Moderator: Community Team
Army of GOD wrote:You guys are right, the ONLY thing I based my opinion on is the percent of black basketball players in the NBA.
>mfw
>mfw I have no face
thegreekdog wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:Army of GOD wrote:thegreekdog wrote:
ITT: AoG thinks that 76% of the NBA (or 342 of 450 players) consisting of black men means that the average black person is more athletic than the average white person.
oh, so NOW you understand my argument
You have to admit TGD, he's got his right to his opinion.
That blacks have bigger muscles than whites? On average?
Phatscotty wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:Army of GOD wrote:thegreekdog wrote:
ITT: AoG thinks that 76% of the NBA (or 342 of 450 players) consisting of black men means that the average black person is more athletic than the average white person.
oh, so NOW you understand my argument
You have to admit TGD, he's got his right to his opinion.
That blacks have bigger muscles than whites? On average?
but smaller penises
Neoteny wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:*sigh* I'll be less subtle. I thought using the phrase "Cyber Communications" would hint at "The Holy Trinity of Internet Communications," and that the false equivalance argument was obvious enough.
But you do bring up some great points. Yes, people presume knowledge over which they don't know (e.g. economics, BBS). However, there's several ways to address this problem. Two of which are: (1) Encourage people to use different analytical frameworks for understanding causal relationships, or (2) try to shut down the inquiry while labeling people racist.
I opt for #1 by using the econometric way of thinking. You've regrettably opted for #2, which in my opinion is not at all productive/useful because it still leaves people wondering about those causal relationships. At least with the #1 approach, I provide some people the means for framing such questions in order to become more skeptical about their personal observations and the conclusions which they ponder.
Hopefully, that clears up the confusion. RE: your last sentence, Sure, many scientists don't view inquiries about race as decent, but that in no way contributes to the public discourse. Many (even scientists) adhere to th pretense of knowledge, but at least many are willing to understand through questions and argument. Side-stepping and/or undercuttnig the entire debate fails to undermine the sources of racism through idea creation in the non-scientific spheres. I'm tackling this problem, and you're essentially calling people racists (which isn't nearly as useful). It's almost as useless as Symmetry's approach of calling people idiots.
You're very correct in that assessment. Indeed, my original proposal comes across as somewhat non-sequitur for a reason. Not many people in this thread have discussed their motivations for joining this fracas. But I've played in these trenches. I've seen things you wouldn't believe, man. I know who holds the perspective I'm criticizing. And some of them are here. Now, I'm as sad as you are that these younger whippersnappers are maybe missing out on having some 98.5% reagent grade knowledge dropped on they asses, but I'm just a man. I have an ATP reserve comparable to that of your average black man. Or white man. Or purple man. I'm here to enjoy myself. Sometimes that involves talking science. But it's hard work. It's difficult to spend time putting an argument together to have Scotty play the race card card and scamper away. It's exhausting trying to explain to Gabon what a peer-reviewed source is, much less to get him to post one. Sometimes its more fun to feed into their paranoia that I just think everyone in the world is a racist. I won't be able to change their mind anyway. I think you know that sometimes taking the high road feels frustrating. Ineffective. Pointless. But you have to ask yourself: are you having fun? You can spend hours of your life explaining the minutiae of the work you love, and then have to stare at the ceiling before you sleep wondering whether addressing these racists legitimizes them. Whether it is really going to make a difference to them. Whether letting them know they kept you up for two minutes one night will just encourage them. I'll let you decide where you draw your line. But if you want to criticize my methods and motivations, then I'll, well, let you have cake.
Like I hinted at above, you and I are very likely in agreement on this.
Neoteny wrote:
You're very correct in that assessment. Indeed, my original proposal comes across as somewhat non-sequitur for a reason. Not many people in this thread have discussed their motivations for joining this fracas. But I've played in these trenches. I've seen things you wouldn't believe, man. I know who holds the perspective I'm criticizing. And some of them are here. Now, I'm as sad as you are that these younger whippersnappers are maybe missing out on having some 98.5% reagent grade knowledge dropped on they asses, but I'm just a man. I have an ATP reserve comparable to that of your average black man. Or white man. Or purple man. I'm here to enjoy myself. Sometimes that involves talking science. But it's hard work. It's difficult to spend time putting an argument together to have Scotty play the race card card and scamper away. It's exhausting trying to explain to Gabon what a peer-reviewed source is, much less to get him to post one. Sometimes its more fun to feed into their paranoia that I just think everyone in the world is a racist. I won't be able to change their mind anyway. I think you know that sometimes taking the high road feels frustrating. Ineffective. Pointless. But you have to ask yourself: are you having fun? You can spend hours of your life explaining the minutiae of the work you love, and then have to stare at the ceiling before you sleep wondering whether addressing these racists legitimizes them. Whether it is really going to make a difference to them. Whether letting them know they kept you up for two minutes one night will just encourage them. I'll let you decide where you draw your line. But if you want to criticize my methods and motivations, then I'll, well, let you have cake.
Like I hinted at above, you and I are very likely in agreement on this.
PLAYER57832 wrote:jimboston wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:jimboston wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:what constitutes IQ and whether it is an actual indicator of anything .. or whether IQ is really measuring the attribute we think is important (ability to aquire new information readily).
Is that what IQ Measures?
LOL... IQ tests measure how well an individual does on an IQ test.
Perhaps.
It certainly doesn't measure the "ability to aquire new information readily"... neither does it measure the "ability to acquire new information readily."
Intelligence is NOT the ability to acquire information.
If you re-read what I said, I said that there is a QUESTION of whether the test is measuring the attribute we think important, whether it actually truly measures the ability to aquire information readily.
Many people assume it does.
thegreekdog wrote:
ITT: AoG thinks that 76% of the NBA (or 342 of 450 players) consisting of black men means that the average black person is more athletic than the average white person.
jimboston wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:jimboston wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:jimboston wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:what constitutes IQ and whether it is an actual indicator of anything .. or whether IQ is really measuring the attribute we think is important (ability to aquire new information readily).
Is that what IQ Measures?
LOL... IQ tests measure how well an individual does on an IQ test.
Perhaps.
It certainly doesn't measure the "ability to aquire new information readily"... neither does it measure the "ability to acquire new information readily."
Intelligence is NOT the ability to acquire information.
If you re-read what I said, I said that there is a QUESTION of whether the test is measuring the attribute we think important, whether it actually truly measures the ability to aquire information readily.
Many people assume it does.
If you re-read my post, you will see I am not debating wether or not the tes is effective.
I am debating what you are saying in regards to what it is supposed to measure.
It's not supposed to measure one's ability to acquire (or as you say aquire) new information readily. It's supposed to measure intelligence... the ability to PROCESS information, to think critically and make decisions... not the ability to ACQUIRE information.
Army of GOD wrote:You guys are right, the ONLY thing I based my opinion on is the percent of black basketball players in the NBA.
>mfw
>mfw I have no face
BigBallinStalin wrote:Neoteny wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:*sigh* I'll be less subtle. I thought using the phrase "Cyber Communications" would hint at "The Holy Trinity of Internet Communications," and that the false equivalance argument was obvious enough.
But you do bring up some great points. Yes, people presume knowledge over which they don't know (e.g. economics, BBS). However, there's several ways to address this problem. Two of which are: (1) Encourage people to use different analytical frameworks for understanding causal relationships, or (2) try to shut down the inquiry while labeling people racist.
I opt for #1 by using the econometric way of thinking. You've regrettably opted for #2, which in my opinion is not at all productive/useful because it still leaves people wondering about those causal relationships. At least with the #1 approach, I provide some people the means for framing such questions in order to become more skeptical about their personal observations and the conclusions which they ponder.
Hopefully, that clears up the confusion. RE: your last sentence, Sure, many scientists don't view inquiries about race as decent, but that in no way contributes to the public discourse. Many (even scientists) adhere to th pretense of knowledge, but at least many are willing to understand through questions and argument. Side-stepping and/or undercuttnig the entire debate fails to undermine the sources of racism through idea creation in the non-scientific spheres. I'm tackling this problem, and you're essentially calling people racists (which isn't nearly as useful). It's almost as useless as Symmetry's approach of calling people idiots.
You're very correct in that assessment. Indeed, my original proposal comes across as somewhat non-sequitur for a reason. Not many people in this thread have discussed their motivations for joining this fracas. But I've played in these trenches. I've seen things you wouldn't believe, man. I know who holds the perspective I'm criticizing. And some of them are here. Now, I'm as sad as you are that these younger whippersnappers are maybe missing out on having some 98.5% reagent grade knowledge dropped on they asses, but I'm just a man. I have an ATP reserve comparable to that of your average black man. Or white man. Or purple man. I'm here to enjoy myself. Sometimes that involves talking science. But it's hard work. It's difficult to spend time putting an argument together to have Scotty play the race card card and scamper away. It's exhausting trying to explain to Gabon what a peer-reviewed source is, much less to get him to post one. Sometimes its more fun to feed into their paranoia that I just think everyone in the world is a racist. I won't be able to change their mind anyway. I think you know that sometimes taking the high road feels frustrating. Ineffective. Pointless. But you have to ask yourself: are you having fun? You can spend hours of your life explaining the minutiae of the work you love, and then have to stare at the ceiling before you sleep wondering whether addressing these racists legitimizes them. Whether it is really going to make a difference to them. Whether letting them know they kept you up for two minutes one night will just encourage them. I'll let you decide where you draw your line. But if you want to criticize my methods and motivations, then I'll, well, let you have cake.
Like I hinted at above, you and I are very likely in agreement on this.
As long as my cake comes loaded with ATP, I'm happy.
As far as the High Road Crusade goes, it seems to be the best choice. By analogy, if I took your approach with economics, I'd turn into an 70-year-old white man calling these clowns a bunch of idiots for buying into the political hype and the well-intended nonsense of disastrous socialist policies. But, would that approach be better? Maybe. I'll consider it.
Funkyterrance wrote:Neoteny wrote:
You're very correct in that assessment. Indeed, my original proposal comes across as somewhat non-sequitur for a reason. Not many people in this thread have discussed their motivations for joining this fracas. But I've played in these trenches. I've seen things you wouldn't believe, man. I know who holds the perspective I'm criticizing. And some of them are here. Now, I'm as sad as you are that these younger whippersnappers are maybe missing out on having some 98.5% reagent grade knowledge dropped on they asses, but I'm just a man. I have an ATP reserve comparable to that of your average black man. Or white man. Or purple man. I'm here to enjoy myself. Sometimes that involves talking science. But it's hard work. It's difficult to spend time putting an argument together to have Scotty play the race card card and scamper away. It's exhausting trying to explain to Gabon what a peer-reviewed source is, much less to get him to post one. Sometimes its more fun to feed into their paranoia that I just think everyone in the world is a racist. I won't be able to change their mind anyway. I think you know that sometimes taking the high road feels frustrating. Ineffective. Pointless. But you have to ask yourself: are you having fun? You can spend hours of your life explaining the minutiae of the work you love, and then have to stare at the ceiling before you sleep wondering whether addressing these racists legitimizes them. Whether it is really going to make a difference to them. Whether letting them know they kept you up for two minutes one night will just encourage them. I'll let you decide where you draw your line. But if you want to criticize my methods and motivations, then I'll, well, let you have cake.
Like I hinted at above, you and I are very likely in agreement on this.
If you continue to look at a racist as somehow different from you on a basic level then yeah you are wasting your time.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
PLAYER57832 wrote: Its supposed to measure both, but it does better at assessing one's ability to acquire information.
Funkyterrance wrote:If you continue to look at a racist as somehow different from you on a basic level then yeah you are wasting your time.
Neoteny wrote:The f*ck?
Army of GOD wrote:You guys are right, the ONLY thing I based my opinion on is the percent of black basketball players in the NBA.
>mfw
>mfw I have no face
thegreekdog wrote:Army of GOD wrote:You guys are right, the ONLY thing I based my opinion on is the percent of black basketball players in the NBA.
>mfw
>mfw I have no face
Oh sorry, you also mentioned Peyton Hillis and white slot receivers.
Seriously though, did I miss something upon which you've based your opinion? All I saw in this thread was your opinion that blacks, on average, had bigger muscles supported by the fact that there are more black professional basketball players, professional running backs, and professional wide receivers.
Neoteny wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:
As long as my cake comes loaded with ATP, I'm happy.
As far as the High Road Crusade goes, it seems to be the best choice. By analogy, if I took your approach with economics, I'd turn into an 70-year-old white man calling these clowns a bunch of idiots for buying into the political hype and the well-intended nonsense of disastrous socialist policies. But, would that approach be better? Maybe. I'll consider it.
:sigh: I'll be less subtle. I was hoping that the phrase "Let them have cake" would serve as a reference that you are a hypocrite for calling me out on ineffectual baiting directed at people that I find dishonest, malicious, and frustrating. You've already tried my tactic, though on a grander scale, and perhaps with a different goal. Who are you to tell me if the high road is better, BBS? Particularly when my goal is to create a little happiness amidst a depressing situation? Insert master baiter joke here.
PS. If someone actually wants to discuss the science of race, I'm usually happy to do so. Just let me know when the anecdotes about sports give way to something realistic. Until then, I'll probably just bait the race-baiters.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Funkyterrance wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:If you continue to look at a racist as somehow different from you on a basic level then yeah you are wasting your time.Neoteny wrote:The f*ck?
I am aware that I am not always perfectly clear at first, my apologies.
It appears that your view towards racists is that they are akin to some other species. A nut to be cracked, if you will. I am suggesting that if you continue to look at a racist as fundamentally different than you, you will never reach one with your "explanations".
Funkyterrance wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:If you continue to look at a racist as somehow different from you on a basic level then yeah you are wasting your time.Neoteny wrote:The f*ck?
I am aware that I am not always perfectly clear at first, my apologies.
It appears that your view towards racists is that they are akin to some other species. A nut to be cracked, if you will. I am suggesting that if you continue to look at a racist as fundamentally different than you, you will never reach one with your "explanations".
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Neoteny wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:
I am aware that I am not always perfectly clear at first, my apologies.
It appears that your view towards racists is that they are akin to some other species. A nut to be cracked, if you will. I am suggesting that if you continue to look at a racist as fundamentally different than you, you will never reach one with your "explanations".
Nah dog. I see two types of racists. One is a sort of casual racist. Uninformed. Operating on societal pressures and trends. Similar to the idea of rape culture in feminism. They don't know or otherwise can't recognize that their biases are degrading or harmful. These people are targets for education. For dialogue. For effort and hope. Their minds can be changed. This is the majority of people.
Then there are the other guys. They tend to be guys, actually. Dudes, often. You can explain the variety of genetic and cultural background that makes up African populations. To them, they're still black or African. You can write sourced essays expounding on the nature of heritability and culture, and how they relate to perception and bias. You post direct links to reputable science, and be met with blogs and YouTube videos. You can write treatises on the power of cooperation and color blindness and be chastised as an opponent of progress and empiricism. Eventually you get to the point where you have to disengage or risk sticking a pencil into your eye. Because, when it comes down to it, you're only helping their cause. Legitimizing it. By taking them seriously, they win. So, the options become 1)ignore them, and let them spew their vitriolic hatred, or 2) tell them not just "no," but "f*ck no!" "Intolerance will not be tolerated." They can spew their hate, and I will shower them with shame. That's all they really know anyway.
So, maybe I do view that class of cretin as inhuman. Maybe I'm just as bad as they are, judging them by their words and actions instead of by their color and nationality. Maybe there will be some crossover. Some collateral from the first group put off by me. But I trust in their rationality. They'll figure it out. But I cannot abide the second group poisoning the process. f*ck 'em.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: pmac666