Omg I’m curled up in the fetal position, screaming in my World’s Best Dog Mom t-shirt, at the EVIL I’ve just read
/sarc