Scott Cawthon (FNaF guy) cancelled

[TheMysteriousGX]

No-one was. You're the one who brought language into this.



In the strictest sense, almost certainly the Olympians. If you're pitching people with a physical disability against those without, the ones without are almost certainly going to win. That's why you don't get Olympians taking part in the Paralympics and vice versa (maybe there's some exception somewhere, I dunno).

If you want to gauge who's more meritocratic in a comparative sense, then that may be possible, but it's academic, since they're separate events. They're two different 'tests.' And even if the Paralympian does better comparatively than the Olympian, they're still not going to be able to do a lot of things that the Olympian can.



I'm a racist for saying IQ exists. Um, okay...

First, that video refers to the Bell Curve. I'm not talking about the Bell Curve, I'm talking about IQ, which was conceptualized well before the Bell Curve was published. That IQ has been used poorly in the past doesn't invalidate it. You yourself brought up vaccine hoaxes, IIRC.

Second, I'm not watching a video that's 2 hours and 40 minutes long. Call that a win if you want, but I draw the line there. If there's a publication that debunks the entire idea of IQ, I'm sure you can find it from a source outside a talking skull.

Third, I'm aware of the issues with IQ tests...

Do IQ Tests Actually Measure Intelligence?

The assessments have been around for over 100 years. Experts say they’ve been plagued by bias, but still have some merit.

www.discovermagazine.com

But they absolutely have predictive possibility...

The Validity of IQ – The Alternative Hypothesis

thealternativehypothesis.org

And can be both adversely and positively affected by environment.

Children raised in greener areas have higher IQ, study finds

Research also found lower levels of difficult behaviour in rich and poor neighbourhoods

www.theguardian.com

Air pollution causes ‘huge’ reduction in intelligence, study reveals

Impact of high levels of toxic air ‘is equivalent to having lost a year of education’

www.theguardian.com

Now say you have an ethnic population that, by and large, lives in densely populated areas with little to no vegetation and large amounts of air and noise pollution.
Is there a chance that said ethnic population might need different teaching methods than more affluent groups less exposed to pollution?
And if a member of said ethnic group with a debuff to their IQ who is also running into those problems that IQ supposedly predicts competes with somebody without those problems and who has many other advantages besides and gets within spitting distance on your "objective" test, isn't that worth a few bonus points? I mean, running a longer race with an arm tied behind your back and still being competitive has to be worth something if we are comparing Merit, right?

Assuming, of course, that IQ is a useful measure when applied to general society instead of being a relative measure in certain circumstances regarding comparing individual members of small homogeneous groups. Or to put it more bluntly, the more varied the people you try and assign an IQ number to, the more bullshit it is, because the more you have to adapt the test, the less you are measuring the same thing. If you give two different people two different tests, then it's a fool's errand to compare the two scores and you're an idiot for trying. At the very least, it's not an objective measure.

IQ tests were a fine measurement when it was a French dude using them to identify which French school kids were learning best in their respective classes. Everything since then has been subjective bullshit and probably shouldn't be the hill that somebody who believes in objective truth ends up dying on. Mostly because we still aren't sure what, if anything, is actually getting measured. It's subjective beliefs and guesswork, and too often used for nefarious purposes to boot.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Like, just to harp on IQ some more: if IQ is predictably affected by poverty, pollution, urban density, etc, etc, etc, then if you give an IQ test to everybody in the country you aren't actually testing intelligence: you're testing all of the above environmental factors, aren't you.

Useful, sure, but not how you think and definitely not how people will use the data.

 

[Schadrach]

It's the same "but they don't let me teach my personal bullshit as fact" letters that've been around for my entire life,

...as opposed to the "but they don't let me teach woke politics as fact" arguments that have started over not being able to teach racial superiority or racial guilt?

usually written by some dude mad that he has to teach female students

Or someone like Mary Daly, whose career as a professor was ended because she refused to teach male students and, umm, well, Title IX is a thing and doesn't only apply when it benefits women.

See also Credit Scores

Aren't those primarily based on how much debt you have, how much credit you have available, how consistently you pay down debt, how old your accounts are and how frequently you go looking for more? Those all seem like reasonable grounds to decide if and how much money you should be willing to loan someone, especially the parts about how consistently you pay it back and how old those accounts are.

Let me guess, evaluating how likely someone is to pay back money you loan them based on how they've paid back money that has been loaned to them previously and how much they owe already is white supremacy somehow?

 

[ObsidianJones]

...as opposed to the "but they don't let me teach woke politics as fact" arguments that have started over not being able to teach racial superiority or racial guilt?

I'm sorry, but then doesn't that behoove you to prove that your loathed woke politics aren't fact?

The Brain dictates a lot of what we are. From how we learn to how we function. There have been studies long ago that studied parts of the brain brain of straight women and gay men (and straight men and lesbians) and found more similarities between those two than along gender lines. Now, how much it was followed up on and what other differences there are, there's more proof to sexuality and hell, gender being mapped to the brain than "Nah, they are just confused and dumb."

We have laws, judgements, and police and politicians on record stating how America has a slant against minorities. I can show you practices that are... no, I have shown in this very thread how it's still done today.

I won't say that there aren't lunatics in the woke spectrum. There are lunatics on every side of every debate. However, as I just stated, we can find laws, affidavits over judgements, current legal proceedings and bills being fought for this very day that disadvantages people. If you want, you can find no shortage of all that stuff. We can prove at least things need looking into and draw causation.

The most I hear from the other side is strawman arguments, ad hominem attacks, to "Nah, you're wrong" or "So I'm supposed to feel something because you got screwed over by a system that still exists to this day? HOW DARE YOU?! WE ARE ENEMIES NOW!!!" to the ultra constructive "everything I disagree with isn't real, but just PC bullshit made to make everyone else feel better and me worse"

Facts fight facts. Opinions stalemate with other opinions. Woke politics aren't facts? Alright. I'm ready. What do you have to prove that?

 

[Hawki]

Now say you have an ethnic population that, by and large, lives in densely populated areas with little to no vegetation and large amounts of air and noise pollution.
Is there a chance that said ethnic population might need different teaching methods than more affluent groups less exposed to pollution?
And if a member of said ethnic group with a debuff to their IQ who is also running into those problems that IQ supposedly predicts competes with somebody without those problems and who has many other advantages besides and gets within spitting distance on your "objective" test, isn't that worth a few bonus points? I mean, running a longer race with an arm tied behind your back and still being competitive has to be worth something if we are comparing Merit, right?

First, you're kind of making my points for me. If a segment of the population is, on average, disadvantaged, that explains underperformance far better than any idea of "inherent traits." It also stands to reason that if people are performing poorly, it's far better to raise them up rather than lower standards:

ATTENTION TO DETAIL IS WHITE?

The roots of this notion polluting our schools that it's racist to make a black student actually answer the question.

johnmcwhorter.substack.com

Is it racist to expect black kids to do math for real?

Yes, serious people are arguing this. Make sure they don't infect your school district.

johnmcwhorter.substack.com

Second, well, you're basically making the case for affirmative action, but if we're using the metaphor of running with an arm behind your back, then surely the better action is to untie the arm? As in, try and make the start of the race as equal as possible, but make the end goal objective. And okay, sure, until the start of the race is equal, then there's a case to be made for affirmative action, but in the scenario you outlie, you have to admit that this is treating people on the basis of group identity rather than individual circumstance, right? What you've described isn't meritocracy. And the idea of granting people points based on circumstance completely falls apart when you get to the individual level. One runner might have an arm tied behind their back, another runner might be blind in one eye, a third runner might have flat feet, etc.

Assuming, of course, that IQ is a useful measure when applied to general society instead of being a relative measure in certain circumstances regarding comparing individual members of small homogeneous groups. Or to put it more bluntly, the more varied the people you try and assign an IQ number to, the more bullshit it is, because the more you have to adapt the test, the less you are measuring the same thing. If you give two different people two different tests, then it's a fool's errand to compare the two scores and you're an idiot for trying. At the very least, it's not an objective measure.

You'd probably be giving people the same test though. Even if you take multiple tests, you can work out an average. If someone asked me what my IQ was, I'd say somewhere between 85 and 95 based on the most common results I've got (so yes, I'm bone average, and by some accounts, below average...and yes, I recognize that I've potentially given this entire thread ammo by that admission).

IQ tests were a fine measurement when it was a French dude using them to identify which French school kids were learning best in their respective classes. Everything since then has been subjective bullshit and probably shouldn't be the hill that somebody who believes in objective truth ends up dying on. Mostly because we still aren't sure what, if anything, is actually getting measured. It's subjective beliefs and guesswork, and too often used for nefarious purposes to boot.

Not sure what IQ is used for these days, but I'd argue it's still a valid tool, per the links I provided.

Like, just to harp on IQ some more: if IQ is predictably affected by poverty, pollution, urban density, etc, etc, etc, then if you give an IQ test to everybody in the country you aren't actually testing intelligence: you're testing all of the above environmental factors, aren't you.

Well, no, not necessarily, because you've described the nurture side of the equation, not the nature side. Our current understand of IQ is that it's largely formed during our childhood years, but it barely shifts if you're an adult. But even in the same environment, people can have different IQs. But if environment affects your IQ, then, well, your IQ is affected, and so are your life chances. If I grow up in poverty, and my IQ is stunted as a result, then, well, my IQ is still stunted. I mean, I can admit to not growing up in poverty, or pollution, or in a dense urban environment, and my IQ is still average, so, um, yeah.

Useful, sure, but not how you think and definitely not how people will use the data.

Who actually uses IQ though at the point of admission? In tests for instance, you're not testing IQ per se, you're testing proficiency. And no employer has ever asked I do an IQ test (though I was forced to do an EQ test recently...bleh.)

Like I said, IQ can definitely predict life outcomes, but it doesn't dictate them. EInstein was regarded as a bit of a dunce in his school years for instance, but, well...the fact I'm using Einstein as an example at all speaks for itself.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I know what the Bell Curve is about. The Bell Curve posits that there's a link between IQ and race, hence the curve (i.e. based on what race you belong to, you're either further to the left or the right of the curve.

Believe it or not, you can discuss IQ without referencing The Bell Curve.

But you cannot discuss The Bell Curve without discussing IQ. Can you guess what the bespectacled skull does a lot in that video?

Also, your summary of the Bell Curve is extremely incomplete, so I'd recommend you watch the video for that alone. The book theorizes that there is a 'cognitive elite' which, by virtue of the meritocracy of capitalism , is amassing wealth and power and segregating themselves away from everyone else, intermarrying, and so on. The book justifies economic inequality not only between races but between any groups or individuals based on IQ scores. It is not just racist nonsense. It is also classist nonsense. And the foundation upon which it is built is pseudoscientific nonsense.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Aren't those primarily based on how much debt you have, how much credit you have available, how consistently you pay down debt, how old your accounts are and how frequently you go looking for more? Those all seem like reasonable grounds to decide if and how much money you should be willing to loan someone, especially the parts about how consistently you pay it back and how old those accounts are.

Let me guess, evaluating how likely someone is to pay back money you loan them based on how they've paid back money that has been loaned to them previously and how much they owe already is white supremacy somehow?

Credit scores were developed to remove personal judgment from the equation which, in theory, should have removed any racial bias.

It did not. Segregation is still rampant. The bias is baked into the algorithm.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

First, you're kind of making my points for me. If a segment of the population is, on average, disadvantaged, that explains underperformance far better than any idea of "inherent traits." It also stands to reason that if people are performing poorly, it's far better to raise them up rather than lower standards:

ATTENTION TO DETAIL IS WHITE?

The roots of this notion polluting our schools that it's racist to make a black student actually answer the question.

johnmcwhorter.substack.com

Is it racist to expect black kids to do math for real?

Yes, serious people are arguing this. Make sure they don't infect your school district.

johnmcwhorter.substack.com

Despite having centuries of individual people winning a rigged race, the race continues to be rigged.I don't really care how often people who managed to win the rigged race say the race doesn't need to be un-rigged and that they should just be faster.
Even then, if we remove all references to race from this document, it still seems like a better way to teach math in general

https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf

Also, you're still the only one anywhere arguing that people think these things are inherent to an ethnicity.

Second, well, you're basically making the case for affirmative action, but if we're using the metaphor of running with an arm behind your back, then surely the better action is to untie the arm? As in, try and make the start of the race as equal as possible, but make the end goal objective. And okay, sure, until the start of the race is equal, then there's a case to be made for affirmative action, but in the scenario you outlie, you have to admit that this is treating people on the basis of group identity rather than individual circumstance, right?

The law is a blunt instrument. If you're going to pretend that a meritocracy is broadly applicable, and laws to offset biases are going to be broad as well.

What you've described isn't meritocracy. And the idea of granting people points based on circumstance completely falls apart when you get to the individual level. One runner might have an arm tied behind their back, another runner might be blind in one eye, a third runner might have flat feet, etc.

Sounds like your race is a publicity stunt instead of a solid way to determine the best runner then.

You'd probably be giving people the same test though.

You are not. If you actually knew anything about the history of IQ tests you'd know that injecting culture bias by creating a test in one culture and then exporting it to another introduces flaws.

Even if you take multiple tests, you can work out an average. If someone asked me what my IQ was, I'd say somewhere between 85 and 95 based on the most common results I've got (so yes, I'm bone average, and by some accounts, below average...and yes, I recognize that I've potentially given this entire thread ammo by that admission).

Fortunately you're arguing with somebody who has a Mensa level IQ who thinks IQ is bullshit.
If you give somebody in Texas and somebody in Senegal the same test, you bias the score based on which language you've written the test in and which cultural biases formed the assumptions of the questions. If you give somebody in Texas and somebody in Senegal different tests, then you aren't comparing two apples to determine who has the best apple.
To use a term badly, it's a Catch-22.

Not sure what IQ is used for these days, but I'd argue it's still a valid tool, per the links I provided.

I won't dispute that, used appropriately, intelligence tests used in small, roughly homogeneous groups and interpreted in certain ways have some measure of useful things to say.

Almost nobody uses them that way.

Well, no, not necessarily, because you've described the nurture side of the equation, not the nature side. Our current understand of IQ is that it's largely formed during our childhood years, but it barely shifts if you're an adult. But even in the same environment, people can have different IQs. But if environment affects your IQ, then, well, your IQ is affected, and so are your life chances. If I grow up in poverty, and my IQ is stunted as a result, then, well, my IQ is still stunted. I mean, I can admit to not growing up in poverty, or pollution, or in a dense urban environment, and my IQ is still average, so, um, yeah.

The greatest predictor of poverty is heritable poverty. In my opinion, the main reason people try to find literally any other reason to explain why is because they don't actually want to admit that.

Who actually uses IQ though at the point of admission? In tests for instance, you're not testing IQ per se, you're testing proficiency. And no employer has ever asked I do an IQ test (though I was forced to do an EQ test recently...bleh.)

Like I said, IQ can definitely predict life outcomes, but it doesn't dictate them. EInstein was regarded as a bit of a dunce in his school years for instance, but, well...the fact I'm using Einstein as an example at all speaks for itself.

Yes it does. If intelligence tests can miss one of the greatest scientific minds in modern history, who's research helps form the bedrock of modern technology...how is it that useful?

23 Genius Quotes From Albert Einstein That Will Make You Sound Smarter

The man was the smartest person on the planet. On his birthday, why not celebrate by quoting him and sounding brilliant?

www.inc.com

Albert Einstein, radical genius or dangerous postmodernist?

 

[Hawki]

Sounds like your race is a publicity stunt instead of a solid way to determine the best runner then.

Well, luckilly, we don't hold races like that (though the flat feet thing is a real example - I have flat feet, guess where I came in races?)

But, well, I'll put it this way. The Olympics are coming up, so when the 100m starts, is that a meritocratic race or not? Every one of those runners will have had different advantages and disadvantages on their way to the 100m, are you suggesting that it tries to compensate for them?

You are not. If you actually knew anything about the history of IQ tests you'd know that injecting culture bias by creating a test in one culture and then exporting it to another introduces flaws.

I'm aware of the cultural bias issue actually.

Fortunately you're arguing with somebody who has a Mensa level IQ who thinks IQ is bullshit.

Well, that's nice of you to say, but if you have a Mensa level IQ (which means that as far as I'm aware, your IQ is somewhere between 132 and 148), then...well, I'll put it this way. Assuming you're American, and confirming I'm Australian, even accounting for any cultural difference between our two environments (which probably isn't that much), I think it's fair to say that you're more intelligent than me by an extraordinary margin. In fact, reading that by itself was almost enough to get me to stop posting altogether (this isn't a slight, just an admission).

If you give somebody in Texas and somebody in Senegal the same test, you bias the score based on which language you've written the test in and which cultural biases formed the assumptions of the questions. If you give somebody in Texas and somebody in Senegal different tests, then you aren't comparing two apples to determine who has the best apple.
To use a term badly, it's a Catch-22.

Aren't you leaving out though that the average Texan is going to be much richer than the average Senegalese?

For instance, the average IQ in Kenya shot up by about 20 points in the scope of a single generation - it's part of what shoots down the idea of IQ being linked with ethnicity, because there's no way genes can change that fast. What CAN change that fast, however, is the average level of wealth.

I mean, to be clear, I'm not advocating seeing the world through IQ, even in the homogenous groups you describe, but I think it has some predictive worth. I mean, chances are that if your IQ is that high, you're in a far better position than me.

The greatest predictor of poverty is heritable poverty. In my opinion, the main reason people try to find literally any other reason to explain why is because they don't actually want to admit that.

There's probably some people who think that. And I do agree (broadly) - if someone's born into poverty, it can be very hard to escape from poverty.

Yes it does. If intelligence tests can miss one of the greatest scientific minds in modern history, who's research helps form the bedrock of modern technology...how is it that useful?

23 Genius Quotes From Albert Einstein That Will Make You Sound Smarter

The man was the smartest person on the planet. On his birthday, why not celebrate by quoting him and sounding brilliant?

www.inc.com

Albert Einstein, radical genius or dangerous postmodernist?

Because there's always exceptions to the rule?

Also, those quotes...um, the former? Einstein was clearly a genius, but none of those quotes strike me as anything resembling postmodernism.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Well, luckilly, we don't hold races like that (though the flat feet thing is a real example - I have flat feet, guess where I came in races?)

But, well, I'll put it this way. The Olympics are coming up, so when the 100m starts, is that a meritocratic race or not? Every one of those runners will have had different advantages and disadvantages on their way to the 100m, are you suggesting that it tries to compensate for them?

It does not. The Olympics are a global publicity stunt trying to foster a global community through nationalistic sports competition.
If it were trying to be meritorious, it wouldn't be banning African women for naturally occurring testosterone while allowing precision engineered, wind tunnel tested German bobsleds to compete against much less sophisticated equipment from poorer countries.

And I'm generally a fan.

Well, that's nice of you to say, but if you have a Mensa level IQ (which means that as far as I'm aware, your IQ is somewhere between 132 and 148), then...well, I'll put it this way. Assuming you're American, and confirming I'm Australian, even accounting for any cultural difference between our two environments (which probably isn't that much), I think it's fair to say that you're more intelligent than me by an extraordinary margin. In fact, reading that by itself was almost enough to get me to stop posting altogether (this isn't a slight, just an admission).

Except I'm not. See, I'm a dumbass. All I'm good at is seeing connections, learning trivia, finding reference material, and taking tests. It's a standardized test honey pot, but being able to regurgitate an algebra formula on command doesn't mean that I actually know how to math.

The thought that you even entertained the idea of "they have a higher IQ, why bother" is horrifying to me.

Aren't you leaving out though that the average Texan is going to be much richer than the average Senegalese?

For instance, the average IQ in Kenya shot up by about 20 points in the scope of a single generation - it's part of what shoots down the idea of IQ being linked with ethnicity, because there's no way genes can change that fast. What CAN change that fast, however, is the average level of wealth.

I mean, to be clear, I'm not advocating seeing the world through IQ, even in the homogenous groups you describe, but I think it has some predictive worth.

You might as well just measure relative wealth then. It doesn't make sense that dropping a sack of $100 bills on a baby is gonna make them intrinsically smarter.

I mean, chances are that if your IQ is that high, you're in a far better position than me.

Nope, dead-end retail clerk at a small business spiraling towards bankruptcy. Applied for a long shot vtubing job though, so finger's crossed

Also, those quotes...um, the former? Einstein was clearly a genius, but none of those quotes strike me as anything resembling postmodernism.

Now imagine an educator saying that imagination is more important than knowledge in a lesson plan.
You linked to a guy who railed against basically every Einstein quote on the list.

 

[Hawki]

It does not. The Olympics are a global publicity stunt trying to foster a global community through nationalistic sports competition.

How's that working out these days?

If it were trying to be meritorious, it wouldn't be banning African women for naturally occurring testosterone while allowing precision engineered, wind tunnel tested German bobsleds to compete against much less sophisticated equipment from poorer countries.

I'm not familiar with those specific examples, but the latter does sound like something to be corrected, while the former is an example of how it's impossible to get an absolutely perfect meritocracy. Like, even within groups, clearly not everyone is on the same level. Don't know if you ever watched The Program, but it does highlight how physical limitations do impact how far someone can go.

Except I'm not. See, I'm a dumbass. All I'm good at is seeing connections, learning trivia, finding reference material, and taking tests. It's a standardized test honey pot, but being able to regurgitate an algebra formula on command doesn't mean that I actually know how to math.

The thought that you even entertained the idea of "they have a higher IQ, why bother" is horrifying to me.

Honestly, I entertain that notion every time I discuss these issues, not just IQ.

I mean, consider who's on these forums. TB and Agema alone work in the university sector, and I've certainly argued with the former a lot. Chances are they are more intelligent (by virtue of working in the university sector), so if you're pitting the university employee vs. the pleb, chances are that the former is correct, before any argument is made. Hasn't stopped me from arguing, but, well, yeah.

So, yeah. Typing this now, I know I could be wrong. I could be so wrong, that Weird Al could write a song about it. If your IQ is about 150% greater than mine, then chances are you're going to be right about more things than I am. I mean, that you can do algebra at all is a step up from me.

You might as well just measure relative wealth then. It doesn't make sense that dropping a sack of $100 bills on a baby is gonna make them intrinsically smarter.

True, but if those $100 dollar bills are used by the baby's parents to give them the best opportunities in life, the baby will grow into a child, and probably become more intellectually proficient.

Like, to be clear, I'm actually all for stuff like scholarships and stuff - we can give people a leg up, even if I'd argue that the test part of the phase should be as objective as possible.

Nope, dead-end retail clerk at a small business spiraling towards bankruptcy. Applied for a long shot vtubing job though, so finger's crossed

Well, I stand corrected there at least.

Hopefully things work out.

Now imagine an educator saying that imagination is more important than knowledge in a lesson plan.
You linked to a guy who railed against basically every Einstein quote on the list.

I don't know if I'd interpret it like that, but okay.

Anyway, I'm not even convinced that imagination is more important than knowledge. It's a nice quote, but being objective, I think you can put too much focus on either one of those aspects. Farenheit 451 has a great scene where Montag's supervisor goes on about how giving people raw facts makes them feel smart, but facts by themselves aren't worth anything (or something similar, been ages since I read it). On the other, I probably have a reasonable amount of imagination (I've been posting stuff on FFN for the last 16 years), but that's irrelevant to actual achievement. Or to use another example, someone like Tolkein clearly had immense imagination when he concieved Middle-earth, but he also needed knowledge to build upon it (knowledge of various mythologies).

To be honest, knowledge will probably get one further than imagination. This isn't some inditement on modern society, I'd say it's generally true of most societies. Our ancestors on the African savannah, one tribesman might have had boundless imagination, and tell stories at the fire, but the knowledge of how to actually start a fire, and hunt, and all that...that's what kept the tribe alive, so to speak.

 

[Seanchaidh]

So, yeah. Typing this now, I know I could be wrong. I could be so wrong, that Weird Al could write a song about it. If your IQ is about 150% greater than mine, then chances are you're going to be right about more things than I am. I mean, that you can do algebra at all is a step up from me.

Have some self-respect ffs

Our ancestors on the African savannah, one tribesman might have had boundless imagination, and tell stories at the fire, but the knowledge of how to actually start a fire, and hunt, and all that...that's what kept the tribe alive, so to speak.

Actually doing all that work is what kept the tribe alive. Knowing how would be basic education.

 

[Hawki]

But you cannot discuss The Bell Curve without discussing IQ. Can you guess what the bespectacled skull does a lot in that video?

Also, your summary of the Bell Curve is extremely incomplete, so I'd recommend you watch the video for that alone. The book theorizes that there is a 'cognitive elite' which, by virtue of the meritocracy of capitalism , is amassing wealth and power and segregating themselves away from everyone else, intermarrying, and so on. The book justifies economic inequality not only between races but between any groups or individuals based on IQ scores. It is not just racist nonsense. It is also classist nonsense. And the foundation upon which it is built is pseudoscientific nonsense.

Except this thread hasn't dealt with The Bell Curve. It's like...I dunno, maybe not the best analogy, but saying that to talk about IQ, I also need to know about EQ. Also thought I'd have made it clear by now that I don't buy into the book's premise.

If there's a discussion on the book and its premises, maybe then it'll be relevant.

Have some self-respect ffs

You can have self-respect while still being humble.

I mean, you're outspoken on a number of issues here, don't tell me you've never asked "what if I'm wrong?"

Actually doing all that work is what kept the tribe alive. Knowing how would be basic education.

When you say "doing all that work" is what kept the tribe alive, are you referring to the storytelling stuff?

I dunno if we can put that on the same level as hunting and whatnot, objectively. It's the idea of "surviving vs. living" or Marlowe's Hierarchy of Needs.

 

[Seanchaidh]

When you say "doing all that work" is what kept the tribe alive, are you referring to the storytelling stuff?

No, I'm talking about the hunting and so forth. A storyteller would likely have either done that as well or had some reason they couldn't, such as infirmity.

 

[Trunkage]

I said some woke talking heads has been suggesting bringing back segregation.
I said please don't make me post the evidence of this.
You said to post it.
I did.
I never made any comment about group beyond woke talking heads.

We've seen the push for this stuff with the "Black Only" spaces etc too.

Segregation of GENDERS. They were talking about segregation of genders

Do you understand the difference? Like... you know that genders aren't the same as race? Is segregating (or not) of genders at school a woke thing?

I don't even know what FF stance is on this, they are just saying they know about research of the positivity of segregating GENDERS

ALSO, you to have also demanded the segregation of genders, particularly around bathrooms. So why are you even offended by this?

Lastly, I really like to know what this has got to do with you making up stories about MLK to fit your own personal agenda. Or is this just a whataboutism?

 

[BrawlMan]

This video sums up everything wrong with the Republican party.

​

 

[Asita]

True but that's not what is happening here. People have demanded the removal of a person from their own creative work, strictly on the merits of that agreeing with that person politically. Nothing to do with the work itself or the job done on the work.

Normal harassment, used to just call somebody a dickhead, is different than agenda based harassment that is trying to destroy a career based on personal bias. They are different entities imo, though they can technically be both called harassment one is clearly on a different level.

If you call someone a dick on twitter or whatever, it is very easy for person to simply block you and not engage with it. Even if you have to be blocked on multiple social networks. The handling of that is different than a social movement rallying against your political views, because you can silence and block an individual but you can't do so for a crowd of crazies all screaming nonsense at you.

An individual can be reasoned with, rationalized, a crowd cannot. Ten people who are screaming that the sky is Pink can silence the one person who is correctly saying the sky is blue. Truth doesn't matter to mob justice, only the agenda that the crowd has rallied around.

Ok, first of all, what you are describing is - once again - not harassment by a long shot. If I call you a dickhead in a given conversation, that's rude, almost certainly irrelevant and little more than an expression of personal disdain, but that would make it ad-hominem, not harassment, and the two are not the same. As a matter of definition, harassment cannot be a singular instance. It's a pattern over an extended period of time. For goodness sake, the original context of the term - which the modern social context directly evokes - is the military tactic of the same name, in which the enemy is repeatedly engaged in small scale skirmishes to exhaust them. "Harass" in the social context is literally defined as "to continue to annoy or upset someone over a period of time", "to annoy or trouble someone repeatedly" or "to annoy or bother in a constant or repeated way". Harassment is not an incident, by definition it is a pattern of behavior, very much defined by its prolonged and repetitive nature. This is not a value judgment defending ad-hom (which is considered piss-poor argumentation for damn good reason), just a statement of fact that the scenarios you're describing are quite obviously distinct from harassment and that it is as wrong to conflate the two as it is to conflate theft and murder.

Second, I hate to tell you this, but on the subject of patterns...well you actually ended up reflecting the one I initially described by the third and fourth paragraph, wherein despite the previous use of the term, you're very obviously not talking about harassment when you start talking about ease of blocking a contrary view. "When pushed, they frequently make pretenses about things like harassment, doxxing and similar illegal actions being the determinant factor, but in practice the accusation tends to be invoked when none of those things are present unless we use such a broad definition that 'a good number of people said they didn't like it' would be interpreted as a harassment campaign."

You actually almost directly invoke it when you characterize the issue alternatively as "a social movement rallying against your political views", a group of people saying that the sky is pink 'silencing' someone who is saying the sky is blue, and when you bemoan the logistics of 'reasoning' with a crowd rather than an individual. That rather neatly hearkens back to how I described the thought process as being ultimately rooted not in unacceptability of behavior, but instead in "whether or not it's criticism (particularly widespread criticism) that they think is 'wrong' or comes from people they believe themselves to be ideologically opposed to." Not to mince words, your arguments have not actually focused on harassment. Even when you're more on-point, your arguments thus far have hewn more closely to an assumption of ideological prejudice. "Wanting them gone because they said something you dont like" "demand of removal from a job for a person strictly on the basis of that person's opinions and no other metric" "destroy a career based on personal bias"...You've been very consistent in that, and that strongly suggests that your beef with it is better embodied in motive rather than action.

 

[CriticalGaming]

snip

Ok well put. I will give you the point there. Sometimes my mind goes all over the place when trying to get a post out, and i feel like I think faster than I can type sometimes which can make my posts jump around.

I still don't think the original premise counts as harassment, if anything I think it is mob outrage which I suppose becomes harassment with the motive of removing the person from their platform whatever that might be. As a result perhaps your final statement is correct, in that my beef falls to the motivation of these adventures and perhaps less so on the adventures themselves. However if the motive is what i don't like then i would also not like the action itself.

I think the ideological prejudice within is obvious. People had a problem with Scott strictly based on his affiliation with a political party they don't like. People hate J.K. Rowling strictly based on her anti-trans viewpoints. Their IDEAS is what people have problems with. While Rowling's ideals are fairly obvious and publicly made clear. I think Cawthon's ideas are a bit more assumed, and that's what makes what has happened here so dangerous. Scott has never come out with anti-LBGT ideas as far as I know, yet people have assumed he must have them because the political figures that he has support are anti-LBGT therefore Scott is anti-LBGT by proxy.

It would be like saying that anyone who has donated to their catholic church must be a pedophile because the church has support pedophilia for centuries and therefore any supporter must also support that. It's a frankly ridiculous assumption to make and is obviously not true. But the same stretch of connecting made up assumptions is made.

 

[Agema]

Is it racist to expect black kids to do math for real?

Yes, serious people are arguing this. Make sure they don't infect your school district.

johnmcwhorter.substack.com

I had a quick look through that document McWhorter is criticising, which interested me as it is about education.

Honestly, I struggle to support McWhorter's viewpoint. There are measures in that document with obvious aim at improving black pupils' interest in maths, and certain pedagogic concepts, some of which are well established. I think there is an element of validity in questioning whether a lot of the pedagogic ideas will effectively combat racism, which is perhaps the best line of criticism: I don't see how they would at face value myself either, but it is perhaps defended by one of the sources cited by the document. Unfortunately, instead I feel McWhorter decides to shoot straw men in a barrel.

For instance, take the argument that the "right" answer is favoured over understanding of concepts and reasoning. This is portrayed by McWhorter as "precision" or "doing the math" (as he calls it) being considered racist by this document, as if blacks can't or shouldn't have to do it. But hang on - what happens if someone understands the concepts and applies the right reasoning to a problem? Surely they get the right answer, don't they?

So what's going on here? Let's imagine a maths problem where a student has to solve a mathematical problem. The student does everything right except accidentally flubbing a decimal point. We could just give them zero for a wrong answer. But we could also give them 50%, 75%, 90% of the marks available for the bits they got right, even if the final answer was wrong. So, maybe we can see things the documents' authors might mean when they say there is too much emphasis on a "right" answer: we're not giving credit where credit may be due. Likewise the idea of memorisation versus understanding. A pupil can theoretically memorise the entire 12 times table whilst having no idea how to multiply. So perhaps in a test of ten simple multiplication questions, the pupil that memorises well but understands nothing outscores a student with a decent, albeit flawed, understanding of multiplication. Thus in these two cases, the ways the maths is being assessed is not necessarily getting the most accurate picture of the students' capabilities.

So yes, I can see that McWhorter might be skeptical about how some of the principles this document solve racism. But he's also fundamentally attacking perfectly reasonable pedagogic concepts as if they are faulty, in the process of a criticism that is somewhat dishonest. For the documents' itself, it clearly is as far as I can see a mixture of advice that directly attempts to tackle possible racism in the classroom, and general pedagogic practice. Perhaps it does conflate the two misleadingly.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

A pupil can theoretically memorise the entire 12 times table whilst having no idea how to multiply. So perhaps in a test of ten simple multiplication questions, the pupil that memorises well but understands nothing outscores a student with a decent, albeit flawed, understanding of multiplication.

Kinda piggybacking on this: this is literally how I math. It works fantastically up until, say, trigonometry as long as I have a scratch pad. Logarithms are a mystery to me. I can blunt-force some of the math on the unit circle for Calculus, but I still don't know how it works.

I'm a speedy 4-function calculator though. Pick your battles and you'll do great through High School like that