Political Roundtable Part X

[AFM]

[Are Golden Retrievers and Rottweilers social constructs?

Picking out this line just as an excuse to post this classic:

[doclinkin]

More proof that Hillary is a reptilian NWO robot, watch as she has a power failure and her BIOS reboots

Watch on YouTube

Editing shenanigans.

Watch on YouTube

She was clowning about the sudden ambush of follow up questions, and yes avoiding a topic.

Dude...


.....


you don't need to explain that... to anyone...


Just to make clear, I don't think she's actually a robot that malfunctioned, and I don't think time slowed down drastically during her response.



It's all jokes man...

Neh: the editing of the first few seconds was well done. Had to find the original footage. Not saying she's not a robot. Just saying this is not definitive proof.

[AFM]

Editing shenanigans.

Watch on YouTube

She was clowning about the sudden ambush of follow up questions, and yes avoiding a topic.

Dude...


.....


you don't need to explain that... to anyone...


Just to make clear, I don't think she's actually a robot that malfunctioned, and I don't think time slowed down drastically during her response.



It's all jokes man...

Neh: the editing of the first few seconds was well done. Had to find the original footage. Not saying she's not a robot. Just saying this is not definitive proof.

Yes, they played it immediately back in reverse. Classic robot detection technique. A robot will look exactly the same rolling backwards. If I showed you a clip of an Olympic sprinter played backwards, you could tell it's a human, because the motions look unnatural backwards. If I showed you a clip of R2D2 rolling through Tatooine, in reverse, you would be unable to notice.

Trust me, I have a PhD in Conspiracy Theories, and an IQ of 150. (I'm also 1/8th Jewish, apparently). I did my 5th grade book report on Behold A Pale Horse and got an A+.

[montestewart]

More proof that Hillary is a reptilian NWO robot, watch as she has a power failure and her BIOS reboots

Watch on YouTube

Editing shenanigans.

Watch on YouTube

She was clowning about the sudden ambush of follow up questions, and yes avoiding a topic.

Dude...


.....


you don't need to explain that... to anyone...


Just to make clear, I don't think she's actually a robot that malfunctioned, and I don't think time slowed down drastically during her response.



It's all jokes man...

And it provoked a rare use of the word shenanigans in this thread entirely unconnected to the Nazis

[gtn130]

Nate, the academic achievement gap between white and black kids starts literally at kindergarten. Being poor is one part of it, but living in a single parent household and growing up in a poor neighborhood where you're taught not to trust the system are huge factors as well. It's really not as simple as "sort by income" or "sort by dollars spent on education".

If you don't think it's the aforementioned socioeconomic factors causing black kids to struggle in school, what is your theory?

I'm not going to explain my theory because I'm not in the mood to have to deal with attacks from 10 of you at once. I'll let someone else make the case for me.

Read this from William Saletan at Slate.com:
Liberal Creationism

If you find yourself in disbelief, go ahead and click on the numerous hyperlinks to further educate yourself on the issue.

You know that study used material from a white supremacy group, right? And you're aware the author issued an apology, right?

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/features/2007/created_equal/regrets.html

Many of you have criticized parts of the genetic argument as I related them. Others have pointed to alternative theories I truncated or left out. But the thing that has upset me most concerns a co-author of one of the articles I cited. In researching this subject, I focused on published data and relied on peer review and rebuttals to expose any relevant issue. As a result, I missed something I could have picked up from a simple glance at Wikipedia.

For the past five years, J. Philippe Rushton has been president of the Pioneer Fund, an organization dedicated to "the scientific study of heredity and human differences." During this time, the fund has awarded at least $70,000 to the New Century Foundation. To get a flavor of what New Century stands for, check out its publications on crime ("Everyone knows that blacks are dangerous") and heresy ("Unless whites shake off the teachings of racial orthodoxy they will cease to be a distinct people"). New Century publishes a magazine called American Renaissance, which preaches segregation. Rushton routinely speaks at its conferences.

I was negligent in failing to research and report this. I'm sorry. I owe you better than that.

Do you have any actual respected scientific work that validates your theory? Or is this all just Breitbart quality "research" that fuels your beliefs? I'm not very optimistic since you were comfortable sharing this article in the first place.

[gtn130]

So, to be clear here - Nate believes that white people are born with bigger brains than black people and this is validated through a Slate article that used source material from a white supremacy group.

[gtn130]

If you find yourself in disbelief, go ahead and click on the numerous hyperlinks to further educate yourself on the issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/opinion/09nisbett.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_dilettante/2007/12/dissecting_the_iq_debate.html

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/12/17/none-of-the-above

Maybe you should educate yourself bruh. stay woke tho

[AFM]

Nate's theory sounds legit though. For instance, my head is larger than most 8 year old's, and I'm smarter than most 8 year olds. Ditto for me and dogs.

[dckingsfan]

First, race = genome or sub-genome? PIF?

Brain size = IQ, probably not:
http://tinyurl.com/phze2bv

...the complexity of cellular and molecular organization of neural connections, or synapses, is what truly determines a brain’s computational capacity. Nate?

[AFM]

Me brain big! Me smart!

[dckingsfan]

I would add - that any one with an IQ over 85 can easily be part of the modern economy (computer age) if educated properly and trained properly. That leaves only ~ 16% (someone can fight me on the +/- 1%) of the population - which have opportunities in other jobs.

The biggest failing we have had is our educational system and specifically the lack of competition in your educational system. We failed #1 of the killer aps specifically as it relates to scientific advancement.

[dckingsfan]

Me brain big! Me smart!

No - you simple cellular and molecular organization... you stoneage

[dckingsfan]

You better laugh AFM

[TGW]

So, to be clear here - Nate believes that white people are born with bigger brains than black people and this is validated through a Slate article that used source material from a white supremacy group.

Nate is an intellectually dishonest white supremacist. He's basically equivalent to Calvin Candy from the movie DJango. Uses pseudo-science and flawed "data" to try and make assinine conclusions without looking at any socio-economic perspective.

I find it pathetic that the morons who run this site don't allow blocking of "mods" (and I used that term loosely around these parts) because this would be a perfect situation for use of it.

[nate33]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/opinion/09nisbett.html

Response here: http://www.vdare.com/articles/advocacy-by-omission-richard-e-nisbetts-intelligence-and-how-to-get-it

Money quote:

Nisbett misrepresents much of the available information using highly selective reviews of the literature. Especially egregious are his many errors of omission. For example, while complaining of unrepresentative samples in a 1991 review paper by Richard Lynn, Nisbett side-stepped the very much larger compilation of data in Lynn and Vanhanen`s 2006 book. Nisbett completely ignores the adoption studies of East Asians, as well as those on brain size showing a genetic contribution to their high achievement.

I`m going to group Nisbett`s flaws under seven heads:

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_dilettante/2007/12/dissecting_the_iq_debate.html

Response here: http://www.vdare.com/posts/stephen-metcalf-giving-dilettantes-called-steve-a-bad-name

Money quote

What`s striking is not how ignorant Metcalf is, but also how hate-filled, making him the epitome of the many pundits who have weighed in with so much more rage than reason this fall.

His favorite mode is character assassination, devoting much of his “Dilettante” column to trying to smear scientists who argue that genetics plays some role in IQ gaps such as Richard Lynn, J.P. Rushton (a VDARE.COM contributor), and Arthur Jensen.

Metcalf admitted in his 2005 article on IQ in Slate, a screed against Charles Murray`s article “The Inequality Taboo,” that “Rushton and Jensen came to my attention” from reading Murray`s Commentary article. In other words, he`d never heard of Arthur Jensen, the leading figure in IQ research since 1969, until he started working on his essay for Slate!

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/12/17/none-of-the-above

Gladwell caricatures J. Philippe Rushton, saying he is "a psychologist who specializes in comparing the circumference of what he calls the Negroid brain with the length of the Negroid penis." If Malcolm were fair, his description would have gone something like this: "In 1973, Rushton received his Ph.D. from the London School of Economics for work on altruism in children. As if one PhD were not enough, he received a D.Sc. in psychology from the University of London in 1992. He is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American, British, and Canadian Psychological Associations. In 1988, he was made a Fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation."

Gladwell also libels Charles Murray and Richard Hernstein, accusing them of advocating for a "high-tech Indian reservation" for low-IQ groups. He was later forced to issue a correction.

Most of Gladwell's other objections are the usual "IQ is not intelligence" stuff. He also makes the same mistake that Nisbett made in criticizing Lynn's IQ sampling methods in 1991 while ignoring Lynn's much larger samples from 2006.

[nate33]

First, race = genome or sub-genome? PIF?

Brain size = IQ, probably not:
http://tinyurl.com/phze2bv

...the complexity of cellular and molecular organization of neural connections, or synapses, is what truly determines a brain’s computational capacity. Nate?

I'm not sure how you come away with "probably not". From that article:

Does having a gigantic brain mean that you’re smarter, as cartoons like Pinky and the Brain and Jimmy Neutron Boy Genius would have us believe?

Some studies claim the answer is yes.

The emergence of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has made it possible to compare brain sizes of living humans, and in the ongoing hunt for a physical metric of intelligence, several researchers eagerly sought to correlate MRI measures of brain volume with IQ. Ten years ago, a meta-analysis that examined the results from 26 imaging studies concluded that the correlation between IQ and brain volume is consistently in the 0.3-0.4 range. More recently, a genome-wide association study which included 20,000 human subjects was widely reported by the media to have discovered an “IQ gene.” According to their results, certain variations in the HMGA2 gene, which codes for a protein that helps regulate DNA transcription and cell growth, are correlated with increased intracranial volume as well as enhanced IQ.

A 0.3-0.4 correlation between brain size and IQ is pretty strong. Brain size isn't everything, but it's something.

Here's another link on the subject:
http://www.livescience.com/19692-genes-brain-size-intelligence.html

Though scientists have suggested bigger brains are "smarter," this study is the strongest case yet for a genetic connection to brain size and to IQ. Of course, brain size is not 100 percent correlated with a person's intelligence, and other factors, including connections between brain cells and even a person's experiences, play roles.

"We found fairly unequivocal proof supporting a genetic link to brain function and intelligence. For the first time, we have watertight evidence of how these genes affect the brain," said lead researcher Paul Thompson, a neurologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Medicine.

[keynote]

http://fox8.com/2016/08/04/breitbart-uses-photo-of-cavs-championship-parade-as-donald-trump-rally/

Breitbart uses photo of Cavs championship parade as Donald Trump rally

JACKSONVILLE, Fla.– The conservative news outlet Breitbart is under fire after using a photo of the Cleveland Cavaliers championship parade for a story on a Donald Trump rally in Florida.

Political consultant Tatiana Wright posted a photo on Twitter of thousands packed into Mall B in downtown Cleveland on June 22, claiming it was the crowd for Trump’s event. Those familiar with our city will notice Cleveland City Hall in the background.

Sent from my SM-G900V using RealGM mobile app

[nate33]

So, to be clear here - Nate believes that white people are born with bigger brains than black people and this is validated through a Slate article that used source material from a white supremacy group.

Nate is an intellectually dishonest white supremacist. He's basically equivalent to Calvin Candy from the movie DJango. Uses pseudo-science and flawed "data" to try and make assinine conclusions without looking at any socio-economic perspective.

I find it pathetic that the morons who run this site don't allow blocking of "mods" (and I used that term loosely around these parts) because this would be a perfect situation for use of it.

It's amazing how quick you descend to name calling and personal attacks. Go back and look what I've written in the past few pages. There is nothing unsubstantiated, rude, false, or intentionally inflammatory.

gtn130 asked about my theory to black underperformance in tests. Others advocate for the theory that all underperformance is due to environmental disparities and racism. People have tried to prove this theory to be true for 50 years but have failed to make any factual headway and the gap in performance has persisted. It stands to reason that other theories should be explored. I subscribe to a different theory. It's not yet proven with complete certainty, that's why it's called a theory. But I think the data we have so far on IQ tests, twin studies, human biology etc. is starting to lean more toward my theory. Maybe future discoveries will prove me wrong. We shall see.

At least gtn130 had the decency to try disprove me with links instead of immediately descending into name-calling.

[nate33]

http://fox8.com/2016/08/04/breitbart-uses-photo-of-cavs-championship-parade-as-donald-trump-rally/

Breitbart uses photo of Cavs championship parade as Donald Trump rally

JACKSONVILLE, Fla.– The conservative news outlet Breitbart is under fire after using a photo of the Cleveland Cavaliers championship parade for a story on a Donald Trump rally in Florida.

Political consultant Tatiana Wright posted a photo on Twitter of thousands packed into Mall B in downtown Cleveland on June 22, claiming it was the crowd for Trump’s event. Those familiar with our city will notice Cleveland City Hall in the background.

Sent from my SM-G900V using RealGM mobile app

That's pretty sloppy of Breitbart, but probably more of a mistake than an intent to mislead. The Florida rally for Trump was huge, it wasn't like they needed fake crowd photos to generate the appearance of enthusiasm.



EDIT: But it's totally fair for you to bring this up. If I saw a similar issue with the roles reversed, I'd probably bring it up too. It's definitely a reason to be skeptical of Breitbart. They shouldn't be this sloppy.

[AFM]

I was wondering why JR Smith was showering himself in champagne at a Trump rally.