[larkin]

Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A broad category of shared ancestry. Family<clan<tribe<ethnic group<race. More variation within race but that includes all SNPs, average differences in positively selected genes between race exist. This is evident in other polygenic traits like height and skin color. It doesn't matter what you call it. g is an abstraction of a brain's ability to handle complexity of information of any kind and its importance increases as complexity increases. Low g people are burdened in a complex world, they can't be expected to advance economically and realize the American dream when labor supply overmatches availability of low skill jobs.

It should be apparent now that your completely abstract "definitions" of race and intelligence are anything but quantifiable, much less meaningfully correlated, much less still having a genetic basis.

	Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Ultimately, many liberals actually do, it's a trend not a strawman. [...] Not assumption, awareness of statistics. (Objective standards can probably be applied there, but a difference between essay writing and race is one of relevance).

Simply asserting again that a group believes something when you have no evidence to support it - there's only one group here placing blame for an achievement gap, and it's not "liberals" - is not a very good defense against the charge of strawman. Similarly, asserting that it's not an assumption that people were unqualified but statistics - when your assumption or statistics or however you'd like to phrase it is factually inaccurate, the program had a 100% graduation rate - is flatly absurd.

[phoboser]

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It should be apparent now that your completely abstract "definitions" of race and intelligence are anything but quantifiable, much less meaningfully correlated, much less still having a genetic basis.

Nonsense, but I don't care to confront ideology with empiricism.

Simply asserting again that a group believes something when you have no evidence to support it - there's only one group here placing blame for an achievement gap, and it's not "liberals" - is not a very good defense against the charge of strawman. Similarly, asserting that it's not an assumption that people were unqualified but statistics - when your assumption or statistics or however you'd like to phrase it is factually inaccurate, the program had a 100% graduation rate - is flatly absurd.

You don't have to look any further than this thread. I speak to a general trend, one which you exemplify: the denial of evidence for or even the plausibilty of a genetic origin, and the implicit attribution of blame to the color-mindedness of society, which you have used as justification for AA being implemented for countermeasure. Subtle racism, institutional racism, low expectations, caste mentality, stereotype threat have all been promulgated by the left as the cause(s), this naturally foments white blame. You're dissembling as usual.

Statistically they concentrate at the bottom class quartile and have higher dropout rates which leaves them less able to pay off the debt they accrued. Anyway, graduation similarity doesn't say much about performance differences before graduation.

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Nonsense, but I don't care to confront ideology with empiricism.

What empiricism? You can't even define the terms;

	Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You don't have to look any further than this thread. I speak to a general trend, one which you exemplify: the denial of evidence for or even the plausibilty of a genetic origin

That has nothing to do with assigning blame - or to the extent it does, it's your totally unsupported attempt to assign blame to genetics;

	Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	and the implicit attribution of blame to the color-mindedness of society, which you have used as justification for AA being implemented for countermeasure.

I never assigned blame, and I certainly never attempted to justify affirmative action, whatever that means - unless, I suppose, it's the statement shared by my university that I'd rather have a diverse body of students with a wider GPA range than a body of students with a very narrow GPA range; and

	Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Statistically they concentrate at the bottom class quartile and have higher dropout rates which leaves them less able to pay off the debt they accrued. Anyway, graduation similarity doesn't say much about performance differences before graduation.

You again assume performance differences when there were none. All of these students were a highly qualified, high achieving, select group of students at the university. We're talking about less than the top 1% of the university class. You could say you didn't know that, but I've said they were highly qualified repeatedly. You just choose not to believe it.

[phoboser]

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What empiricism? You can't even define the terms;

Was a time we couldn't define heat, but we could measure its average kinetic energy (temperature). What exactly is gravity, is there agreement? Doesn't stop us from knowing the sun has more than the earth. I guess sickle cell anemia can't differentially affect blacks because race doesn't exit. Enough of these
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

	That has nothing to do with assigning blame

Yes it does, it necessarily implicates environment, of which glaring racial inequality of outcome is a part.

	I never assigned blame, and I certainly never attempted to justify affirmative action,

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	We did this because this painted a better picture of a school I actually wanted to go to. What is wrong with that? You said yourself the world isn't colorblind

Sounds like a justification based on assignment of blame. The world views races differently, racial inequality exists, the color-mindedness causes the inequality, color-minded policies are needed to correct this.

Or maybe it was something like "I can discriminate based on race when it serves my personal interests because others can."

	You again assume performance differences when there were none. All of these students were a highly qualified, high achieving, select group of students at the university. We're talking about less than the top 1% of the university class. You could say you didn't know that, but I've said they were highly qualified repeatedly. You just choose not to believe it.

The fact that this student body is the cream of the crop proves that race-based policies were needed to achieve the frequency of brown faces in the crowd that makes your heart skip a beat. For every black person admitted at this level, hundreds of better qualified Jews, whites, and asians had to be rejected.

[firebee]

Announcing the release of Skinhead 2.0!

New and improved, with all sorts of revolutionary features like...

• Natural language euphemization!
• Up to five levels of exciting indirection!
• Now with completely revamped and modernized White Man's Burden!
• 65% fewer distorted prison tattoos of hammers and runes and spears and stuff!

Buy now, we guarantee you'll like it just as much as you like those persons of Sub-Saharan African descent who are simply genetically destined to be better at picking cotton than practicing law!

[Ray9]

	Buy now, we guarantee you'll like it just as much as you like those persons of Sub-Saharan African descent who are simply genetically destined to be better at picking cotton than practicing law!

Smearing opposing points of view with unpopular labels and practices is the common practice of left-leaning philosophy. Sarcasm has a place but it should be used sparingly and appropriately.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Smearing opposing points of view with unpopular labels and practices is the common practice of left-leaning philosophy. Sarcasm has a place but it should be used sparingly and appropriately.

Get used to it, Ray. If you don't agree with their view of things, you're either racist, a *phobe, or ignorant, and use the loophole in trolling to say so.

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Smearing opposing points of view with unpopular labels and practices is the common practice of left-leaning philosophy.

Repackaging tired old racial tropes into pseudoscientific racialist jargon is the thing to do when the old labels have become unpopular. The common approach to leeching self-esteem from a process of setting up contrasts against the qualities of others, as opposed to deriving self-esteem solely from one's own accomplishments, is what persists.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Get used to it, Ray.

The libr-zionist conspiracy is the reason I'm not a winner.

[Synamon]

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Smearing opposing points of view with unpopular labels and practices is the common practice of left-leaning philosophy. Sarcasm has a place but it should be used sparingly and appropriately.

I had no idea that the tea party was a left-leaning philosophy. Thanks for clearing that up Ray9. Their smear campaign against the NAACP has been full of those tactics. In particular, the mocking
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
from "Coloured People" written by one of the party leaders was inappropriate.

[Ray9]

	I had no idea that the tea party was a left-leaning philosophy. Thanks for clearing that up Ray9. Their smear campaign against the NAACP has been full of those tactics. In particular, the mocking open letter to Lincoln from "Coloured People" written by one of the party leaders was inappropriate.

Not sure what the point here is. The hypocrisy card is worthless because his organization has been expelled from the Tea Party Movement. His points could have been made without resort to such race-baiting terminology as massa and coloreds which plays right into the hands of the left.

[firebee]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Get used to it, Ray. If you don't agree with their view of things, you're either racist, a *phobe, or ignorant, and use the loophole in trolling to say so. The mods seem to be the worst.

I know, right? I mean, if it's implied that a dude who's been arguing extensively that black folks are intellectually inferior might be racist, then nobody's safe from such completely unfounded and cruel accusations!

What is this world coming to, when you can't even talk in relatively transparent code about how dumb niggers are without having some bleeding-heart liberal getting on your case about it?

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	which plays right into the hands of the left.

That was the real problem with it, eh?

[Ray9]

	What is this world coming to, when you can't even talk in relatively transparent code about how dumb niggers are without having some bleeding-heart liberal getting on your case about it?

That's a dangerously simplistic model to use and one that insults your opposition. All people who disagree with your veiw to not think in these terms though some do. If you want to demean an argument by painting it with a broad brush of racism then you are no better than a racist.

[SeaCzar]

Originally Posted by firebee To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I know, right? I mean, if it's implied that a dude who's been arguing extensively that black folks are intellectually inferior might be racist, then nobody's safe from such completely unfounded and cruel accusations! What is this world coming to, when you can't even talk in relatively transparent code about how dumb niggers are without having some bleeding-heart liberal getting on your case about it?

This is at best insulting. Dare one suggest that there is no shortage of ignorance and stupidity, irrespective of race.

What the debate here has become is an argument about qualifications. Three guys apply to college or for a job, John, Joe and George. John is by far the most qualified, by whatever measure you can use. Why would you not admit/hire John? John happens to be white, or black. So what? Would you not want the most qualified applicant? What am I missing here?

This came (sort of) up when the Chicago Bears played the Indianapolis Colts in the Super Bowl a few years back. Both teams had black men as their head coaches. What's the big deal? I do not give a rat's ass what colour my coach is. If he can get my team to the Super Bowl, he is obviously the best qualified.

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That's a dangerously simplistic model to use and one that insults your opposition.

Wait, since when do you have a problem with insulting oversimplifications?

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by SeaCzar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What the debate here has become is an argument about qualifications. Three guys apply to college or for a job, John, Joe and George. John is by far the most qualified, by whatever measure you can use. Why would you not admit/hire John? John happens to be white, or black. So what? Would you not want the most qualified applicant? What am I missing here?

phoboser's argument is more like: even if John, Joe, and George are all top candidates, and equally qualified, if George is black I know there are hundreds of better qualified white, asian and jewish candidates, because that's just science.

Even if he can't define who's "black" with a method any better than the brown paper bag test, as he admits below:

	Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Was a time we couldn't define heat, but we could measure its average kinetic energy (temperature). What exactly is gravity, is there agreement? Doesn't stop us from knowing the sun has more than the earth. I guess sickle cell anemia can't differentially affect blacks because race doesn't exit. Enough of these red herrings.

The basic definitions that you're unable to make are not "red herrings," they're actually essential to anyone's understanding of race and genetics. Racial genetic diversity exists on a continuum; in terms of genetics race is not divided into neat or even meaningful categories like "causcasian". Racial categories are a social construct invented to justify eugenics. Which probably explains why some people, including phoboser, still include being Jewish as a "race" even though a.) it's actually a religious and ethnic definition and b.) that habit largely fell out of popular practice with Hitler in the 30s.

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That's a dangerously simplistic model to use and one that insults your opposition. All people who disagree with your veiw to not think in these terms though some do. If you want to demean an argument by painting it with a broad brush of racism then you are no better than a racist.

I love how in a world of permanent white victimization, it's not racist if people make generalizations about the inferiority of groups of people based on their race - which is actually the definition of the term - but it is racist to call someone who makes exactly those generalizations racist. Oh, unless you're conservative and the person you're calling racist is Shirley Sherrod. If the person you're calling racist actually isn't one and you were just slandering her, that isn't racist. That's just good politics.

[phoboser]

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	phoboser's argument is more like: even if John, Joe, and George are all top candidates, and equally qualified, if George is black I know there are hundreds of better qualified white, asian and jewish candidates, because that's just science.

Grossly inaccurate strawman. My argument is that as the importance of g in meeting qualifications increases, blacks are increasingly disproportionately less likely to meet those qualifications. In order to achieve respresentative parity, non-competence related criteria must be disporportionately applied to black candidates. As this happens, members of groups who are moreso judged by competence-related criteria become disproportionately more likely to be rejected in favor of less competent candidates, who are disproportionately black. This is why AA creates racial resentment and devaluation of black accomplishments. Without AA there will still be blacks admitted to all universities.

Why did you treat race as a qualifying criterion? Why do you think race factors into whether one is as equally qualified as another?

The basic definitions that you're unable to make are not "red herrings," they're actually essential to anyone's understanding of race and genetics. Racial genetic diversity exists on a continuum; in terms of genetics race is not divided into neat or even meaningful categories like "causcasian". Racial categories are a social construct invented to justify eugenics. Which probably explains why some people, including phoboser, still include being Jewish as a "race" even though a.) it's actually a religious and ethnic definition and b.) that habit largely fell out of popular practice with Hitler in the 30s.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Self-identified race (as a social construct) correlates extremely well with quantifiable ancestry. The social construct is rooted in genetics which correlate with g, which is why g correlates with the social categorization of race. That there will never be consilience of opinion over what level of interracial discreteness must exist before correlations between g and population genetics can have any bearing on the social categorization is a red herring.

I never said Jews were a race. They're an ethnic group of shared ancestry. Hitler and eugenics make their obligatory appearance.

	I love how in a world of permanent white victimization

People are victimized by AA.

[larkin]

Here's what I said, that you called a "grossly inaccurate strawman":

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	phoboser's argument is more like: even if John, Joe, and George are all top candidates, and equally qualified, if George is black I know there are hundreds of better qualified white, asian and jewish candidates, because that's just science.

Here's what you actually said in response to my statement that everyone admitted at that level was eminently qualified:

	Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	For every black person admitted at this level, hundreds of better qualified Jews, whites, and asians had to be rejected.

How is this a strawman? It's almost a direct quote.

Similarly, you claim:

	Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I never said Jews were a race. They're an ethnic group of shared ancestry.

When you specifically included them with a list of races listed as above. Aren't there white Jews? Or are what you believe to be genetically identifiable racial categories maybe just bullshit?

[phoboser]

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Here's what you actually said in response to my statement that everyone admitted at that level was eminently qualified: [...]

Which accords with my clarification. That you continue to misinterpret my original statement after I clarified its meaning implies deliberateness.

	When you specifically included them with a list of races listed as above. Aren't there white Jews? Or are what you believe to be genetically identifiable racial categories maybe just bullshit?

Which, I admit, can be inferred the way you inferred it when I hadn't established that I accept the widely understood distinction between Jewish ethnicity and race. Because the distinction is so widely understood, I didn't think it was necessary.

It's Ashkenazi Jews that I was referring to, specifically.

Edit: Here. For every black person admitted under AA at this level, hundreds of better qualified Jews, whites, and asians had to be rejected. Better, now context is explicit when before it was (supposed to be) assumed by both parties.

[blueback]

So you have a source to back up the assertion that the average black person is 100 places lower on the ranking of competencey than the average non-black person? That must be what you're saying. If the average black person was any more competent then that is the black person who'd be selected, instead of the one 100 places back.

Its amazing black people ever get hired for anything when there are so many more qualified applicants.

I wonder what the 100 people more qualified than Colin Powell decided to do after they didn't get hired to be Secretary of State.

[SeaCzar]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I wonder what the 100 people more qualified than Colin Powell decided to do after they didn't get hired to be Secretary of State.

Colin Powell is a great example. Condoleezza Rice is an even better one. Irrespective of what one may think of her political leanings, she is brilliant.

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by SeaCzar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...she is brilliant.

Now just imagine how brilliant those non-black people who didn't get her job would have been!

[phoboser]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So you have a source to back up the assertion that the average black person is 100 places lower on the ranking of competencey than the average non-black person? That must be what you're saying.

No, that's not it. The example larkin gave didn't concern the average person, but people at the extreme right tail of IQ distribution. Because the black norm is centered one SD to the left of the white norm and because the black variance is slightly more tight than white variance, the ratio of white to black individuals at the extreme right end is probably over 100 to 1. It's 30 to 1 at IQ125 (assuming equal population sizes), which is a lower level than the level she seems to be dealing with. High g is virtually synonymous with competency at this level, non-competence related criteria (like racial category) need to be applied to black candidates to increase their representation.

[blueback]

Wait, since when has IQ ever been a good predictor of competence?

[Pachystima]

Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

No, that's not it. The example larkin gave didn't concern the average person, but people at the extreme right tail of IQ distribution. Because the black norm is centered one SD to the left of the white norm and because the black variance is slightly more tight than white variance, the ratio of white to black individuals at the extreme right end is probably over 100 to 1. It's 30 to 1 at IQ125 (assuming equal population sizes), which is a lower level than the level she seems to be dealing with. High g is virtually synonymous with competency at this level, non-competence related criteria (like racial category) need to be applied to black candidates to increase their representation.

To me, this sounds like a lot of theoretical horse puckey. Puts me in mind of the engineer who stoutly maintained that it was theoretically impossible for bumblebees to fly. You need to learn a bit more about statistics and humanity.