Is math racist.

[JQPublic1]

Is it reasonable to believe that there are statistical differences in racial populations. For example, the Asian people of Japan are most likely shorter on average than Caucasian Americans on average. That being said, people usually don't take offense about differences in how tall people are. However, it is taboo to even suggest that there may be stastically differences in other attributes in racial populations. People are afraid to even suggest that one race may have a statistical advantage over another race when that attribute might be used to suggest that one race is superior to another. People don't want to be branded as racist for good reason.

Is it wrong to even study attributes such as IQ ,athletic ability, or other such attributes with regards to racial populations? Is math/statistics racist?

The results of IQ studies by race usually come from relatively small samplings. From that, a broad assumption is made about an entire segment of a population. Publicizing that data has hampered the efforts of some bright prospects to be all they can be in our society when employers associate the dismal findings of those studies with a certain group.
Racial stigmitization can occur when those doing the sampling have an agenda. And I suspect that is often the case. And those who consult those results to make decisions in hiring or. other social functions rarely consider that such studies tell you NOTHING about the person applying for a position. Some employers have thrown résumés of
Black applicants in the wastebasket without review juat based on the stastics of some study....not knowing if that Black applicant could be the brightest and best candidate of all.

 

[MyParentsAreProud]

2 buckets of fried chicken plus four watermelons equals nine EBT cards is not good math.

Many people of color have traded fried chicken for grilled or rotisserie chicken. But those watermelons are among the healthiest foods on the planet...so we aren't about to give those up. And more pink people use EBT cards than people of color do.

Look up the definition of per capita.

 

[Paul Essien]

However, it is taboo to even suggest that there may be stastically differences in other attributes in racial populations.

You can pretend that marginalized trash are actually hidden gems of knowledge only they and a select few others can see.

And NO - Everyone is not the same.

It’s clear that different cultures around the world define and express themselves quite differently. These differences are not initiated on the genetic level, and neatly distributed along traditional “racial” categories.

You assume “race” in humans as a biological fact without delivering a precise, uncontested biological definition

The science doesn’t support it.

As for the differences between groups, yes we acknowledge that human beings adapt to their geography to some extent – but not enough to become different *kinds* of human beings.

Now, if you choose to call the differences in groups “races” it stretches the original meaning of the word. But let’s accept that for a moment. You want races so badly, then I shall give them to you.

But you’re going to need more races (based on genetic variance) than they culled off in the past centuries. And the races won’t be arbitrarily colour-coordinated. There will be several European races, many Asian races, and a large number of African races.

Are you ready to accept “race” like that ?

People are afraid to even suggest that one race may have a statistical advantage over another race when that attribute might be used to suggest that one race is superior to another. People don't want to be branded as racist for good reason.

Not really

Black people according to:

• Thomas Jefferson in 1787: less intelligence, more sex drive, more likely to break the law, less self-control

• Guys like you in 2017 : less intelligence, more sex drive, more likely to break the law, less self-control

Science makes progress though discovery and disproof. It tries to knock down its own ideas because disproof is way easier than proof. It loves facts that do not fit because they point to new ideas and discoveries.

True science would find surprises, it would challenge old ideas, it would deepen our understanding. Guys like you do none of that – you just puts a fresh coat of paint of long words on ideas that go back to the slave owners and slave traders of the 1700s.

Guys like you never make new discoveries that go against its claims.

White people have been saying black people are stupid for over 250 years. Long before the IQ. But you act like, everything was hunky dory and this IQ thing and enlightened everyone.

Is it wrong to even study attributes such as IQ ,athletic ability, or other such attributes with regards to racial populations? Is math/statistics racist?

So what point are you making ?

 

[Meathead]

However, it is taboo to even suggest that there may be stastically differences in other attributes in racial populations.

You can pretend that marginalized trash are actually hidden gems of knowledge only they and a select few others can see.

And NO - Everyone is not the same.

It’s clear that different cultures around the world define and express themselves quite differently. These differences are not initiated on the genetic level, and neatly distributed along traditional “racial” categories.

You assume “race” in humans as a biological fact without delivering a precise, uncontested biological definition

The science doesn’t support it.

As for the differences between groups, yes we acknowledge that human beings adapt to their geography to some extent – but not enough to become different *kinds* of human beings.

Now, if you choose to call the differences in groups “races” it stretches the original meaning of the word. But let’s accept that for a moment. You want races so badly, then I shall give them to you.

But you’re going to need more races (based on genetic variance) than they culled off in the past centuries. And the races won’t be arbitrarily colour-coordinated. There will be several European races, many Asian races, and a large number of African races.

Are you ready to accept “race” like that ?

People are afraid to even suggest that one race may have a statistical advantage over another race when that attribute might be used to suggest that one race is superior to another. People don't want to be branded as racist for good reason.

Not really

Black people according to:

• Thomas Jefferson in 1787: less intelligence, more sex drive, more likely to break the law, less self-control

• Guys like you in 2017 : less intelligence, more sex drive, more likely to break the law, less self-control

Science makes progress though discovery and disproof. It tries to knock down its own ideas because disproof is way easier than proof. It loves facts that do not fit because they point to new ideas and discoveries.

True science would find surprises, it would challenge old ideas, it would deepen our understanding. Guys like you do none of that – you just puts a fresh coat of paint of long words on ideas that go back to the slave owners and slave traders of the 1700s.

Guys like you never make new discoveries that go against its claims.

White people have been saying black people are stupid for over 250 years. Long before the IQ. But you act like, everything was hunky dory and this IQ thing and enlightened everyone.

Is it wrong to even study attributes such as IQ ,athletic ability, or other such attributes with regards to racial populations? Is math/statistics racist?

So what point are you making ?

The point he was making is that blacks are less intelligent than other races. This is an indisputable fact and there is little evidence to suggest otherwise. It is nothing more than a grasp of the obvious.

 

[Paul Essien]

]The point he was making is that blacks are less intelligent than other races. This is an indisputable fact and there is little evidence to suggest otherwise. It is nothing more than a grasp of the obvious.

OK.

So what is a black person ? And what is intelligence ?

 

[Meathead]

]The point he was making is that blacks are less intelligent than other races. This is an indisputable fact and there is little evidence to suggest otherwise. It is nothing more than a grasp of the obvious.

OK.

So what is a black person ? And what is intelligence ?

A black person in US parlance is one whose roots can be traced back to sub-Saharan Africa. Among the common characteristics they share is low intellect compared with humans who evolved in other parts of the world. This is also a grasp of the obvious, although decidedly not politically correct and thus a bane to snowflakes of all races.

 

[Paul Essien]

A black person in US parlance is one whose roots can be traced back to sub-Saharan Africa.

Human evolution started in Africa. So all human beings roots are in Africa.

Are you saying that black people are a sub species of mankind ?

Are you claiming that the brain decided to develop differently if you had black skin ?

Among the common characteristics they share is low intellect compared with humans who evolved in other parts of the world.

Ok. So what is intelligence ?

 

[Meathead]

A black person in US parlance is one whose roots can be traced back to sub-Saharan Africa.

Human evolution started in Africa. So all human beings roots are in Africa.

Are you saying that black people are a sub species of mankind ?

Are you claiming that the brain decided to develop differently if you had black skin ?

Among the common characteristics they share is low intellect compared with humans who evolved in other parts of the world.

Ok. So what is intelligence ?

I'm saying that evolution adapted people to survive in their own habitat. The survival skills needed for sub-Saharan Africa are decidedly different from those needed for pastoral civilizations. Applied mathematics which go beyond counting to your 10 fingers is among them and the subject of this thread. Knowing how many bushels were produced and how many gold ducats they can be sold for is not the lot of hunter-gatherer societies, which were the apex of that part of Africa.

Stop asking me stupid questions. I would like to give you enough credit for understanding these things on your own and are simply being deliberately obtuse because they do not jibe with a narrative you'd like to pursue despite the obvious.

 

[Paul Essien]

I'm saying that evolution adapted people to survive in their own habitat.
The survival skills needed for sub-Saharan Africa are decidedly different from those needed for pastoral civilizations.

So are you saying that cold climates made white people smarter ? And warm climates made black people not as smart ?

And what is intelligence ?

Applied mathematics which go beyond counting to your 10 fingers is among them and the subject of this thread.

I don't understand the point your making here

Knowing how many bushels were produced and how many gold ducats they can be sold for is not the lot of hunter-gatherer societies, which were the apex of that part of Africa.

What would your argument be to people like Cheikh Anta Diop, Molefi Asante, and Walter Rodney and Ivan Van Sertima or watch Tariq Nasheed "Hidden Colors" series who claim that African is the birth os civilsization and that all the sciences came from Africa ?

And for you whose racism will lead you to dismiss black scholars, you can always examine the writings of Basil Davidson:1 of the most respected Africa scholars in modern history, who is decidedly both white and British.

Is this were you do the "We Wuz Kangz" thing. Right ?

Stop asking me stupid questions.

You're the on making an explicatory argument.

You’re saying black IQ is lower because blacks are “naturally” less intelligent.

That's an exceptionally radical statement.

So it needs exceptionally radical proof to back it up – proof which you don’t have.

You, see, If you are trying to ground IQ as a genetic product of race the very first thing you need to do is offer up a genetic or biological definition of race, something no one has not done nor has any study.

.But I’m sitting back, invite you to give me such a definition. Mainly because your fumbling attempts to define race point out just how subjective such definitions are. In close to a decade of debating race with guys like you.

I have yet to see any one of them - No matter what their scientific credentials - offer up an acceptably neutral definition of race.

Which are those “races” then, purely scientifically speaking and in clear text ?
What are the precise genetic criteria for making this classification ?

Those questions can obviously only be answered in arbitrary dimensions which are man-made constructs according to human perception alone.

However you twist it, you will run in circles and eventually spiral back into concepts based on human perception alone

I would like to give you enough credit for understanding these things on your own and are simply being deliberately obtuse because they do not jibe with a narrative you'd like to pursue despite the obvious.

What I'm asking is mild
.

 

[Unkotare]

]The point he was making is that blacks are less intelligent than other races. This is an indisputable fact and there is little evidence to suggest otherwise. It is nothing more than a grasp of the obvious.

OK.

So what is a black person ? And what is intelligence ?

A black person in US parlance is one whose roots can be traced back to sub-Saharan Africa. Among the common characteristics they share is low intellect compared with humans who evolved in other parts of the world. This is also a grasp of the obvious, although decidedly not politically correct and thus a bane to snowflakes of all races.

Irrational, insecure, ignorant bullshit is the bane of any thinking human being with the backbone to not live in fear of anyone who doesn’t look just like mommy.

 

[JoeMoma]

However, it is taboo to even suggest that there may be stastically differences in other attributes in racial populations.

You can pretend that marginalized trash are actually hidden gems of knowledge only they and a select few others can see.

And NO - Everyone is not the same.

It’s clear that different cultures around the world define and express themselves quite differently. These differences are not initiated on the genetic level, and neatly distributed along traditional “racial” categories.

You assume “race” in humans as a biological fact without delivering a precise, uncontested biological definition

The science doesn’t support it.

As for the differences between groups, yes we acknowledge that human beings adapt to their geography to some extent – but not enough to become different *kinds* of human beings.

Now, if you choose to call the differences in groups “races” it stretches the original meaning of the word. But let’s accept that for a moment. You want races so badly, then I shall give them to you.

But you’re going to need more races (based on genetic variance) than they culled off in the past centuries. And the races won’t be arbitrarily colour-coordinated. There will be several European races, many Asian races, and a large number of African races.

Are you ready to accept “race” like that ?

People are afraid to even suggest that one race may have a statistical advantage over another race when that attribute might be used to suggest that one race is superior to another. People don't want to be branded as racist for good reason.

Not really

Black people according to:

• Thomas Jefferson in 1787: less intelligence, more sex drive, more likely to break the law, less self-control

• Guys like you in 2017 : less intelligence, more sex drive, more likely to break the law, less self-control

Science makes progress though discovery and disproof. It tries to knock down its own ideas because disproof is way easier than proof. It loves facts that do not fit because they point to new ideas and discoveries.

True science would find surprises, it would challenge old ideas, it would deepen our understanding. Guys like you do none of that – you just puts a fresh coat of paint of long words on ideas that go back to the slave owners and slave traders of the 1700s.

Guys like you never make new discoveries that go against its claims.

White people have been saying black people are stupid for over 250 years. Long before the IQ. But you act like, everything was hunky dory and this IQ thing and enlightened everyone.

Is it wrong to even study attributes such as IQ ,athletic ability, or other such attributes with regards to racial populations? Is math/statistics racist?

So what point are you making ?

The point he was making is that blacks are less intelligent than other races. This is an indisputable fact and there is little evidence to suggest otherwise. It is nothing more than a grasp of the obvious.

I'm not trying to make that point because I'm not delving into the numbers.

 

[Meathead]

I'm saying that evolution adapted people to survive in their own habitat.
The survival skills needed for sub-Saharan Africa are decidedly different from those needed for pastoral civilizations.

So are you saying that cold climates made white people smarter ? And warm climates made black people not as smart ?

And what is intelligence ?

Applied mathematics which go beyond counting to your 10 fingers is among them and the subject of this thread.

I don't understand the point your making here

Knowing how many bushels were produced and how many gold ducats they can be sold for is not the lot of hunter-gatherer societies, which were the apex of that part of Africa.

What would your argument be to people like Cheikh Anta Diop, Molefi Asante, and Walter Rodney and Ivan Van Sertima or watch Tariq Nasheed "Hidden Colors" series who claim that African is the birth os civilsization and that all the sciences came from Africa ?

And for you whose racism will lead you to dismiss black scholars, you can always examine the writings of Basil Davidson:1 of the most respected Africa scholars in modern history, who is decidedly both white and British.

Is this were you do the "We Wuz Kangz" thing. Right ?

Stop asking me stupid questions.

You're the on making an explicatory argument.

You’re saying black IQ is lower because blacks are “naturally” less intelligent.

That's an exceptionally radical statement.

So it needs exceptionally radical proof to back it up – proof which you don’t have.

You, see, If you are trying to ground IQ as a genetic product of race the very first thing you need to do is offer up a genetic or biological definition of race, something no one has not done nor has any study.

.But I’m sitting back, invite you to give me such a definition. Mainly because your fumbling attempts to define race point out just how subjective such definitions are. In close to a decade of debating race with guys like you.

I have yet to see any one of them - No matter what their scientific credentials - offer up an acceptably neutral definition of race.

Which are those “races” then, purely scientifically speaking and in clear text ?
What are the precise genetic criteria for making this classification ?

Those questions can obviously only be answered in arbitrary dimensions which are man-made constructs according to human perception alone.

However you twist it, you will run in circles and eventually spiral back into concepts based on human perception alone

I would like to give you enough credit for understanding these things on your own and are simply being deliberately obtuse because they do not jibe with a narrative you'd like to pursue despite the obvious.

What I'm asking is mild
.

What you're asking is this, written and referenced from far better thinkers than ourselves:

Spinoza said: ‘Every man is by indefeasible natural right the master of his own thoughts.’ The great fallacy of monolithic doctrines like political correctness is that they seek to eliminate an important step in human cognition: the dialogue with the self, the act of dialectical mastication that allows us to absorb and process experience, to direct and enable our own moral lives. Only in the inviolable sanctuary of the soul, in the sacred act of self-communion, can man realize his own transcendence and salvation. Politically correct speech and thought provide us with the predigested morality of self-appointed ideologues, the profane consensus of mediocre minds, in lieu of our own common sense and the collective wisdom of the ages.

America in Crisis: The Triumph of Political Correctness

In far less regal parlance, fuck off!

 

[Paul Essien]

I'm not trying to make that point because I'm not delving into the numbers.

Why is it so important for you guys to try and prove that black people are stupid ?

I mean. Because that's what's it really about.

And another I've noticed with all these guys going to great lengths to try and prove how stupid we black people supposedly are is this.

Why don't you ever talk about what should done ?

The doing part. Not the assessment part. We have been there for years and years

What do you do with a race of ppl who are totally inferior ?

That's a question I have never heard answer.

 

[Meathead]

Why don't you ever talk about what should done ?

The doing part. Not the assessment part. We have been there for years and years

What do you do with a race of ppl who are totally inferior ?

That's a question I have never heard answer.

If you mean "what should be done" then I have an answer. The first step is to acknowledge the problem, and a problem it is. Science and technology has progressed to the point where there may be at least a partial solution somewhere down the line, but only once the problem is identified and recognized.

The only other scenario is denial and prolongation of the same problems of poverty, crime and little accomplishment which have blighted the lives of sub-Saharan Africans and their descendants the world over.

It is ultimately up to you.

 

[JoeMoma]

I'm not trying to make that point because I'm not delving into the numbers.

Why is it so important for you guys to try and prove that black people are stupid ?

I mean. Because that's what's it really about.

And another I've noticed with all these guys going to great lengths to try and prove how stupid we black people supposedly are is this.

Why don't you ever talk about what should done ?

The doing part. Not the assessment part. We have been there for years and years

What do you do with a race of ppl who are totally inferior ?

That's a question I have never heard answer.

On an individual basis, I know that there are many people smarter than I am. There are also many people not as smart as I am. I don't go about my life feeling inferior to those smarter than I am or feeling superior to those not as smart as I am. For one thing, there are different types of intelligence. Another thing, there is much more to the value of a person than that person's intelligence and talents.

Another thing, my op isn't just about IQ. It's about any measurable attribute about a population. While one group may have a statistical disadvantage with some attributes, it may have a statistical advantage with other attributes.

In your quote above you asked what do yo do with a race that is totally inferior? First of all, that is a loaded question. I personally do not believe there is a race that is totally inferior. And for attributes in which one race may have a statistical advantage over another, I believe this adage apples: Hard work beats talent when talent does not work hard!

 

[Paul Essien]

if you mean "what should be done" then I have an answer. The first step is to acknowledge the problem, and a problem it is. Science and technology has progressed to the point where there may be at least a partial solution somewhere down the line, but only once the problem is identified and recognized.

The only other scenario is denial and prolongation of the same problems of poverty, crime and little accomplishment which have blighted the lives of sub-Saharan Africans and their descendants the world over.

It is ultimately up to you.

I have just acknowledged the problem.

I'm the inferior one. You white people are the superior. I'm incapable of doing nothing. Right ?

So I'll ask you again. What are you going to do with all these 29 million black people in the USA who are dumb and incapable of doing nothing ?

I've never heard a white person answer this question directly

 

[Paul Essien]

What you're asking is this, written and referenced from far better thinkers than ourselves:

Spinoza said: ‘Every man is by indefeasible natural right the master of his own thoughts.’ The great fallacy of monolithic doctrines like political correctness is that they seek to eliminate an important step in human cognition: the dialogue with the self, the act of dialectical mastication that allows us to absorb and process experience, to direct and enable our own moral lives. Only in the inviolable sanctuary of the soul, in the sacred act of self-communion, can man realize his own transcendence and salvation. Politically correct speech and thought provide us with the predigested morality of self-appointed ideologues, the profane consensus of mediocre minds, in lieu of our own common sense and the collective wisdom of the ages.

America in Crisis: The Triumph of Political Correctness

In far less regal parlance, fuck off!

There always has to be at least one mention of “the liberals” or “lefties”

You will never find such mention in serious scientific publications.

You can always claim ideological martyr status for being shouted down as being iconoclasts in the public square and pretend that marginalized trash like this blog link are actually hidden gems of knowledge only you and a select few others can see.

Let’s have the debate

Let's see what it would actually mean in public policy terms. Let’s see how the race scientists intend to address the problems of our time and indeed things they see as problems.

But I don't think they or you will because the reason you and others believe in HBD is because you need a new theory of racism that allows you to separate yourselves from the blue collar stormfronters. So they come up with this high sounding “Scientific” theory.

Everybody who has written a thesis or other academic papers knows that if you don’t deliver scientific definitions for your central subjects, you fail.

Race scientists don’t even have a leg to stand on as long as they don’t deliver a clear definition of what they actually write about.

But carry on putting on a laboratory smock and make scientific claims you not able to deliver scientific definitions for.

But science is a big tent and everyone’s welcome to discuss.

But ideas only catch on when they are very well proven.

Race science theory, in spite of its undeniable popularity, has frankly failed to scare up much proof of its postulates, which is rather shocking when you consider the fact that it was THE scientific paradigm for the better part of a century.

Who are the genetically dumber and disadvantaged Whites ?

If there is enough genetic difference 4 white people 2 have different hair color, eye color and different average height, then why not intelligence?

The answer is because this is not science, it’s politics and to ask that question does not serve the your goals.

You don’t want to face the idea that you might belong to the dumbest group of White people in your little hierarchy, so you theorize that “Whiteness” simply makes all Whites just as capable, and all Blacks equally disadvantaged.

You make foolish observations such as there is one gigantic “White Race” and also believe there is one huge “Black Race” Of course, even the most cursory googling on the subject of African genetic diversity will show you that African peoples have extremely diverse and divergent genetic makeups.

But to you they are all be guided by the same “dumb gene” or the same “violence gene,” or “fast running gene.”

But to you all look blk ppl are alike. It doesn’t matter if they have a variety of different features, or if groups have different average heights, have reached different levels of civilization, and self-identify as different peoples.

NO!

Blacks are all ONE race, not two, or five, or twenty Black races.

Because in order for race science mumbo jumbo to really work, it requires a genetically homogenous race of Blacks who all share roughly the same DNA.

I would have more respect for you if you just dropped the pseudo-scientific charade and said,

“We don’t like anybody who doesn’t look like us”

At least that would be true.

 

[Slyhunter]

if you mean "what should be done" then I have an answer. The first step is to acknowledge the problem, and a problem it is. Science and technology has progressed to the point where there may be at least a partial solution somewhere down the line, but only once the problem is identified and recognized.

The only other scenario is denial and prolongation of the same problems of poverty, crime and little accomplishment which have blighted the lives of sub-Saharan Africans and their descendants the world over.

It is ultimately up to you.

I have just acknowledged the problem.

I'm the inferior one. You white people are the superior. I'm incapable of doing nothing. Right ?

So I'll ask you again. What are you going to do with all these 29 million black people in the USA who are dumb and incapable of doing nothing ?

I've never heard a white person answer this question directly

Teach them to fish.