|
|
 | | From: | P.Comm | | Subject: | Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence | | Date: | Fri, 07 Jan 2005 22:42:45 GMT |
|
|
 | "stlbl" wrote in message
news:1105091473.814862.96930@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Since you have a better idea on what constitutes race in plants, maybe
> you guys should do IQ studies on them.
> In college. I learned that Indians (from India) are considered white
> because of their "nasal index".
Not just for that alone.
Also Austalian aborigines are a
> caucasoid group,
No they are not.
> but Colin Powell is supposedly black
Colin Powell is mostly white or at least non-black. But does Colin Powell
self-identify as black? If he does, then that's his own self-chosen GROUP.
Iranians are
> certainly white, Iran of course a variation of "Aryan".
> People used to be perplexed why it took so long for the US to
> intervene in the Balkans in the 90's---or actually why we (and Britain)
> took so long to respond to Hitler. Its not that unclear if you think
> about it---we have no trouble killing Negroids or Mongoloid types, but
> killing whites has always been less palatable.
Kin bonding is part of what the human limbic brain "tells us" to do - it's
an instinct. It's an instinct that is there for a biological reason.
Britain took long to respond due to the horrors they suffered in ww1.
American people did not want to get involved in another foreign war due to
the preferences for the Monroe Doctrine - which got washed away (foolish
move, imo). Iraqis are white. Tell that to them. Irish are white. Tell
that to the Irish in lieu of centuries of British hatred toward them. Tell
that to the Serbian white Slavs who the USA foolishly turned against in
favor of what we now know were pro terrorist groups (Albanians) and drug
runners - not to mention slave traders, child sellers and people who have a
black market for human organs. Aside from that, ww2 was a war fought
between all WHITE tribes of people.
> I guess the IQ tests define which groups US foreign policy will deem
> attackable. Certainly having a lower IQ would make your group more
> readily dehumanizable.
If YOU say so. There is your FEAR showing up. I can remember when an IQ of
80 was considered "moron" or retarded. Then that got altered to IQ of 70.
I am in favor of Eugenics as practiced in the People's Republic of China.
Both negative and positive eugenics. I am in favor of a 100% strict merit
system - which is the only thing that is fair. Anything else is a drag
down, a burden that people never even had a vote to say they would accept on
their shoulders.
H. sapiens started at GO. What the many groups of them splitting up did as
newly separated groups from then on can be looked at as strategies for life.
Some had better strategies, some had bad ones. Give three people half a
million dollars. Check those three people out in 10 years time and you'll
see that they did not opt to do the same things. This is free will, choice,
etc. It would be CRIMINAL to take money from #1 who may have turned half a
million into a billion - and hand it over to #2 who may have taken his half
a million and wasted it on stupid shit that rendered him back in the
"poverty" classification.
H. sapiens, in these newly split up groups, had to fend for themselves and a
great degree of cooperation within the GROUP had to happen or they'd have
perished. In time, they chose for traits that were advantageous - that's
called ual selection.
You might want to search "James Michael Howard" and read his data on
testosterone and other things - as regards to the groups of humans.
>
|
|
| | From: | Wolf Kirchmeir | | Subject: | Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence | | Date: | Fri, 07 Jan 2005 20:32:14 -0500 |
|
|
| P.Comm wrote:
[...]
> I am in favor of Eugenics as practiced in the People's Republic of China.
> Both negative and positive eugenics. I am in favor of a 100% strict merit
> system - which is the only thing that is fair. Anything else is a drag
> down, a burden that people never even had a vote to say they would accept on
> their shoulders.
Eugenics in China??? That's a new one. The One Child policy has led to a
surplus of males, who are just entering the bad testosterone age - you
should be able to predict what will happen when a sizeable percentage of
them cannot find mates and won't be able to channel their energy into
building a family and connections with other families (which is what the
"kin bonding that the limbic brain tells us to do" is all about.) Guess
what the limbic brain tells us to do when we can't found families and
kin-bond by that route?
As for 100% merit systems - for some strange reason, the people who
argue for this always define merit as what they have, so that --
naturally and fairly, of course, we would;t want it any other way --
they get the spoils.
In any case, from your comments below, I wouldn't want a merit system
based on your notion of merit. I prefer my own, thank you very much.
> H. sapiens started at GO.
Hoohah! Life is a game of Monopoly (tm). Wonderful!
> What the many groups of them splitting up did as
> newly separated groups from then on can be looked at as strategies for life.
> Some had better strategies, some had bad ones.
This is about as simplistic a version of anthropology 101 as I've ever seen.
> Give three people half a
> million dollars. Check those three people out in 10 years time and you'll
> see that they did not opt to do the same things. This is free will, choice,
> etc.
Ah yes, the Libertarian argument. I should've seen it coming. I must be
slipping.
> It would be CRIMINAL to take money from #1 who may have turned half a
> million into a billion
That depends on how he managed this feat. If he did by chicanery and
force, it would be criminal _not_ to take it away from him.
> - and hand it over to #2 who may have taken his half
> a million and wasted it on stupid shit that rendered him back in the
> "poverty" classification.
Stupid shit is just stuff _you_ don't want to spend the money on. One
man's shit is another man's treasure. And if, as Alfred Doolittle claims
he does with his excess wealth, he has spent it "providing pleasure to
himself and his friends, and employment to others," he has spent it
about as wisely as it can be spent. Money is shit, you see - and shit is
very bad when kept in a concentrated pile, and very good when it's
spread around. In the one case it causes disease; in the other, it
promotes growth.
And what of #3 (whom you conveniently leave out)? Suppose he gave his
1/2 million away to people who needed help? I suppose it would be
criminal to reward him for his kindness?
> H. sapiens, in these newly split up groups, had to fend for themselves and a
> great degree of cooperation within the GROUP had to happen or they'd have
> perished. In time, they chose for traits that were advantageous - that's
> called ual selection.
No, that's not ual selection at all. Sexual selection is what
accounts for differences between the es, especially those that have
no purpose other than promote or guide mate selection.
> You might want to search "James Michael Howard" and read his data on
> testosterone and other things - as regards to the groups of humans.
Well, your language suggests a pretty high level of testosterone IMO.
Which group do you admit belonging to, then?
But I'll look him up.
|
|
| | From: | P.Comm | | Subject: | Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence | | Date: | Sat, 08 Jan 2005 10:14:29 GMT |
|
|
| "Wolf Kirchmeir" wrote in message
news:8JGDd.31847$7n1.1282107@news20.bellglobal.com...
> P.Comm wrote:
> [...]
>> I am in favor of Eugenics as practiced in the People's Republic of China.
>> Both negative and positive eugenics. I am in favor of a 100% strict
>> merit system - which is the only thing that is fair. Anything else is a
>> drag down, a burden that people never even had a vote to say they would
>> accept on their shoulders.
>
> Eugenics in China??? That's a new one.
Here is the url to the whole article, written by an army guy there:
http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/eug-ch.html
Guess
> what the limbic brain tells us to do when we can't found families and
> kin-bond by that route?
It tells you to "habitat track." LMAO. That's not happening there, btw.
>
> As for 100% merit systems - for some strange reason, the people who argue
> for this always define merit as what they have, so that --
> naturally and fairly, of course, we would;t want it any other way --
> they get the spoils.
Not so. When I say merit, I mean merit. I mean ability - and ability is
going to BE in specific areas most of the time. A child with a natural
aptitude in music, with perfect pitch, SHOULD BE encouraged to go into
that - expose that child to instruments of many kinds. And so forth. The
tone deaf person (very easy to tell if a person is tone deaf) should be
DIScouraged from pursueing a career in music. People tend to LIKE what they
are naturally good at. Do the same across the board. You do not know what
merit is? OK - here is MERIT - an account of it from the old USSR. We used
to have that in the USA too, before the later 1960s.
http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/sovieted.html
So then, when the 5 year old kid that can, in 15 minutes, draw a picture
that looks exactly like what's there (gifted kid), I'd say it's a good
picture. Schools used to do that, too. But when a 5 or older year old kid
can't draw for jack shit and I hear mommy saying "oh, that's beautiful"
well, let that kid ask me and I'd tell him the picture is shit. I'm very
VERY blunt. I don't believe in patting mediocrity on the back (aka, LYING
about it). The fact is, if that kid SEES the picture drawn by the gifted
kid, that kid is going to KNOW he himself can not draw. So why lie to the
kid? In a merit system, no one lied to the kids.
>
> In any case, from your comments below, I wouldn't want a merit system
> based on your notion of merit. I prefer my own, thank you very much.
>
>> H. sapiens started at GO.
>
> Hoohah! Life is a game of Monopoly (tm). Wonderful!
Do you think that humans did not evolve at the same time? That they did NOT
start from GO?
>
>> What the many groups of them splitting up did as newly separated groups
>> from then on can be looked at as strategies for life. Some had better
>> strategies, some had bad ones.
>
> This is about as simplistic a version of anthropology 101 as I've ever
> seen.
Simplistic, but true. I realize you don't like it. Tish tish.
>
>> Give three people half a million dollars. Check those three people out
>> in 10 years time and you'll see that they did not opt to do the same
>> things. This is free will, choice, etc.
>
> Ah yes, the Libertarian argument. I should've seen it coming. I must be
> slipping.
I hate libertarians, they have "pertual motion" economic theories. But it's
the facts of life, nonetheless. My example was to turn whole groups of H.
sapiens into an example of 3 people and what they DO. That is, what they
THINK (or do NOT think) of doing.
>
>> It would be CRIMINAL to take money from #1 who may have turned half a
>> million into a billion
>
> That depends on how he managed this feat. If he did by chicanery and
> force, it would be criminal _not_ to take it away from him.
You added that to my example.
>
>> - and hand it over to #2 who may have taken his half a million and wasted
>> it on stupid shit that rendered him back in the "poverty" classification.
>
> Stupid shit is just stuff _you_ don't want to spend the money on. One
> man's shit is another man's treasure. And if, as Alfred Doolittle claims
> he does with his excess wealth, he has spent it "providing pleasure to
> himself and his friends, and employment to others," he has spent it about
> as wisely as it can be spent.
Yer not too much of a synthetic thinker, I see. No more anecdotes then. I
was using the 3 people as a synthetic example of "H. sapiens split into
GROUPS that have good or bad strategies."
Money is shit, you see - and shit is
> very bad when kept in a concentrated pile, and very good when it's spread
> around. In the one case it causes disease; in the other, it promotes
> growth.
>
> And what of #3 (whom you conveniently leave out)? Suppose he gave his 1/2
> million away to people who needed help? I suppose it would be criminal to
> reward him for his kindness?
You missed the point. Ok, no more analogic synthesis here.
>
>> H. sapiens, in these newly split up groups, had to fend for themselves
>> and a great degree of cooperation within the GROUP had to happen or
>> they'd have perished. In time, they chose for traits that were
>> advantageous - that's called ual selection.
>
> No, that's not ual selection at all. Sexual selection is what accounts
> for differences between the es, especially those that have no purpose
> other than promote or guide mate selection.
No, ual selection is a more honed in example of natural selection. You
select mates based on TRAITS. Do you want to marry the KINDER, GENTLER egg
head? Or do you want to marry the brute hung up on honor with an ego so
sensitive that looking at him the wrong way could get you killed. Do you
select for brawn? Or for brains? Do you select people with big noses? Or
with small ones? And so forth. It was shown recently that selecting based
100% on BEHAVIOR produced offspring within a few generations that LOOKED
markedly different. Foxes were chosen, selected out of a whole heap of wild
foxed, based on friendliness in behavior. Within a few generations, the
friendly group had a markedly different appearance. Translate that to what
human beings would see if they looked across the line at each other.
Markedly different appearances.
>
>> You might want to search "James Michael Howard" and read his data on
>> testosterone and other things - as regards to the groups of humans.
>
> Well, your language suggests a pretty high level of testosterone IMO.
> Which group do you admit belonging to, then?
My language is blunt. I'm not a male, DUH. Your language suggestes that
you are a warrior on a crusade that imagines genocidal racists at every turn
if someone disagrees with you. You are also fond of telling me what I
mean, instead of reading what I said I meant.
>
> But I'll look him up.
|
|
| | From: | Wolf Kirchmeir | | Subject: | Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence | | Date: | Sat, 08 Jan 2005 11:13:07 -0500 |
|
|
| P.Comm wrote:
[...]
> My language is blunt. I'm not a male, DUH. Your language suggestes that
> you are a warrior on a crusade that imagines genocidal racists at every turn
> if someone disagrees with you. You are also fond of telling me what I
> mean, instead of reading what I said I meant.
Don't matter that you're female - you still have testosterone, and your
testosterone levels also correlate with various aspects of violent
behaviour. Or doesn't JMH have those data in his pile?
I'm fond of telling you what your statements imply. I haven't a clue as
to what you _think_ your language means - until you tell me I was wrong
in my interpretation. EG, you claim I "added" the criterion of how #1
made his money to your anecdote. Gee, P. Comm, I thought I was "jumping
paradigms" and "synthesising across disciplines" and (ugh!) "thinking
outside the box." You just didn't like the conclusions implied when I
did that.
Even if I stay inside your box, there is no reason to suppose that #1
doesn't owe something to the society in which he made his money. Without
them, he couldn't have done it, you see. For all you know, he sold #2
that stupid shit that you diss. As set up, your anecdote is simplistic,
and merely valid, not sound. I'm sure you know the difference, what with
your high IQ and all. You claim to dislike Libertarians, but your
anecdotal argument is a favourite of Libertarian one, and is intended to
justify not having to share your wealth. Was that your intention? You
see, stupid me doesn't know what you meant, only what you said.
Bye for now.
|
|
| | From: | P.Comm | | Subject: | Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence | | Date: | Sun, 09 Jan 2005 00:53:29 GMT |
|
|
| "Wolf Kirchmeir" wrote in message
news:KCTDd.76088$P%3.2533281@news20.bellglobal.com...
> P.Comm wrote:
> [...]
>> My language is blunt. I'm not a male, DUH. Your language suggestes that
>> you are a warrior on a crusade that imagines genocidal racists at every
>> turn if someone disagrees with you. You are also fond of telling me
>> what I mean, instead of reading what I said I meant.
>
> Don't matter that you're female - you still have testosterone, and your
> testosterone levels also correlate with various aspects of violent
> behaviour. Or doesn't JMH have those data in his pile?
What are you, crazy? This is usenet. This is a post. I'm not a violent
person - I'm actually quite easy going and friendly. I have never started a
fight with anyone and have not even been in anything resembling a physical
fight since I was a kid (and I never started one then, either). Someone
bumping into me is no big deal - just excuse me and get on with it.
>
> I'm fond of telling you what your statements imply.
Your implications. Not my intentions.
I'm in favor of taxes that build roads, infrastructure, things that
modernize a society that make the society more and more modern,
technological. I am NOT in favor of taxes that pay people to stay home, have
kids, and pay to rebuild homes they destroyed 10 times in a row. I am not
in favor of Bush taking my tax dollars to hand over to victims of the
Tsunami when we have problems right here that need fixing fast. 4
hurricanes, remember? I am not in favor of giving money to people that
throw what they have away on things they don't need - when they know (if
they have brains) that they can not afford these things. Libertarians are
in favor of Adam Smith. My ideal is Gene Roddenberry - but I'm, for reality
(not idealism) 100% in favor of the New Deal of FDR as he wrote it, not as
the Big Ls warped it.
I see I should never have mentioned IQ or anything personal - you definitely
have an ISSUE with it. You fail to be able to agree to disagree to the
extent that you HINT that I'm a violent person. You're crazy.
Good luck murdering your snails.
|
|
| | From: | P.Comm | | Subject: | TYPO fix: Racial Differences in Intelligence | | Date: | Sat, 08 Jan 2005 10:45:55 GMT |
|
|
| TYPO - should read "they have PERPETUAL motion economic theories
--
http://innsmouth.rules.it
or http://www.geocities.com/trip_to_innsmouth
http://lovecraft.shows.it
or http://www.geocities.com/lovecraft_was_here
"P.Comm" wrote in message
news:9oODd.1111$Ii4.128@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Wolf Kirchmeir" wrote in message
> news:8JGDd.31847$7n1.1282107@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> P.Comm wrote:
>> [...]
>>> I am in favor of Eugenics as practiced in the People's Republic of
>>> China. Both negative and positive eugenics. I am in favor of a 100%
>>> strict merit system - which is the only thing that is fair. Anything
>>> else is a drag down, a burden that people never even had a vote to say
>>> they would accept on their shoulders.
>>
>> Eugenics in China??? That's a new one.
>
> Here is the url to the whole article, written by an army guy there:
> http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/eug-ch.html
>
> Guess
>> what the limbic brain tells us to do when we can't found families and
>> kin-bond by that route?
>
> It tells you to "habitat track." LMAO. That's not happening there, btw.
>>
>> As for 100% merit systems - for some strange reason, the people who argue
>> for this always define merit as what they have, so that --
>> naturally and fairly, of course, we would;t want it any other way --
>> they get the spoils.
>
> Not so. When I say merit, I mean merit. I mean ability - and ability is
> going to BE in specific areas most of the time. A child with a natural
> aptitude in music, with perfect pitch, SHOULD BE encouraged to go into
> that - expose that child to instruments of many kinds. And so forth. The
> tone deaf person (very easy to tell if a person is tone deaf) should be
> DIScouraged from pursueing a career in music. People tend to LIKE what
> they are naturally good at. Do the same across the board. You do not
> know what merit is? OK - here is MERIT - an account of it from the old
> USSR. We used to have that in the USA too, before the later 1960s.
> http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/sovieted.html
>
> So then, when the 5 year old kid that can, in 15 minutes, draw a picture
> that looks exactly like what's there (gifted kid), I'd say it's a good
> picture. Schools used to do that, too. But when a 5 or older year old kid
> can't draw for jack shit and I hear mommy saying "oh, that's beautiful"
> well, let that kid ask me and I'd tell him the picture is shit. I'm very
> VERY blunt. I don't believe in patting mediocrity on the back (aka, LYING
> about it). The fact is, if that kid SEES the picture drawn by the gifted
> kid, that kid is going to KNOW he himself can not draw. So why lie to the
> kid? In a merit system, no one lied to the kids.
>>
>> In any case, from your comments below, I wouldn't want a merit system
>> based on your notion of merit. I prefer my own, thank you very much.
>>
>>> H. sapiens started at GO.
>>
>> Hoohah! Life is a game of Monopoly (tm). Wonderful!
>
> Do you think that humans did not evolve at the same time? That they did
> NOT start from GO?
>>
>>> What the many groups of them splitting up did as newly separated groups
>>> from then on can be looked at as strategies for life. Some had better
>>> strategies, some had bad ones.
>>
>> This is about as simplistic a version of anthropology 101 as I've ever
>> seen.
>
> Simplistic, but true. I realize you don't like it. Tish tish.
>>
>>> Give three people half a million dollars. Check those three people out
>>> in 10 years time and you'll see that they did not opt to do the same
>>> things. This is free will, choice, etc.
>>
>> Ah yes, the Libertarian argument. I should've seen it coming. I must be
>> slipping.
>
> I hate libertarians, they have "pertual motion" economic theories. But
> it's the facts of life, nonetheless. My example was to turn whole groups
> of H. sapiens into an example of 3 people and what they DO. That is, what
> they THINK (or do NOT think) of doing.
>>
>>> It would be CRIMINAL to take money from #1 who may have turned half a
>>> million into a billion
>>
>> That depends on how he managed this feat. If he did by chicanery and
>> force, it would be criminal _not_ to take it away from him.
>
> You added that to my example.
>>
>>> - and hand it over to #2 who may have taken his half a million and
>>> wasted it on stupid shit that rendered him back in the "poverty"
>>> classification.
>>
>> Stupid shit is just stuff _you_ don't want to spend the money on. One
>> man's shit is another man's treasure. And if, as Alfred Doolittle claims
>> he does with his excess wealth, he has spent it "providing pleasure to
>> himself and his friends, and employment to others," he has spent it about
>> as wisely as it can be spent.
>
> Yer not too much of a synthetic thinker, I see. No more anecdotes then.
> I was using the 3 people as a synthetic example of "H. sapiens split into
> GROUPS that have good or bad strategies."
>
> Money is shit, you see - and shit is
>> very bad when kept in a concentrated pile, and very good when it's spread
>> around. In the one case it causes disease; in the other, it promotes
>> growth.
>>
>> And what of #3 (whom you conveniently leave out)? Suppose he gave his 1/2
>> million away to people who needed help? I suppose it would be criminal to
>> reward him for his kindness?
>
> You missed the point. Ok, no more analogic synthesis here.
>>
>>> H. sapiens, in these newly split up groups, had to fend for themselves
>>> and a great degree of cooperation within the GROUP had to happen or
>>> they'd have perished. In time, they chose for traits that were
>>> advantageous - that's called ual selection.
>>
>> No, that's not ual selection at all. Sexual selection is what accounts
>> for differences between the es, especially those that have no purpose
>> other than promote or guide mate selection.
>
> No, ual selection is a more honed in example of natural selection. You
> select mates based on TRAITS. Do you want to marry the KINDER, GENTLER
> egg head? Or do you want to marry the brute hung up on honor with an ego
> so sensitive that looking at him the wrong way could get you killed. Do
> you select for brawn? Or for brains? Do you select people with big
> noses? Or with small ones? And so forth. It was shown recently that
> selecting based 100% on BEHAVIOR produced offspring within a few
> generations that LOOKED markedly different. Foxes were chosen, selected
> out of a whole heap of wild foxed, based on friendliness in behavior.
> Within a few generations, the friendly group had a markedly different
> appearance. Translate that to what human beings would see if they looked
> across the line at each other. Markedly different appearances.
>>
>>> You might want to search "James Michael Howard" and read his data on
>>> testosterone and other things - as regards to the groups of humans.
>>
>> Well, your language suggests a pretty high level of testosterone IMO.
>> Which group do you admit belonging to, then?
>
> My language is blunt. I'm not a male, DUH. Your language suggestes that
> you are a warrior on a crusade that imagines genocidal racists at every
> turn if someone disagrees with you. You are also fond of telling me what
> I mean, instead of reading what I said I meant.
>>
>> But I'll look him up.
>
>
|
|
|
