If you don't like it then move.

killemsoftly

killemsoftly

Well-Known Member
BigNBushy said:
Quote iq test validity when it suits you.

Ignore it when it doesn't.
Click to expand...
Nice try.
You say blacks score avg of 15 points lower. buck countered.
Now you don't like iq score correlations?
I call big, total FAIL on your logic. Not his.
You liked it. Now you don't.
Give up. Marry a mexican.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
killemsoftly said:
Nice try.
You say blacks score avg of 15 points lower. buck countered.
Now you don't like iq score correlations?
I call big, total FAIL on your logic. Not his.
You liked it. Now you don't.
Give up. Marry a mexican.
Click to expand...
his "science" comes from white supremacists like philippe rushton.

and for the record, BnB can't get married until the south legalizes gay marriage.
 
killemsoftly

killemsoftly

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
his "science" comes from white supremacists like philippe rushton.

and for the record, BnB can't get married until the south legalizes gay marriage.
Click to expand...
Is it just me or is there some kinda spring fewer going on?
These guys seem sadder than ever.
 
B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
killemsoftly said:
Nice try.
You say blacks score avg of 15 points lower. buck countered.
Now you don't like iq score correlations?
I call big, total FAIL on your logic. Not his.
You liked it. Now you don't.
Give up. Marry a mexican.
Click to expand...
Take any cognative function test, black americans come in below around 1 standard deviation of whatever the mean is for whites. It's the sociological constant. Like light speed in physics.

for the iq test, that means about 15 points. Whites average 100, blacks 85.

It doesn't come from Rushton, it comes from data.

Now, I did not dispute nor argue with bucks use of iq tests. So how can you say I am taking what I like, and discarding the rest?
 
killemsoftly

killemsoftly

Well-Known Member
BigNBushy said:
Take any cognative function test, black americans come in below around 1 standard deviation of whatever the mean is for whites. It's the sociological constant. Like light speed in physics.

for the iq test, that means about 15 points. Whites average 100, blacks 85.

It doesn't come from Rushton, it comes from data.

Now, I did not dispute nor argue with bucks use of iq tests. So how can you say I am taking what I like, and discarding the rest?
Click to expand...
Pretty obvious: you use iq scores to show black american 'inferiority' then don't like when low iq correlates with conservatism and racism.
Why so hard to understand?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
BigNBushy said:
Take any cognative function test, black americans come in below around 1 standard deviation of whatever the mean is for whites. It's the sociological constant. Like light speed in physics.

for the iq test, that means about 15 points. Whites average 100, blacks 85.

It doesn't come from Rushton, it comes from data.

Now, I did not dispute nor argue with bucks use of iq tests. So how can you say I am taking what I like, and discarding the rest?
Click to expand...
go ahead and cite it then.
 
B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
killemsoftly said:
Pretty obvious: you use iq scores to show black american 'inferiority' then don't like when low iq correlates with conservatism and racism.
Why so hard to understand?
Click to expand...
What have I said to give you any impression, let alone that I have a bad one.

I fully admit that most folks who are racist would have a low iq.

The iq difference between liberal and conservative isn't as stark as is between racist and non, or white and black, but there is one.

I didn't comment on it. Neither did you I don't think. Does that mean you, also, do not like bucks use of iq there?
 
B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
Last edited:
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
BigNBushy said:
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/city.htm

More reading for the open minded
Click to expand...
I had never before heard of La Griffe du Lion. His article was so full of egregiously bad methodology and other mistakes that I at first assumed it was a satire of racist pseudoscience, the sort of thing that might be written for the Annals of Improbable Research or (if you're Alan Sokal) Social Text.

To mention just one example, the article's thesis is that a nation's "smart fraction" of the population predicts per capita GDP better than average IQ, but then uses (highly questionable) "data" on average IQ to pretend to estimate the smart fraction by assuming a Gaussian distribution. As any competent scientist would notice, however, the assumption of Gaussian distributions can't be used to estimate the "smart fraction" without the further assumption of a specific variance or standard distribution, for which there are no data available. In short, the article claims that data on average IQ are inadequate to predict per capita GDP, but then pretends to obtain a better prediction of per capita GDP from precisely that inadequate data by making a sequence of unsupported assumptions. We're used to seeing that kind of argument in rmcg, but scientists recognize it as a form of scientific fraud known as drylabbing.


http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/La_Griffe_du_Lion


written under a pseudonym so as to prevent us from examining the researcher himself.
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
[QUOTE="UncleBuck, post: 10475696, member: 251367".[/QUOTE]

I have an idea. We can ask the last 12 posters in new posts outside of politics to settle your claim. Or.... I can just troll you for awhile asking over and over so you can say it's more proof.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
I have an idea. We can ask the last 12 posters in new posts outside of politics to settle your claim. Or.... I can just troll you for awhile asking over and over so you can say it's more proof.
Click to expand...
i think background checks for gun ownership are a good idea.

WHY DO WE NEED BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR GUN OWNERSHIP!?!
 
B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
I had never before heard of La Griffe du Lion. His article was so full of egregiously bad methodology and other mistakes that I at first assumed it was a satire of racist pseudoscience, the sort of thing that might be written for the Annals of Improbable Research or (if you're Alan Sokal) Social Text.

To mention just one example, the article's thesis is that a nation's "smart fraction" of the population predicts per capita GDP better than average IQ, but then uses (highly questionable) "data" on average IQ to pretend to estimate the smart fraction by assuming a Gaussian distribution. As any competent scientist would notice, however, the assumption of Gaussian distributions can't be used to estimate the "smart fraction" without the further assumption of a specific variance or standard distribution, for which there are no data available. In short, the article claims that data on average IQ are inadequate to predict per capita GDP, but then pretends to obtain a better prediction of per capita GDP from precisely that inadequate data by making a sequence of unsupported assumptions. We're used to seeing that kind of argument in rmcg, but scientists recognize it as a form of scientific fraud known as drylabbing.


http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/La_Griffe_du_Lion


written under a pseudonym so as to prevent us from examining the researcher himself.
Click to expand...
You write something like this and you're crucified by those like you who control the media.

So a task for you buck, should you choose to accept it.

Debunk (as you love to do) this "fundamental constant in sociology" that Google seems to recognize as exactly what I said it was; black americans routinely come in just under 1 standard deviation below the mean of whites.

Every time I go looking for a source, I find a new one saying the same thing.

The article I read said little of gdp. It was mostly about white, then black flight out of the inner city.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top