james o'keefe

[rockfist]

If ACORN does it fairly and does not promote particular candidates or a particular party, then I have no issue. I maintain they do that in some cases, but I believe they also sometimes promote Democrats and an organization that gets federal funding should not promote a particular party.

I hope you can agree on the bold part.

But, the national parties get federal funding. National parties promote themselves. Should we defund political parties? Try passing that one through Congress

We should defund the national parties to give other parties a chance, but I am quite certain that the ONE thing all Democrats and all Republicans can quickly agree on is that there is no need for other parties.

[got tonkaed]

i have to say it is surprising how easily people are generalizing this whole poor people arent as intelligent bit. Considering it would appear to be the type of trait that lends itself to a more empirical bit of analysis, people seem quite willing to just say "it would make sense that its this way". It leads to some rather disconcerting bits of worldview construction for something that appears to be so casually done.

[john9blue]

i have to say it is surprising how easily people are generalizing this whole poor people arent as intelligent bit. Considering it would appear to be the type of trait that lends itself to a more empirical bit of analysis, people seem quite willing to just say "it would make sense that its this way". It leads to some rather disconcerting bits of worldview construction for something that appears to be so casually done.

It is definitely something that can be taken out of hand. All generalizations are. For example:

There are a higher percentage of blacks in prisons (fact) ->
Blacks are more likely to commit crimes ->
Blacks have less empathy than other races ->
Blacks are all selfish bastards ->
We should kill/exile all of them and society would be better (opinion).

(I am practically ASKING to be quoted out of context here...)

But yeah this is the kind of "snowball" reasoning that leads to bigotry and hate. It is one thing to hold opinions about a group as a whole, and another thing entirely to hold opinions about every individual person in that group. The former is statistical trend analysis, the latter is bias and premature judgment. I often think the ones who criticize me for holding opinions about a group (e.g. poor people are less intelligent) have a problem themselves distinguishing between group judgment and individual judgment. Of course they would prefer to blame ME for stating facts, even though THEY are probably the ones who make hasty judgments about others...

[got tonkaed]

I suppose the confusion relates from the fact that the burden of proof will always be on the original speaker. Few things remain impossible to elaborate on, but as is often the case, most things go without complete explanation. I have little doubt that there are a great number of people who have little difficulty in making claims using statistical trend analysis, yet I also have misgivings that there is an equally large number of people who either do not, or choose not to. I am not the kind of person to take one thing a person said and starting holding a label over their head, but I often am forced to question the development of a persons viewpoint in similar circumstances.

Had anyone involved brought forward statistical trend analysis they had done on an issue correlated to this one it would perhaps be one thing. Certainly it would not end any of the doubt, as looking at one study and making such a broad sweeping claim is nearly as suspect as not looking at a study at all, but it would advance someones case. Yet clearly from the start here, there was little in the posts to suggest such a direction in the thought processes. And considering the claim that is made, that is surprising.

I suppose also out of perhaps curiosity, how would one go about empirically studying intelligence as a derivative of wealth?

[Frigidus]

(I am practically ASKING to be quoted out of context here...)

Nobody would ever do that.

[john9blue]

Nobody would ever do that.

Dammit! lol

[HapSmo19]

I suppose the blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Had anyone blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

I suppose also blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Totally.

[Snorri1234]

But yeah this is the kind of "snowball" reasoning that leads to bigotry and hate. It is one thing to hold opinions about a group as a whole, and another thing entirely to hold opinions about every individual person in that group. The former is statistical trend analysis, the latter is bias and premature judgment. I often think the ones who criticize me for holding opinions about a group (e.g. poor people are less intelligent) have a problem themselves distinguishing between group judgment and individual judgment. Of course they would prefer to blame ME for stating facts, even though THEY are probably the ones who make hasty judgments about others...

What people are attacking you on with the "poor people are less intelligent" is that you don't give any facts or stats.

[rockfist]

I've done some quick research on intelligence and wealth and while I am still not convinced that there is no corellation, there seems to be enough evidence to the contrary that I would have to go into it much further to defend my position, if in fact I still held that position after reading more, thus I am retracting the statement.

I will read further about it.

[Neoteny]

I suppose the confusion relates from the fact that the burden of proof will always be on the original speaker. Few things remain impossible to elaborate on, but as is often the case, most things go without complete explanation. I have little doubt that there are a great number of people who have little difficulty in making claims using statistical trend analysis, yet I also have misgivings that there is an equally large number of people who either do not, or choose not to. I am not the kind of person to take one thing a person said and starting holding a label over their head, but I often am forced to question the development of a persons viewpoint in similar circumstances.

Had anyone involved brought forward statistical trend analysis they had done on an issue correlated to this one it would perhaps be one thing. Certainly it would not end any of the doubt, as looking at one study and making such a broad sweeping claim is nearly as suspect as not looking at a study at all, but it would advance someones case. Yet clearly from the start here, there was little in the posts to suggest such a direction in the thought processes. And considering the claim that is made, that is surprising.

I suppose also out of perhaps curiosity, how would one go about empirically studying intelligence as a derivative of wealth?

Twin studies, like everything else.

I've done some quick research on intelligence and wealth and while I am still not convinced that there is no corellation, there seems to be enough evidence to the contrary that I would have to go into it much further to defend my position, if in fact I still held that position after reading more, thus I am retracting the statement.

I will read further about it.

You should pick up Mismeasure of Man and Bell Curve. I think those are the most famous books detailing the science and the opposing sides of the issue. And then you can read the back and forth between the various scientists criticizing each other for scientific dishonesty.

[spurgistan]

I suppose the blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Had anyone blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

I suppose also blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Totally.

You know, you don't really need to go around telling us that GT is smarter than you. That's better to just leave unspoken.

How long did it take you to write all those "blahs?" You surely could have spent some of that time looking in the dictionary.

[Woodruff]

If ACORN does it fairly and does not promote particular candidates or a particular party, then I have no issue. I maintain they do that in some cases, but I believe they also sometimes promote Democrats and an organization that gets federal funding should not promote a particular party.

I hope you can agree on the bold part.

But, the national parties get federal funding. National parties promote themselves. Should we defund political parties?

Now that corporations have a funding free-for-all, I don't think it matters.

[Woodruff]

Hey Sultan, if ACORN isn't liberal, why did you immediately make it a partisan issue

so how do you feel about the fact that one of your side's darlings just got busted for committing a felony against a senator, and will most likely be serving serious federal time

when I called you out for defending ACORN? Liberals and conservatives alike roundly criticized ACORN, but your worldview is so black and white that you felt the need to even defend criminals! I'll give you points for defending what you believe in, I suppose.

I also love how it's HATE SPEECH to you if someone says that poor people are less intelligent than rich people. They have less access to schooling and are more likely to be malnourished/underdeveloped due to a lack of resources. Also, the more intelligent will tend to make more money because of their talents. Check out IQ and the Wealth of Nations. It makes perfect sense to say that, but you don't WANT to accept it because you live in your own fantasy world where everybody is equal. I think I am finally starting to grasp how the hardcore liberals think.

Success has far more to do with persistence than it has to do with intelligence. The world is full of intelligent people falling far short of their potential.

[Woodruff]

I also love how it's HATE SPEECH to you if someone says that poor people are less intelligent than rich people. They have less access to schooling and are more likely to be malnourished/underdeveloped due to a lack of resources. Also, the more intelligent will tend to make more money because of their talents. Check out IQ and the Wealth of Nations. It makes perfect sense to say that, but you don't WANT to accept it because you live in your own fantasy world where everybody is equal. I think I am finally starting to grasp how the hardcore liberals think.

sometimes the usually lighthearted exchanges here on CC end up making me very deeply disappointed in the current state of american society. this is one of those times. you and rockfist are a puddle of piss on the graves of the founding fathers.

One thing that John references here I can agree with. The malnourishment of young children (as well as pregnant mothers) certainly can affect brain development. So on that particular point, I do believe there is validity. Access to schooling is irrelevant to intelligence, of course.

[john9blue]

One thing that John references here I can agree with. The malnourishment of young children (as well as pregnant mothers) certainly can affect brain development. So on that particular point, I do believe there is validity. Access to schooling is irrelevant to intelligence, of course.

Well this isn't the place for a debate on what "intelligence" means, but I'd say skills such as literacy and critical thinking (which are taught in school) affect intelligence so far as it relates to real-world success. Not all schools are equal.

[Woodruff]

One thing that John references here I can agree with. The malnourishment of young children (as well as pregnant mothers) certainly can affect brain development. So on that particular point, I do believe there is validity. Access to schooling is irrelevant to intelligence, of course.

Well this isn't the place for a debate on what "intelligence" means, but I'd say skills such as literacy and critical thinking (which are taught in school) affect intelligence so far as it relates to real-world success. Not all schools are equal.

I would disagree thoroughly with that. Literacy and critical thinking enable the intelligence to be more productively used, but they do not at all define intelligence. Literacy and critical thinking are simply tools for the intelligence aspect to use. In my view, Intelligence is the CAPACITY to learn, as well as the EFFICIENCY with which one can learn (just to throw out an off-the-top-of-my-head definition of it).

[john9blue]

I would disagree thoroughly with that. Literacy and critical thinking enable the intelligence to be more productively used, but they do not at all define intelligence. Literacy and critical thinking are simply tools for the intelligence aspect to use. In my view, Intelligence is the CAPACITY to learn, as well as the EFFICIENCY with which one can learn (just to throw out an off-the-top-of-my-head definition of it).

So you think intelligence is essentially fixed at birth?

Or if intelligence can change through one's life, how does it change?

[Timminz]

Well this isn't the place for a debate on what "intelligence" means, but I'd say skills such as literacy and critical thinking (which are taught in school) affect intelligence so far as it relates to real-world success. Not all schools are equal.

I think I see your confusion. You're talking about education, not intelligence. Even highly intelligent people need an education in order to be able to read, or think critically.

[Frigidus]

Well this isn't the place for a debate on what "intelligence" means, but I'd say skills such as literacy and critical thinking (which are taught in school) affect intelligence so far as it relates to real-world success. Not all schools are equal.

I think I see your confusion. You're talking about education, not intelligence. Even highly intelligent people need an education in order to be able to read, or think critically.

And likewise there are plenty of people that aren't necessarily intelligent that can read and think critically.

[john9blue]

Which is why I said we need a definition of intelligence.

In my opinion, intelligence includes the ability to understand and evaluate ideas. "Book learning", or the memorization of facts, is also a part of intelligence. Some schools will inevitably teach their students how to memorize, analyze, synthesize, criticize, etc. better than others, and therefore will produce more intelligent graduates.

Of course there is a certain amount of innate potential intelligence in each person. Some have more than others. Many excel at one type of intelligence and lack in another. But that's not all there is. Intelligence is affected hugely by environment. A genius who cannot read is, in my opinion, less intelligent than a twin genius who CAN read and never has...

I'm sure I've posted about this before... maybe it was in a usergroup...

[thegreekdog]

i would like to take this time to point out that ACORN is in no way a "liberal" organization. they are a voter registration organization. they help the disenfranchised back into the democratic process by helping them register to vote. they accomplish this by reaching out to poor, largely ethnic, neighborhoods, where dis-involvement, apathy, and non-registration are highest. these people do tend to vote for democrats, but ACORN's goal is to get people to vote, period, not to get people to vote a particular way.

that there exist such pervasive institutional biases disenfranchising the urban poor should give us all pause. that conservatives attack organizations trying to help these people become more involved should also give us pause. how concerned are republicans with the plight of the working poor? not enough to risk letting them vote, apparently.

People... Sultan is right on this one. Except for the Republicans part of course... he meant to say "working poor who aren't white hicks living in trailers."

[SultanOfSurreal]

People... Sultan is right on this one. Except for the Republicans part of course... he meant to say "working poor who aren't white hicks living in trailers."

come now, we all know those hicks are unemployed

(just kidding, but the rural working poor don't vote that much either, and they're not as overwhelmingly conservative as some people think)

[thegreekdog]

People... Sultan is right on this one. Except for the Republicans part of course... he meant to say "working poor who aren't white hicks living in trailers."

come now, we all know those hicks are unemployed

(just kidding, but the rural working poor don't vote that much either, and they're not as overwhelmingly conservative as some people think)

Yes... although I don't think the urban working poor are as liberal as some think. They tend to have very conservative social values.

[Woodruff]

I would disagree thoroughly with that. Literacy and critical thinking enable the intelligence to be more productively used, but they do not at all define intelligence. Literacy and critical thinking are simply tools for the intelligence aspect to use. In my view, Intelligence is the CAPACITY to learn, as well as the EFFICIENCY with which one can learn (just to throw out an off-the-top-of-my-head definition of it).

So you think intelligence is essentially fixed at birth?
Or if intelligence can change through one's life, how does it change?

I've already covered this. Other than the impact of things like diet (malnourishment, etc.) of both the mother while pregnant and the child in it's early stages, intelligence is fixed, yes. As I said, intelligence is the capacity and efficiency with which one can learn.

Oh, and that of course doesn't take into account any mental diseases or injuries which might be contracted later in life.

[Titanic]

People... Sultan is right on this one. Except for the Republicans part of course... he meant to say "working poor who aren't white hicks living in trailers."

come now, we all know those hicks are unemployed

(just kidding, but the rural working poor don't vote that much either, and they're not as overwhelmingly conservative as some people think)

Yes... although I don't think the urban working poor are as liberal as some think. They tend to have very conservative social values.

So true. I guess it depends on tradition as well as whether they put economic or social issues first.