Re: They Really Are Stupid - Liberals Score Well Above Average On IQ, Conservadolts Below
Swatting Moonbats
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>Well, well, well, boy, howdy, gosh-o-golly and gee whiz, what a shock! A new
>meta study of more than 20,000 young adults shows that people who identify
>as liberal score well above average on IQ tests - 106 - while their
>conservadolt maroon counterparts score well below average - 95. Who'da thunk
>it!
Liberals:
Borderline Retarded 70-75 IQ - Seligman p.151
Black Delinquents 74 Shuey p. 498
Africans (Africa) 75 Lynn as cited by Murray p. 288
Southern Black children 80.5 Shuey
Black Felons 81 Shuey p. 498
Black Females 82 Interpolated from SAT estimate
Black Average 85 IQ Seligman p.149
Colored From Africa 85 Lynn as cited by Murray p.
Dull-Normal 80-90 IQ Textbook by Wechsler
Border Black Children 87 Shuey, and SAT Tables, 1991
Northern Black Children 87.6 Shuey, and SAT Tables, 1991
Black G12 NAEP Math 89 (7)
Black US Northern Average 90 IQ Jensen(4)
Urban North Black 91.1 Shuey
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Average Intelligence 90-109 IQ Textbook by Wechsler
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Major Debacle
Now we know why you morons scored lower.
Yer brains are pre-occupied with yer supposed superior position on some
race-based imaginary intelligence hierarchy.
Swatting Moonbats
The "imaginary intelligence hierarchy" is called standardized testing
and they are still the best single predictors of academic achievement.
Yeah, I know what you're going to say, Rastus, "They is culturally
biased." You folks have been here how long now? But they're still
culturally-biased. (snicker)
Another 200 years and maybe you'll rack three digits. (snicker)
Freddrick Smith
> Well, well, well, boy, howdy, gosh-o-golly and gee whiz, what a shock! A new
> meta study of more than 20,000 young adults shows that people who identify
> as liberal score well above average on IQ tests - 106 - while their
> conservadolt maroon counterparts score well below average - 95. Who'da thunk
> it!
>
> averaging 103 - and those who identify as ignorant superstitious imbeciles,
> er, sorry, very religious, who average only 97.
>
> And before you rightarded boobs start whining about some imaginary "librul
> bise," this study came from the anything but liberal London School of
> Economics and Political Science and was conducted by libertarian Satoshi
> Kanazawa.
>
> These results confirm earlier research. This latest study corroborates the
> results of earlier studies that have shown strong correlation between
> liberalism and intelligence as well as conservadoltism and stupidity. Last
> year a long term meta study tracking children to adulthood showed the higher
> a child scored on standardized tests, the more likely that child would grow
> up to be liberal. The inverse - the lower the score the more likely to end
> up a conservadolt - was also found to be true.
>
> So, there you have it, folks. Liberals really are a lot smarter than their
> conservadolt counterparts. Liberals, of course, have been well aware of this
> for some time. Conservadolts, OTOH, populate the risible depths of those who
> are simply not smart enough to know they simply are not smart enough.
>
> Then again, from the continual conservadolt rightard angst over my sig file,
> which doesn't even differentiate based on political identity, they must at
> least suspect that they're just not very smart. And right they are, in a
> world where right means stupid...
>
> ------
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm
>
> ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2010) � More intelligent people are statistically
> significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and
> political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary
> history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women),
> preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new
> study finds.
> ...
> Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health)
> support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify
> themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence
> while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average
> IQ of 95
> ...
> Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an
> average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as
> "very religious" have an average IQ of 97
> <links to data and more at URL>
> ------
>
> Now we know why idiots like Poor Dumb George, mary/boob the former and
> Cinderblock Mikey, as well as the regular cast of subliterate ignorant
> rightarded buffoons in the political groups, can't help but continually fart
> asinine, risible, ridiculous, just plain STUPID nonsense. Stupid is what
> they know. Stupid is what they are. And stupid is why they are not smart
> enough to know they are not smart enough.
>
> Congratulations, rightards! Well done! Embrace your inner stupid!
>
> Oh, wait, too late...
>
> Now, Mikey, Poor Dumb George, cross dressing mary, et al (FYI, subliterate
> conservadolts, that means "and others"), as I've insulted you, I'm happy to
> give you the opportunity to refute my assertions and spank me at the same
> time.
>
> I'll challenge any of you idiots one on one to any reasonable test of
> intelligence for, oh, say, $500. Loser donates winnings to cause of winner's
> choice. No doubt you'll all be quick to take up this obviously fair
> challenge, right?
>
> <snort>
>
> Yeah, sure you will...
>
> Tell ya what, dim bulbs, I'll take all three of you on at the same time.
> Triple the stupidity ain't gonna help you maroons win.
>
> So, when and where? Any other rightards want in on the action? Speak right
> up. I'll be happy to take your money, too. And donate it to, say, ACORN...
>
> ---
> Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
> ------
> Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
>
> http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
> � 1999 by the American Psychological Association
> December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
>
> Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
> Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
>
> Justin Kruger and David Dunning
> Department of Psychology
> Cornell University
>
> ABSTRACT:
> ...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
> on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
> performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
> 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.
where do you find these lopsided studies ?
Most democrats are blacks . blacks have an IQ that is much lower than
others on the average a scientific fact ( just check any black school
for grades and drop out levels ) and most blacks are uneducated and
pretty much useless as members of society and therefor can no way have a
high IQ .
the rest of the liberals are far too easy to be manipulated by others
that talk slick talk . Look at all the cults that get people . All
liberal .
If liberals were intelligent they would not be so easy to be brainwashed .
Freddrick Smith
smarter all the time . Someday a million of them will be able to type
out a sentence .
Get lost
wrote:
It says a lot. How can liberals be smarter when nearly all blacks are
liberals and nearly all blacks are retarded?
That means 14% of the population and about 28% of all liberals are
retarded. I'd say the liberal claim is flawed and only (perhaps)
applicable to educated urban elites.
Get lost
global warming theory.
On Feb 26, 6:40 pm, Peter Principle <petesfe...@SNIPITgmail.com>
wrote:
> Well, well, well, boy, howdy, gosh-o-golly and gee whiz, what a shock! A new
> meta study of more than 20,000 young adults shows that people who identify
> as liberal score well above average on IQ tests - 106 - while their
> conservadolt maroon counterparts score well below average - 95. Who'da thunk
> it!
>
> A similar split in IQ was seen between those who identify as atheists -
> averaging 103 - and those who identify as ignorant superstitious imbeciles,
> er, sorry, very religious, who average only 97.
>
> And before you rightarded boobs start whining about some imaginary "librul
> bise," this study came from the anything but liberal London School of
> Economics and Political Science and was conducted by libertarian Satoshi
> Kanazawa.
>
> These results confirm earlier research. This latest study corroborates the
> results of earlier studies that have shown strong correlation between
> liberalism and intelligence as well as conservadoltism and stupidity. Last
> year a long term meta study tracking children to adulthood showed the higher
> a child scored on standardized tests, the more likely that child would grow
> up to be liberal. The inverse - the lower the score the more likely to end
> up a conservadolt - was also found to be true.
>
> So, there you have it, folks. Liberals really are a lot smarter than their
> conservadolt counterparts. Liberals, of course, have been well aware of this
> for some time. Conservadolts, OTOH, populate the risible depths of those who
> are simply not smart enough to know they simply are not smart enough.
>
> Then again, from the continual conservadolt rightard angst over my sig file,
> which doesn't even differentiate based on political identity, they must at
> least suspect that they're just not very smart. And right they are, in a
> world where right means stupid...
>
> ------http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm
>
> ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2010) More intelligent people are statistically
Freddrick Smith
chimps are sort of smart for animals but not like humans . Hence blacks
in general can not obtain the IQ level of a full human .
Kids in black schools have low IQ levels , bad grades , and drop out
more . Of coarse they try to blame that on teachers .
it is just a fact . nothing can change it except more evolution and
cross breeding with full humans .
Why do you think society has been pushing for blacks and whites to breed
since the 60's when the blacks were given rights ? Because everyone knew
the blacks would be a major problem so they started a push for them to
be bread into something better .
Grumpy AuContraire
But then again, how much intelligence does it take to completely tank an
administration (based on "hope") in just one year?
JT
the wharf rat
Peter Principle <petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>
>A similar split in IQ was seen between those who identify as atheists -
>averaging 103 - and those who identify as ignorant superstitious imbeciles,
>er, sorry, very religious, who average only 97.
>
That doesn't sound significant to me...
the wharf rat
Swatting Moonbats <AnAbsoluteShitLives@WhiteHouse.> wrote:
>
>Black Delinquents 74 Shuey p. 498
>Northern Black Children 87.6 Shuey, and SAT Tables, 1991
Shuey's been discredited. Her statistics are flawed.
No Birth Certificate Yet?
news:bhkgo59fuefe4qher...@4ax.com:
> Well, well, well, boy, howdy, gosh-o-golly and gee whiz, what a shock!
> A new meta study of more than 20,000 young adults shows that people
> who identify as liberal score well above average on IQ tests - 106 -
> while their conservadolt maroon counterparts score well below average
> - 95. Who'da thunk it!
Any liberal can make up shit lies. You dumb fucks still can't change a
tire on your car or fix your broken computers.
Bunch of pussies.
the wharf rat
No Birth Certificate Yet? <oba...@the.slammer.com> wrote:
>
>Bunch of pussies.
>
What've you got against pussies? They're furry and soft...
Swatting Moonbats
Discredited by MotherJones?
Psychometricians in general come up with these same data.
Even tho most of them are feel-good left-wing weenies.
Anything to refute? Different data?
Didn't think so.
Swatting Moonbats
Discredit? You want discredit, cupcake?
See Gratz v Bollinger, SCOTUS, June 2003.
Freddrick Smith
that only seem to be able to teach the whites and asian kids .
Freddrick Smith
religious and the extra smart ones if you call 103 extra smart just are
more into science than the others. Most evolutionists are science geeks
Freddrick Smith
John Black
petes...@SNIPITgmail.com says...
> Well, well, well, boy, howdy, gosh-o-golly and gee whiz, what a shock! A new
> meta study of more than 20,000 young adults shows that people who identify
In a study of over 100 million (the 2004 election) showed that Bush won the
vote of both high school and college graduates. Kerry on the other hand was
ahead on votes with high school dropouts.
John Black
Bret Cahill
> meta study of more than 20,000 young adults shows that people who identify
> conservadolt maroon counterparts score well below average - 95. Who'da thunk
> it!
You could knock me over with a feather!
> A similar split in IQ was seen between those who identify as atheists -
> averaging 103 - and those who identify as ignorant superstitious imbeciles,
> er, sorry, very religious, who average only 97.
>
Shrikeback
> You could knock me over with a feather!
Eh, Tweety-bird?
Kenyan 4 Sale Only 50 Cents
> Not as significant
as the demonstrated ignorance of liberals every single day.
Kenyan 4 Sale Only 50 Cents
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:22:03 -0600, Freddrick Smith
> <whydo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>As has been proved by scientific fact , blacks are spawned from chimps
>
><PLONK!>
>
> Ah, that's better.
Ain't it tho?
Our nation�s top historians reveal that the Democratic Party gave us the
Ku Klux Klan, Black Codes, Jim Crow Laws and other repressive legislation
which resulted in the multitude of murders, lynchings, mutilations, and
intimidations (of thousands of black and white Republicans). On the issue
of slavery: historians say the Democrats gave their lives to expand it,
the Republicans gave their lives to ban it.
The Democrats:
?Democrats fought to expand slavery while Republicans fought to end it.
?Democrats passed those discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws.
?Democrats supported and passed the Missouri Compromise to protect
slavery.
?Democrats supported and passed the Kansas Nebraska Act to expand slavery.
?Democrats supported and backed the Dred Scott Decision.
?Democrats opposed educating blacks and murdered our teachers.
?Democrats fought against anti-lynching laws.
?Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, is well known for having
been a �Kleagle� in the Ku Klux Klan.
?Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, personally filibustered
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 straight hours to keep it from
passage.
?Democrats passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil right laws
enacted by Republicans.
?Democrats declared that they would rather vote for a �yellow dog� than
vote for a Republican, because the Republican Party was known as the party
for blacks.
?Democrat President Woodrow Wilson, reintroduced segregation throughout
the federal government immediately upon taking office in 1913.
?Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt�s first appointment to the
Supreme Court was a life member of the Ku Klux Klan, Sen. Hugo Black,
Democrat of Alabama.
?Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt�s choice for vice president in
1944 was Harry Truman, who had joined the Ku Klux Klan in Kansas City in
1922.
?Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt resisted Republican efforts to
pass a federal law against lynching.
?Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt opposed integration of the armed
forces.
?Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd were the
chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
?Democrats supported and backed Judge John Ferguson in the case of Plessy
v Ferguson.
?Democrats supported the School Board of Topeka Kansas in the case of
Brown v The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas.
?Democrat public safety commissioner Eugene �Bull� Connor, in Birmingham,
Ala., unleashed vicious dogs and turned fire hoses on black civil rights
demonstrators.
?Democrats were who Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the other protesters
were fighting.
?Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox �brandished an ax hammer to
prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant.
?Democrat Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama
schoolhouse in 1963, declaring there would be segregation forever.
?Democrat Arkansas Governor Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of
Little Rock public schools.
?Democrat Senator John F. Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act.
?Democrat President John F. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington
by Dr. King.
?Democrat President John F. Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and
investigated by the FBI.
?Democrat President Bill Clinton�s mentor was U.S. Senator J. William
Fulbright, an Arkansas Democrat and a supporter of racial segregation.
?Democrat President Bill Clinton interned for J. William Fulbright in
1966-67.
?Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright signed the Southern Manifesto
opposing the Supreme Court�s 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
?Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright joined with the Dixiecrats in
filibustering the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964.
?Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright voted against the 1965 Voting
Rights Act.
?Southern Democrats opposed desegregation and integration.
Democrats opposed:
1.The Emancipation Proclamation
2.The 13th Amendment
3.The 14th Amendment
4.The 15th Amendment
5.The Reconstruction Act of 1867
6.The Civil Rights of 1866
7.The Enforcement Act of 1870
8.The Forced Act of 1871
9.The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
10.The Civil Rights Act of 1875
11.The Freeman Bureau
12.The Civil Rights Act of 1957
13.The Civil Rights Act of 1960
14.The United State Civil Rights Commission
Republicans gave strong bi-partisan support and sponsorship for the
following
legislation:
1.The Civil Rights Act of 1964
2.The Voting Rights Act of 1965
3.The 1968 Civil Rights Acts
4.The Equal Opportunity Act of 1972
5.Goals and Timetables for Affirmative Action Programs
6.Comprehensive Employment Training Act of 1973
7.Voting Rights Act of Amendment of 1982
8.Civil Rights Act of 1983
9.Federal Contract Compliance and Workforce Development Act of 1988
The Republicans:
?Republicans enacted civil rights laws in the 1950�s and 1960�s, over the
objection of Democrats.
?Republicans founded the HBCU�s (Historical Black College�s and
Universities) and started the NAACP to counter the racist practices of the
Democrats.
?Republicans pushed through much of the ground-breaking civil rights
legislation in Congress.
?Republicans fought slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks
freedom, citizenship and the right to vote.
?Republicans pushed through much of the groundbreaking civil rights
legislation from the 1860s through the 1960s.
?Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops into the South to
desegregate the schools.
?Republican President Eisenhower appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to
the Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education
decision.
?Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President
Lyndon Johnson, was the one who pushed through the civil rights laws of
the 1960�s.
?Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois wrote the language for
the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
?Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois also crafted the
language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination
in housing.
?Republican and black American, A. Phillip Randolph, organized the 1963
March by Dr. King on Washington.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act Roll Call Vote: In the House, only 64 percent of
the Democrats (153 yes, 91 no), but 80 percent of the Republicans (136
yes, 35 no), voted for it. In the Senate, while only 68 percent of the
Democrats endorsed the bill (46 yes, 21 no), 82 percent of the Republicans
voted to enact it (27 yes, 6 no).
Thaddeus Stevens, a Radical Republican that introduced legislation to give
African Americans the so-called 40 acres and a mule and Democrats
overwhelmingly voted against the bill.
During the Senate debates on the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, it was revealed
that members of the Democratic Party formed many terrorist organizations
like the Ku Klux Klan to murder and intimidate African Americans voters.
The Ku Klux Klan Act was a bill introduced by a Republican Congress to
stop Klan Activities.
History reveals that Democrats lynched, burned, mutilated and murdered
thousands of blacks and completely destroyed entire towns and communities
occupied by middle class Blacks, including Rosewood, Florida, the
Greenwood District in Tulsa Oklahoma, and Wilmington, North Carolina to
name a few.
History reveals that it was Abolitionists and Radical Republicans such as
Henry L. Morehouse and General Oliver Howard that started many of the
traditional Black colleges, while Democrats fought to keep them closed.
Many of our traditional Black colleges are named after white Republicans.
After exclusively giving the Democrats their votes for the past 25 years,
the average African American cannot point to one piece of civil rights
legislation sponsored solely by the Democratic Party that was specifically
designed to eradicate the unique problems that African Americans face
today.
As of 2004, the Democrat Party (the oldest political party in America) has
never elected a black man to the United States Senate, the Republicans
have elected three.
Kenyan 4 Sale Only 50 Cents
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 23:44:46 GMT, AnAbsoluteShitLives@WhiteHouse.
> (Swatting Moonbats) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:40:18 -0600, Peter Principle
>><petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Well, well, well, boy, howdy, gosh-o-golly and gee whiz, what a
>>>shock! A new meta study of more than 20,000 young adults shows that
>>>people who identify as liberal score well above average on IQ tests -
>>>106 - while their conservadolt maroon counterparts score well below
>>>average - 95. Who'da thunk it!
>>
>>Liberals:
>>
>>Borderline Retarded 70-75 IQ - Seligman p.151
>>Black Delinquents 74 Shuey p. 498
>>Africans (Africa) 75 Lynn as cited by Murray p. 288
>>Southern Black children 80.5 Shuey
>>Black Felons 81 Shuey p. 498
>>Black Females 82 Interpolated from SAT estimate
>>Black Average 85 IQ Seligman p.149
>>Colored From Africa 85 Lynn as cited by Murray p.
>>Dull-Normal 80-90 IQ Textbook by Wechsler
>>Border Black Children 87 Shuey, and SAT Tables, 1991
>>Northern Black Children 87.6 Shuey, and SAT Tables, 1991
>>Black G12 NAEP Math 89 (7)
>>Black US Northern Average 90 IQ Jensen(4)
>>Urban North Black 91.1 Shuey
>
> Shuey? You've got to be kidding, KKKlown.
Tell us again how smart you liberals are.
Tater Gumfries
Means the white liberals gotta be even smarter to make up for it.
Tater
Major Debacle
Don't forget about their love for faggots. Only a liberal
cretin would take a lethal AIDS infected dick up his ass and
call it love. Liberals and faggots, both are self-destructive
and doomed to extinction.
John Jones
Mike Smith
>Well, well, well, boy, howdy, gosh-o-golly and gee whiz, what a shock! A new
>meta study of more than 20,000 young adults shows that people who identify
>as liberal score well above average on IQ tests - 106 - while their
>conservadolt maroon counterparts score well below average - 95. Who'da thunk
>it!
You are a gullible fool, John. You will believe anything if it fits
your myopic little world. It's not your fault. Your parents did not
inject any logic, common sense, analytical abilities or any known
rational critical thought process into your genetic code (AKA, what is
laughingly referred to as your brain).
>
>London School of
>Economics and Political Science and was conducted by libertarian Satoshi
>Kanazawa.
This guy???
In 2006 Kanazawa published a controversial paper suggesting that poor
health of people in some nations is the result, not of poverty, but
rather lower IQ.[14] In the British Journal of Health Psychology
George T. H. Ellison wrote that the theory is based on flawed
assumptions, questionable data, inappropriate analyses and biased
interpretations. Ellison wrote that Kanazawa mistook statistical
associations for evidence of causality and falsely concluded that
populations in sub-Saharan Africa are less healthy because they are
unintelligent and not because they are poor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Kanazawa
Or is it a gal?
In her study, Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the
London School of Economics and Political Science, points out that
people with higher intelligence are likely to be associated with
liberal political ideology, atheism, and men's (but not women's)
preference for sexual exclusivity.
http://news.oneindia.in/2010/02/27/intelligentpeople-more-likely-to-be-liberalatheists.html
Folks, who are you gonna believe? This bogus "study" (term used
loosely), or your own eyes and ears?
I give you ABCNNBCBS news and cable TV as excellent examples...
Mike Smith
Vandar
> have that figure at your fingertips, yes?
>
> While you're looking, perhaps you can elaborate on what, precisely, you
> think the 2004 election has to do with the 2010 study cited and why. This
> study...
>
> Well, well, well, boy, howdy, gosh-o-golly and gee whiz, what a shock! A new
> meta study of more than 20,000 young adults shows that people who identify
> conservadolt maroon counterparts score well below average - 95. Who'da thunk
> it!
In that study, conservative and liberal doesn't mean "politically
conservative or liberal", you fucking imbecile. It's social psychology,
not politics, moron.
Your failure to understand that isn't the least bit surprising.
Swatting Moonbats
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>I really have nothing but left-wing
>sources to refute your objective data.
Colleges were giving blax 20 extra points on college admissions' tests
until the Supreme Court put a stop to it (Gratz v. Bollinger, SCOTUS,
June 2003)
Swatting Moonbats
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 23:44:46 GMT, AnAbsoluteShitLives@WhiteHouse. (Swatting
>Moonbats) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:40:18 -0600, Peter Principle
>><petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Well, well, well, boy, howdy, gosh-o-golly and gee whiz, what a shock! A new
>>>meta study of more than 20,000 young adults shows that people who identify
>>>as liberal score well above average on IQ tests - 106 - while their
>>>conservadolt maroon counterparts score well below average - 95. Who'da thunk
>>>it!
>>
>>Liberals:
>>
>>Borderline Retarded 70-75 IQ - Seligman p.151
>>Black Delinquents 74 Shuey p. 498
>>Africans (Africa) 75 Lynn as cited by Murray p. 288
>>Southern Black children 80.5 Shuey
>>Black Felons 81 Shuey p. 498
>>Black Females 82 Interpolated from SAT estimate
>>Black Average 85 IQ Seligman p.149
>>Colored From Africa 85 Lynn as cited by Murray p.
>>Dull-Normal 80-90 IQ Textbook by Wechsler
>>Border Black Children 87 Shuey, and SAT Tables, 1991
>>Northern Black Children 87.6 Shuey, and SAT Tables, 1991
>>Black G12 NAEP Math 89 (7)
>>Black US Northern Average 90 IQ Jensen(4)
>>Urban North Black 91.1 Shuey
Part 1
The strong form of the default hypothesis is represented in Figure
12.5 by the dotted-line extension of the solid vertical line, thus
partitioning both the WG and BG variances into the same proportions of
genetic and environmental variance. A �relaxed� form of the default
hypothesis still posits h2BG > 0, but allows h2BG to differ from h2WG.
In general, this is closer to reality than is the strong form of the
default hypothesis. In both forms of the default hypothesis WG
variance and BG variance are attributable to the same causal factors,
although they may differ in degree. The purpose of hypothesizing some
fairly precise value for h2BG is not because one necessarily thinks it
is true, or wants to �sell� it to someone, but rather because
scientific knowledge advances by the process that Karl Popper
described as �conjectures and refutations��a strong hypothesis (or
conjecture) can permit certain possibly testable deductions or
inferences, and can be decisively refuted only if formulated precisely
and preferably quantitatively. Any hypothesis is merely the temporary
scaffolding that assists in discovering new facts about nature. It
helps us to formulate questions precisely and further focuses
investigative efforts on research that will yield diacritical results.
Beyond this purpose, a hypothesis has no other use. It is not a
subject for advocacy.
A clear quantitative statement of the default hypothesis depends upon
understanding some important technical points about variance and its
relation to linear measurement. The large square in Figure 12.6
represents the total variance (0.2) of a standardized phenotypic
variable (P), with a standard deviation sp = 1. The area of the large
square (total phenotypic variance) is partitioned into its genetic and
environmental components, corresponding to a heritability of .75
(which makes it easy to visualize). The genetic variance sG2 in Figure
12.6 (unshaded area) is equal to .75, leaving the environmental
component sE2 (shaded area) equal to .25. Since the variance of each
effect is shown in the diagram as an area, the square root of the area
represents the standard deviation of that effect. The linear distances
or differences between points on a scaled variable are shown as line
segments scaled in standard deviation units, not in variance units.
Thus the line segments that form the area in the lower right of the
shaded square in Figure 12.6 are each equal to 0.25^0.5 or .5 (in
standard deviation units). The linear distances represented by the
environmental variance is 0.5; and the linear distance represented by
the genetic variance is 0.866. Notice that these two linear
measurements do not add up to the length of the side of the total
square, which is 1. That is, standard deviation units are not
additive. Before the sum of the standard deviations of two or more
component elements can represent the standard deviation of the total
of the component elements, you must first take the square root of the
sum of the squared standard deviations.
[From this point on -- I have eliminated many hard to edit formulas.
See the original text for the complete derivations of expressions]
We can now ask, �How many units of environmental variance are needed
to add up to the total phenotypic variance? The answer is 4. This
ratio is in variance units. To express it in linear terms, it has to
be converted into standard deviation units, that is, 2.
Suppose we obtain IQ scores for all members of two equal-size groups
called A and B. Further assume that within each group the IQs have a
normal distribution, and the mean of group A is greater than the mean
of group B. To keep the math simple, let the IQ scores have perfect
reliability, let the standard deviation of the scores be the same in
both groups, and let the mean phenotypic difference be equal to the
average within-group phenotypic standard deviation.
Now consider the hypothesis that the between-group heritability (BGH)
is zero and that therefore the cause of the A-B difference is purely
environmental. Assume that the within-group heritability (WGH) is the
same in each group, say, WGHA = WGHB = .75. Now, if we remove the
variance attributable to genetic factors (WGH) from the total variance
of each group�s scores, the remainder gives us the proportion of
within-group variance attributable to purely environmental factors. If
both the genetic and environmental effects on test scores are normally
distributed within each group, the resulting curves after the genetic
variance has been removed from each represent the distribution of
environmental effects on test scores. Note that this does not refer to
variation in the environment per se, but rather to the effects of
environmental variation on the phenotypes (i.e., IQ scores, in this
case.) The standard deviation of this distribution of environmental
effects provides a unit of measurement for environmental effects.
The distribution of just the total environmental effects (assuming WGH
= .75) is shown in the two curves in the bottom half of Figure 12.7.
The phenotypic difference between the group means is kept constant,
but on the scale of environmental effects (measured in environmental
standard deviation units), the mean environmental effects for groups A
and B differ by the ratio 2sE, as shown in the lower half of Figure
12.7. What this means is that for two groups to differ phenotypically
by 1sP When WGH = .75 and BGH = 0, the two groups would have to differ
by 2sE on the scale of environmental effects. This is analogous to two
groups in which each member of one group has a monozygotic twin in the
other group, thus making the distribution of genotypes exactly the
same in both groups. For the test score distributions of these two
genotypically matched groups to differ by 1sP, the groups would have
to differ by 2sE on the scale of environmental effects (assuming WGH =
.75).
The hypothetical decomposition of a mean phenotypic difference between
two groups as expressed in terms of the simplest model is that the
phenotypic difference between the groups is completely determined by
their genetic difference and their environmental difference. These
variables are related quantitatively by the simple path model shown in
Figure 12.8. The arrows represent the direction of causation; each
arrow is labeled with the respective regression coefficients (also
called path coefficients), h and e, between the variables, which,
when, are mathematically equivalent to the respective correlation
coefficients, and to the standard deviations of the genetic and
environmental effects. In reality, of course, there could be a causal
path, but this would not alter the essential point of the present
argument. We see that the phenotypic difference can be represented as
a weighted sum of the genetic and the environmental effects on PD, the
weights being h and e. Since these values are equivalent to standard
deviations, they cannot be summed.
A phenotypic difference between the means of two groups can be
expressed in units of the standard deviation of the average
within-groups environmental effect, where BGH is the between-groups
heritability and WGH is the within-groups heritability. Thus the
phenotypic difference between the means of the two curves in the lower
half of Figure is 2sE. That is, the means of the two
environmental-effect curves differ by two standard deviations. The
body of empirical evidence shows that an environmental effect on IQ
this large would predictably occur only rarely in pairs of monozygotic
twins reared apart (whose IQs are correlated .75) except for random
errors of measurement. The difference in IQ attributable solely to
nongenetic differences between random pairs of individuals in a
population in which h2 is .75 is about the same as for MZ twins reared
apart. On an IQ scale with s = 15, a difference of 2sE is
approximately equal to 30 IQ points (i.e., 2 X 15). But the largest IQ
difference between MZ twins reared apart reported in the literature is
1 .5s, or 23 IQ points. Further, the average absolute difference in IQ
(assuming a perfectly normal distribution of IQ) between all random
pairs of persons in the population (who differ both in g and in E)
would be 1.1284s, or approximately 17 IQ points.
Now consider again the two groups in the upper half of Figure 12.7,
called A and B. They differ in their mean test scores, with a
phenotypic difference A-B =1sP, and have a within-group environmental
effect difference of 2sE. If we hypothesize that the difference
between the phenotypic means is entirely nongenetic (i.e.,
environmental), then the phenotypic difference of 1sP must be equal to
2sE.
By the same reasoning, we can determine the size of the environmental
effect that is required to produce a phenotypic difference of lsP,
given any values of the within-groups heritability (WGH) and the
between-groups heritability (BGH). For a phenotypic difference of lsP.
The strong default hypothesis is defined in terms of BGH = WGH; the
relaxed default hypothesis allows independent values of BGH and WGH.
For example, in the first column inside Table 12.4(A), the BGH = .00.
This represents the hypothesis that the cause of the mean group
difference in test scores is purely environmental. When WGH is also
equal to .00, the environmental difference of lsE between the groups
accounts for all of the phenotypic difference of lsP, and thus accords
perfectly with the environmental hypothesis that lsP= lsE. Table
12.4(A) shows that when WGH = BGH = .00, the value of sE = 1.00.
Maintaining the same purely environmental hypothesis that the BGH = 0,
but with the WGH = .10, for two groups to differ phenotypically by lsP
they must differ by l.05sE in environmental effect, which deviates .05
from the hypothesized value of lsE. The critical point of this
analysis is that if the BGH= 0, values of WGH greater than 0 then
require that sE be greater than 1.00. We can see in Table 12.4(A) that
as the WGH increases, the required value of lsE must increasingly
deviate from the hypothesized value of lsE, thereby becoming
increasingly more problematic for empirical explanation. Since the
empirical value of WGH for the IQ of adults lies within the range of
60 to .80, with a mean close to .70, it is particularly instructive
to examine the values of lsE, for this range in WGH. When WGH = .70
and BGH = 0, for example, the lsP, difference between the groups is
entirely due to environmental causes and amounts to l,83sE. Table
12.4(A) indicates that as we hypothesize levels of BGH that approach
the empirically established levels of WGH, the smaller is the size of
the environmental effect required to account for the phenotypic
difference of lsP in group means.
Factor X. Recall that the strong form of the default hypothesis states
that the average difference in test scores observed between groups A
and B results from the same kinds of genetic (G) and environmental (E)
influences acting to the same degree to produce individual differences
within each group. The groups may differ, however, in the mean values
of either G, or E, or both. Stated in terms of the demonstration in
Table 12.4(A), this means that if WGH is the same for both groups, A
and B, then, given any empirically obtained value of WGH, the limits
of BGH are constrained, as shown. The hypothesis that BGH = 0
therefore appears improbable, given the typical range of empirical
values of WGH.
To accept the preponderance of evidence that WGH > 0 and still insist
that BGH = 0 regardless of the magnitude of the WGH, we must attribute
the cause of the group difference to either of two sources: (1) the
same kinds of environmental factors that influence the level of g but
that do so at much greater magnitude between groups than within either
group, or (2) empirically identified environmental factors that create
variance between groups but do not do so within groups. The �relaxed�
default hypothesis allows both of these possibilities. The dual
hypothesis, on the other hand, requires either much larger
environmental effects between groups than are empirically found, on
average, within either group, or the existence of some additional
empirically unidentified source of nongenetic variance that causes the
difference between groups but does not contribute to individual
differences within either group. If the two groups are hypothesized
not to differ in WGH or in total phenotypic variance, this
hypothesized additional source of nongenetic variance between groups
must either have equal but opposite effects within each group, or it
must exist only within one group but without producing any additional
variance within that group. In 1973, I dubbed this hypothesized
additional nongenetic effect Factor X. When groups of blacks and
whites who are matched on virtually all of the environmental variables
known to be correlated with IQ within either racial population still
show a substantial mean difference in IQ, Factor X is the favored
explanation in lieu of the hypothesis that genetic factors, though
constituting the largest source of variance within groups, are at all
involved in the IQ difference between groups. Thus Factor X is an ad
hoc hypothesis that violates Occam�s razor, the well-known maxim in
science which states that if a phenomenon can he explained without
assuming some hypothetical entity, there is no ground for assuming it.
The default hypothesis also constrains the magnitude of the genetic
difference between groups, as shown in Table 12.4(B). (The
explanations that were given for interpreting Table 12.4(A) apply here
as well.) For two groups, A and B, whose phenotypic means differ by
A-B = lsP, the strong default hypothesis (i.e., BGH = WGH) means that
the groups differ on the scale of genetic effect by BGH/WGH = lsG.
The values of lsG in Table 12.4(B) show that the strong default
hypothesis is not the same as a purely genetic hypothesis of the group
difference. For example, for WGH = .70 and BGH = .70, the groups
differ by lsG (Table 12.4B), and also the groups differ by lsE (Table
12.4A). For the relaxed default hypothesis, the environmental and
genetic differences associated with each and every intersection of WGH
and BGH in Tables 12.4A and 12.4B add up to lsP.
The foregoing analysis is relevant to the often repeated �thought
experiment� proposed by those who argue for the plausibility of the
dual hypothesis, as in the following example from an article by Carol
Tavris: "Suppose that you have a bag of tomato seeds that vary
genetically; all things being equal, some seeds will produce tomatoes
that are puny and tasteless, and some will produce tomatoes that are
plump and delicious. You take a random bunch of seeds in your left
hand and random bunch in your right. Though one seed differs
genetically from another, there is no average difference between the
seeds in your left hand and those in your right. Now you plant the
left hand�s seeds in Pot A. You have doctored the soil in Pot A with
nitrogen and other nutrients. You feed the pot every day, sing arias
to it from La Traviata, and make sure it gets lots of sun. You protect
it from pests, and you put in a trellis, so even the weakest little
tomatoes have some support. Then you plant the seeds in your right
hand in Pot B, which contains sandy soil lacking nutrients. You don�t
feed these tomatoes, or water them; you don�t give them enough sun;
you let pests munch on them. When the tomatoes mature, they will vary
in size within each pot, purely because of genetic differences. But
there will also be an average difference between the tomatoes of
enriched Pot A and those of depleted Pot B. This difference between
pots is due entirely to their different soils and tomato-rearing
experiences."
Statistically stated, the argument is that (1) WGH = 1, BGH = 0. What
is the expected magnitude of the required environmental effect implied
by these conditions? In terms of within-group standard deviation
units, it is sE =1/0. But of course the quotient of any fraction with
zero in the denominator is undefined, so no inference about the
magnitude is possible at all, given these conditions. However, if we
make the WGH slightly less than perfect, say, .99, the expected
difference in environmental effect becomes l0sE. This is an incredibly
large, but in this case probably not unrealistic, effect given
Tavris�s descriptions of the contrasting environments of Pot A and Pot
B.
The story of tomatoes-in-two-pots doesn�t contradict the default
hypothesis. Rather, it makes the very point of the default hypothesis
by stating that Pots A and B each contain random samples of the same
batch of seeds, so an equally massive result would have been observed
if the left-hand and right-hand seeds had been planted in opposite
pots. Factor X is not needed to explain the enriched and deprived
tomatoes; the immense difference in the environmental conditions is
quite sufficient to produce a difference in tomato size ten times
greater than the average differences produced by environmental
variation within each pot.
Extending the tomato analogy to humans, Tavris goes on to argue,
�Blacks and whites do not grow up, on the average, in the same kind of
pot�. The question, then, is whether the average environmental
difference between blacks and whites is sufficient to cause a lsP
difference in IQ if BGH = 0 and WGH is far from zero. The default
hypothesis, positing values of BGH near those of the empirical values
of WGH, is more plausible than the hypothesis that BGH = 0. (A third
hypothesis, which can be ruled out of serious consideration on
evolutionary grounds, given the observed genetic similarity between
all human groups, is that the basic organization of the brain and the
processes involved in mental development are qualitatively so
different for blacks and whites that any phenotypic difference between
the groups cannot, even in principle, be analyzed in terms of
quantitative variation on the same scale of the genetic or of the
environmental factors that influence individual development of mental
ability within one racial group.)
The Default Hypothesis in Terms of Multiple Regression. The behavioral
geneticist Eric Turkheimer has proposed an approach for relating the
quantitative genetic analysis of individual and of group differences.
Phenotypic variance can be conceptually partitioned into its genetic
and its environmental components in terms of a multiple regression
equation. Turkheimer�s method allows us to visualize the relationship
of within-group and between-group genetic effects and environmental
effects in terms of a regression plane located in a three-dimensional
space in which the orthogonal dimensions are phenotype (P), genotype
(G), and environment (E). Both individual and group mean phenotypic
values (e.g., IQ) can then be represented on the surface of this
plane. This amounts to a graphic statement of the strong default
hypothesis, where the phenotypic difference between two individuals
(or two group means), A and B, can be represented by the multiple
regression of the phenotypic difference on the genetic and
environmental differences (GD and ED).
According to the default hypothesis, mental development is affected by
the genetic mechanisms of inheritance and by environmental factors in
the same way for all biologically normal individuals in either group.
(Rejection of this hypothesis would mean that evolution has caused
some fundamental intraspecies differences in brain organization and
mental development, a possibility which, though seemingly unlikely,
has not yet been ruled out.) Thus the default hypothesis implies that
a unit increase in genetic value 0 for individuals in group A is equal
to the same unit increase in G for individuals in group B, and
likewise for the environmental value E. Within these constraints
posited by the default hypothesis, however, the groups may differ, on
average, in the mean values of G, or E, or both. Accordingly,
individuals of either group will fall at various points (depending on
their own genotype and environment) on the same regression lines
(i.e., for the regression of P on G and of P on E). This can be
visualized graphically as a regression plane inside a square box
(Figure 12.9). The G and E values for individuals (or for group means)
A and B are projected onto the tilted plane; the projections are shown
as a dot and a square. Their positions on the plane are then projected
onto the phenotype dimension of the box.
The important point here is that the default hypothesis states that,
for any value of WGH, the predicted scores of all individuals (and
consequently the predicted group means) will lie on one and the same
regression plane. Assuming the default hypothesis, this clearly shows
the relationship between the heritability of individual differences
within groups (WGH) and the heritability of group differences (BGH).
This formulation makes the default hypothesis quantitatively explicit
and therefore highly liable to empirical refutation. If there were
some environmental factor(s) that is unique to one group and that
contributes appreciably to the mean difference between the two groups,
their means would not lie on the same plane. This would result, for
example, if there were a between-groups G X E interaction. The
existence of such an interaction would be inconsistent with the
default hypothesis, because it would mean that the groups differ
phenotypically due to some nonadditive effects of genes and
environment so that, say, two individuals, one from each group, even
if they had identical levels of IQ, would have had to attain that
level by different developmental processes and environmental
influences. The fact that significant G X E interactions with respect
to IQ (or g) have not been found within racial groups renders such an
interaction between groups an unlikely hypothesis.
It should be noted that the total nongenetic variance has been
represented here as e2. As explained in Chapter 7, the true-score
nongenetic variance can be partitioned into two components:
between-families environment (BFE is also termed shared environment
because it is common to siblings or to any children reared together)
and within-family environment (WFE, or unshared environment, that part
of the total environmental effect that differs between persons reared
together).
The WFE results largely from an accumulation of more or less random
microenvironmental factors. We know from studies of adult MZ twins
reared apart and studies of genetically unrelated adults who were
reared together from infancy in adoptive homes that the BFE has little
effect on the phenotype of mental ability, such as IQ scores, even
over a quite wide range of environments (see Chapter 7 for details).
The BF environment certainly has large effects on mental development
for the lowest extreme of the physical and social environment,
conditions such as chronic malnutrition, diseases that affect brain
development, and prolonged social isolation, particularly in infancy
and early childhood. These conditions occur only rarely in First World
populations. But some would argue that American inner cities are Third
World environments, and they certainly resemble them in some ways. On
a scale of environmental quality with respect to mental development,
these adverse environmental conditions probably fall more than 2s
below the average environment experienced by the majority of whites
and very many blacks in America. The hypothetical function relating
phenotypic mental ability (e.g., IQ) on the total range of BFE effects
(termed the reaction range or reaction norm for the total
environmental effect) is shown in Figure 12.10.
Pseudo-race Groups and the Default Hypothesis. In my studies of test
bias, I used what I termed pseudo-race groups to test the hypothesis
that many features of test performance are simply a result of group
differences in the mean and distribution of IQ per se rather than a
result of any cultural differences between groups. Pseudo-race groups
are made up entirely of white subjects. The standard group is composed
of individuals selected on the basis of estimated true-scores so as to
be normally distributed, with a mean and standard deviation of the IQ
distribution of whites in the general population. The pseudo-race
group is composed of white individuals from the same population as the
standard group, but selected on the basis of their estimated
true-scores so as to be normally distributed, but with a mean and
standard deviation of the IQ distribution of blacks in the general
population. The two groups, with age controlled, are intentionally
matched with the white and black populations they are intended to
represent only on the single variable of interest, in this case IQ (or
preferably g factor scores). Therefore, the groups should not differ
systematically on any other characteristics, except for whatever
characteristics may be correlated with IQ. Estimated true-scores must
be used to minimize the regression (i.e., toward the white mean of
100) effect that would otherwise result from selecting white subjects
on IQ so as to form a group with a lower mean IQ than that of the
population from which they were selected.
The creation of two groups that, in this manner, are made to differ on
a single trait can be viewed as another model of the strong default
hypothesis. This method is especially useful in empirically examining
various nonpsychometric correlates of the standard group versus
pseudo-race group difference. These differences can then be compared
against any such differences found between representative samples of
the actual white and black populations. The critical question is, in
the circumstances of daily life how closely does the behavior of the
pseudo-race group resemble that of a comparable sample of actual
blacks? The extent of the pseudo-race versus actual race difference in
nonpsychometric or �real-life� behavior would delimit the g factor�s
power to account for the observed racial differences in many
educationally, occupationally, and socially significant variables.
Notice that the standard and pseudo-race groups would perfectly
simulate the conditions of the strong default hypothesis. Both genetic
and environmental sources of variance exist in nearly equal degrees
within each group, and the mean difference between the groups
necessarily comprises comparable genetic and environmental sources of
variance. If this particular set of genetic and environmental sources
of IQ variance within and between the standard and pseudo-race groups
simulates actual white-black differences in many forms of behavior
that have some cognitive aspect but are typically attributed solely to
cultural differences, it constitutes strong support for the default
hypothesis. Experiments of this type could tell us a lot and should be
performed.
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ON THE DEFAULT HYPOTHESIS
Thus far the quantitative implications of the default hypothesis have
been considered only in theoretical or formal terms, which by
themselves prove nothing, but are intended only to lend some precision
to the statement of the hypothesis and its predicted empirical
implications. It should be clear that the hypothesis cannot feasibly
be tested directly in terms of applying first-order statistical
analyses (e.g., the t test or analysis of variance applied to
phenotypic measures) to determine the BGH of a trait, as is possible
in the field of experimental genetics with plants or animals. In the
latter field, true breeding experiments with cross-fostering in
controlled environments across different subspecies and subsequent
measurement of the phenotypic characteristics of the progeny of the
cross-bred strains for comparison with the same phenotypes in the
parent strains are possible and, in fact, common. In theory, such
experiments could be performed with different human subspecies, or
racial groups, and the results (after replications of the experiment
to statistically reduce uncertainty) would constitute a nearly
definitive test of the default hypothesis. An even more rigorous test
of the hypothesis than is provided by a controlled breeding and
cross-fostering experiment would involve in vitro fertilization to
control for possible differences in the prenatal environment of the
cross-fostered progeny. Such methods have been used in livestock
breeding for years without any question as to the validity of the
results. But, of course, for ethical reasons the methods of
experimental genetics cannot be used for research in human genetics.
Therefore, indirect methods, which are analytically and statistically
more complex, have been developed by researchers in human genetics.
The seemingly intractable problem with regard to phenotypic group
differences has been the empirical estimation of the BGH. To estimate
the genetic variance within groups one needs to know the genetic
kinship correlations based on the theoretically derived proportions of
alleles common to relatives of different degrees (e.g., MZ twins =
1.00, DZ twins and full siblings, parent-child = 0.50 [or more with
assortative mating, half-siblings = 0.25, first cousins = .125, etc.).
These unobserved but theoretically known genetic kinship correlations
(To be continued)
Swatting Moonbats
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 01:20:24 +0000 (UTC), wr...@panix.com (the wharf rat)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <bhkgo59fuefe4qher...@4ax.com>,
>>Peter Principle <petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>A similar split in IQ was seen between those who identify as atheists -
>>>averaging 103 - and those who identify as ignorant superstitious imbeciles,
>>>er, sorry, very religious, who average only 97.
>>>
>>
>> That doesn't sound significant to me...
>
>Not as significant
Part 2:
are needed as parameters in the structural equations used to estimate
the proportion of genetic variance (heritability) from the phenotypic
correlations between relatives of different degrees of kinship. But we
generally do not have phenotypical correlations between relatives that
bridge different racial groups. Since few members of one racial group
have a near relative (by common descent) in a different racial group,
we don�t have the parameters needed to estimate between-group
heritability. Although interracial matings can produce half-siblings
and cousins who are members of different racial groups, the offspring
of interracial matings are far from ideal for estimating BGH because,
at least for blacks and whites, the parents of the interracial
offspring are known to be unrepresentative of these populations. Thus
such a study would have doubtful generality.
An example of cross-racial kinships that could be used would be a
female of group A who had two offspring by a male of group A and later
had two offspring by a male of group B, resulting finally in two pairs
of full-siblings who are both AA and two pairs of half-siblings who
are both AB. A biometric genetic analysis of phenotypic measurements
obtained on large samples of such full-siblings and half-siblings
would theoretically afford a way of estimating both WGH and BGH.
Again, however, unless such groups arose from a controlled breeding
experiment, the resulting estimate of BGH would probably not be
generalizable to the population groups of interest but would apply
only to the specific groups used for this determination of BGH (and
other groups obtained in the same way). There are two reasons: First,
the degree of assortative mating for IQ is most likely the same, on
average, for interracial and intraracial matings; that is, the A and B
mates of the hypothetical female in our example would probably be
phenotypically close in IQ, so at least one of them would be
phenotypically (hence also probably genetically) unrepresentative of
his own racial population. Therefore, the mixed offspring AB are not
likely to differ genetically much, if at all, on average, from the
unmixed offspring AA. Second, aside from assortative mating, it is
unlikely that interracial half-siblings are derived from parents who
are random or representative samples of their respective racial
populations. It is known, for example, that present-day blacks and
whites in interracial marriages in the United States are not typical
of their respective populations in IQ related variables, such as
levels of education and occupation.
How then can the default hypothesis be tested empirically? It is
tested exactly as is any other scientific hypothesis; no hypothesis is
regarded as scientific unless predictions derived from it are capable
of risking refutation by an empirical test. Certain predictions can be
made from the default hypothesis that are capable of empirical test.
If the observed result differs significantly from the prediction, the
hypothesis is considered disproved, unless it can be shown that the
tested prediction was an incorrect deduction from the hypothesis, or
that there are artifacts in the data or methodological flaws in their
analysis that could account for the observed result. If the observed
result does in fact accord with the prediction, the hypothesis
survives, although it cannot be said to be proven. This is because it
is logically impossible to prove the null hypothesis, which states
that there is no difference between the predicted and the observed
result. If there is an alternative hypothesis, it can also be tested
against the same observed result.
For example, if we hypothesize that no tiger is living in the Sherwood
Forest and a hundred people searching the forest fail to find a tiger,
we have not proved the null hypothesis, because the searchers might
have failed to look in the right places. If someone actually found a
tiger in the forest, however, the hypothesis is absolutely disproved.
The alternative hypothesis is that a tiger does live in the forest;
finding a tiger clearly proves the hypothesis. The failure of
searchers to find the tiger decreases the probability of its
existence, and the more searching, the lower is the probability, but
it can never prove the tiger�s nonexistence.
Similarly, the default hypothesis predicts certain outcomes under
specified conditions. If the observed outcome does not differ
significantly from the predicted outcomes, the default hypothesis is
upheld but not proved. If the prediction differs significantly from
the observed result, the hypothesis must be rejected. Typically, it is
modified to accord better with the existing evidence, and then its
modified predictions are empirically tested with new data. If it
survives numerous tests, it conventionally becomes a �fact.� In this
sense, for example, it is a �fact� that the earth revolves around the
sun, and it is a �fact� that all present-day organisms have evolved
from primitive forms.
Structural Equation Modeling. Probably the most rigorous methodology
presently available to test the default hypothesis is the application
of structural equation modeling to what is termed the biometric
decomposition of a phenotypic mean difference into its genetic and
environmental components. This methodology is an extraordinarily
complex set of mathematical and statistical procedures, an adequate
explanation of which is beyond the scope of this book, but for which
detailed explanations are available. It is essentially a multiple
regression technique that can be used to statistically test the
differences in �goodness-of-fit� between alternative models, such as
whether (1) a phenotypic mean difference between groups consists of a
linear combination of the same genetic (G) and environmental (E)
factors that contribute to individual differences within the groups,
or (2) the group difference is attributable to some additional factor
(an unknown Factor X) that contributes to variance between groups but
not to variance within groups.
Swatting Moonbats
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
Part 3:
Biometric decomposition by this method requires quite modern and
specialized computer programs (LISREL VII) and exacting conditions of
the data to which it is applied -- above all, large and representative
samples of the groups whose phenotypic means are to be decomposed into
their genetic and environmental components. All subjects in each group
must be measured with at least three or more different tests that are
highly loaded on a common factor, such as g, and this factor must have
high congruence between the two groups. Also, of course, each group
must comprise at least two different degrees of kinship (e.g., MZ and
DZ twins, or full-siblings and half-siblings) to permit reliable
estimates of WGH for each of the tests. Further, in order to meet the
assumption that WGH is the same in both groups, the estimates of WGH
obtained for each of the tests should not differ significantly between
the groups.
Given these stringent conditions, one can test whether the mean group
difference in the general factor common to the various tests is
consistent with the default model, which posits that the
between-groups mean difference comprises the same genetic and
environmental factors as do individual differences within each group.
The goodness-of-fit of the data to the default model (i.e., group
phenotypic difference = G + E) is then compared against the three
alternative models, which posit only genetic (G) factors, or only
environment (E), or neither G nor E, respectively, as the cause of the
group difference. The method has been applied to estimate the genetic
and environmental contributions to the observed sex difference in
average blood pressure.
This methodology was applied to a data set that included scores on
thirteen mental tests (average g loading = .67) given to samples of
black and white adolescent MZ and DZ twins totaling 190 pairs. Age and
a measure of socioeconomic status were regressed out of the test
scores. The data showed by far the best fit to the default model,
which therefore could not be rejected, while the fit of the data to
the alternative models, by comparison with the default model, could be
rejected at high levels of confidence (p < .005 to p < .001). That is,
the observed W-B group difference is probably best explained in terms
of both G and E factors, while either 0 or E alone is inadequate,
given the assumption that G and E are the same within both groups.
This result, however, does not warrant as much confidence as the above
p values would indicate, as these particular data are less than ideal
for one of the conditions of the model. The data set shows rather
large and unsystematic (though nonsignificant) differences in the WGHs
of blacks and whites on the various tests. Therefore, the estimate of
BGH, though similar to the overall WGH of the thirteen tests (about
60), is questionable. Even though the WGHs of the general factor do
not differ significantly between the races, the difference is large
enough to leave doubt as to whether it is merely due to sampling error
or is in fact real but cannot be detected given the sample size. If
the latter is true, then the model used in this particular method of
analysis (termed the psychometric factor model) cannot rigorously be
applied to these particular data.
A highly similar methodology (using a less restrictive model termed
the biometric factor model) was applied to a much larger data set by
behavioral geneticists David Rowe and co-workers. But Rowe�s
large-scale preliminary studies should first be described. He began by
studying the correlations between objective tests of scholastic
achievement (which are substantially loaded on g as well as on
specific achievement factors) and assessment of the quality of the
child�s home environment based on environmental variables that
previous research had established as correlates of IQ and scholastic
achievement and which, overall, are intended to indicate the amount of
intellectual stimulation afforded by the child�s environment outside
of school. Measures of the achievement and home environment variables
were obtained on large samples of biologically full-sibling pairs,
each tested twice (at ages 6.6 and 9.0 years). The total sample
comprised three groups: white, black, and Hispanic, and represented
the full range of socioeconomic levels in the United States, with
intentional oversampling of blacks and Hispanics.
The data on each population group were treated separately, yielding
three matrices (white, black, and Hispanic), each comprising the
correlations between (1) the achievement and the environmental
variables within and between age groups, (2) the full-sibling
correlations on each variable at each age, and (3) the cross-sibling
correlations on each variable at each age -- yielding twenty-eight
correlation coefficients for each of the three ethnic groups.
Now if, in addition to the environmental factors measured in this
study, there were some unidentified Factor X that is unique to a
certain group and is responsible for most of the difference in
achievement levels between the ethnic groups, one would expect that
the existence of Factor X in one (or two), but not all three, of the
groups should be detectable by an observed difference between groups
in the matrix of correlations among all of the variables. That is, a
Factor X hypothesized to represent a unique causal process responsible
for lower achievement in one groups but not in the others should cause
the pattern of correlations between environment and achievement, or
between siblings, or between different ages, to be distinct for that
group. However, since the correlation matrices were statistically
equal, there was not the slightest evidence of a Factor X operating in
any group. The correlation matrices of the different ethnic groups
were as similar to one another as were correlation matrices derived
from randomly selected half-samples within each ethnic group.
Further analyses by Rowe et al. that included other variables yielded
the same results. Altogether the six data sets used in their studies
included 8,582 whites, 3,392 blacks, 1,766 Hispanics, and 906 Asians.
None of the analyses required a minority-unique developmental process
or a cultural-environmental Factor X to explain the correlations
between the achievement variables and the environmental variables in
either of the minority groups. The results are consistent with the
default hypothesis, as explained by Rowe et al: "Our explanation for
the similarity of developmental precesses is that (a) different racial
and ethnic groups possess a common gene pooi, which can create
behavioral similarities, and that (b) among second-generation ethnic
and racial groups in the United States, cultural differences are
smaller than commonly believed because of the omnipresent force of our
mass-media culture, from television to fast-food restaurants.
Certainly, a burden of proof must shift to those scholars arguing a
cultural difference position. They need to explain how matrices
representing developmental processes can be so similar across ethnic
and racial groups if major developmental processes exert a
minority-specific influence on school achievement."
The dual hypothesis, which attributes the within-group variance to
both genetic and environmental factors but excludes genetic factors
from the mean differences between groups, would, in the light of these
results, have to invoke a Factor X which, on the one hand, is so
subtle and ghostly as to be perfectly undetectable in the whole matrix
of correlations among test scores, environmental measures,
full-siblings, and ages, yet sufficiently powerful to depress the
minority group scores, on average, by as much as one-half a standard
deviation.
To test the hypothesis that genetic as well as environmental factors
are implicated in the group differences, Rowe and Cleveland designed a
study that used the kind of structural equation modeling methodology
(with the biometric factor model) mentioned previously. The study used
full-siblings and half-siblings to estimate the WGH for large samples
of blacks and whites (total N = 1,220) on three Peabody basic
achievement tests (Reading Recognition, Reading Comprehension, and
general Mathematics). A previous study had found that the heritability
(WGH) of these tests averaged about .50 and their average correlation
with verbal IQ = .65. The achievement tests were correlated among
themselves about .75., indicating that they all share a large common
factor, with minor specificities for each subtest.
The default hypothesis that the difference between the black and white
group means on the single general achievement factor has the same
genetic and non-genetic causes that contribute to individual
differences within each group could not be rejected. The data fit the
default model extremely well, with a goodness-of-fit index of .98
(which, like a correlation coefficient, is scaled from zero to one).
The authors concluded that the genetic and environmental sources of
individual differences and of differences between racial means appear
to be identical. Compared to the white siblings, the black siblings
had lower means on both the genetic and the environmental components.
To demonstrate the sensitivity of their methodology, the authors
substituted a fake mean value for the real mean for whites on the
Reading Recognition test and did the same for blacks on the Math test.
The fake white mean approximately equaled the true black mean and vice
versa. When the same analysis was applied to the data set with the
fake means, it led to a clear-cut rejection of the default hypothesis.
For the actual data set, however, the BGH did not differ significantly
from the WGH. The values of the BGH were .66 to .74 for the verbal
tests and .36 for the math test. On the side of caution, the authors
state, "These estimates, of course, are imprecise because of sampling
variation; they suggest that a part of the Black versus White mean
difference is caused by racial genetic differences, but that it would
take a larger study, especially one with more genetically informative
half-sibling pairs, to make such estimates quantitatively precise".
Swatting Moonbats
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
Part 4:
Regression to the Population Mean. In the 1860s, Sir Francis Galton
discovered a phenomenon that he first called reversion to the mean and
later gave it the more grandiloquent title the law of filial
regression to mediocrity. The phenomenon so described refers to the
fact that, on every quantitative hereditary trait that Galton
examined, from the size of peas to the size of persons, the
measurement of the trait in the mature offspring of a given parent (or
both parents) was, on average, closer to the population mean (for
their own sex) than was that of the parent(s). An exceptionally tall
father, for example, had Sons who are shorter than he; and an
exceptionally short father had sons who were taller than he. (The same
for mothers and daughters.)
This �regression to the mean� is probably better called regression
toward the mean, the mean being that of the subpopulation from which
the parent and offspring were selected. In quantitative terms,
Galton�s �law� predicts that the more that variation in a trait is
determined by genetic factors, the closer the degree of regression
(from one parent to one child), on average, approximates one-half.
This is because an offspring receives exactly one-half of its genes
from each parent, and therefore the parent-offspring genetic
correlation equals .50. The corresponding phenolypic correlation, of
course, is subject to environmental influences, which may cause the
phenotypic sibling correlation to be greater than or (more usually)
less than the genetic correlation of .50. The more that the trait is
influenced by nongenetic factors, the greater is the departure of the
parent-offspring correlation from .50. The average of the parent-child
correlations for IQ reported in thirty-two studies is +.42. Traits in
which variation is almost completely genetic, such as the number of
fingerprint ridges, show a parent-offspring correlation very near .50.
Mature height is also quite near this figure, but lower in childhood,
because children attain their adult height at different rates.
(Differences in both physical and mental growth curves are also
largely genetic.)
Regression occurs for all degrees of kinship, its degree depending on
the genetic correlation for the given kinship. Suppose we measure
individuals (termed probands) selected at random from a given
population and then measure their relatives (all of the same degree of
kinship to the probands). Then, according to Galton�s �law� and the
extent to which the trait of interest is genetically determined, the
expected value (i.e., best prediction) of the proband�s relative (in
standardized units, z) is rGZP. The expected difference between a
proband and his or her relative will be equal to rGZP, where rG is the
theoretical genetic correlation between relatives of a given degree of
kinship, ZP is the standardized phenotypic measurement of the proband,
and ZR the predicted or expected measurement of the proband�s
relative. It should be emphasized that this prediction is statistical
and therefore achieves a high degree of accuracy only when averaged
over a large number of pairs of relatives. The standard deviation of
the errors of prediction for individual cases is quite large.
A common misconception is that regression to the mean implies that the
total variance in the population shrinks from one generation to the
next, until eventually everyone in the population would be located at
the mean on a given trait. In fact, the population variance does not
change at all as a result of the phenomenon of regression. Regression
toward the mean works in both directions. That is, offspring with
phenotypes extremely above (or below) the mean have parents whose
phenotypes are less extreme, but are, on average, above (or below) the
population mean. Regression toward the mean is a statistical result of
the imperfect correlation between relatives, whatever the causes of
the imperfect correlation, of which there may be many.
Genetic theory establishes the genetic correlations between various
kinships and thereby indicates how much of the regression for any
given degree of kinship is attributable to genetic factors. Without
the genetic prediction, any particular kinship regression (or
correlation) is causally not interpretable. Resemblance between
relatives could be attributed to any combination of genetic and
nongenetic factors.
Empirical determination of whether regression to the mean accords with
the expectation of genetic theory, therefore, provides another means
of testing the default hypothesis. Since regression can result from
environmental as well as from genetic factors (and always does to some
extent, unless the trait variation has perfect heritability [i.e., h2
= 1] and the phenotype is without measurement error), the usefulness
of the regression phenomenon based on only one degree of kinship to
test a causal hypothesis is problematic, regardless of its purely
statistical significance. However, it would be remarkable (and
improbable) if environmental factors consistently simulated the degree
of regression predicted by genetic theory across a number of degrees
of kinship.
A theory that completely excludes any involvement of genetic factors
in producing an observed group difference offers no quantitative
prediction as to the amount of regression for a given kinship and is
unable to explain certain phenomena that are both predictable and
explainable in terms of genetic regression. For example, consider
Figure 11.2 (p. 358) in the previous chapter. It shows a phenomenon
that has been observed in many studies and which many people not
familiar with Galton�s �law� find wholly surprising. One would expect,
on purely environmental grounds, that the mean IQ difference between
black and white children should decrease at each successively higher
level of the parental socioeconomic status (i.e., education,
occupational level, income, cultural advantages, and the like). It
could hardly be argued that environmental advantages are not greater
at higher levels of SES, in both the black and the white populations.
Yet, as seen in Figure 11.2, the black and white group means actually
diverge with increasing SES, although IQ increases with SES for both
blacks and whites. The specific form of this increasing divergence of
the white and black groups is also of some theoretical interest: the
black means show a significantly lower rate of increase in IQ as a
function of SES than do the white means. These two related phenomena,
black-white divergence and rate of increase in mean IQ as a function
of SES, are predictable and explainable in terms of regression, and
would occur even if there were no difference in IQ between the mean
IQs of the black and the white parents within each level of SES. These
results are expected on purely genetic grounds, although environmental
factors also are most likely involved in the regression. For a given
parental IQ, the offspring IQs (regardless of race) regress about
halfway to their population mean. As noted previously, this is also
true for height and other heritable physical traits.
Probably the single most useful kinship for testing the default
hypothesis is full siblings reared together, because they are
plentiful, they have developed in generally more similar environments
than have parents and their own children, and they have a genetic
correlation of about .50. I say �about .50� because there are two
genetic factors that tend slightly to alter this correlation. As they
work in opposite directions, their effects tend to cancel each other.
When the total genetic variance includes nonadditive genetic effects
(particularly genetic dominance) it slightly decreases the genetic
correlation between full siblings, while assortative mating (i.e.,
correlation between the parents� genotypes) slightly increases the
sibling correlation. Because of nongenetic factors, the phenotypic
correlation between siblings is generally below the genetic
correlation. Meta-analyses of virtually all of the full-sibling IQ
correlations reported in the world literature yield an overall average
r of only slightly below the predicted +.50.
Some years ago, an official from a large school system came to me with
a problem concerning the school system�s attempt to find more black
children who would qualify for placement in classes for the �high
potential� or �academically gifted� pupils (i.e., IQ of 120 or above).
Black pupils were markedly underrepresented in these classes relative
to whites and Asians attending the same schools. Having noticed that a
fair number of the white and Asian children in these classes had a
sibling who also qualified, the school system tested the siblings of
the black pupils who had already been placed in the high-potential
classes. However, exceedingly few of the black siblings in regular
classes were especially outstanding students or had IQ scores that
qualified them for the high-potential program. The official, who was
concerned about bias in the testing program, asked if I had any other
idea as to a possible explanation for their finding. His results are
in fact fully explainable in terms of regression toward the mean.
I later analyzed the IQ scores on all of the full-sibling pairs in
grades one through six who had taken the same IQ tests
(Lorge-Thorndike) normed on a national sample in all of the fourteen
elementary schools of another California school district. As this
study has been described more fully elsewhere, I will only summarize
here. There were over 900 white sibling pairs and over 500 black
sibling pairs. The sibling intraclass correlations for whites and
blacks were .40 and .38, respectively. The departure of these
correlations from the genetically expected value of .50 indicates that
nongenetic factors (i.e., environmental influences and unreliability
of measurement) affect the sibling correlation similarly in both
groups. In this school district, blacks and whites who were perfectly
matched for a true-score IQ of 120 had siblings whose average IQ was
113 for whites and 99 for blacks. In about 33 percent of the white
sibling pairs both siblings had an IQ of 120 or above, as compared
with only about 12 percent of black siblings.
Of more general significance, however, was the finding that Galton�s
�law� held true for both black and white sibling pairs over the full
range of IQs (approximately IQ 50 to IQ 150) in this school district.
In other words, the sibling regression lines for each group showed no
significant deviation from linearity. (Including nonlinear
transformations of the variables in the multiple regression equation
produced no significant increment in the simple sibling correlation.)
These regression findings can be regarded, not as a proof of the
default hypothesis, but as wholly consistent with it. No purely
environmental theory would have predicted such results. Of course, ex
post facto and ad hoc explanations in strictly environmental terms are
always possible if one postulates environmental influences on IQ that
perfectly mimic the basic principles of genetics that apply to every
quantitative physical characteristic observed in all sexually
reproducing plants and animals.
No Mo' Bama
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
Liberal intelligence:
* Last May, he claimed that Kansas tornadoes killed a whopping 10,000
people: �In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in
Kansas. Ten thousand people died � an entire town destroyed.� The
actual death toll: 12.
*Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States:
�Over the last 15 months, we�ve traveled to every corner of the United
States. I�ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.�
*Last week, in front of a roaring Sioux Falls, South Dakota audience,
Obama exulted: �Thank you Sioux City�I said it wrong. I�ve been in
Iowa for too long. I�m sorry.�
*Explaining last week why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky,
Obama again botched basic geography: �Sen. Clinton, I think, is much
better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it�s not
surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in
the middle.� On what map is Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois?
*Obama has as much trouble with numbers as he has with maps. Last
March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma,
Alabama, he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil
rights movement:
�There was something stirring across the country because of what
happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march
across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.�
Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. His
spokesman, Bill Burton, later explained that Obama was �speaking
metaphorically about the civil rights movement as a whole.�
*Earlier this month in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, Obama showed off his
knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by honing in on a lack of
translators: �We only have a certain number of them and if they are
all in Iraq, then it�s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.� The
real reason it�s �harder for us to use them� in Afghanistan: Iraqis
speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or other
non-Arabic languages.
*Over the weekend in Oregon, Obama pleaded ignorance of the
decades-old, multi-billion-dollar massive Hanford nuclear waste
clean-up:
�Here�s something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and
that is that I�m not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I
don�t know exactly what�s going on there. (Applause.) Now, having said
that, I promise you I�ll learn about it by the time I leave here on
the ride back to the airport.�
I assume on that ride, a staffer reminded him that he�s voted on at
least one defense authorization bill that addressed the �costs,
schedules, and technical issues� dealing with the nation�s most
contaminated nuclear waste site.
*Last March, the Chicago Tribune reported this little-noticed nugget
about a fake autobiographical detail in Obama�s �Dreams from My
Father:�
�Then, there�s the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his
racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two
accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and
mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life
article and the photographs don�t exist, say the magazine�s own
historians.�
* And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them
all, Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesn�t
�pose a serious threat to us��cluelessly arguing that �tiny countries�
with small defense budgets can�t do us harm� and then promptly
flip-flopped the next day, claiming, �I�ve made it clear for years
that the threat from Iran is grave.�
Barack Obama�promoted by the Left and the media as an all-knowing,
articulate, transcendent Messiah�is a walking, talking gaffe machine.
How many more passes does he get? How many more can we afford?
That Evil Cunt, Piglosi
Chldren of Asian immigrants, many of whom are "boat people" outshine
blacks in all aspects of academia, including standardized tests.
So much for your socioeconomic excuses.
Fact is that black kiddos say, "Edumacayshun beez a whythe thang" and
their parents are apathetic.
There may also be a genetic component to their stupidity.
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:58:29 -0600, Peter Principle
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:22:03 -0600, Freddrick Smith <whydo...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>As has been proved by scientific fact , blacks are spawned from chimps
>
><PLONK!>
>
>Ah, that's better. One more Nazi KKKlown gone. But hey, thanks ever so much
>for proving my point...
Camel Toe Admirer
> No Birth Certificate Yet?<oba...@the.slammer.com> wrote:
>>
>> Bunch of pussies.
>>
>
> What've you got against pussies? They're furry and soft...
>
He never seen a real one.
He would likely put a bandage on it and call 911.
Wingnuts lost to a Black Muslim from Kenya
>
>
> A similar split in IQ was seen between those who identify as atheists -
> averaging 103 - and those who identify as ignorant superstitious imbeciles,
> er, sorry, very religious, who average only 97.
>
Bret Cahill
milking the GOP establishment:
> > 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Freddrick Smith
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:22:03 -0600, Freddrick Smith <whydo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> As has been proved by scientific fact , blacks are spawned from chimps
>
> <PLONK!>
>
> Ah, that's better. One more Nazi KKKlown gone. But hey, thanks ever so much
> for proving my point...
>
> Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
> ------
> Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
>
> http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
> � 1999 by the American Psychological Association
> December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
>
> Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
> Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
>
> Justin Kruger and David Dunning
> Department of Psychology
> Cornell University
>
> ABSTRACT:
> ...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
> on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
> performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
> 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.
Freddrick Smith
> On 26 Feb 2010, Peter Principle <petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> posted some
> news:716ho55a7tgisqfv9...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:22:03 -0600, Freddrick Smith
>> <whydo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As has been proved by scientific fact , blacks are spawned from chimps
>> <PLONK!>
>>
>> Ah, that's better.
>
> Ain't it tho?
>
> which resulted in the multitude of murders, lynchings, mutilations, and
> intimidations (of thousands of black and white Republicans). On the issue
> of slavery: historians say the Democrats gave their lives to expand it,
> the Republicans gave their lives to ban it.
>
> The Democrats:
> ?Democrats fought to expand slavery while Republicans fought to end it.
> ?Democrats passed those discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws.
> ?Democrats supported and passed the Missouri Compromise to protect
> slavery.
> ?Democrats supported and passed the Kansas Nebraska Act to expand slavery.
> ?Democrats supported and backed the Dred Scott Decision.
> ?Democrats opposed educating blacks and murdered our teachers.
> ?Democrats fought against anti-lynching laws.
> ?Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, is well known for having
> the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 straight hours to keep it from
> passage.
> ?Democrats passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil right laws
> enacted by Republicans.
> for blacks.
> ?Democrat President Woodrow Wilson, reintroduced segregation throughout
> the federal government immediately upon taking office in 1913.
> Democrat of Alabama.
> 1922.
> ?Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt resisted Republican efforts to
> pass a federal law against lynching.
> ?Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt opposed integration of the armed
> forces.
> ?Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd were the
> chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> ?Democrats supported and backed Judge John Ferguson in the case of Plessy
> v Ferguson.
> ?Democrats supported the School Board of Topeka Kansas in the case of
> Brown v The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas.
> demonstrators.
> ?Democrats were who Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the other protesters
> were fighting.
> ?Democrat Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama
> schoolhouse in 1963, declaring there would be segregation forever.
> ?Democrat Arkansas Governor Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of
> Little Rock public schools.
> ?Democrat Senator John F. Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act.
> ?Democrat President John F. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington
> by Dr. King.
> ?Democrat President John F. Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and
> investigated by the FBI.
> ?Democrat President Bill Clinton interned for J. William Fulbright in
> 1966-67.
> ?Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright signed the Southern Manifesto
> objection of Democrats.
> ?Republicans founded the HBCU�s (Historical Black College�s and
> Democrats.
> ?Republicans pushed through much of the ground-breaking civil rights
> legislation in Congress.
> ?Republicans fought slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks
> freedom, citizenship and the right to vote.
> ?Republicans pushed through much of the groundbreaking civil rights
> legislation from the 1860s through the 1960s.
> ?Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops into the South to
> desegregate the schools.
> ?Republican President Eisenhower appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to
> the Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education
> decision.
> ?Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President
> Lyndon Johnson, was the one who pushed through the civil rights laws of
they hopped on board the civil rights train . Fake ass fuckers .
Freddrick Smith
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:58:29 -0600, Peter Principle
> <petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Liberal intelligence:
>
> * Last May, he claimed that Kansas tornadoes killed a whopping 10,000
> Kansas. Ten thousand people died � an entire town destroyed.� The
> actual death toll: 12.
>
> *Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States:
> States. I�ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.�
>
> *Last week, in front of a roaring Sioux Falls, South Dakota audience,
> Iowa for too long. I�m sorry.�
>
> *Explaining last week why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky,
> better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it�s not
> surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in
>
> *Obama has as much trouble with numbers as he has with maps. Last
> March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma,
> Alabama, he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil
> rights movement:
>
> happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march
>
> Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. His
> metaphorically about the civil rights movement as a whole.�
>
> *Earlier this month in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, Obama showed off his
> knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by honing in on a lack of
> all in Iraq, then it�s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.� The
> real reason it�s �harder for us to use them� in Afghanistan: Iraqis
> speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or other
> non-Arabic languages.
>
> *Over the weekend in Oregon, Obama pleaded ignorance of the
> decades-old, multi-billion-dollar massive Hanford nuclear waste
> clean-up:
>
> that is that I�m not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I
> don�t know exactly what�s going on there. (Applause.) Now, having said
> that, I promise you I�ll learn about it by the time I leave here on
> the ride back to the airport.�
>
> I assume on that ride, a staffer reminded him that he�s voted on at
> least one defense authorization bill that addressed the �costs,
> schedules, and technical issues� dealing with the nation�s most
> contaminated nuclear waste site.
>
> *Last March, the Chicago Tribune reported this little-noticed nugget
> Father:�
>
> �Then, there�s the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his
> racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two
> accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and
> mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life
> historians.�
>
> * And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them
> �pose a serious threat to us��cluelessly arguing that �tiny countries�
> with small defense budgets can�t do us harm� and then promptly
> flip-flopped the next day, claiming, �I�ve made it clear for years
> that the threat from Iran is grave.�
>
> Barack Obama�promoted by the Left and the media as an all-knowing,
> articulate, transcendent Messiah�is a walking, talking gaffe machine.
> How many more passes does he get? How many more can we afford?
>
Freddrick Smith
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 01:28:00 GMT, AnAbsoluteShitLives@WhiteHouse. (Swatting
> Moonbats) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 01:24:07 +0000 (UTC), wr...@panix.com (the wharf
>> rat) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <4b885ce2...@news.datemas.de>,
>>> Swatting Moonbats <AnAbsoluteShitLives@WhiteHouse.> wrote:
>>>> Black Delinquents 74 Shuey p. 498
>>>> Northern Black Children 87.6 Shuey, and SAT Tables, 1991
>>>
>>>
>> Discredited by MotherJones?
>
> Discredited by every serious academic and reviewer everywhere for 50 years.
> Only you KKKlowns take her seriously.
>
>> Psychometricians in general come up with these same data.
>
> No respected psychologist or psychometrician anywhere come up with the same
> conclusions as you KKKlowns.
>
>> Even tho most of them are feel-good left-wing weenies.
>>
>> Anything to refute? Different data?
>>
>> Didn't think so.
>
> It seems you've added an extra word...
>
> Shuey? You've got to be kidding, KKKlown. Or just mendacious as all hell.
> That moldy old bullshit was thoroughly discredited 50 years ago and hasn't
> gotten any less false since. Shuey has been thoroughly dismissed by every
> serious reviewer and serious every academic, save for the tiny band of her
> fellow fascist racist ideologues, for 50 years and still is today.
>
> The only reason you cite Shuey is your KKKowardly KKKlown ass knows damn
> well that 'Bell Curve' is synonymous with bullshit, in great part due to its
> reliance on the long debunked Shuey, so you cite the older, more obscure
> text. Such intellectual dishonesty is perfect for a conservadolt audience,
> but it ain't gonna work on those of us in the triple digit club, KKKlown.
>
> The only time Shuey is cited today is an example of academic racism crammed
> full of scientific flaws, statistical manipulation and racist ideology. And
> THAT'S the best you Nazi KKKlowns can come up with?
>
> You're even more pathetic, KKKlown, than you think I think you are. And I,
> like 99% of humanity, think of you as something to be carefully wiped off of
> the bottom of one's shoe, lest one accidentally get some on one.
>
> I could cite approximately eleventy-bazillion refutations of Shuey's
> garbage, but a picture is worth more, especially when we're dealing with you
> low IQ Nazi wannabe KKKooks. Here's a simple table that clearly correlates
> academic achievement with inequality, not race.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Group_differece_table_from_Inequality_by_Design.png
>
> The lower a given ethnic/religious group's social status - regardless of
> race - in any given culture - regardless of race - the lower that group
> scores academically. It's really very simple, just like you, KKKlown. The
> reason you idiots are so inextricably welded to the absurd idea of inherent
> Caucasian superior intelligence is you're insecure about your own
> intelligence. The evidence suggests this is a perfectly valid concern.
>
> Those who aren't rightarded Nazi wannabe KKKlowns can find more serious
> refutations of these moldy old claims of racial superiority in intelligence.
> For example, in response to 'Bell Curve' digging up the old Shuey bullshit,
> falsified data and all, specifically...
>
> Leon J. Kamin, "Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics," R. Jacoby & N. Glauberman
> See Charles Lane, "The Tainted Sources of the Bell Curve," The New York
> Review of Books; New York; Dec 1, 1994
> Waqar Ahmad, "Race is a four letter word" New Scientist, July 22, 1995
> Michael Nunley, "The Bell Curve: Too smooth to be true," The American
> Behavioral Scientist, September/October 1995.
>
> And many more...
>
> ---
> Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
> ------
> Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
>
> http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
> � 1999 by the American Psychological Association
> December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
>
> Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
> Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
>
> Justin Kruger and David Dunning
> Department of Psychology
> Cornell University
>
> ABSTRACT:
> ...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
> on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
> performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
> 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.
Kids grades and the drop out numbers.
Well go on , show us all them good numbers from all them government
stats . I will wait for your response . I will try to keep from laughing.
you Nazis are just too funny . Like the three stooges . So stupid you
are funny .
the wharf rat
Swatting Moonbats <AnAbsoluteShitLives@WhiteHouse.> wrote:
>>
>> Shuey's been discredited. Her statistics are flawed.
>>
>Discredited by MotherJones?
>
I should have been more accurate. Apologies to Dr. Shuey.
The extrapolations others did with her data are flawed. All Dr. Shuey
ever claimed to have proven is that the measurable gap was constant. Many
others tried to use this as proof of genetic inferiority. Her data does
NOT support such conclusions. That's why Dr. Shuey herself didn't draw them.
Science says that there's a consistent difference. Propagandists
say there's a consistent difference because of... Shuey's data supports no
conclusion beyond the existence of the difference.
Those who do not understand statistical calculations are doomed
to be unable to repeat them.
Swatting Moonbats
To suggest that all psychometricians extrapolated from Shuey is wrong.
There is much controversy as to whether the gap is genetic vs.
environmental.
See, e.g., Jensen and Rushton vs. Flynn and Dickens.
I'm not a psychometrician or geneticist; neither are you
I as a layperson suspect that the gap is environmental, not due to
racism or socioeconomic status, but rather the attitudes in the black
environment.
the wharf rat
Swatting Moonbats <AnAbsoluteShitLives@WhiteHouse.> wrote:
>Part 1
>
>The strong form of the default hypothesis is represented in Figure
>12.5 by the dotted-line extension of the solid vertical line, thus
The analysis is incorrectly applied. There's no proof that
"environmental variables" are independent.
Nice try, though.
the wharf rat
Swatting Moonbats <AnAbsoluteShitLives@WhiteHouse.> wrote:
>>
>Discredit? You want discredit, cupcake?
>
>See Gratz v Bollinger, SCOTUS, June 2003.
>
Non sequitur? You want non-sequitur? Lol.
What a maroon.
Swatting Moonbats
Educating whiggers gives me so much pleasure.
Swatting Moonbats
WOW! What a refutation!
(snicker)
George Kerby
On 2/27/10 10:47 AM, in article
7fdf1a92-ab78-45c5...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com, "Bret
Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> Rightards are denying their low IQ just like they deny AGW and Palin
> milking the GOP establishment:
>
And we all know that only the most brilliant folk top-post and uselessly
include hundreds of lines of irrelevant pontification, do we not?
Moron asswipe...
Freddrick Smith
> Well, well, well, boy, howdy, gosh-o-golly and gee whiz, what a shock! A new
> meta study of more than 20,000 young adults shows that people who identify
> as liberal score well above average on IQ tests - 106 - while their
> conservadolt maroon counterparts score well below average - 95. Who'da thunk
> it!
>
> averaging 103 - and those who identify as ignorant superstitious imbeciles,
> er, sorry, very religious, who average only 97.
>
> And before you rightarded boobs start whining about some imaginary "librul
> bise," this study came from the anything but liberal London School of
> Economics and Political Science and was conducted by libertarian Satoshi
> Kanazawa.
>
> These results confirm earlier research. This latest study corroborates the
> results of earlier studies that have shown strong correlation between
> liberalism and intelligence as well as conservadoltism and stupidity. Last
> year a long term meta study tracking children to adulthood showed the higher
> a child scored on standardized tests, the more likely that child would grow
> up to be liberal. The inverse - the lower the score the more likely to end
> up a conservadolt - was also found to be true.
>
> So, there you have it, folks. Liberals really are a lot smarter than their
> conservadolt counterparts. Liberals, of course, have been well aware of this
> for some time. Conservadolts, OTOH, populate the risible depths of those who
> are simply not smart enough to know they simply are not smart enough.
>
> Then again, from the continual conservadolt rightard angst over my sig file,
> which doesn't even differentiate based on political identity, they must at
> least suspect that they're just not very smart. And right they are, in a
> world where right means stupid...
>
> ------
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm
>
> Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
> ------
> Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
>
> http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
> December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
>
> Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
> Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
>
> Justin Kruger and David Dunning
> Department of Psychology
> Cornell University
>
> ABSTRACT:
> ...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
> on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
> performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
> 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.
they were . but 5 years before that they were good . but 7 years before
that they were killers just before that they were great .
Now that evil salt that was hardening arteries all over the place has
been proven by a study to be good for you .
Freddrick Smith
and there will be a trail of liberals and all their organizations and
corruption .
the wharf rat
Swatting Moonbats <AnAbsoluteShitLives@WhiteHouse.> wrote:
>
>To suggest that all psychometricians extrapolated from Shuey is wrong.
>
They're not all wrong. Just the ones that claim Shuey's data
proves anything beyond a persistent measurable difference.
>I'm not a psychometrician or geneticist; neither are you
I am, however, well trained in statistics and research methodology.
Swatting Moonbats
That's nice.
But I'm more interested in the views of the psychometricians -- who
are also well-trained in statistics and measurement -- and geneticists
on this issue.
the wharf rat
Swatting Moonbats <AnAbsoluteShitLives@WhiteHouse.> wrote:
>>
>> The analysis is incorrectly applied. There's no proof that
>>"environmental variables" are independent.
>>
>> Nice try, though.
>>
>WOW! What a refutation!
>
Listen, dingbat, what you're telling me is that race and "other"
variables correlate with test performance, and since we can drop the "other"
variables from a regression without changing the model much our observed
results are due to race.
That's crap. Regression modeling doesn't prove cause and effect.
Nor does a correlation coefficient. What if the "other" variables are
dependent on the real cause and race correlates with the real cause?
Got that part straight? Good. Now, suppose that the real cause
is not genetic. Still following me? Bet you feel pretty silly, huh?
>(snicker)
Laugh while you can, monkey-boy. In the meantime tuck that curly
pink tail between your fat little thighs and slink back to your white power
fantasy land.
Swatting Moonbats
rat) wrote:
>In article <4b89623d...@news.datemas.de>,
>Swatting Moonbats <AnAbsoluteShitLives@WhiteHouse.> wrote:
>>>
>>> The analysis is incorrectly applied. There's no proof that
>>>"environmental variables" are independent.
>>>
>>> Nice try, though.
>>>
>>WOW! What a refutation!
>>
>
> Listen, dingbat, what you're telling me is that race and "other"
>variables correlate with test performance, and since we can drop the "other"
>variables from a regression without changing the model much our observed
>results are due to race.
>
> That's crap. Regression modeling doesn't prove cause and effect.
>Nor does a correlation coefficient. What if the "other" variables are
>dependent on the real cause and race correlates with the real cause?
>
> Got that part straight? Good. Now, suppose that the real cause
>is not genetic. Still following me? Bet you feel pretty silly, huh?
Race does indeed correlate with test performance.
Uh, that's the issue.
The question is why.
And your thoughtless summation in no way refutes what I have posted.
In fact, you've read only one portion of the document which is too
large for one post.
Read thru the first five. Let me know when you're done. I'll post
the others.
(Next thing this whigger will be telling me is that the IQ gap can be
attributed to eating lead paint chips in inner city homes, or that
adult-child sexual relationships are not harmful to the child and may
be beneficial, as some liberal psychologists have assserted.)
>>(snicker)
>
> Laugh while you can, monkey-boy. In the meantime tuck that curly
>pink tail between your fat little thighs and slink back to your white power
>fantasy land.
You whiggers become soooo juvenile when you get angry.
Bret Cahill
> > milking the GOP establishment:
>
> And we all know that only the most brilliant folk top-post
You mean top post this:
> Well, well, well, boy, howdy, gosh-o-golly and gee whiz, what a shock! A new
> meta study of more than 20,000 young adults shows that people who identify
> as liberal score well above average on IQ tests - 106 - while their
> conservadolt maroon counterparts score well below average - 95. Who'da thunk
> it!
You could knock me over with a feather!
the wharf rat
Swatting Moonbats <AnAbsoluteShitLives@WhiteHouse.> wrote:
>
>Race does indeed correlate with test performance.
>
Yes, it does.
Your need to feel that you're innately superior to "those people"
drives you to various intellectual dishonesties such as applying massively
detailed analysis to correlations so that you can rationalize using those
correlations as cause.
Race correlates with performance on certain standardized tests. There's
no consensus that performance on standardized tests measures intelligence. In
fact, there's not really a consensus on what intelligence actually means.
Furthermore, the measured differences lie well into the noise band - the
standard deviation of intelligence tests is about 15 points! That makes use
of these statistics as proof of anything other than the specific correlation
even more questionable.
Using invalid logic to coerce inapplicable data into purported
proof of your insecurity driven worldview may be emotionally comforting but
it's certainly not scientific.
Swatting Moonbats
Actually, standardized testing is still the best single predictor of
academic achievement.
ObamaNation = Abomination
Children of boat people put niggers to shame, nigger.
Borderline Retarded 70-75 IQ - Seligman p.151
Black Delinquents 74 Shuey p. 498
Africans (Africa) 75 Lynn as cited by Murray p. 288
Southern Black children 80.5 Shuey
White Delinquents 81 Shuey p. 498
Black Felons 81 Shuey p. 498
Black Females 82 Interpolated from SAT estimate
Black Average 85 IQ Seligman p.149
Colored From Africa 85 Lynn as cited by Murray p.
Dull-Normal 80-90 IQ Textbook by Wechsler
Border Black Children 87 Shuey, and SAT Tables, 1991
Northern Black Children 87.6 Shuey, and SAT Tables, 1991
Black G12 NAEP Math 89 (7)
Black US Northern Average 90 IQ Jensen(4)
Urban North Black 91.1 Shuey
Hisp G12 NAEP Math 92 (7)
Overall Criminals 92 Murray
Black Calif Math CLAS 92 A.Hu estimate(6)
Malays 96 Lynn 1977 (Seligman)
Black Reading CLAS 96 A.Hu estimate (6)
Mixed Child of Black 100 Murray p. 310 (5)
Adopted Asian Children 100 Sandra Scarr
American Students 100 Cattell's culture Fair Test
British 100 Lynn 1977 (Seligman)
Average Intelligence 90-109 IQ Textbook by Wechsler
Mainland China 101 Lynn (Seligman)
White CLAS Reading & Math 100 A.Hu set by definition (6)
Asian Calif CLAS Math 102 A.Hu (7)
White G12 NAEP math 102 (7), and SAT Tables, 1991
British Children 102 IQ Lynn & Song 1994
Malnourished Korean Adult 102 Winick, Meyer and Harris 1975 (2)
Asian Average 103-4 Murray
Korean (est) 105 IQ Lynn & Song 1994
Chinese Hong Kong 106 IQ Chan & Lynn 1989
Chinese Hong Kong 106.7 Lynn 1982 (Seligman)
Japanese 9 Year Olds 107 IQ Shigehisa & Lynn 1991
Korean 108.5 IQ Lynn & song 1994
Asian G12 NAEP math 109 (7)
Korean Children in Korea 109 IQ Lynn & Song 1994
Chinese Hong Kong 109.8 Lynn 1982 (Seligman)
Bright-Normal 110-119 IQ Textbook Wechseler
Korean Adults in Belgium 110 Frydman & Lynn 1989
Chinese 110 Lynn 1977 (Seligman) Well
Nourished Korean Adult 112 Winick, Meyer and Harris 1975 (2)
North Dakota Public Schools 112 SAT Table, 1991, and NAEP
Jewish Boys 112.8 verbal Ann Arbor Institute
(Seligman)
Texas Non-public Schools 116 naepmath.pdf
Adopted White children 120 Sandra Scarr
Whites at UC Berkeley 124 A.Hu top 5% top 1/3 of UC
Superior 120-129 IQ Text Wechsleler
Above Superior 130 & above By Definition
White/Asian MIT 138 A.Hu (top0.5% of population)
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:04:22 -0500, Peter Principle
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 14:38:19 GMT, LiberalsNemesis@USA. (That Evil Cunt,
>Piglosi) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>Chldren of Asian immigrants, many of whom are "boat people" outshine
>>blacks in all aspects of academia, including standardized tests.
>
>Asians who are oppressed in their own countries score well BELOW average, as
>do all oppressed people in all cultures everywhere.
>
>>So much for your socioeconomic excuses.
>
>So much for your ignorant maroon stupid bullshit.
>
>>Fact is that black kiddos say, "Edumacayshun beez a whythe thang" and
>>their parents are apathetic.
>
>The fact is it's fucking HILARIOUS to see a mouth breathing undereducated
>KKKlown disparage ANYONE else's intelligence.
>
>>There may also be a genetic component to their stupidity.
>
>The fact of the matter is, genetically speaking, there is a FAR greater
>difference between a white Angle man and his white Anglo wife than there is
>between that same white man and a sub-Saharan bushman.
>
>But hey, why let a silly little thing like REALITY get in the way of a good
>ignorant goober KKKlown.fart, eh?
FoxP2 Squared
scribblednews:4b886191...@news.datemas.de:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:00:53 +0000 (UTC), Major Debacle
> <major_...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Swatting Moonbats wrote:
>>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:40:18 -0600, Peter Principle
>>> <petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, well, well, boy, howdy, gosh-o-golly and gee whiz, what a
>>>> shock! A new meta study of more than 20,000 young adults shows that
>>>> people who identify as liberal score well above average on IQ tests -
>>>> 106 - while their conservadolt maroon counterparts score well below
>>>> average - 95. Who'da thunk it!
>>>
>>> Liberals:
>>>
>>> Borderline Retarded 70-75 IQ - Seligman p.151
>>> Black Delinquents 74 Shuey p. 498
>>> Africans (Africa) 75 Lynn as cited by Murray p. 288
>>> Southern Black children 80.5 Shuey
>>> Black Felons 81 Shuey p. 498
>>> Black Females 82 Interpolated from SAT estimate
>>> Black Average 85 IQ Seligman p.149
>>> Colored From Africa 85 Lynn as cited by Murray p.
>>> Dull-Normal 80-90 IQ Textbook by Wechsler
>>> Border Black Children 87 Shuey, and SAT Tables, 1991
>>> Northern Black Children 87.6 Shuey, and SAT Tables, 1991
>>> Black G12 NAEP Math 89 (7)
>>> Black US Northern Average 90 IQ Jensen(4)
>>> Urban North Black 91.1 Shuey
>>>
>>> vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
>>> Average Intelligence 90-109 IQ Textbook by Wechsler
>>>
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>Now we know why you morons scored lower.
>>
>>Yer brains are pre-occupied with yer supposed superior position on some
>>race-based imaginary intelligence hierarchy.
>
> The "imaginary intelligence hierarchy" is called standardized testing
> and they are still the best single predictors of academic achievement.
>
> Yeah, I know what you're going to say, Rastus, "They is culturally
> biased." You folks have been here how long now? But they're still
> culturally-biased. (snicker)
>
> Another 200 years and maybe you'll rack three digits. (snicker)
>
My favorite was when this stupid negro "pyschologist" with his affirmative
action degree, I think it was in Detroit way back, ranted and raved about
the cultural "bias" in SAT and IQ scores.
So, he set out to prove that there was a bias. So he re-did the tests and
substituted "switchblades" for "how many bicycles does little Bob have if
he...." and "boo or weed " for "How many pounds of grain does it take to
make up a kilo..." kind of substitution, and axing essay questions about
ghetto life and urban city life instead of ones about rural, agricultral
and world views.
The negroes STILL scored exactly the same as before, way below whites,
below meskins, below injuns, below everyone else in the world.
No matter how he manipulated the testing subject matter and language, it
was the same.
The kicker was when a white psycholgist decided to try and give the black
test to white kids and see what happened, full of eubonics, ghetto speak,
ghetto references etc.
The whites scored the same as before, even though THEIR test was "Culturaly
biased"! ! ! ! !
The elephant in the room has always been that blacks are stupid, and no one
wants to talk about it; hence we spend trillions of dollars trying to
educate the uneducatable, telling little negroes that they can be
millionaires with luck and no work and living off the white man and such.
See, the thing is is that cows make great domesticated farm animals, wolves
do not, hence the great value of black slaves vs white slaves.
--
A fine is a tax for doing wrong
A tax is a fine for doing well
FoxP2 Squared
fa2a6e...@19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com:
> It says a lot. How can liberals be smarter when nearly all blacks are
> liberals and nearly all blacks are retarded?
> That means 14% of the population and about 28% of all liberals are
> retarded. I'd say the liberal claim is flawed and only (perhaps)
> applicable to educated urban elites.
>
Something pulled out of someones ass to make liberal feel better.
Thing is, a very small percentage of liberals are smarter then the general
average of conservatives, especially the moronic ones who believe in god
and things that go bump in the night.
Thing is, they're both the same type of idiots; anyone who would believe in
the fairy story of liberalism, communism, socialism, Gods and demons, and
the great TREE frog Of Life type of illogical nonesense, are basically the
same people but with diferent parents or upbringing that instilled their
silly childish belief systems at a young age.
So, you have 3% far left liberals, 5% far right idiots who fall to their
knees in fear everytime there is a thunderstorm or their preist needs a
blowjob and the rest? Us.
According to the Bell Curve, which is sound and proven science, this is a
fact and the top of the bell curve are smart scientists, leaders and such,
below them are doctors, lawyers and such and below the middle are
government workers and way below the curve are the people they service and
who have to live off the hard work, sweat, tears and industry of the great
middle class who provides for them and the whole world.
FoxP2 Squared
scribblednews:irupr55bkv72m22hk...@4ax.com:
> Gee, bat shit boi, you wouldn't be able to produce, say, a CITATION to
> this imaginary stupid you're lying your bat shit crazy ass off about,
> would you?
>
> <snort>
> --
Your constant demands for citations, proof, cites and facts are boring.
Do your own research ya lazy liberal ignoramus.
Oh, right, if you did, and found something that you didn't like, you'd
simply apply to be a school board member and censor it out of all the text
books instead, right?
Fucking facist traitor.
ObamaNation = Abomination
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>You can't produce so much as ONE FUCKING WORD that in any way backs up any
>of your insane rightarded LIES.
Some smart liberal voters:
(Chuckle)
Borderline Retarded 70-75 IQ - Seligman p.151
Black Delinquents 74 Shuey p. 498
Africans (Africa) 75 Lynn as cited by Murray p. 288
Southern Black children 80.5 Shuey
Black Felons 81 Shuey p. 498
Black Females 82 Interpolated from SAT estimate
Black Average 85 IQ Seligman p.149
Colored From Africa 85 Lynn as cited by Murray p.
Dull-Normal 80-90 IQ Textbook by Wechsler
Border Black Children 87 Shuey, and SAT Tables, 1991
Northern Black Children 87.6 Shuey, and SAT Tables, 1991
Black G12 NAEP Math 89 (7)
Black US Northern Average 90 IQ Jensen(4)
Urban North Black 91.1 Shuey
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Average Intelligence 90-109 IQ Textbook by Wechsler
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
FoxP2 Squared
scribblednews:vi6vr5tfo1ie28483...@4ax.com:
<yawn>
I read the first sentence, yawned, deleted everything else as the usual
dribble and posted this.
Please respond pavolovian-like, here:
--
FoxP2 Squared
@news.eternal-september.org:
The more white they are the smarter they are.
Also, the better looking.
I mean, who really wants to fuck a gorilla?
That is why black magazines and ads and entertainers are almost all white,
and why Obama is president.
--
George Kerby
On 4/11/10 6:52 PM, in article Xns9D57BFE...@69.16.186.50, "FoxP2
Squared" <Wan...@anonmail.com> wrote:
> Peter Principle <petes...@SNIPITgmail.com>
> scribblednews:vi6vr5tfo1ie28483...@4ax.com:
>
> <yawn>
>
> I read the first sentence, yawned, deleted everything else as the usual
> dribble and posted this.
>
It's like I've been saying, everything that PeePee posts is nothing but a
cut-n-paste and boilerplate combination of words: JT pointed that out today
in another post.
Has anyone ever checked PeePee to see if there is a plug into his heel?
Norman from Home Depot
FoxP2 Squared <Wan...@anonmail.com> wrote:
> Peter Principle <petes...@SNIPITgmail.com>
> scribblednews:vi6vr5tfo1ie28483...@4ax.com:
>
> <yawn>
>
> I read the first sentence, yawned, deleted everything else as the usual
> dribble and posted this.
>
> Please respond pavolovian-like, here:
What's for dinner?
J. W. Boothe
news:irupr55bkv72m22hk...@4ax.com:
> My favorite is bat shit crazy
So you favor liberals then?
FoxP2 Squared
6D5204.194...@news-wc.giganews.com:
Kibbles n bits.
And stop slobbering so much! The cage cleaners might think you have rabies
and have to chop off your head for anylysis.
Norman from Home Depot
FoxP2 Squared <Wan...@anonmail.com> wrote:
> Norman from Home Depot <elg...@norte.au> scribblednews:elguapo-
> 6D5204.194...@news-wc.giganews.com:
>
> > In article <Xns9D57BFE...@69.16.186.50>,
> > FoxP2 Squared <Wan...@anonmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Peter Principle <petes...@SNIPITgmail.com>
> >> scribblednews:vi6vr5tfo1ie28483...@4ax.com:
> >>
> >> <yawn>
> >>
> >> I read the first sentence, yawned, deleted everything else as the usual
> >> dribble and posted this.
> >>
> >> Please respond pavolovian-like, here:
> >
> > What's for dinner?
> >
>
> Kibbles n bits.
>
> And stop slobbering so much! The cage cleaners might think you have rabies
> and have to chop off your head for anylysis.
It helps to be a hydra.
FoxP2 Squared
I just turned to stone, reading your post....
It's really the shit going through eternity now, sitting naked in front of
my computer, huge erect dick in one hand and the other on my keyboard.
I wonder which will last longer as the house collapses around me through
the years and falls down; the keyboard or my stone statue?
FoxP2 Squared
scribblednews:iv2as5djs7esbm85v...@4ax.com:
Welcome back to my ignore file, you and pitchyforky.
You are there becuase you have nothing to say, contribute nothing, can't
argue or debate with any intelligence and/or are generally boring and
pedantic.
bye bye..
FoxP2 Squared
scribblednews:bhkgo59fuefe4qher...@4ax.com:
> Well, well, well, boy, howdy, gosh-o-golly and gee whiz, what a shock! A
> new meta study of more than 20,000 young adults shows that people who
> identify as liberal score well above average on IQ tests - 106 - while
> their conservadolt maroon counterparts score well below average - 95.
> Who'da thunk it!
>
Who would trust anything that comes out of the mouth of a liberal, his
"facts" and "studies" and quotes?
I mean, lets look at Climategate....
The list is endless.
We all know that the religious, those being the morons on the right and
left with their childish belief systems can only defend their superstitions
and ignorance by stating "I have faith".
Liberalism is a proven mistake that is evidenced by several factors that
contribute to it historically:
1. Overpopulation
2. More government
3. Less freedom
4. Higher taxes
5. More wealth
6. More free time
In all of history, this trend is set in stone.
The more time on your hands and less need to work, the more you can afford
to sit around and moan and cry about cats, trees, people, bugs, whales
whatever.
If you're grubbing for food or trying not to be raped by some rampaging
barbarian, you don't have the time, inclination or desire to worry about
the health of the Pompian Salamander in one 4 gallon p/h spring at the base
of Mount Vesuvius.
If you're a fat lazy stupid slob living off your parents income and the
government, you have plenty of time to die your hair, worry about
salamander and compose terrible music and poetry.
Also, due to increased wealth and population and less major wars, famine
and adversity, people tend to get stupider and their health gets worse.
The healthiest and smartest people in the world were white and asian people
circa 1300-1600 AD.
They survived the plague, cholera, diptheria, stupidty, bad eyesight,
genetic diseases, tendency towards being illogical and irrational,
emotionally crippled and mentally disesed; those people didn't make it.
Now we celebrate these retards; we tax the healthy and wise to subsidize
the breeding and importation of the world's genetic misfits, the stupid,
the ciminal, the sick and lame and mentally diseased.
BUT!
It will all turn out ok in the end, it always does.
There will eventually be a big die off of the excess population; most
liberals, the stupid, young, weak and slow will thankfully be killed off
and we'll go through it all over again...in another 1,000 years or so.
The circle of life, ya just gotta love it!
Mother nature always wins in the end.