BF2S Forums DAST Chat

Looking back - Gypsies:

Everyone in the UK hates fucking gypsies, a group who demand the cultural right to live where they please, pay no tax, be paid benefits while they defraud, steal and burgle.
This is an extreme example, but they do roam the country committing crime.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-berkshire-51801840
Not a single tear was shed for these two
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h … 30306.html

Its complicated by the lowest level of Irish layabouts latching onto the traveller idea, causing mayhem all over Britain.

A friend of mine has a Romanian partner, the Romanians hate them with a passion because they cause all the same problems in Romania and give the Romanians a bad name.

Larssen wrote:

IQ is such a daft system for measuring intelligence it's worrying to me that this over-rationalised product of the early 20th century is still taken so very seriously. A weird strain of 'science' which I can't imagine will survive for a long time to come, it shouldn't anyway.

Its a pretty simple measure, maybe not useful for testing a remote tribesman, should work for a fifth generation african-american.

For the gene-IQ or race-IQ connection to be made one has to first off ignore literally all developments in philosophy/the humanities since the 1950s.

So basically it delivers a result which doesn't fit with social theory, so it must be wrong!

If white people can't run as fast as black people then clearly we need a different test there too, because obviously white and black people must be equal there too - some philosopher  said so.

Jay wrote:

liberal white intellectuals started moving into black neighborhoods and introducing them to radical ideas about free love, drug use, divorce, abortion, sticking it to the man, etc.

Take a look at any african country, personal and social responsibility aren't really number one there.

'Get dat green', 'fuck dem hoes' and 'respeck' aren't high level concepts which blacks had to be taught by white liberals.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Larssen wrote:

IQ is such a daft system for measuring intelligence it's worrying to me that this over-rationalised product of the early 20th century is still taken so very seriously. A weird strain of 'science' which I can't imagine will survive for a long time to come, it shouldn't anyway.

Its a pretty simple measure, maybe not useful for testing a remote tribesman, should work for a fifth generation african-american.

For the gene-IQ or race-IQ connection to be made one has to first off ignore literally all developments in philosophy/the humanities since the 1950s.

So basically it delivers a result which doesn't fit with social theory, so it must be wrong!

If white people can't run as fast as black people then clearly we need a different test there too, because obviously white and black people must be equal there too - some philosopher  said so.

Dilbert, what I'm talking about here more specifically is the philosophy of science. You know, the discipline that tries to explain, clarify or criticise the way in which we interpret and think about the world around us. I'm sure you like induction and deduction, that you're a fan of Popper's theory on empirical falsification and maybe familiar with the often misused term 'paradigm shift' (thomas kuhn, a physicist by the way). These aren't exactly conjured out of thin air. It may come as a shock to you but fundamentals in philosophy can get very 'scientific' and have influenced your engineering degree as well. If you go back a few generations philosophy and math were basically considered two sides of the same coin....

Kuhn and Foucault are great reads because they independently came to very similar insights at around the same time, exposing that science, even 'hard' science might not be so rational or scientific after all. And that people in different times and in different cultural realities look at the world through a completely unique lens that might not necessarily be wrong either. The point here, for example, is that you can't read a text from antiquity or the middle ages and read it at face value expecting to understand what people X hundred of years ago tried to convey through their writing. Nor can you just wildly assume uniformity of thought among all humans and apply western or European concepts to different peoples.

Last edited by Larssen (2020-03-10 14:41:46)

Larssen wrote:

mmff mmff mmff

you are really wasting your time trying to explain epistemology to dilbert. it's just time to accept that he's a racist and move on.

Well Dilbert obviously considers himself a science-minded individual and likes to appeal to rationalism and facts. I believe he might do well to think a little harder about these things. Why do we think the way we do? What is language / maths / science? How and why has our understanding of the world changed over time, i.e. what causes 'scientific revolutions'?

A real science-toting individual wouldn't mind pondering these questions in detail. I can give you a reading list if you like Dilbert.

Last edited by Larssen (2020-03-10 15:41:48)

Larssen wrote:

Well Dilbert obviously considers himself a science-minded individual and likes to appeal to rationalism and facts. I believe he might do well to think a little harder about these things. Why do we think the way we do? What is language / maths / science? How and why has our understanding of the world changed over time, i.e. what causes 'scientific revolutions'?

A real science-toting individual wouldn't mind pondering these questions in detail. I can give you a reading list if you like Dilbert.

Here's a question to ponder for you:

Why do fifth-generation african-americans achieve so poorly, when they have better opportunities than people who out-achieve them?

Here's another:

Why do supposedly intelligent and educated people resort to insults as soon as someone disagrees with them or pokes holes in their theories?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-03-10 15:52:09)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

liberal white intellectuals started moving into black neighborhoods and introducing them to radical ideas about free love, drug use, divorce, abortion, sticking it to the man, etc.

Take a look at any african country, personal and social responsibility aren't really number one there.

'Get dat green', 'fuck dem hoes' and 'respeck' aren't high level concepts which blacks had to be taught by white liberals.

Off the boat Africans do quite well here. There is almost no difference between an African immigrant and your average white person in terms of success. If anything, they're better educated.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Larssen wrote:

Well Dilbert obviously considers himself a science-minded individual and likes to appeal to rationalism and facts. I believe he might do well to think a little harder about these things. Why do we think the way we do? What is language / maths / science? How and why has our understanding of the world changed over time, i.e. what causes 'scientific revolutions'?

A real science-toting individual wouldn't mind pondering these questions in detail. I can give you a reading list if you like Dilbert.

Here's a question to ponder for you:

Why do fifth-generation african-americans achieve so poorly, when they have better opportunities than people who out-achieve them?

Here's another:

Why do supposedly intelligent and educated people resort to insults as soon as someone disagrees with them or pokes holes in their theories?

That's a lot of deflection dilbert, 0/10. People aren't resorting to insults because you 'poke holes' but because you outright refuse to reconsider the position that people with other ethnic backgrounds are innately inferior. Even after being told that there is no geneticist who supports an IQ-race connection, you dismiss that in favour of your own ignorance. That's anti-intellectualism.

It's curious how you seem alright with labelling almost 20% of the world population as innately lesser yet are aghast when that statement is met with (very mild) insults. It's beyond comprehension that some people (you) seem perfectly fine with supporting deeply exclusionary, hateful politics but still like to demand respect and civility. Politics that is based on bad science no less.

It's not essentially a physiological trait Dilbert. Thinking is not like running. Your brain is not your legs. Genetic determinism is not sound science. Our ideas about intelligence are seriously limited. I've been trying to explain that, but you dismissed it when it came too close for comfort I guess.

newsflash: complex and emergent systems come from basic building blocks. you can't describe and fully account for a living organism by focusing on carbon and nitrogen. your engineers' view of the world seems to seriously hamper you with this. larssen is obviously wasting his time but the idea of scientific paradigms is hardly revolutionary. the quantum world is a very, very different world from the classical one; and both are equally manifest in 'reality'. yet you seem to think having anything but one ultimate metre-stick for everything is jewish science, or 'lesbian school teacher identity politics gone mad'. hopeless.

and yes, sure, all psychology is ultimately physiological -- unless you subscribe to ideas of soul or spirit or whatever -- but to equate a person's psychology with physiological causes is inane. the 'journal of black psychology' is not controversial because 95% of all psychological study is inherently based on nurture/environmental inquiry. what do you think the field of psychology engages with, exactly? it's to do with human behaviour, socialisation, human development from childhood to adulthood, etc. of course 'black' (by which i take it to predominantly mean african-american in this context) people are going to have somewhat different psychologies. there are different psychologies among white people, separating classes and creeds, ffs. genetic predispositions and heritability are only a fractional part of one's psychology. it stands to reason that studying the family/home environment, the educational system, etc, is going to be far more fruitful for examining certain cognitive and cultural assumptions.

you say you've been on a university campus recently in your adult life. have you never sat in on a lecture or a guest talker before? from any other discipline? larssen is basically explaining to you the simple background of 'hard' science and here i am having to precis what psychology is. it's incredible, actually. a 17 year old looking at university prospectuses would have a better idea of what each subject involves.

you'd think blacks and whites would have identical psychology if they have identical intelligence.

this is what you'd think, dilbert, maybe ... because you haven't a clue. nobody in psychology or genetics equates 'psychology' with 'intelligence' in the limited term as a metric, and nobody but nobody has ever claimed that different peoples have the same universal psychology. what you're trying to get at is cognitive science, perhaps.

Last edited by uziq (2020-03-11 02:27:53)