Challenge: Africa actually developing, not de-evolving
Peter Huntington-Warbutnot CBE
> "Charles Talleyrand" <rapp...@nmu.edu> wrote in message news:<vmvjqdd...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "stu" <s2...@operamail.com> wrote in message news:76ef6a41.03092...@posting.google.com...
> > > pretendi...@yahoo.com (Nathan Leahy) wrote in message news:<9732afb9.030...@posting.google.com>...
> > I don't understand this. Is the claim that the blacks of Africa
> > could not develop without the help of white people? Or am
> > I missing something?
>
> I don't believe that any race is superior to another .but I do think
> that the development of cultures and ides is contingent. The ideas
> behind Western Society are almost exclusively of Northern European
> Origin. Once those memes have spread you're flying. Human beings are
> human beings, everyone is a blip along the bell curve with no ethnic
> group being "better" than any other in terms of innate capabilities
> (except the Ashkenazic Jews, who average 120 IQ).
Asians consistantly slightly outperform whites who massively
outperform blacks on IQ tests.
> http://www.johnringo.com/rculture.htm
> This essay pretty much sums up what I believe Western culture is, or
> should be. I'm not saying Europeans are better than blacks but I do
> think the culture is worlds ahead.
A successful africa who require huge white and/or asian immigration.
Mark
>Asians consistantly slightly outperform whites who massively
>outperform blacks on IQ tests.
Non-existent groups can't outperform each other, because they have to
first exist. There is no definition of any of these classifications.
There is no such thing as race.
Second, what is an intelligence test actually validated against? A test is
worthless if it hasn't been validated against a set of criteria; in
particular, regression-tested against whatever performance criteria are
being tested. That requires a detailed study that follows up on a large
sample of test victims to measure their future performance (in whatever
measure is being tested) and regression-testing it against the test, to
find the correlation, goodness of fit, etc.
Intelligence isn't even defined, in the first place; never mind regression
testing against it.
IQ tests are all meaningless, because they're not validated against
anything. It doesn't exist until it's validated. There is just
no such thing as an intelligence test.
In fact, the way IQ tests are generally administered (as timed tests) gives
them a tendency to test the WRONG thing (if problem-solving behavior is
what's being tested for). Timed tests are skewed in favor of the very
problem-solving type of behavior that you DON'T want to see in scientific
research and heavily against the type of behavior (careful and reasoned
deliberation of a range of possibilities before arriving at a conclusion)
that you do.
They are not only not validated, they are simply invalid. They and all
timed tests.
Charles Talleyrand
"Mark" <whop...@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message news:bkt3jp$rsl$1...@uwm.edu...
> hunting...@hotmail.com (Peter Huntington-Warbutnot CBE) writes:
> >Asians consistantly slightly outperform whites who massively
> >outperform blacks on IQ tests.
>
> Non-existent groups can't outperform each other, because they have to
> first exist. There is no definition of any of these classifications.
> There is no such thing as race.
>
My own personal experience is that everyone I've ever met agrees
what 'race' I'm in without me having to provide them hints. I've been
to 5 of the 6 populated continents, and the world seems to agree
as to my race.
Group can exist without exact definitions. This seems quite clear.
The group "pornography" is probably the most common example
of something that can be recognized but not defined. There are
many many examples of such things, and the resultant catagories
are useful. The groups "Impresionist Art", "healthy lifestyle"
and "ecologically friendly" can all be characerized but not defined.
> Second, what is an intelligence test actually validated against? A test is
> worthless if it hasn't been validated against a set of criteria; in
> particular, regression-tested against whatever performance criteria are
> being tested. That requires a detailed study that follows up on a large
> sample of test victims to measure their future performance (in whatever
> measure is being tested) and regression-testing it against the test, to
> find the correlation, goodness of fit, etc.
> IQ tests are all meaningless, because they're not validated against
> anything. It doesn't exist until it's validated. There is just
> no such thing as an intelligence test.
>
IQ tests do not correlate well with future life accomplishments. However,
would you like to have a high or low IQ? From what you've written I
assume you are indifferent to your own score.
John A Lee
<snip>
>
> My own personal experience is that everyone I've ever met agrees
> what 'race' I'm in without me having to provide them hints. I've been
> to 5 of the 6 populated continents, and the world seems to agree
> as to my race.
>
Hang on, I'm having trouble following this. How do you know the views
of all these people on your "race"? I mean, do you ask everyone you
meet "what race am I?". If so, what do they answer? Can you give us a
statistical breakdown?
My own personal experience is that in all my travels I can't ever
remember discussing my "race" with anyone. Perhaps that's just me.
<snip>
Randy Poe
<rapp...@nmu.edu> wrote:
>
>"Mark" <whop...@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message news:bkt3jp$rsl$1...@uwm.edu...
>> hunting...@hotmail.com (Peter Huntington-Warbutnot CBE) writes:
>> >Asians consistantly slightly outperform whites who massively
>> >outperform blacks on IQ tests.
>>
>> Non-existent groups can't outperform each other, because they have to
>> first exist. There is no definition of any of these classifications.
>> There is no such thing as race.
>>
>
>My own personal experience is that everyone I've ever met agrees
>what 'race' I'm in without me having to provide them hints. I've been
>to 5 of the 6 populated continents, and the world seems to agree
>as to my race.
And the world doesn't agree as to mine.
So what do these two data points mean?
- Randy
Charles Talleyrand
> >My own personal experience is that everyone I've ever met agrees
> >what 'race' I'm in without me having to provide them hints. I've been
> >to 5 of the 6 populated continents, and the world seems to agree
> >as to my race.
>
> And the world doesn't agree as to mine.
>
> So what do these two data points mean?
For some people, determing race is easy. For others, there might not
be a reasonable answer besides "mixed" or even "hard to determine".
This is no different than many other things in life. Some art is obviously
Impressionist (Monet), and other art is obviously not (Dali). There exists a
third catagory where it's hard to tell (Picasso). And a fourth catagory where
the question makes no sense (music).
>
> - Randy
Cool first name!
P.S. I have always thought that Piccaso looked impressionist to me.
I know what the experts say, I just think maybe they should reconsider.
Josh Halpern
Charles Talleyrand wrote:
>P.S. I have always thought that Piccaso looked impressionist to me.
>I know what the experts say, I just think maybe they should reconsider.
>
>
Picasso lived a VERY long and randy time. I think you have
to ask what he painted in the late 19th and early twentieth
century before cubism hit.
Take a look at
http://www.nga.gov/exhibitions/picbro.htm
josh halpern
>
>
>