Political Roundtable Part X

[fishercob]

I watched Michael Moore's "Where to Invade Next" last night. Plenty of moments that made me rolls my eyes, but overall he effectively shines a light on how so many of our policies -- education, the prison system, gender equality, etc. -- just lack basic humanity. It's also visually stunning, so if you like shots of beautiful European landscapes and architecture, it's worth a watch.

Cheers.

[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

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.

Another right-wing blog made the same "sloppy" mistake.

Read on Twitter

[nate33]

Another right-wing blog made the same "sloppy" mistake.

Read on Twitter

It could be a fake. All the photos on Gateway Pundit's page has a little "GP" logo in the corner.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/

... or maybe the GP is cropped out of the screen cap.

[gtn130]

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.

I can't take this seriously when your response still necessitates sourcing material from a white supremacist anti-immigration hate website.

VDARE is not an acceptable source of scientific research. The SPLC describes VDARE as "an anti-immigration hate website" which "regularly publishes articles by prominent white nationalists, race scientists and anti-Semites."

Again, if you have any actual respected research to provide on this subject, feel free. Until then, I'm not going to take your position seriously.

[keynote]

Even conservatives who believe that the mainstream media are conspiring to feed leftist lies to the masses recognize that conservative "news outlets" like Breitbart are doing conservatives a disservice.

https://storify.com/drawandstrike/new-media-has-been-corrupted-by-propagandists

Sent from my SM-G900V using RealGM mobile app

[payitforward]

Well, we've had a post by PIF referencing his incredible IQ and a post by nate offering a scientific defense of racism. All we need now is Zonk to casually mention his PhD and we'll be all set.

hands' IQ is 147. Smart bunch here, but my money's on WizD being the 180+ IQ guy.

Just so I'm being clear: I don't think IQ tests measure anything at all. Hence I wasn't bragging, I was ridiculing the guy's statements.

Note: proof that I am right would be Hands' IQ !!

[AFM]

Even conservatives who believe that the mainstream media are conspiring to feed leftist lies to the masses recognize that conservative "news outlets" like Breitbart are doing conservatives a disservice.

https://storify.com/drawandstrike/new-media-has-been-corrupted-by-propagandists

Sent from my SM-G900V using RealGM mobile app

Whoever was the first person to write an article using tweets, deserves to be shot.

[AFM]

Mayor of Fairfax, VA arrested for selling meth to an undercover officer...in exchange for an orgy.

[dckingsfan]

I'm not sure how you come away with "probably not" ....Brain size isn't everything, but it's something.

There is something we can agree on - brain size is something. But is it is not the end all in determining intelligence.

I think my quote "...the complexity of cellular and molecular organization of neural connections, or synapses, is what truly determines a brain’s computational capacity..." explains where I am coming from.

IMO, in the end, we will find that neural pathways, neuroplasticity and cellular and molecular organization will be more aligned with intelligence than brain size.

But from what I have read and discussed from with some researchers from Stanford, I don't think brain size will be the largest contributing factor in the end - from the article, "Whales and elephants have much bigger brains than humans, and we have about the same brain-to-body mass ratio as mice."

My discussions with those researchers was around the declining intelligence of mankind. At least that is what they posit - and that would be truly troubling. Imagine a large growing population of less and less intelligent people inhabiting the planet (there must be some sci-fi movie about that).

[montestewart]

Mayor of Fairfax, VA arrested for selling meth to an undercover officer...in exchange for an orgy.

Whatever the cost, sex with an undercover cop is worth it.

[nate33]

I can't take this seriously when your response still necessitates sourcing material from a white supremacist anti-immigration hate website.

VDARE is not an acceptable source of scientific research. The SPLC describes VDARE as "an anti-immigration hate website" which "regularly publishes articles by prominent white nationalists, race scientists and anti-Semites."

Again, if you have any actual respected research to provide on this subject, feel free. Until then, I'm not going to take your position seriously.

It's a catch 22. There is a near-religious fervor regarding anti-racism. Anyone that researches or opines on the differences between race is, by definition, a heretic. James Watson was a nobel prize winner for his pioneering research in DNA yet was ostracized from earning a living in his field because he dared to speak on the issue of race. The same thing occurred to other premier scientists in the field including Arthur Jensen and Phillipe Rushton. It is a demonstration of the weakness of the anti-racist argument that they won't allow others to even speak. What are they so afraid of?

If you are going to disqualify every source because it doesn't meet the anti-racist standard of "respectable", then we have nothing to discuss. You make feel better by no-platforming my arguments, but you won't have intellectually addressed them. From what I've seen, VDare is a long-standing independent website with articulate contributors who reference well-researched works. And they aren't a white supremacist site, but rather a nationalist, immigration restrictionist site. It's not Stormfront.

[dckingsfan]

Well, we've had a post by PIF referencing his incredible IQ and a post by nate offering a scientific defense of racism. All we need now is Zonk to casually mention his PhD and we'll be all set.

hands' IQ is 147. Smart bunch here, but my money's on WizD being the 180+ IQ guy.

Just so I'm being clear: I don't think IQ tests measure anything at all. Hence I wasn't bragging, I was ridiculing the guy's statements.

Note: proof that I am right would be Hands' IQ !!

Well, actually IQ tests to measure something - just not necessarily intelligence. They measure motivation to do well on the test. And that can be as important as "native intelligence". So, it might be a pretty good psychological test in the end.

[payitforward]

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.

Wow... the amount of BS in just the first few paragraphs of Saletan's article beggars the imagination!

Lets start w/ the confusion between "intelligence" and "score on IQ test." Look into the history of the IQ test a bit when you have the time. Or, to use your phrase (which you won't like when it's sent your way), "to further educate yourself on the issue."

Then lets add in his notion that "Jewish-American" is a racial category and can be cited as such in parallel with "Asian" (itself not exactly a finely distinguished category, in that Asia covers some large % of the planet's surface).

In fact, I'd say the fact that white Americans who are Jews average a higher score on IQ tests than white Americans who are some other religion or ethnicity could not be clearer evidence that the spread of scores represents cultural not, as he goes on to call them, "genetic" differences. Duh.

Btw, science studies genetics by looking at genes and proteins, etc. not by looking at IQ test scores. No scientist has ever drawn any conclusion about genes or genetics from a population's score on any test whatever! It cannot be done.

Hence, as Saletan uses it in this article, the term "genetic" is just a stand-in for "racial." Of course, if the word "racial" had been used, the author would be outing himself. No one would need to consider anything else he wrote along those lines, because -- guess what? -- there are no such things as "races." Read that again: human "races" are mythical entities. They don't exist at all. Not in any way.

The idea of "race" was invented by one set of human beings as a way to justify (well, for starters, just to live with!) the unconscionably horrible things it was doing to another set of human beings. If that's not obvious to you, you are -- forgive me -- an ignoramus. And I say that with full justification, because if you *do* believe Mr. Saletan's crapola then you'll have to accept that, since I'm an American Jew with an IQ measured well above 150, I'm right and you're dumb. (No, I don't believe that, btw: I'm right because facts, logic, and consequential arguments are on my side)

It's been a long time, many a year, since I've encountered people making essentialist and racial arguments about the intelligence of individuals and groups. TBH, I don't think they have any part to play in a real discussion of the situation of our country or of its future.

If you're someone who entertains any variation of the idea that "black people" aren't as smart as "white people," you're not worthy of even a modicum of respect. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. You ought to ask yourself what you've done to let evil like that into your mind and what you can do to root it out.

You're objections are either red herrings, obfuscation, or flat out wrong. Instead of bothering to explain why you are wrong, I suggest you read this. He pretty much refutes and/or explains all of your objections.

https://jaymans.wordpress.com/jaymans-race-inheritance-and-iq-f-a-q-f-r-b/

I understand that it's taboo to discuss these issues in society. I even understand why the taboo exists: many people, are unable to make the distinction between individuals and groups. And certainly, there have been times in history where people have used racial differences to justify horrible things. So instead, we all politely lie about the subject and avoid talking about it. I'm just surprised that a man as intelligent as yourself is unable to independently research the science and see through the polite obfuscations.

I mean, seriously, race does not exist? You're smarter than that. Are Golden Retrievers and Rottweilers social constructs? How can 23andMe take a DNA test and pinpoint your origin down to a European village? How can forensic scientists identify the race of a skeleton? If a doctor didn't take your race into consideration when providing medical care, he'd be sued for malpractice.

There is a bell curve distribution in all physical and mental traits, and all physical and mental traits have a heritable component. We all fall on a bell curve for heritable component of height, IQ, aggression, compassion, psychopathy, melanin, malaria resistance, lactose tolerance you name it. Different races have different bell curve distributions. The more geographically isolated races have been from each other, the more distinct they are likely to be from other races. That doesn't mean that everybody from a particular race is going to be good at math or bad at basketball - an individual can fall anywhere on that bell curve; but there are group averages that matter when you are discussing group issues (like test scores). To ignore this is just plain silly. It's better to understand this phenomenon and try our best to address it in a productive and humane way.

Forgive me, Nate, but I really don't see a basis for discussion. You just quoted a right wing blogger to support a supposedly scientific point. It would be no more difficult to take jayman's nonsensical post apart than it was to do the same to Saletan's article. As soon as you look at some real science there'll be something to discuss.

I didn't use the term "social construct," did I? All the same, as to whether Golden Retrievers and Rottweilers are "social constructs," yup they are. In the most specific sense. They were bred intentionally to intended purposes, different ones (obviously). That doesn't mean there are no genetic differences between them. Duh. But it does mean, for example, that no one in his right mind would call them "races."

I don't think it's taboo to discuss the subject of "race" -- I think it's a good idea. It might lead to a discussion of "racism," which is where the term "race" was born.

On your point about differing bell shaped curves: yup, if you give any population any question not answered by "yes" or "no," no matter how arbitrary the question, you will get a bell-shaped curve out of the answers. This is not a fact about physical and mental traits, it's fact of a totally different kind. If I ask a set of people how many quarters I have in my pocket, say a number between 2 and 12, the spread of their answers will be in the form of a bell-shaped curve.

The curve of heights refers to a quality requiring no explanation and from which no one is sitting and waiting to draw a conclusion that proves their confected theory of whatever kind. I will point out as well that the average height of a French male has risen quite a lot in the last 60 years. Why? Because kids started getting more milk starting as European economies flourished again after WWII and as data showed the growth benefits. No one would have concluded from the earlier bell shaped curve that French people were "genetically" "short" nor from the later one that they were "genetically" "tall." No one, that is, except someone with an Aryan racist bell to ring.

Anything yields a bell shaped curve, hence taking an IQ test yields one as well. But no scientific source I'm aware of still considers an IQ test to be a measure of intelligence. In fact, there is no single entity called "intelligence" -- or at least none we can define. The idea that intelligence, whatever we mean to refer to when we use the word, is in any way related to the so-called "racial" distribution around the planet is patently ridiculous. Keep in mind that it wasn't so long ago that racists said that "as a race" Asians "place less of a value on human life." Or that blacks were "easily spooked," scared by any force or violence, put off by anything requiring risk or daring. Etc. etc. etc. And all with plenty of so-called expertise behind it.

Believe what you want, Nate, it's none of my business. But assertions aren't support for assertions, beliefs aren't support for beliefs, and there are no human "races," any more than there are races of dogs.

[gtn130]

I can't take this seriously when your response still necessitates sourcing material from a white supremacist anti-immigration hate website.

VDARE is not an acceptable source of scientific research. The SPLC describes VDARE as "an anti-immigration hate website" which "regularly publishes articles by prominent white nationalists, race scientists and anti-Semites."

Again, if you have any actual respected research to provide on this subject, feel free. Until then, I'm not going to take your position seriously.

It's a catch 22. There is a near-religious fervor regarding anti-racism. Anyone that researches or opines on the differences between race is, by definition, a heretic. James Watson was a nobel prize winner for his pioneering research in DNA yet was ostracized from earning a living in his field because he dared to speak on the issue of race. The same thing occurred to other premier scientists in the field including Arthur Jensen and Phillipe Rushton. It is a demonstration of the weakness of the anti-racist argument that they won't allow others to even speak. What are they so afraid of?

If you are going to disqualify every source because it doesn't meet the anti-racist standard of "respectable", then we have nothing to discuss. You make feel better by no-platforming my arguments, but you won't have intellectually addressed them. From what I've seen, VDare is a long-standing independent website with articulate contributors who reference well-researched works. And they aren't a white supremacist site, but rather a nationalist, immigration restrictionist site. It's not Stormfront.

I mean, we fundamentally don't agree on this. You think Breitbart is a valid source. You think all mainstream media is The Liberal Media. You characterize an anti-immigration hate website that serves as a platform for anti-semites as "nationalist, immigration restrictionist".

Seriously addressing your views on an intellectual level when many of them are derived from propagandist conspiracy blogs would validate your ideas in a way that I'm not comfortable with.

[montestewart]

They laughed at Dr. Frankenstein too. The fools.

[payitforward]

Is there a way to "forget" a thread in the Wizards Board -- i.e. this one?

[Wizardspride]

Is there a way to "forget" a thread in the Wizards Board -- i.e. this one?

I wish.

[TGW]

LOL at Trump's wife being an illegal immigrant...you can't make this stuff up:

Watch on YouTube

[AFM]

Is there a way to "forget" a thread in the Wizards Board -- i.e. this one?

Do you live near a liquor store?

[nate33]

hands' IQ is 147. Smart bunch here, but my money's on WizD being the 180+ IQ guy.

Just so I'm being clear: I don't think IQ tests measure anything at all. Hence I wasn't bragging, I was ridiculing the guy's statements.

Note: proof that I am right would be Hands' IQ !!

Well, actually IQ tests to measure something - just not necessarily intelligence. They measure motivation to do well on the test. And that can be as important as "native intelligence". So, it might be a pretty good psychological test in the end.

Whatever IQ measures, it correlates better with success at life (in modern society) than any other single, measurable quality.