OT: Officer Crowley

[Andrew McCeltic]

On the white privilege thing- if you start by believing in an idea or theory and then look for evidence to support it, you can always find something to confirm what you think. On the other hand, a scientist or social scientist would look at the evidence and test out theories to explain it. That's where Occam's razor & falsifiability come in.

I could say, for example, in a Freudian argument, that ryaningf is hammering home this white privilege point because he has an unresolved psychic rivalry with his father dating back to early childhood. That's b.s., but I could interpret his statements, tone, rhetoric to demonstrate that, but that wouldn't mean it was true. And the problem with that, to go further, is that even if ryan said, "unresolved rivalry? What are you talking about?", I could just claim that he was repressing a memory, or denying the truth- so that even the facts which ostensibly contradict my interpretation end up being used to support it. So my Freudian theory about ryan and his politics and his father isn't a "theory" in the scientific sense, it's closer to a belief.

[ryaningf]

On the white privilege thing- if you start by believing in an idea or theory and then look for evidence to support it, you can always find something to confirm what you think. On the other hand, a scientist or social scientist would look at the evidence and test out theories to explain it. That's where Occam's razor & falsifiability come in.

I could say, for example, in a Freudian argument, that ryaningf is hammering home this white privilege point because he has an unresolved psychic rivalry with his father dating back to early childhood. That's b.s., but I could interpret his statements, tone, rhetoric to demonstrate that, but that wouldn't mean it was true. And the problem with that, to go further, is that even if ryan said, "unresolved rivalry? What are you talking about?", I could just claim that he was repressing a memory, or denying the truth- so that even the facts which ostensibly contradict my interpretation end up being used to support it. So my Freudian theory about ryan and his politics and his father isn't a "theory" in the scientific sense, it's closer to a belief.

All theories start as hypothesis/belief--and for a lot of them, such as political theories, philosophical theories, or psycho-analytical theories, never get beyond the 'belief' stage--often because the nature of the theory precludes empirical verification. I believe that's the case with white privilege, mainly because success, as we've sussed out in this thread, involves a multitude of factors and it's impossible to pinpoint exactly the role race has in success--other than stating that it has some role.

FYI, white privilege didn't start with the theory and look for evidence to support it--instead, it looked at the consistent 'success gap' between whites and non-whites and hypothesized a reason why. Like I said already, it can't be proven or disproven, unless you agree with Mencius that the higher IQ scores of Jews and Asians means white privilege fails.

As an aside, your irony meter must be broke because Occam's razor is as much a belief as white privilege is--there's no 'proof' that the simpler alternative amongst otherwise acceptable hypotheses is preferable. In fact, Occam's razor as a principle of choice does nothing but prove that humans have a bias for simplicity. Hypothesis making and breaking is a forward looking enterprise and Occam's razor searches for parsimony,which can only be done after the fact. As such, it does nothing but get in the way of the pursuit of truth--it's methodologically (Please Use More Appropriate Word).

I'd do some more reading up on it, perhaps at http://www.galilean-library.org/manuscr ... stid=43832, before you drop it in conversation again.

[wigglestrue]

The fact that you're left to sift through statistics for small percentage disparities pretty much means that race has ceased to be a major factor in this country. There is nothing of substance in the "theory" of white privilege. There is more substance in most internet conspiracy theories. If you want to feel useful maybe you should buy a time machine and go back to the 60's when there was factual institutional racism and plenty of real-life opportunities to help rectify the situation. You're wasting your time playing what amounts to identity politics as a fantasy sport.

[Bill Lumbergh]

...
As an aside, your irony meter must be broke because Occam's razor is as much a belief as white privilege is--there's no 'proof' that the simpler alternative amongst otherwise acceptable hypotheses is preferable. In fact, Occam's razor as a principle of choice does nothing but prove that humans have a bias for simplicity. Hypothesis making and breaking is a forward looking enterprise and Occam's razor searches for parsimony,which can only be done after the fact. As such, it does nothing but get in the way of the pursuit of truth--it's methodologically (Please Use More Appropriate Word). ...

Except it's not really so much a methodology as it is an observation that the simplest model/solution is more likely to be the correct solution. It's more a common sense approach than anything. You don't start with the least likely answer as your working hypothesis, you start with the most likely (Occam's Razor), and unless or until it is disproven, in most avenues of life that are not political hotbutton issues, it is the working hypothesis.

Here's an example that I pilfered:

A real life example of Occam's Razor in practice goes as follows:
Crop circles began to be reported in the 1970s. Two interpretations were made of the circles of matted grass. One was that flying saucers made the imprints. The other was that someone (human) had used some sort of instruments to push down the grass. Occam's Razor would say that given the lack of evidence for flying saucers and the complexity involved in getting UFOs from distant galaxies to arrive on earth (unseen and traveling faster than the speed of light I suppose) the second interpretation is simplest. The second explanation could be wrong, but until further facts present themself it remains the preferable theory. As it turns out, Occam's Razor was right as two people admitted to making the original crop figures in the 1990s (and the rest have apparently been created by copy-cats). Despite this fact, some people still ignore Occam's Razor and instead continue to believe that crop circles are being created by flying saucers.

And here's a hypothetical that might be a little more apropos. Say for instance, that Golden Retrievers and Greyhounds were pitted against one another in dog track races here in America for the last 70 years or so, and that it turns out that the Greyhounds (as a group) win these contests consistently, wherever and whenever in America they are held. The Occam's Razor approach to viewing those race results would conclude that Greyhounds are faster than Golden Retrievers (until proven otherwise, you go with what your eyes tell you). But what if someone introduced new info to the equation? What if it was revealed that the Golden Retrievers were systemically treated worse than the Greyhounds for hundreds of years? Someone then posits the opinion that Greyhounds are not really faster than Golden Retrievers, but that it is the different treatment of the GRs that cause success or failure on the race track. A tricky problem. How might you prove or disprove this? What if you held the races in China, or Romania, or Africa, where they don't share the history of mistreating the Golden Retrievers. What would you conclude if Greyhounds were winning the races vs Golden Retrievers in those places too, without the mistreatment factor? Would you then conclude that Greyhounds are faster than Golden Retrievers?

At some point, even proponents of the 'Golden Retrievers were mistreated and that's why they're losing races' would probably conclude that, well, in light of how the races turned out in other areas that don't share our unique history of mistreating Golden Retrievers (especially if the results were the same wherever in the world the races are run), looks like our hypothesis is wrong, for now. If further info becomes available later to explain the different success rates in these races we'll consider them, but for now, the working theory will be that Greyhounds run faster than Golden Retrievers (the Occam's Razor working hypothesis).

It's sensible to have as your working hypothesis the answer that seems most likely to be correct. It takes some sort of extraordinary motivation other than logic and reason to have as your working theory something other than the most likely correct answer. Political correctness is one such extraordinary motivation.

[GuyClinch]

The whole white privledge theory is a classic problem with US institutions of higher learning. Its a pseudo scientific theory taught to people without a proper backaround in real scientific theory. In a nutshell (much like the excellent Freudian comparison) its not falsifiable.

When your dealing with someone who cannot understand the shortcoming in Gladwell's book this is to be expected. But this problem is really strewn about the entire liberal arts departments in many major universities. If your of the women's studies bent you find a similiar view of pornography or rape. Rape is never about sex? Why? Because the act of rape is an act of hate. .. This kind of thing. And so on and so forth.. Freudian psychology as was correctly pointed out earlier suffers from this exact problem..

It's all bad science. It's not really science at all despite some "statistics" thrown into the mix. Ryaningf shows the hallmarks of this crappy education - as guys like Gates propogate this kind of psuedo-science to earn a living.

Pete

[floyd]

I find it pretty interesting how up in arms people are over the suggestion that racism (which no one denies exists) could have economic and legal ramifications today, but have no problem with the crackpot on here advocating the notion that social inequalities between races are due to evolutionary differences in intelligence.
The intellectual underpinings of the civil rights movement cause a firestorm of controversy, but those of the eugenics movement ... not so much.

[MyInsatiableOne]

Geez I stay away from this board for a couple of months and this is what I come back to?

I'd share my opinions but I know how (and who) would disagree with them...

[ryaningf]

...
As an aside, your irony meter must be broke because Occam's razor is as much a belief as white privilege is--there's no 'proof' that the simpler alternative amongst otherwise acceptable hypotheses is preferable. In fact, Occam's razor as a principle of choice does nothing but prove that humans have a bias for simplicity. Hypothesis making and breaking is a forward looking enterprise and Occam's razor searches for parsimony,which can only be done after the fact. As such, it does nothing but get in the way of the pursuit of truth--it's methodologically (Please Use More Appropriate Word). ...

Except it's not really so much a methodology as it is an observation that the simplest model/solution is more likely to be the correct solution. It's more a common sense approach than anything. You don't start with the least likely answer as your working hypothesis, you start with the most likely (Occam's Razor), and unless or until it is disproven, in most avenues of life that are not political hotbutton issues, it is the working hypothesis.

No, it's a methodology and it's (Please Use More Appropriate Word). It doesn't say that the simplest explanation is most likely to be true (because that's patently false); no, it's says that it's methodologically preferable to start with the simplest explanation because the simplest explanation is the easiest to disprove. Science, let's all remember, isn't the process of proving things 'true'; no, it's the process of forming possible hypotheses and designing experiments that prove the working hypothesis false. On it's face, the Razor says it's a better idea, as a methodology, to start with the simplest explanation because those are easier to disprove. Sounds straightforward, but...

There are two major problems with the Razor--

1. It says that amongst two or more otherwise equally likely explanations, one ought to choose the simplest explanation. Sounds easy enough, but when, if ever, are two explanations otherwise equally likely? Probably never, especially before the theories are tested. So, methodologically speaking, the Razor tells you to make a determination that is impossible to make until both theories have been vigorously tested and so, as a methodology, it asks you to make an unrealistic determination at a point in time when such a determination is nothing more than a guess. You can only truly judge whether something is 'equally likely' after you've tested it--the Razor, on the other hand, is a methodology that pertains to decisions made before you test the hypotheses.

2. The second problem is similar to the first in the sense that the Razor ask you to make a decision as to which of the otherwise equally likely explanations (if that's even possible) is the simplest before you have enough information to make such a determination. Well, how do you determine which is the simplest? The same way you determine whether two or more theories are otherwise equally likely--you test them! That's why I originally wrote:

"Hypothesis making and breaking is a forward looking enterprise and Occam's razor searches for parsimony,which can only be done after the fact. As such, it does nothing but get in the way of the pursuit of truth--it's methodologically (Please Use More Appropriate Word)."

Let's be honest--Occam's razor is a nice rule of thumb for falsifying hypotheses, but only in regards to very limited hypotheses--the kind of hypotheses and experiments they were making in the 14th century. As a rule of thumb today, in science or social science or pretty much anything, it's basically worthless.

Here's an example that I pilfered:

A real life example of Occam's Razor in practice goes as follows:
Crop circles began to be reported in the 1970s. Two interpretations were made of the circles of matted grass. One was that flying saucers made the imprints. The other was that someone (human) had used some sort of instruments to push down the grass. Occam's Razor would say that given the lack of evidence for flying saucers and the complexity involved in getting UFOs from distant galaxies to arrive on earth (unseen and traveling faster than the speed of light I suppose) the second interpretation is simplest. The second explanation could be wrong, but until further facts present themself it remains the preferable theory. As it turns out, Occam's Razor was right as two people admitted to making the original crop figures in the 1990s (and the rest have apparently been created by copy-cats). Despite this fact, some people still ignore Occam's Razor and instead continue to believe that crop circles are being created by flying saucers.

And here's a hypothetical that might be a little more apropos. Say for instance, that Golden Retrievers and Greyhounds were pitted against one another in dog track races here in America for the last 70 years or so, and that it turns out that the Greyhounds (as a group) win these contests consistently, wherever and whenever in America they are held. The Occam's Razor approach to viewing those race results would conclude that Greyhounds are faster than Golden Retrievers (until proven otherwise, you go with what your eyes tell you). But what if someone introduced new info to the equation? What if it was revealed that the Golden Retrievers were systemically treated worse than the Greyhounds for hundreds of years? Someone then posits the opinion that Greyhounds are not really faster than Golden Retrievers, but that it is the different treatment of the GRs that cause success or failure on the race track. A tricky problem. How might you prove or disprove this? What if you held the races in China, or Romania, or Africa, where they don't share the history of mistreating the Golden Retrievers. What would you conclude if Greyhounds were winning the races vs Golden Retrievers in those places too, without the mistreatment factor? Would you then conclude that Greyhounds are faster than Golden Retrievers?

At some point, even proponents of the 'Golden Retrievers were mistreated and that's why they're losing races' would probably conclude that, well, in light of how the races turned out in other areas that don't share our unique history of mistreating Golden Retrievers (especially if the results were the same wherever in the world the races are run), looks like our hypothesis is wrong, for now. If further info becomes available later to explain the different success rates in these races we'll consider them, but for now, the working theory will be that Greyhounds run faster than Golden Retrievers (the Occam's Razor working hypothesis).

Good try at an analogy--the problem is, the Golden Retrievers in this county are particularly unique to this country and have, in some cases, almost 400 years of unique mistreatment, development, and breeding which differentiates them from the other Golden Retrievers around the world, making any comparison interesting, but invalid. The American Golden Retriever is only found in America.

[ryaningf]

The whole white privledge theory is a classic problem with US institutions of higher learning. Its a pseudo scientific theory taught to people without a proper backaround in real scientific theory. In a nutshell (much like the excellent Freudian comparison) its not falsifiable.

When your dealing with someone who cannot understand the shortcoming in Gladwell's book this is to be expected. But this problem is really strewn about the entire liberal arts departments in many major universities. If your of the women's studies bent you find a similiar view of pornography or rape. Rape is never about sex? Why? Because the act of rape is an act of hate. .. This kind of thing. And so on and so forth.. Freudian psychology as was correctly pointed out earlier suffers from this exact problem..

It's all bad science. It's not really science at all despite some "statistics" thrown into the mix. Ryaningf shows the hallmarks of this crappy education - as guys like Gates propogate this kind of psuedo-science to earn a living.

Pete

In a nutshell, Peter, lots of things are not falsifiable--everything assumed true is 'not falsifiable'--and to set yourself up as the paradigm of truth and science is quite misleading and giant load of crap---if you limited yourself to advocating only the true things proved by science, you wouldn't have much to say, especially on a basketball message board. Your views regarding eugenics and sexually enjoyable rape, among all the other crazy things you've said on RealGM, are similarly not falsifiable. But don't let your own internal contradictions stop you...

[ryaningf]

I find it pretty interesting how up in arms people are over the suggestion that racism (which no one denies exists) could have economic and legal ramifications today, but have no problem with the crackpot on here advocating the notion that social inequalities between races are due to evolutionary differences in intelligence.
The intellectual underpinings of the civil rights movement cause a firestorm of controversy, but those of the eugenics movement ... not so much.

You're not the only one, Floyd. I've purposefully ignored the eugenic undertow in this conversation--under the belief that if the conversation shifted to that realm that it would soon turn ugly and unproductive. Discussions like these aren't ever going to change someone's mind, so to directly engage the crack pot ides only serves to give attention to something that deserves no attention. Crack pot ideas die best when you ignore them.

[GuyClinch]

but have no problem with the crackpot on here advocating the notion that social inequalities between races are due to evolutionary differences in intelligence.

Your full of it. I could quote my own posts where I explained why for me it's a non-starter. <g> In a nutshell though its impossible to seperate out enviromental factors when evaluating intelligence...

Pete

[Bill Lumbergh]

Good try at an analogy--the problem is, the Golden Retrievers in this county are particularly unique to this country and have, in some cases, almost 400 years of unique mistreatment, development, and breeding which differentiates them from the other Golden Retrievers around the world, making any comparison interesting, but invalid. The American Golden Retriever is only found in America.

Don't get hung up on the Golden Retriever breed. Could be any breed that lives not only in America but elsewhere in the world. The point (obviously) was, take away the unique factor (the 400 years of mistreatment) and repeat the contests elsewhere where that factor is absent, and see if the results are the same. If they are the same the world over, no matter where or when, you can pretty much determine that the outcomes were not the result of what you postulated (the mistreatment). Not that complicated an experiment.

You're not the only one, Floyd. I've purposefully ignored the eugenic undertow in this conversation--under the belief that if the conversation shifted to that realm that it would soon turn ugly and unproductive. Discussions like these aren't ever going to change someone's mind, so to directly engage the crack pot ides only serves to give attention to something that deserves no attention. Crack pot ideas die best when you ignore them.

You did pretty well avoiding the ad hominem for awhile. Oh well.

I come on here to refute ugly accusations of white racism and white privilege. Those to me are the "crackpot" ideas. If you are going to malign a whole race (whites) with these allegations, and place blame for one group's outcomes on another group, you ought to have compelling evidence. You offer up only hypotheticals and beliefs about institutional racism. I point out that the only advantages in our institutions these days advantage everybody *but* whites.

What we have are known and uneven group outcomes, with two competing theories that attempt to explain the gaps (limiting it to yours and mine). Your explanation is paternalistic and transfers responsibility for one groups outcomes to whites. You blame the uneven outcomes on white racism and privilege, which is a nasty indictment to make with nothing to back it up but conjecture and hypotheticals. Mine is that educational success explains the differences (high correlation to whatever it is that psychometric tests test). That theory transcends race. If you're smart, you'll succeed. I point out how life outcomes at both the individual and group level mirror psychometric test results. Because there are unequal group level outcomes on those tests (the only things we have to measure such things, imperfect as they may be), you want to throw out the whole idea as outside the realm of things to consider because you find them unpalatable. That has to do with emotion and not reason or logic.

At present, all the data would back my ideas as to what is causal in success. You have only your feelings and beliefs about white privilege. White privilege is an ugly charge that maligns a whole race. It's pure malarkey, and should be exposed as such wherever it pops up.

I'm unconcerned about the name calling. Ad hominem is standard procedure when facts are lacking. I stand by my belief (backed up by data) that the brightest among us, regardless of race will achieve better life outcomes. Follow the data, not your emotion. You'll see high correlation at both individual and group levels. You see no such data about white privilege, just feelings and beliefs. It's an empty and nasty accusation.

[ryaningf]

Good try at an analogy--the problem is, the Golden Retrievers in this county are particularly unique to this country and have, in some cases, almost 400 years of unique mistreatment, development, and breeding which differentiates them from the other Golden Retrievers around the world, making any comparison interesting, but invalid. The American Golden Retriever is only found in America.

Don't get hung up on the Golden Retriever breed. Could be any breed that lives not only in America but elsewhere in the world. The point (obviously) was, take away the unique factor (the 400 years of mistreatment) and repeat the contests where that factor is absent, and see if the results are the same. If they are the same the world over, no matter where or when, you can pretty much determine that the outcomes were not the result of what you postulated (the mistreatment). Not that complicated an experiment.

But the 400 years of separation, mistreatment, breeding and development on the American continent have fundamentally changed American Golden Retriever into it's own phenomenon--therefore, the other Retrievers found around the world are different and thus your results including those different Retrievers have little bearing on the American situation.

You're not the only one, Floyd. I've purposefully ignored the eugenic undertow in this conversation--under the belief that if the conversation shifted to that realm that it would soon turn ugly and unproductive. Discussions like these aren't ever going to change someone's mind, so to directly engage the crack pot ides only serves to give attention to something that deserves no attention. Crack pot ideas die best when you ignore them.

You did pretty well avoiding the ad hominem for awhile. Oh well.

Meh. I didn't mean it as an attack--only that I didn't see any point in opening up that can of worms, because it will devolve into ad hominem attacks. Eugenics is a slippery slope, let's not go there--that was my only point. If you object to the crack pot crack, then I apologize. Certainly you've said worse about white privilege...

I come on here to refute ugly accusations of white racism and white privilege. Those to me are the "crackpot" ideas. If you are going to malign a whole race (whites) with these allegations, and place blame for one group's outcomes on another group, you ought to have compelling evidence. You offer up only hypotheticals and beliefs about institutional racism. I point out that the only advantages in our institutions these days advantage everybody *but* whites.

What we have are known and uneven group outcomes, with two competing theories that attempt to explain the gaps (limiting it to yours and mine). Your explanation is paternalistic and transfers responsibility for one groups outcomes to whites. You blame the uneven outcomes on white racism and privilege, which is a nasty indictment to make with nothing to back it up but conjecture and hypotheticals. Mine is that educational success explains the differences (high correlation to whatever it is that psychometric tests test). That theory transcends race. If you're smart, you'll succeed. I point out how life outcomes at both the individual and group level mirror psychometric test results. Because there are unequal group level outcomes on those tests (the only things we have to measure such things, imperfect as they may be), you want to throw out the whole idea as outside the realm of things to consider because you find them unpalatable. That has to do with emotion and not reason or logic.

If you're smart, you'll succeed? The answer is decidedly no. Success depends on a multitude of factors and it doesn't fall simply along lines of intellect. It has to do with who's in power, and what's defined as intellect, as well as ALL THE OTHER ASPECTS of success that we've been talking about. And that's not even to mention the problems inherent in IQ tests, or how one goes about assessing one's intellect, or the factors involved in developing one's intellect in the first place. Just way too many variables to boil it down to intellect and educational success...the power dynamics alone invalidate any supplication to a pure education equals success paradigm.

At present, all the data would back my ideas as to what is causal in success (anathema though the facts be to you). You have only your feelings and beliefs about white privilege. White privilege is an ugly charge that maligns a whole race. It's pure malarkey, and should be exposed as such wherever it pops up.

All the data? My ass. As we said before, both of these competing theories are plausible and not falsifiable.

I'm unconcerned about the name calling. Ad hominem is standard procedure when facts are lacking. I stand by my belief (backed up by data) that the brightest among us, regardless of race will achieve better life outcomes. Follow the data, not your emotion. You'll see high correlation at both individual and group levels. You see no such data about white privilege, just mushy feelings and beliefs. It's an empty and nasty accusation.

Ad hominem attacks are standard procedure any time you feel the other side is wrong--whether you end up using that avenue is a matter of personal choice. Whatever the case and no matter which side feels that the other has 'facts' that are 'lacking'--it's probably safe to say that both sides of this debate have used on occasion personal attacks...and it has nothing to do with what side has the 'facts'. Gimme a break.

[Bill Lumbergh]

...
If you're smart, you'll succeed? The answer is decidedly no. Success depends on a multitude of factors and it doesn't fall simply along lines of intellect. It has to do with who's in power, and what's defined as intellect, as well as ALL THE OTHER ASPECTS of success that we've been talking about. And that's not even to mention the problems inherent in IQ tests, or how one goes about assessing one's intellect, or the factors involved in developing one's intellect in the first place. Just way too many variables to boil it down to intellect and educational success...the power dynamics alone invalidate any supplication to a pure education equals success paradigm.

Tests are imperfect beasts, but they are the best we have at measuring what it is that they measure, and the point is that there is high correlation between those test results, which have occurred for over 70 years, both here in the U.S. and around the world, and life outcomes. If they weren't predictive of something (which they are), colleges and the military would have discarded them ages ago. They are not the end all or be all, and of course many factors contribute to success or failure, but I think there is evidence that smarts are the primary factor, regardless of race, and that these correlations hold up the world over at both group and individual levels, not just here in the states. I've stated that both nature and nurture contribute to intellect. You seem to subscribe to the blank slate side of things with no nature input at all. Merely looking at data that seems to point in a certain direction and interpreting the data as it is, and the concept of eugenics, are two entirely different things, particularly if your view of eugenics is as follows:

"the study of, or belief in, the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)."

Which is not what I'm talking about, at all.

At present, all the data would back my ideas as to what is causal in success (anathema though the facts be to you). You have only your feelings and beliefs about white privilege. White privilege is an ugly charge that maligns a whole race. It's pure malarkey, and should be exposed as such wherever it pops up.

All the data? My ass. As we said before, both of these competing theories are plausible and not falsifiable.

Well, I'd change that to 'the vast preponderance of data' and it'd be accurate. They're two theories all right, but they don't seem equally plausible. One has a lot of data with strong correlative indications to back it up, the other has feelings and beliefs. You were asked to point out examples of institutional racism and you came up with hypotheticals. I pointed out that the only institutional policies still on the books that benefit any particular race(s), all benefit groups other than whites. I provided evidence of groups other than gentile whites outperforming whites both academically and financially, indicating that Asians and Ashkenazim are immune to white privilege, which ought to put that notion to rest. I pointed out that the tests that I speak of have been performed elsewhere in the world in places that do not share our unique history and results are the same everywhere, which, barring some new factors being introduced, would seem to invalidate that theory as well.

I'm unconcerned about the name calling. Ad hominem is standard procedure when facts are lacking. I stand by my belief (backed up by data) that the brightest among us, regardless of race will achieve better life outcomes. Follow the data, not your emotion. You'll see high correlation at both individual and group levels. You see no such data about white privilege, just mushy feelings and beliefs. It's an empty and nasty accusation.

Ad hominem attacks are standard procedure any time you feel the other side is wrong--whether you end up using that avenue is a matter of personal choice. Whatever the case and no matter which side feels that the other has 'facts' that are 'lacking'--it's probably safe to say that both sides of this debate have used on occasion personal attacks...and it has nothing to do with what side has the 'facts'. Gimme a break.

Ad hominem occurs when debate devolves to low level name calling, attacking the person, and not the argument, at which point it's not really a debate anymore. It doesn't happen "anytime you feel the other side is wrong". If you've got the goods logically, there's no reason to go there at all, and if you don't have the goods, better to simply bow out than resort to ad hominem.

In seeking answers for these issues we speak of, I'm dispassionate about where the data leads. Right now there's a lot of data that indicates smarts correlate strongly to life outcomes, all over the world (in other breaking news, data indicates that the sun rises in the east).

What I do feel strongly about though, is people smearing an entire race of people with claims of white privilege. If you're going to smear a group like that, have some compelling evidence to back it up. Right now, all I've seen is that you believe it to true, therefore it must be so.

[Cyclical]

Oh god, let this die already.

Guys, it's great to express opinions but let's not pretend there is more data and support out there to back up either side of the argument. It's an opinion, which can be argued both ways. We've all made our points I think. No need to let pride make people talk out of their asses to sound more important than the next. We all have different views. It's what makes the world go 'round. It's what pays the bills for cable news networks.

Back to basketball. Please.

[ryaningf]

Oh god, let this die already.

Guys, it's great to express opinions but let's not pretend there is more data and support out there to back up either side of the argument. It's an opinion, which can be argued both ways. We've all made our points I think. No need to let pride make people talk out of their asses to sound more important than the next. We all have different views. It's what makes the world go 'round. It's what pays the bills for cable news networks.

Back to basketball. Please.

Well said, my man.